Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: School Protection Zones

  1. #1
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586

    Post imported post

    The 1000 ft GFZ has been discussed many times on this forum, as has the exception for CHP holders to drive onto school property to drop off/pick up a child provided that their handgun remains concealed and that the individual remains in the vehicle.

    In stark contrast, a convicted sex offender (who is a registered voter) may actually enter a school to cast his/her vote during an election. (Maybe this is one reason for not automaticallyrestoring civil rights to convicted felons?)

    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...cod+18.2-370.5

    Such an individual may also petition the JDR or Circuit court for an order allowing them to enter a school for any particular purpose.

    Such an individual may also live within 500 ft of a school.

    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...cod+18.2-370.3

    Now it would seem reasonablethat a law abiding citizen should not be denied the excercise of their constitutionally protected RKBAwhile seeking to excercise his/her right to vote.
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    Until SCOTUS decides the McDonald case we have no RKBA based on the 2nd Amendment when it comes to the State. Based on Heller, even if the 2nd Amendment is decided to apply to the States as well as the Federal government, we may still have to live with "reasonable" restrictions such as not being allowed to carry in certain sensitive places such as schools and courthouses.

    That the law, as interpreted, can be so obtuse as to see a restriction permitted in the face of "shall not be infringed" is a frustrating conundrum.

    The next step after a sucessful decision in McDonald will be to find a case that will intrigue SCOTUS enough to look at "shall not be infringed" as an absolute worthy enough to overturn precedent.

    Reality sucks.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member t33j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    King George, VA
    Posts
    1,384

    Post imported post

    Why do we need incorporation? Virginia has its own 2nd amendment. (I believe section 13)
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  4. #4
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586

    Post imported post

    The 2A has nothing to do with the blatant unfairness of the schoolaccess granted to a pedophile v the access granted to a law-abiding gun owner. Current Virginia gun laws seem to trample gun rights without regard toArticle I Sect 13 (not to mention 2A).

    If the purpose of restricting access to schoolsis to protect kids from harm, then let's actually do so. Those who have demonstrated that they are harmful to children should not be allowed greater access than those who have not.

    Why aren't voter eligibile registered sex offenders whose polling place is a school automatically issued absentee ballots?

    Conversely, if a pedophile can be granted specific-purpose access to a school (by court order), why can't a law-abiding gun owner who chooses to carry be granted the same specific-purpose access by statute?
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  5. #5
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121

    Post imported post

    ...
    When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

    excerpt By Marko Kloos (http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/?s=major+caudill)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Richmond Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    636

    Post imported post

    I believe that if you speak with any Sex Offender or their Probation Officer,the child Sex Offender is ordered not to have contact with any place where children are or have the potential to gather.

  7. #7
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586

    Post imported post

    kenny wrote:
    I believe that if you speak with any Sex Offender or their Probation Officer,the child Sex Offender is ordered not to have contact with any place where children are or have the potential to gather.
    Generally, but there are exceptions. Check the cites in my OP.
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  8. #8
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586

    Post imported post

    nuc65 wrote:
    2a4all wrote:
    The 2A has nothing to do with the blatant unfairness of the schoolaccess granted to a pedophile v the access granted to a law-abiding gun owner. Current Virginia gun laws seem to trample gun rights without regard toArticle I Sect 13 (not to mention 2A).

    If the purpose of restricting access to schoolsis to protect kids from harm, then let's actually do so. Those who have demonstrated that they are harmful to children should not be allowed greater access than those who have not.

    Why aren't voter eligibile registered sex offenders whose polling place is a school automatically issued absentee ballots?

    Conversely, if a pedophile can be granted specific-purpose access to a school (by court order), why can't a law-abiding gun owner who chooses to carry be granted the same specific-purpose access by statute?
    I wonder how many convicted felons have had their voting rights restored and actually fall into this category of needing to vote and also being a sex-offender.
    I don't have that info, but even if it's only one and you're the only gun owner who also wants admission to that same school, who's getting preferential treatment? Some of these folks also have kids who attend school, and they can get permission to visit them during certain school activities.

    Also, sex offenders who move to VA from another state may be eligible to vote here.
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Richmond Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    636

    Post imported post

    Well, I am talking the real world not something cited or written into law. Attorneys and Judges handle those things. Plain and simple a person on Parole, Probation or Sex Offender status has certain conditions that they must meet that are policy or procedural. If you are a Child Sex Offender you can forget about doing anything around a school or place where children gather. The only exception would be someone who was convicted before the new Sex Offender law.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    82

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    Until SCOTUS decides the McDonald case we have no RKBA based on the 2nd Amendment when it comes to the State......
    I am not certain but I thought the application of 2A rights in that case was intended to show that the Federal Bill of Rights applied to those States which did not have any 2A type protections in their State Constitutions (Massachusetts and Illinois for example).

    Virginia is covered as Section 13 of our State Bill of Rights is similar to the federal 2A.



  11. #11
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121

    Post imported post

    ...


    When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

    excerpt By Marko Kloos (http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/?s=major+caudill)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    82

    Post imported post

    nuc65 wrote:
    .. I am no more dangerous than said sex offender.
    I like that full statement but the end needs work, could be construed that you have equated your carrying actions to be as dangerous as that perv.

    Can't think off top of my head how to say it different though.:?

  13. #13
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586

    Post imported post

    nuc65 wrote:
    I carry a weapon, I have a CHP, I am not breaking any laws and am a very law abiding citizen. {Sounds good to this point} I should have access to schools because you give proven dangerous sex offenders access at specific times and I am no more dangerous than said sex offender.

    How about "The law creates an exception for known dangerous felons to be admitted to schools to exercise their civil right to vote, but yet bars me, a law abiding citizen,from exercising that same civil right while simultaneously exercising my constitutionally protected right to bear arms."
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,608

    Post imported post

    Some things should NOT be used in the same context of legal gun owner/carrier.

    Not Charles Manson, Lee Harvey Oswald or Chow.

    Not sex offender, domestic abuser, criminal or deviant.

    Relate the negative image too often and it becomes the dominate one - wrong perception.

    Keep the analogies, relationships positive and upbeat whenever possible.

    IMHO - this thread generates an unfavorable response from those we wish to influence. ymmv

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    Some things should NOT be used in the same context of legal gun owner/carrier.

    Not Charles Manson, Lee Harvey Oswald or Chow.

    Not sex offender, domestic abuser, criminal or deviant.

    Relate the negative image too often and it becomes the dominate one - wrong perception.

    Keep the analogies, relationships positive and upbeat whenever possible.

    IMHO - this thread generates an unfavorable response from those we wish to influence. ymmv

    Yata hey
    Then perhaps it should be said like so...

    Why does the law allow dangerous criminals access to a school yet prohibits me, a law abiding citizen from doing the same when attempting to exercise the same rights?

    The whole point is that people who should *NOT* be at a school are allowed while those of us who are law abiding and NOT criminals are prohibited from doing so.

  16. #16
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586

    Post imported post

    The law-abiding OCer is truly on the outside looking in (towards the school). S/he must abide by the 1000' rule,which is well outside of the 500' residency radius prescribed for RSOs (Registered Sex Offenders), which is outside of the 100' loitering radius.

    The CCer (CHP holder) canenter the school parking lot (in a vehicle), but alas must remain in said vehicle. S/he could even drive an RSO to that same school and wait for them while theygo inside to vote.

    This needs to be fixed.
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  17. #17

  18. #18
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586

    Post imported post

    Virginiaplanter wrote: Different problem. This opinion doesn't address RSOs loitering on school property.

    An RSO would be likely be charged under "18.2-370.5. Sex offenses prohibiting entry onto school property; penalty.", a class 6 felony.

    Pop Quiz: Two registered votersarriveby carin theparking lot at their polling place (a school) on election day. One is an RSO, the other is an armed CHP holder. Who can enter the school to vote?
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  19. #19
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    Some things should NOT be used in the same context of legal gun owner/carrier.

    Not Charles Manson, Lee Harvey Oswald or Chow.

    Not sex offender, domestic abuser, criminal or deviant.

    Relate the negative image too often and it becomes the dominate one - wrong perception.

    Keep the analogies, relationships positive and upbeat whenever possible.

    IMHO - this thread generates an unfavorable response from those we wish to influence. ymmv

    Yata hey
    This is the point I was trying to get across. To mention carrying a weapon in the same context as a comparison or a contrast paints a very negative picture. Prejudice of any sort never truly advances any cause. If you use carrying a weapon in the same context then your argument says you are doing something wrong but it isn't as wrong as the other guy.
    When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

    excerpt By Marko Kloos (http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/?s=major+caudill)

  20. #20
    Regular Member Virginiaplanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    402

    Post imported post

    Although it doesn't mention the reason for the AG Opinion I believe it is in reference to this recent Va. Supreme Court Case on Access to Schools by Sex offenders:


    Commonwealth v. Doe. http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinio...wp/1081691.pdf

  21. #21
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586

    Post imported post

    Virginiaplanter wrote:
    Although it doesn't mention the reason for the AG Opinion I believe it is in reference to this recent Va. Supreme Court Case on Access to Schools by Sex offenders:


    Commonwealth v. Doe. http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinio...wp/1081691.pdf
    Interesting read, but it's about Doe becoming involved with his stepson's school activities, which are properly under the purview of the school board, rather than voting. The school board doesn't get to decide who can vote at the school.
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  22. #22
    Regular Member Virginiaplanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    402

    Post imported post

    2a4all wrote:
    Virginiaplanter wrote:
    Although it doesn't mention the reason for the AG Opinion I believe it is in reference to this recent Va. Supreme Court Case on Access to Schools by Sex offenders:


    Commonwealth v. Doe. http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinio...wp/1081691.pdf
    Interesting read, but it's about Doe becoming involved with his stepson's school activities, which are properly under the purview of the school board, rather than voting. The school board doesn't get to decide who can vote at the school.
    This case highlights your point. Sex Offenders may vote at schools, but there is no such explicit exception in the law for gun owners to vote while armed at their polling place that is a school under 18.2-308.1.

  23. #23
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586

    Post imported post

    Virginiaplanter wrote:
    2a4all wrote:
    Virginiaplanter wrote:
    Although it doesn't mention the reason for the AG Opinion I believe it is in reference to this recent Va. Supreme Court Case on Access to Schools by Sex offenders:


    Commonwealth v. Doe. http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinio...wp/1081691.pdf
    Interesting read, but it's about Doe becoming involved with his stepson's school activities, which are properly under the purview of the school board, rather than voting. The school board doesn't get to decide who can vote at the school.
    This case highlights your point. Sex Offenders may vote at schools, but there is no such explicit exception in the law for gun owners to vote while armed at their polling place that is a school under 18.2-308.1.
    Thanks, Planter. Perhaps HB475 will rectify this (although one may have to vote after school hours).
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  24. #24
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,608

    Post imported post

    No offender is going to get to vote while offending - that part is simple. Be it a RSO or gun carrier. Both are bound by the existing laws.

    If convicted of a felony, the voting question is moot in any event.

    Being near a school is a matter of separate, non-related laws. We are working to change/improve the laws regarding carrying.

    So I repeat, let's separate the two and not force a non-essential, non-beneficial relationship.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  25. #25
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    No offender is going to get to vote while offending - that part is simple. Be it a RSO or gun carrier. Both are bound by the existing laws.

    If convicted of a felony, the voting question is moot in any event.

    Being near a school is a matter of separate, non-related laws. We are working to change/improve the laws regarding carrying.

    So I repeat, let's separate the two and not force a non-essential, non-beneficial relationship.

    Yata hey
    RSOs can and do vote.

    I'm all for improving the carry laws too, and an exception for a lawfully armed citizen to alsoenter a school to vote would certainly qualify.

    This isn't about forcing relationships (with whom?), it's about correcting a glaring discrepancy in the law.

    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •