CA SB 707 - Prohibits CCW Firearms on School Grounds

[Una_Persson]

@pkbites

How come I didn’t hear much bitching when HR218 became law and Obama strengthened it twice?

From me? I bitched about it, on this message board I believe. I don’t know; I’ve been here 15 years, it’s not that easy to remember nor to get the search engine to behave.

I do find it ironic that some of you oppose creating special classes only when it has to do with LEOs, though. If a policeman wants a bakery to make him a cake should the baker legally be able to refuse just because he doesn’t like cops?

What on earth are you talking about?

[Bone]

@pkbites

How come I didn’t hear much bitching when HR218 became law and Obama strengthened it twice? It’s been around for over a decade now. I said then it was a finger in the eye of other lawful gun owners.

I didn’t actually read and post as much during the time when HR218 passed, and even when it was modified it did not get much fanfare here. To be honest, since I’m not an LEO I didn’t pay much attention to it. But even still, that law grants a right, whereas SB 707 restricts a right.

Ultimately I think restricting carry in K-12 schools would likely be held as constitutional. I disagree and oppose it obviously, but mostly because I think the law is not effective and can have undesirable outcomes. But my opposition to the 1st question in the OP is not based on constitutional grounds because I don’t think that’s a winning argument at this time. I think allowing retired officers exemption from the law makes SB 707 unconstitutional and hope that it gets struck down.

I can go anywhere in the U.S. and CCW no permits/license needed. I just need either my retired officer certification card or my ID card from the agency I currently work for. I can even carry in New York City and D.C. (and I have).

As I noted above in post #24 - the LEOSA still has limits and if not for the provision within SB 707, the LEOSA would not confer any right to carry on a CA K-12 school.

@Voyager

Correct. The NRA will of course assume that any research that does not back them up perfectly is biased - which is just like what the climate change deniers say and the tobacco companies said.
Call it disease or not as you wish, but gun deaths are up there in the list of major causes of death, especially among the young, so it was anything else it would be getting studied like crazy. I can dig up a cite if you wish, but some states do not allow doctors to talk about guns with patients - or it might just be pediatricians who are not allowed to. If a pediatrician’s responsibility is to help keep his or her child patients healthy, reminding parents to lock up guns would seem warranted.

I understand the objection that you raise to the NRA in general, but I do not see how that is relevant to this topic. It seems more like a general dig at the NRA rather than a specific criticism as it relates to SB 707.

@Voyager

I didn’t think they had gone far enough to suggest little kids have guns. But if adults have guns, there is a chance it will fall out of a pocket, or be put somewhere, where the kid can grab it. Just like what happens inside the home. And why do parents or visitors need to be carrying in the school? Lock it in the car or leave it home. Don’t put kids at risk for a slight inconvenience.

This chance that a firearm will fall out, or left out where an unauthorized person can access it exists in a school setting to the same degree it exists everywhere else. Schools are not special in this regard that they would create more scenario for this to happen. This is also a response to this part:

Nothing special? There are kids there! As for self defense, the question is whether guns will hurt more people than they save. They do in the home, and that is a place where there is less of a chance for surprise.

There are kids everywhere. Any particularized risk that having kids around presents exists anywhere kids congregate or are found. Again, there is no special circumstance that a K-12 campus creates that negates the justification for carry, if the justification for carry exists in the first place. I find it ironic that you seem to rely on poorly crafted studies that indicate a result you agree with while in the very previous post you complain about the NRA’s lobbying to prohibit the CDC from conducting such studies.

I’m from New York. I’ve ridden that subway. Not at all clear all those shootings were necessary.

A jury found Goetz not guilty. My point was to illustrate an example of 1 person defending themselves against 4 and it was the first case to come to mind. You may think it incredulous that a single person can defend themselves against multiple attackers, but it can and does happen. Whether or not the NAU incident was defense is not known at this time, but being that the facts of the matter are not available I think it’s premature to present that incident as evidence one way or another.

Like I said, I’m of two minds. Them not being allowed to carry in schools is fine with me also. It is far from the biggest gun-related issue we have to deal with.

Well, the state will be sued. I think the state will lose. If the state loses, they will likely have to pay attorney’s fees. I’m glad to have the state fund future lawsuits against other parts of the state regulatory scheme, but I’d prefer the state not pass asinine laws in the first place. These are the types of laws that should be opposed from all sides, but people who support gun control will push for any and all restrictions they can pass and in doing so makes opposition more resilient.

Sorry I was misleading with the "you"s. There seems to be a call for more guns in places like schools, since just the existence of carry laws does not stop attackers. The kid in Oregon went to the school. Even if lots of teachers were packing he’d know that his teacher was not. The sense I get is that some people consider those not carrying patsies, and think the Heinlein world of everyone carrying would somehow be safer.

I think carry should be a choice. Some people will decide that the inconvenience, perceived risk, etc. of carrying is not worth it. I would never denigrate someone for making that choice. There is no thought that those that make that choice are patsies. What I would like is the choice to be able to carry. I still think you’re all over the place here though since this is about CA CCW. In CA, CCW permit holders are something like 0.2% of people, well below the national average. There are relatively few permit holders, and most are in less populated areas.

@Voyager

True, they don’t say that everyone should have unlimited access. But opposition to background checks and the desire for instant access to guns at shows, for example, means that practically speaking we are close to unlimited access. The Louisiana shooter got turned down in Alabama - good for them - but had no real trouble getting a gun anyway.

Again, I have to ask how you think this is relevant to a CA law that prohibits CCW holders from carrying on K-12 campuses? This law has nothing at all to do with background checks. Even still, background checks are required at 100% of firearm sales in CA (excluding some interfamilial and C&R). This question applies to the rest of your post #60 as well.

And you haven’t really addressed my clarifying question in post #36:

@Bone

@Voyager

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.

Are you claiming that CCW will not stop shootings at all, or will not stop all shootings, or something else?

The closest I can tell to your response was this:

@Voyager

As I said, thanks to the scumbags at the NRA we don’t have as good data as we should have. But the claim that allowing CCW will reduce or eliminate these crimes does not seem to be justified. The real question is whether encouraging lots of people in any type of school to be carrying is going to decrease or increase school deaths.
We know that the possibility of people carrying does not stop shooters. So, you have to encourage a lot more people to carry. Which would of course change the tactics of the shooters. Picking people off from a concealed location is not going to be stopped by people carrying pistols.
Now, if the NRA thought that the numbers would justify these laws, they would probably not oppose research. So my guess is that they know full well that their stand will kill more people than it saves, and they are like Carson, who would much rather see shot up bodies than be inconvenienced by reasonable laws.

This response doesn’t really clarify, but makes some tangential comments about the NRA and then restates the original statement without clarification. I don’t want to mischaracterize your statement so that’s why I’m asking. Taken at face value, I would interpret your original statement as a claim that CCW will not stop shootings at all. Is that what you meant to say?

[Voyager]

@Bone

I understand the objection that you raise to the NRA in general, but I do not see how that is relevant to this topic. It seems more like a general dig at the NRA rather than a specific criticism as it relates to SB 707.

I live in California, across the street from an elementary school, and I’m all for banning guns there. As I’ve said I have no opinion on LEO’s being exempt, and not being a lawyer I have no opinion on the constitutionality of the law.
Being someone whose work involves data, lots of data (not about guns) what I do have an opinion on is whether we can make rational decisions about this topic in the absence of data. There are some people who are going to be for banning guns even if they make us safer, and some people against banning them in schools even if it is shown that many more people will die. (At least one is running for President.) Any group attempting to prevent the collection of this kind of data must have an ulterior motive.

This chance that a firearm will fall out, or left out where an unauthorized person can access it exists in a school setting to the same degree it exists everywhere else. Schools are not special in this regard that they would create more scenario for this to happen. This is also a response to this part:

There are kids everywhere. Any particularized risk that having kids around presents exists anywhere kids congregate or are found. Again, there is no special circumstance that a K-12 campus creates that negates the justification for carry, if the justification for carry exists in the first place. I find it ironic that you seem to rely on poorly crafted studies that indicate a result you agree with while in the very previous post you complain about the NRA’s lobbying to prohibit the CDC from conducting such studies.

Everywhere? If you want to allow CCW in restaurants, I may or may not agree, but restaurants don’t tend to have 20 or 30 kids to one adult. If a gun fell out in a restaurant it is very unlikely that a kid would pick it up, and even more unlikely no adult would notice.
And I don’t know what study you claim I’m referring to. If I did refer to a study, I’d cite it.

I think carry should be a choice. Some people will decide that the inconvenience, perceived risk, etc. of carrying is not worth it. I would never denigrate someone for making that choice. There is no thought that those that make that choice are patsies. What I would like is the choice to be able to carry. I still think you’re all over the place here though since this is about CA CCW. In CA, CCW permit holders are something like 0.2% of people, well below the national average. There are relatively few permit holders, and most are in less populated areas.

Some people in pit threads claim they carry because they are petrified of being attacked. I live in California with a low carry rate, as you said, and I’m not scared at all. Clearly some people have guns readily available because they are irrationally fearful. (Nothing irrational about having guns to hunt with or to fire for sport. Just to be clear that I’m not anti-gun.) That’s fine if carrying does not represent a risk to public health. We did the same thing with vaccines. You can be fearful of vaccines, but not at the expense of the health of others.
If a reliable study showed that allowing CCW resulted in a thousand extra gun deaths a year, (of innocent people, not criminals) would you still be for it? What would your cutoff be?

This response doesn’t really clarify, but makes some tangential comments about the NRA and then restates the original statement without clarification. I don’t want to mischaracterize your statement so that’s why I’m asking. Taken at face value, I would interpret your original statement as a claim that CCW will not stop shootings at all. Is that what you meant to say?

Even if I thought CCW stopped no attacks (which I don’t) such a thing cannot be proven. Obviously. Do you agree that after the Oregon shooting some people blamed it on the supposed gun-free zone of the school? It is proven by example that allowing concealed carry does not prevent all shootings. Do you agree with that? And do you agree that an area with no guns is less likely to have a shooting than an area with lots of guns?
Given that, the question is whether concealed carry saves lives and injuries or costs lives and injuries. This is not a trivial study to do. But if it costs lives, how many are acceptable to you to retain the right to concealed carry?

[Bone]

@Voyager

I live in California, across the street from an elementary school, and I’m all for banning guns there. As I’ve said I have no opinion on LEO’s being exempt, and not being a lawyer I have no opinion on the constitutionality of the law.
Being someone whose work involves data, lots of data (not about guns) what I do have an opinion on is whether we can make rational decisions about this topic in the absence of data. There are some people who are going to be for banning guns even if they make us safer, and some people against banning them in schools even if it is shown that many more people will die. (At least one is running for President.) Any group attempting to prevent the collection of this kind of data must have an ulterior motive.

That’s interesting and all, but thus far I’ve largely ignored comments regarding the NRA and CDC lobbying restrictions because they are not relevant to SB 707. You’ve made these comments multiple times thus far and each time I ask why you think they are relevant but each time you’ve declined to answer. I ask again, how is this relevant?

Everywhere? If you want to allow CCW in restaurants, I may or may not agree, but restaurants don’t tend to have 20 or 30 kids to one adult. If a gun fell out in a restaurant it is very unlikely that a kid would pick it up, and even more unlikely no adult would notice.

Yes, children are everywhere. Is there some ratio of children to adults that somehow flips the scales on when a CCW is okay and when it is not?

And I don’t know what study you claim I’m referring to. If I did refer to a study, I’d cite it.

I assumed you were referring to some kind of study or data when you made this assertion:

@Voyager

Kind of like if you have an unlocked loaded gun in your home you are far more likely to get shot by a family member or yourself, or have another family member shot, then to protect your home from the attacking home invaders who we all know visit every week.

If this was just conjecture, then okay.

Even if I thought CCW stopped no attacks (which I don’t) such a thing cannot be proven. Obviously.

But it can easily be disproven. Recently in Chicago a CCW holder stopped a personwho was shooting into a crowd. The assertion that CCW clearly will not stop shootings is false.

Do you agree that after the Oregon shooting some people blamed it on the supposed gun-free zone of the school?

Yes, some people did do that. However, for at least a couple of the people that were present and armed, they determined that it was better to not intervene. That’s their choice to make - hardly the free for all that is contemplated in post #33.

It is proven by example that allowing concealed carry does not prevent all shootings. Do you agree with that?

Yes. Of course, no one is making that claim so I fail to see the relevance to anything, including SB 707.

And do you agree that an area with no guns is less likely to have a shooting than an area with lots of guns?

Of course if there are no guns there will be no shootings. But SB 707 does not make it so that there are no guns. And other than the tautological reasoning that the complete absence of guns would reduce shootings, I don’t think you can make a reasonable assessment based on gross figures alone. The characteristics of the person possessing the firearm will have much more predictive value than the total number of firearms.

Given that, the question is whether concealed carry saves lives and injuries or costs lives and injuries. This is not a trivial study to do. But if it costs lives, how many are acceptable to you to retain the right to concealed carry?

That’s an important question, but not the only one. There are constitutional principles involved, and the very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.

And again, this isn’t about CCW in general. The state has already determined that CCW is allowed. This is a question of CCW holders on K-12 campuses in CA. Ultimately this will be litigated. Do you think it’s a valuable use of resources to defend, and possibly pay legal fees to support this law?

[DrDeth]

@Bone

T
Of course if there are no guns there will be no shootings. But SB 707 does not make it so that there are no guns. And other than the tautological reasoning that the complete absence of guns would reduce shootings, I don’t think you can make a reasonable assessment based on gross figures alone.

But there would still be bombs, and machetes, and Jet airliners, and…