• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

School Protection Zones

2a4all

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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/legp504.exe?000+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/legp504.exe?000+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. :banghead:
 
skidmark

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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
 
t33j

t33j

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
1,384
Location
King George, VA
imported post

Why do we need incorporation? Virginia has its own 2nd amendment. (I believe section 13)
 
2a4all

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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?
 
K

kenny

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
635
Location
Richmond Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
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.
 
2a4all

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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.
Click to expand...
Generally, but there are exceptions. Check the cites in my OP.
 
2a4all

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
K

kenny

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
635
Location
Richmond Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
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.
 
T

TraumaRN

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
82
Location
Central Virginia
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......
Click to expand...
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.
 
T

TraumaRN

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
82
Location
Central Virginia
imported post

nuc65 wrote:
.. I am no more dangerous than said sex offender.
Click to expand...
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.:?
 
2a4all

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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."
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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
 
D

darthmord

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
998
Location
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
2a4all

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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.
 
2a4all

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

Virginiaplanter wrote:
http://www.vaag.com/OPINIONS/2006opns/05-093.pdf
Click to expand...
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?
 
nuc65

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top