What if your employer is a School District?

Shotgun said:

So if I stood holding you at gunpoint I'm not prohibiting you from leaving, I'm just not giving you explicit permission to leave. Ok. Fair enough. Makes all the difference in the world. Got it.

Click to expand...

Apples and Astronauts... Nonsensical post is nonsensical.
By every reasonable definition you are most definitely prohibiting someone from leaving if you are "holding" them...

Interceptor_Knight said:

Apples and Astronauts... Nonsensical post is nonsensical.
By every reasonable definition you are most definitely prohibiting someone from leaving if you are "holding" them...

Click to expand...

I'm glad you accept my point, although you don't realize that you do.

By the way, your statement "The School District choosing not to give you explicit permission to carry on school grounds (parking lot) is not the same as them prohibiting you from carrying in the parking lot." is a fine example of petitio principii.

am i missing something here..?

if one is a school district employee...HOW can the district EVER give permission to do something that is against federal or state law...ie posess a firearm on the school property? Im guessing that the district/'your employer' can NEVER do so...

Being a long time school district employee but now retired, the only way for a firearm to be on school property in a vehicle is unloaded and encased. With explicit approval from the administration, a firearm could be used for curricular activities on school property. This of course did not apply to LE. IMHO, Act 35 did not change anything for us common folk. However, it would be wise to not "advertise" that you have a firearm in your locked vehicle in the school parking lot.

phred said:

However, it would be wise to not "advertise" that you have a firearm in your locked vehicle in the school parking lot.

Click to expand...

Amen to that!

Buy a handgun safe, have your local shop install it in the trunk so that it cannot be removed without opening it. Just in case someone breaks in it will be unlikely they get the safe open.

Now here is the thing that every felon knows, if they keep their mouth shut, the only way to search is through probable cause. Which means they have already committed a crime or they opened their mouth. This is why when they are caught with a firearm most times they are not charged, or the charge is thrown out because it is a unlawful search. They do lose their handgun though, they really don't care because they will acquire a gun much easier illegally than we do legally. Not to mention they pay much less for a gun than we do.

I do not suggest breaking the law, it just is not worth it, but if you do keep your mouth shut...LOL

Shotgun said:

I'm glad you accept my point, although you don't realize that you do.

By the way, your statement "The School District choosing not to give you explicit permission to carry on school grounds (parking lot) is not the same as them prohibiting you from carrying in the parking lot." is a fine example of petitio principii.

Click to expand...

Philosophical reasoning is philosophical...
I prefer to deal with reality and address the law. It is a State Statute which prohibits a Permittee and an Out-Of-State Permittee from carrying. It appears that you are having a hard time grasping this reality. Your premise is that a refusal to create an exception to a Statute is De facto prohibition. Thay may fly in an academic setting but in the eyes of State Statute and a Court of Law you simply have no case. You are, of course, free to file a lawsuit if you are confident in your principle as having legal merit.

Since it is being brought up about the GFZA I think all should read the act. The act says "licensed to do so"~~LOL anytime politicians make a law that vague they do it for a reason. Just because Obama and Holder have not started making felons out of citizens that does not mean it can't happen. NC clearly says that a license/permit holder must follow all federal laws, that would include GFZA, so the holder is not "licensed to do so" but then a security guard working for the school would, so would courier or guard service in the performance of their duty. No where does the federal law spell out concealed carry permits/license. Just because a current opinion exists I would not count on it. But each their own. Personally I don't worry about it because I carry a antique firearm, and it IS exempt. So is a firearm manufactured in that state that has not been transferred out of the state and back. We are fortunate we have a manufacturer here in the state.

If your state does not have language concerning the gun free zone, you are not home free in that state. Just my humble opinion. Hopefully after Obama is gone that law will be repealed.

Interceptor_Knight said:

Philosophical reasoning is philosophical...
I prefer to deal with reality and address the law. It is a State Statute which prohibits a Permittee and an Out-Of-State Permittee from carrying. It appears that you are having a hard time grasping this reality. Your premise is that a refusal to create an exception to a Statute is De facto prohibition. Thay may fly in an academic setting but in the eyes of State Statute and a Court of Law you simply have no case. You are, of course, free to file a lawsuit if you are confident in your principle as having legal merit.

Click to expand...

Look, Interceptor, you're the one getting all philosophical. I am talking law and reality. I pointed out that the law allows a school district to make exceptions to the "no guns" law (a point of law) and when it refuses to do so, then that's what's stopping a person from taking their gun on the work property (a point of reality.) When you argued that the GFSZ law is what is stopping the guy, not his employer, you are using your conclusion as your argument. That's what is called "circular reasoning", or "begging the question"-- that is a philosophical point of logic. I never suggested that it was a matter to be argued in court, did I? That's something you just made up and threw in there on your own.

Shotgun said:

Look, Interceptor, you're the one getting all philosophical. I am talking law and reality. I pointed out that the law allows a school district to make exceptions to the "no guns" law (a point of law) and when it refuses to do so, then that's what's stopping a person from taking their gun on the work property (a point of reality.) When you argued that the GFSZ law is what is stopping the guy, not his employer, you are using your conclusion as your argument. That's what is called "circular reasoning", or "begging the question"-- that is a philosophical point of logic. I never suggested that it was a matter to be argued in court, did I? That's something you just made up and threw in there on your own.

Click to expand...

Read your own post again...

Shotgun said:

mja1000 said:

I agree with you Interceptor, 175.60(15m)(b) doesn't hold water in this case as it is not the School District (employer) that is prohibiting.

Click to expand...

Well in a way it IS the School District that is prohibiting it, since it is within their authority to grant permission.

Click to expand...

In the context of the OP and in the context of 175.60 (15m), the employer is not "prohibiting a licensee ...as a condition of employment....from storing a weapon..in the licensee’s own motor vehicle".
Putting it in the most simple of terms, the School District is not violating 175.60 (15m) by not giving special permission as an exception to the GFSZ Statute/Code. That is what I am saying. Your stating that it is the employer who is ultimately responsible for prohibiting the person from storing it in their vehicle is purely an academic statement and has nothing to do with the OP.

bmwguy11 said:

I don't think so. It's not the employer that is preventing you. It's federal law.

Click to expand...

Yes, but is there a single case where an individual was convicted under the Federal GFSZA while they were in compliance with the state GFSZA?