Virginia Tech VS. VASL (If they'd only show this on the news)

[Punisher84]

Virginia Tech

16 April 2007

Armed foreign student Cho Seung-hui goes on a shooting rampage on campus and shoots over 50 unarmed victims, killing 32 before committing suicide.

Virginia Appalachian School of Law

18 January 2002

Armed foreign student Peter Odighizuwa goes on a shooting rampage on campus, shoots and kills 3 unarmed victims before an armed student stops him.

I think this speaks for itself.

[towerclimber37]

huh...go figure...of COURSE they wouldn't show that...its pro gun! thanks for the heads up though! Its good reference material for some of the rabid anti gun wingnuts!

I tell ya man...we keep saying it, and they keep denying it..but the truth is, we're a heck of a lot safer when there are more armed people!!

the facts just don't add up to what the anti gun wingnuts are saying.

common sense I guess....some folks have it..most don't

[Guest racephysics]

not to play the devil's advocate here, but both those VASL "armed students" were off-duty and out of jurisdiction LEO's. logically this could explain why they were not packing on campus in the first place since they had to actually go to their vehicles and retrieve their weapons.

this proves in an ironic way that again, the police usually just show up to report the crime after it has happened, even if they are not on duty, and out of their jurisdiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

[Punisher84]

Either way a legally owned gun in the hands of a good guy stopped a shooting. So I don't really see your point, unless you just wanted to split hairs.

[Guest racephysics]

legally owned but not legally carried. perhaps a more cleary defined metaphor would be like a Nashville City LEO were to walk off-duty, into a Jackson Bar wearing a concealed handgun. The Nashville PD would be subject to the same laws of a civilian TN CCP carrier and would be doing so illegally. jurisdiction strictly defines this, especially in TN where cops who want to carry outside of it, must have CCPs to do so. (thus if he wanted to carry in Jackson from Nashville in the first place he would legally need a CCP to do so)

say this NPD guy is a rational guy and doesn't drink and has no reasonable fear of getting in trouble because he is not going to make that kind of decision that would lead to trouble, hopefully like anyone who makes the decision to carry where they are not supposed to, with that in mind it's one of those better to have and not need...

the first point is, is that these two LEOs stopped him from leaving. they did nothing to prevent the shooting. i would like to think they could have kept him from continueing but that didn't help the first three dead GGs.

the second point is, is that if they kept loaded firearms on school grounds, it was illegal to do so, LEO or not. and HERE is where i feel we are on the exact same level! another victim zone maintained makes it safe for no one but the BGs!

the point is that police have guns. which doesn't help when the police are not standing there as the attack happens. now an armed civilian taking responsibility for his own safety, that would have made a difference. (preach'n to the choir i'm sure)

as much as someone needed to legally stop both of these horrors, the latter neither stopped or legally did anything.

[SkWaShDeM]

legally owned but not legally carried. perhaps a more cleary defined metaphor would be like a Nashville City LEO were to walk off-duty, into a Jackson Bar wearing a concealed handgun. The Nashville PD would be subject to the same laws of a civilian TN CCP carrier and would be doing so illegally. jurisdiction strictly defines this, especially in TN where cops who want to carry outside of it, must have CCPs to do so. (thus if he wanted to carry in Jackson from Nashville in the first place he would legally need a CCP to do so)

Cops can carry concealed into bars and ABC licensed premises in TN when they're off duty under HR 218, they just have to have their departmental photo ID on them. They can also ignore posted private property signs. I think they're restricted from carrying on airplanes, federal property, and courthouses when they're not on duty, but that's about it that comes to mind.

That law gave sworn LEO's and retired LEO's nationwide concealed carry rights as long as they met a set of criteria in that legislation and had the proper ID with them IIRC.

[Guest macho999]

Everybody I've ever seen up around Grundy has been carrying a gun.

[Guest Ghostrider]

Everybody I've ever seen up around Grundy has been carrying a gun.

Interesting to "see" you say that.

This is typically what happens when the cops are worse than the crooks..

If the grundy area has gotten any legitimate law then it's been a recent thing. Bad police have been a problem there for at least the last 50 years.

but that's just my opinion.

[Guest racephysics]

Cops can carry concealed into bars and ABC licensed premises in TN when they're off duty under HR 218, they just have to have their departmental photo ID on them. They can also ignore posted private property signs. I think they're restricted from carrying on airplanes, federal property, and courthouses when they're not on duty, but that's about it that comes to mind.

That law gave sworn LEO's and retired LEO's nationwide concealed carry rights as long as they met a set of criteria in that legislation and had the proper ID with them IIRC.

i have read HR 218 and i stand corrected.

so point one still stands.

and now due to this information, i am saddened even further by yet more examples of off-duty LEOs who choose willingly not to carry when they are the only legal ones who can.

i'm just tired of hearing the argument that cops somehow protect you.

[TGO David]

Cops can carry concealed into bars and ABC licensed premises in TN when they're off duty under HR 218, they just have to have their departmental photo ID on them.

John Harris (lawyer) of the TFA strongly disagrees with that statement as does the Tennessee Attorney General who has issued two opinions on the matter and clearly opined that police cannot carry weapons into any establishment that sells liquor for on-premise consumption unless they are on the property in execution of their official sworn duties.

In other words, a cop cannot even eat lunch in an Applebees with his gun on his person without committing a crime.

I'll post the relevant statutes if necessary.

[Donnie]

Yep, unless you're on duty, you pretty much have to obey the current HCP laws. There are a few exceptions like ignoring the no carry signs in stores, but schools and alcohol serving establishments are off limits.

[TGO David]

Yep, unless you're on duty, you pretty much have to obey the current HCP laws. There are a few exceptions like ignoring the no carry signs in stores, but schools and alcohol serving establishments are off limits.

It's not even enough to be on duty. A police officer can only be on premise where alcohol is served for consumption in execution of his duties. Again, that means that they can't be there eating lunch on the clock and claim immunity because they were "on duty" at the time. They must be there for official police business.

Personally, I think this is just as absurd as it is to forbid a law abiding permit holder to carry on such premises so long as they are not ingesting alcohol themselves. I would prefer that a police officer be armed anywhere they go. The more "good guys" that are armed, the better.

[Donnie]

The eating in an alcohol serving establishment while on duty isn't enforced, at least not in this county. Every Mexican restaurant here serves Margiritas and there are plenty of on duty LEOs that eat at them.

[TGO David]

The eating in an alcohol serving establishment while on duty isn't enforced, at least not in this county. Every Mexican restaurant here serves Margiritas and there are plenty of on duty LEOs that eat at them.

It's not enforced here either but I think that's sort of a function of both everyone being willing to look the other way and a matter of who is there to police the police? One police officer and I engaged in a friendly discussion about this on another forum and he was fairly obstinate about the fact that my understanding of the law was incorrect and that he is legally allowed to carry in such places -- even off duty.

But as I've been told by a few lawyers, if you want to know about the law, you don't ask a cop. You ask an attorney.

[Guest macho999]

Interesting to "see" you say that.

This is typically what happens when the cops are worse than the crooks..

If the grundy area has gotten any legitimate law then it's been a recent thing. Bad police have been a problem there for at least the last 50 years.

but that's just my opinion.

Good to hear from a fellow Grundy traveler. Ever make the trip out to Welch and War and all those places? I don't know if it's the law up there or just how they are. That's how they get your attention up there. Down here you holler at someone, up there you shoot at them. Getting shot at trying to walk out a pipeline is pretty common over there. Lot of guys wont go out without company logos on every piece of apparel they have on.

Jokes aside corruption was obviously a problem up there at some point. Dad was up there when Operation Coondog went down.

[Guest racephysics]

i should have stuck to my guns, heheh, new guy syndrome i guess. i had only skimmed HR 218 initially and now i am back to my original position on it.

thanks Tungsten!

[DaveTN]

i'm just tired of hearing the argument that cops somehow protect you.

I’m a former Police Officer and I don’t know of any cops that will tell you that. I see it in a lot of postings from gun advocates and I see it a lot in postings from cop haters saying the cops don’t want them armed.

Police are reactive, not proactive. I don’t see how anyone can expect them to be anything else or why this is even an issue. Most Police Officers I know believe that law abiding citizens should be able to carry.

In reading this thread I do have a question though…

I was a LEO in Illinois. In Illinois jurisdictions (as far as Police powers go) are not legally defined or limited. A sworn Police Officer in Illinois is a Police Officer anywhere in the state; his powers are only limited by the state line.

Also Illinois Police Officers are “On-Duty†24 hours a day. There is no difference in powers whether you are “on the clock†or “off dutyâ€.

Is Tennessee different?

[Guest racephysics]

I’m a former Police Officer and I don’t know of any cops that will tell you that. ...Police are reactive, not proactive....

and i find this in my same expierence! every police officer i know of states the same things.

but i posit that if you were to stop a tourist inside your mall and ask him kindly, "do you believe that the police are in existance, and by that matter responsible, to help protect you?" the public's most common answer is going to be yes. ( i caveat knowing that every LEO i know would do their best to do so, yet would admit, as courts have proven, no personel liabilty in the lack thereof.)

i can't comment on the latter of your post, i simply don't know.

and congradulations in leaving Illinois for Tennessee.

[Guest Phantom6]

I've worked with and/or visited most every agency from Cincinnati to Mobile over the years and I can give you plenty of examples of LEO's that would just as soon not see carry permits in the hands of the law abiding public. Granted, this is usually in small rural departments where the cops are "cowboys" (apologies to real hardworking cow punchers) who's badge is their power and thusly their brand or identifying mark of being public jerks rather than servants. Fortunately they are few and far between but the old saying of "one bad apple..." leaves it's mark.

[Guest Tommy Ferguson Jr.]

Tungsten-

please post those articles/decisions/links.

thanks

[Guest GlocKingTN]

The eating in an alcohol serving establishment while on duty isn't enforced, at least not in this county. Every Mexican restaurant here serves Margiritas and there are plenty of on duty LEOs that eat at them.

As do they here as well. I have a few LEO friends who carry EVERYWHERE! Including, the Mexican restaraunts!

[DaveTN]

It's not enforced here either but I think that's sort of a function of both everyone being willing to look the other way and a matter of who is there to police the police? One police officer and I engaged in a friendly discussion about this on another forum and he was fairly obstinate about the fact that my understanding of the law was incorrect and that he is legally allowed to carry in such places -- even off duty.

I have no idea what the law is but why would carry laws even pertain to cops; on or off duty?

But as I've been told by a few lawyers, if you want to know about the law, you don't ask a cop. You ask an attorney.

I’m sure they would say that….

Where I was cop we had more training in criminal law than attorneys; unless the Attorney’s specialty was criminal law.

If you want to know if you will be arrested for something the very best person you can ask is the person that will be responding to the call; that’s the cops. If you want to know if you will be charged and convicted, ask a lawyer in your States Attorneys Office.

Law is not black and white. Especially when you start talking about law like the use of deadly force. Different Counties will charge crimes differently. Different Judges will interpret the law differently. Knowing what the Prosecutors and the Judges will do is one of the things that separates the high dollar attorneys from the bottom feeders.

When you guys go to a carry class who answers your questions about the use of deadly force? Do they have someone from the States Attorneys office there or is it the instructor?

[Guest Len]

The carry class curriculum is much lighter on this subject than many realize, and instructors are not required to have much more knowledge than the students. In TN for example, an NRA certified pistol instructor is pretty much automatically qualified to teach the TN carry class, all they do is apply to the DoS. The NRA class covers very little legal material, as it varies from state to state a great deal, but the NRA class covers more material and takes more time than the TN carry class. In the TN carry class, the required video covers the legal issues, and instructors are basically told to tell students that they cant answer legal questions, and should consult a lawyer.

Now, in the NRA Personal Protection series of classes, the instructor is required to include a presentation by an attorney specializing in criminal law or a POST instructor in the course. IMHO, these courses are far superior to any of the NRA basic courses or the TN carry course. The TN carry course is often (depending on the school -some are great,some are awful) the minimum to meet the legislative mandate and nothing more. People who complete the TN carry class are not well-versed in the law, unless they had that knowledge prior to taking the class.

Quote from DaveTN:

When you guys go to a carry class who answers your questions about the use of deadly force? Do they have someone from the States Attorneys office there or is it the instructor?

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

This whole thing with restricting LEOs from off-duty carry is worthless.

Everyone knows the second you punch your time card and take off your uniform all your training *magically* disappears and your sense of concern for your fellow man turns to apathy.

This is the same line of thinking that concludes that criminals would actually get CCW permits