Clarifying "Gun Free Zones"

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
bignflnut
Posts: 5860
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Contact:

Clarifying "Gun Free Zones"

Post by bignflnut » Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:04 am

Trump just reiterated that schools being "gun-free" zones leaves them vulnerable to mass shooters - who wouldn't dare to attack a place if they knew people with guns were there.

If schools are mandated to be gun free zones, violence and danger are given an open invitation to enter. Almost all school shootings are in gun free zones. Cowards will only go where there is no deterrent!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 12, 2018
Leaving aside all the Day One snark of the last few months, it may be helpful to clarify the desired outcome and the goal regarding "Gun Free Zones".

To get straight to the point, "Gun Free Zones" are places where a law abiding citizen, exercising his Negative Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self-defense is not turned into a felon.

The High School in Parkland, for instance, was such a place, although there were State actors on the campus who were allowed, permitted, duty-bound, etc to carry firearms. While it's not a strictly gun free campus, because someone is carrying a weapon and not being charged with a felony, we pro-RKBA folk should continue use "Gun Free Zone" where the common citizen is forbidden from RKBA.

If there are people who are given a special dispensation of grace from the felony charge (i.e. police officers, former military, trained teachers, local heroes) and the potential felony charge lingers for the common citizen, it's a "Gun Free Zone". (There will be some confusion regarding the stat Gun Owners of America throws out that 98% of mass shootings happen in GFZs. )

Setting aside the definition of GFZ and focusing on an actual solution/deterrent to the threat, we've established that the State (be it the school administrators, the local cops, the county cops, or the feds) will not take legal responsibility for the physical safety of the students or staff that populate these buildings daily. The events in Parkland demonstrate that a wily criminal can enter and carry out his crimes even with armed guards on campus (DId ya'all hear about the Central Michigan University shooting where the kid takes the dad/cops gun out of the car to slay them on campus?) . The element of surprise is key to the battle. The criminal has it, and the defense team should not surrender it.

If teachers unions or school boards come out against arming teachers, everybody knows that janitorial staff, administrators and the lunch lady are the only ones left. The only sure fire way to grant the element of surprise to the defense team is to throw open the doors and allow carry on a "must issue" basis, that those who desire to carry may and all others are welcome. The school boards may ask to generate a list of people who desire to carry, a registration, if you will, but this will have political ramifications that cannot be understated. It's an unworkable solution. There could be some code word or some training that interested parties could be encouraged to take, but again, politics of registration will prevent many.

Massie's bill to repeal the 1990 law that created GFZs is healthy and should be a no-brainer, easy winner. The felony threat needs to be removed on the federal level, but we need to get it out of the local area, also.

GFZ is where RKBA is a felony for the common citizen. The role of the civil government is to uphold and protect the rights of the citizenry. Civil Government creating a felony zone where RKBA is off limits is exceeding it's mandate (to put it gently).

Why have this discussion when it seems there is some movement towards arming society? Clarifying concepts and goals is preferred to those who hate gunsplaining and precise language in this discussion. Exhibit A is a cat video (language warning). -- Perhaps we pro RKBA people can do better in our communications with interested parties. You hit what you aim at. Let's make sure we're aiming at appropriate goals.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed

User avatar
bignflnut
Posts: 5860
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Clarifying "Gun Free Zones"

Post by bignflnut » Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:15 pm

Correction:
To get straight to the point, "Gun Free Zones" are places where a law abiding citizen, exercising his Negative Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self-defense is turned into a felon.
:shock: Oy. :roll:
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed

User avatar
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1965
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Miami County, OH
Contact:

Re: Clarifying "Gun Free Zones"

Post by WY_Not » Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:42 pm

Why use the rainbows and unicorns euphamism of GFZ? Call it what it is a Criminal Protection Zone (CPZ).
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.
Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

User avatar
bignflnut
Posts: 5860
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Clarifying "Gun Free Zones"

Post by bignflnut » Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:16 pm

That's an excellent example, thank you.

When among pro RKBA people, yes, you and I comprehend what we're saying when we say CPZ. Of course, I agree with you, that criminals will not follow the law and are therefore not restrained by such deterrents.

It's important to attack the legal jargon where it is and use the terms at hand to effectively combat the issue. When we get in to the rah-rah red meat stump speech type rhetoric, we play the us vs them game and we devolve into tribalism. You can see this in the "assault weapon" idea that has had legs now for 30+ years. It's a nonsense phrase, but now it's a rallying cry, which leads to thoughtless screeching.

Societies are based on the melting pot of backgrounds assimilating towards and upholding certain legal concepts for the benefit of the citizens. It's those lofty legal concepts (self-defense) that we should rally around, not political victory, not out messaging the other side, not tribalism. It's the intellectual high road that unites peoples from opposite ends of the earth, not silly phrasing and messaging to score points. These CNN town hall type events are tearing our society apart, because they distract from, devalue and cheapen concepts that should unite us.

Disregarding or dismissing people who are screaming at you invites a certain level of violence. When people are disrespected, what recourse follows? Do they go gently into the night? No, they've thrown away civility, honor and decorum already, haven't they? They're attempting legal assault, for certain. Failing that, they may attempt physical violence. Shouldn't we offer something that helps them (even if they reject it)?

The temptation to discard civility, honor and decorum like those on the other side is strong. The aggressor is said to set the rules, and many seem to be set to "double standard". We're not going to out gutter talk them, however, as we're not willing to shed reality to that degree. We should maintain an academic and accurate standard to hold politicians accountable. We should be the informed people who speak with authority on these issues, because we are not attempting to sell a lie to the public.

WY_Not, I have no quarrel with you and I understand where you're coming from. I appreciate your fervor, intellectual honesty and honor. With all the data on the law abiding people that carry guns, we can now insist that they have the self-restraint to carry in churches, schools, government buildings, bars, etc. The fear that lead to the misguided notion of GFZs is unfounded. That lie has been exposed.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed

Brian D.
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Clarifying "Gun Free Zones"

Post by Brian D. » Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:55 pm

Some firearms/tactics trainers call these places "non-permissive environments" or NPEs. Just a point of info, I had to look up NPE the first time reading it.

By the way I don't think we'll ever get the "assault weapons" genie back in the bottle. Media did that on purpose...I was part of a group that challenged local media doing that stuff. They. Didn't. Care. About. Getting. It. Right.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.

User avatar
bignflnut
Posts: 5860
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Clarifying "Gun Free Zones"

Post by bignflnut » Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:44 am

We could go so far as to call them "Tyranny Zones" or Areas because they're suspending the citizen's RKBA.

Ohio's list of "Tyranny Zones"

• Police stations
• Sheriffs’ offices
• Highway Patrol posts
• Premises controlled by BCI
• Correctional institutions or other detention facilities
• Airport terminals or airplanes
• Facilities for the care of mentally ill persons
• Courthouses or buildings in which a courtroom is located
• Universities, unless locked in a motor vehicle or in the process of being locked in a motor vehicle
• Places of worship, unless the place of worship permits otherwise
• Child day-care centers
• Licensed Class D liquor permit premises, if you are consuming beer or intoxicating liquor or are under the influence. If you are not consuming, and not under the influence, you may carry unless there is a conspicuous sign prohibiting carry.
Possession of a concealed firearm is allowed in a rental store with a D-6 or D-8 permit as long as the concealed carry license holder is not consuming liquor. Class D permits are generally issued to an establishment that sells alcohol for consumption on the premises. In any event, do not consume beer or liquor before carrying a concealed handgun into a licensed premises or while on the premises.
• Government facilities that are not used primarily as a shelter, restroom, parking facility for motor vehicles, or rest facility and are not a courthouse or a building or structure in which a courtroom is located.
• School safety zones: A school safety zone includes a school, school building, school premises, school activity, and school bus. For the purposes of this statute, a school includes everything up to the property boundary.
** If you are licensed to carry a concealed handgun, you may carry a handgun into a school safety zone only if you do not enter a school building, school premises, or school activity. You may be in a motor vehicle and immediately in the process of picking up or dropping off a child. You must also comply with all other laws governing the transportation of firearms in a motor vehicle.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed

User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 4324
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: Clarifying "Gun Free Zones"

Post by JustaShooter » Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:13 am

bignflnut wrote:We could go so far as to call them "Tyranny Zones" or Areas because they're suspending the citizen's RKBA.

Ohio's list of "Tyranny Zones"
Your list is inaccurate. Might want to do some research. Oh, and some of those that are prohibited for concealed carry are legal for open carry. Just FYI.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!

User avatar
bignflnut
Posts: 5860
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Clarifying "Gun Free Zones"

Post by bignflnut » Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:01 pm

Isn't that the point? (thank you for making it) It couldn't be more muddled in order to discourage lawful RKBA.
Tweek it here, crimp it there....nobody is ever quite sure where they stand, but they know that the heavy hand of government is more than willing to crush them.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed

Post Reply