I forgot about that part of the law in my post and I agree, retired police shouldn’t be allowed to carry either. If they are not acting on behalf of the police department, they are just regular people.
The OP said it doesn’t apply to firearms in a locked container in a vehicle, so they carry around a container and put it in there. There are a lot of restaurants, stores and events that don’t allow weapons. CCW holders are used to disarming to go into those. School will just be another one.
I agree. But FYI this is based on a federal law that was signed by President Bush in 2004 and strengthened by President Obama in 2010 and 2013. So opposing it on the state level doesn’t do much.
Then you need to take a closer look at the circumstances around the shooting to determine whether he was being criminally negligent or not. That is not a situation that calls for a mindless zero tolerance policy.
This risk exists in all scenario where a person chooses to engage in lawful self defense, including police. What is different that justifies the different treatment that is also consistent with exempting retired police?
The reason this carve out is in place is because of previous court cases that protects transport in your car. As a practical matter, what you describe would be not feasible. For one thing, CCW is generally on your person. But to remove the firearm from your person to place in a locked container, the firearm would be visible. This would be in violation of open carry laws and would be a crime. In addition, this transfer from your person to the locked container could not occur on school grounds because it would fail the “at all times” criteria. The locked container cannot be a glove compartment per California law, so a separate container would need to be installed in a vehicle, but to simply place the firearm in the container from your person could be a crime.
From the wiki of the LEOSA:
The LEO exemption is not based on the LEOSA in general since retired police exemption from gun laws in CA has a history that dates prior to the LEOSA.
In this case, schools are not covered in the LEOSA so the state restriction would apply if the state law did in fact prohibit it. In the case of SB 707, state law actively authorizes retired LEOs to carry - though the criteria is different than under LEOSA.
To start a whole 'nother discussion and knowing the answer is probably “ICC”, what about this law falls under the Federal Government’s enumerated powers?
Simple. For decades, cops were anti-gun control. Most cops like guns, and own several. So, in CA, in order to get cops to support Gun control, they exempted cops from most gun control laws. Including retired cops.
You can’t call other posters ‘stupid’, RNATB. Warning issued. Please try to control yourself in the future.
Every incident has to be judged on it’s own factors.
But your scenario falls under the “greater danger theory” which says it is more dangerous not to act than to act and have collateral damage.
Scenario #1: lunatic walks through a crowd randomly shooting people. Man with his own gun decides not to shoot because of so many people in a close area. Lunatic kills 15 before killing himself. Total dead: 15 innocent 1 bad guy.
Scenario #2: lunatic walks through a crowd randomly shooting people. After loon shoots 2 people a man with his own gun engages and kills the loon but also hits a bystander. Total dead: 3 innocents 1 bad guy.
Both are horrible things to happen but #1 is worse than #2.
CCW on campuses really cuts down on the shootings.
Oh wait.
and from later in the article.
So here we have two states which permit CCW on campuses have had shootings. Texas was not a mass shooting - but it could have been.
I’m sensing that the gun lovers are moving from claiming that CCW will stop shootings, which it clearly does not, to the point of almost requiring the carrying of weapons, just in case.
Oh, and in case you think this only happens in bars and stuff
In Texas. poetry lovers pack.
ETA: It would be good to get some reliable statistics on this. Too bad the NRA and its Republican tools are dead set against doing such research.
Were any of the shooters in those cases CCW holders?
Scenario #3: Man with own gun sees two (or more) people firing weapons(the start of your scenarios #1 and #2), and because of bad judgment/personal prejudices guesses wrong as to which one the “bad guy” is.
Were any stopped by heroic CCW holders? That’s the point, right?
I don’t think so no, my postulation is preventing CCW narrowly but allowing it generally, and one of those exceptions to CCW being school campuses, does little to protect anyone at all. Further it creates felony offenses that can be added on as additional charges to stuff that is already criminalized. For example planning to shoot up a school is a crime, we don’t need to ban CCW carry on school campuses to arrest and charge people with that. Trespassing is already a crime, if a school district prohibits guns in their facilities then they can have someone they spot carrying arrested for trespassing. I just don’t see the point in these laws given the broader context.
I’ve already said I don’t really believe in the widespread practice of carrying guns. I have a CCW because I am a firm believe in owning guns, and own quite a few for hunting and a few for target shooting. But I never carry for “defensive purposes.” The CCW however allows me to transport guns legally in a more convenient way than is otherwise allowed, that’s literally the only reason I have one, and thus I “make use” of it a couple times a year at most.
I believe in comprehensive gun control, but I don’t believe in the piecemeal approach that does nothing. That’s what the 1994 AWB was and that’s what stuff like this are.
I have no idea why I didn’t think commerce clause 
While commerce clause issues may be at play, as written it is more clear that the law runs afoul of equal protection. The exemption for retired law enforcement mirrors prior exemptions (Silveira) that have been struck down on equal protection claims.
Your presentation of the article isn’t on point. For one, SB 707 is about K-12 education, not college campuses. Second, it’s unclear if the shooters in the 3 incidents were CCW holders. Third, it’s unclear if the shootings were justified. Fourth, one of the incidents there were no injuries and occurred in or around a housing complex which is my conjecture, but sounds like negligent discharge.
The second shooting you reference at NAU (also not a K-12 school) - the facts of this incident are not yet known either. 1 shooter, four people hit in a dorm parking lot past 1am. It’s unknown if the shooting was in self defense.
But here is the main point of your post that I wanted to clarify:
Are you claiming that CCW will not stop shootings at all, or will not stop all shootings, or something else?
Whoops. Wrong forum. Sorry, Rick.
As I said, every incident has to be judged on it’s own factors. Also, my examples were 2 scenarios from the same incident with different actions taken. Your #3 wouldn’t fit in my examples as it has different factors.
FYI the greater danger theory is taught in law enforcement and civilian gun training.
As I said, this is something that CCW holders already routinely deal with. Maybe you’re right and all CCW carriers are breaking the law every time they have to take their gun out to go into Target, but they seem to manage.
The only two differences is that with this law, they’ll have to stop and do it before they get to the school or do it at a red light or something. If they can’t manage to slip the gun away unnoticed, they probably shouldn’t be carrying because other CCW carriers don’t seem to have that problem.
They also have to put it in a locked container instead of slipping it under the seat or whatever. Nothing has to be installed. The container is described in CA law section 16850 and it’s any fully enclosed container that is locked by padlock, keylock, combination lock or similar locking device. Basically the pistol case that you get for free with any new pistol, or buy for $6 at Walmart.
One example is a murder suicide. Not a lot of chance for anyone to do anything about it. The second . I’m not sure that two murders is considered a mass shooting, and I am certain that one murder is not. And in both cases the victims were mostly or completely unaware until the moment, so I’m not sure what this proves.
Three separate definitions with subtle but real differences that aren’t apparent sometimes:
I don’t think there is any big functional difference between #1 and #2, but to be clear that while TN is #2, a #1 state can function in the same manner.