Why is body armor illegal to posses within 1,000' of a school?

[altimar]

Teaching your kids to be situationaly aware. Make sure they go to safe schools. Lobby your local sheriffs office and school board to mandate a School Resource Officer be employed at every school. Teach your kids what to do if some one attacks their school. All of those things are far more effective than buying a soft armor insert for a backpack and hoping for the best.

Very good advice in the context of schools, thanks.

The bad situation I envision as most likely (kid is not in school yet) would be something like shopping at Wal-mart and one or more armed lunatics show up and start shooting with no warning. If you happen to be in the wrong place like in a checkout lane, it could be a long run to cover. What are my unarmed wife and child (soon to be children) supposed to do (besides shop at Target instead)? I figure my wife throwing the pack on, grabbing the kid(s) and fleeing straight away from them would at least double her chances of survival. Granted, the likelihood of such a situation is small, but like I said before, it's a small amount of money for a bit of protection. It's not worth it though, if this law stands in the way of carrying it some places. But I see no reason for the law, period. I suspect it would be easy to rile up a bunch of moms to lobby hard for this. (Buy stock in a body armor company asap!)

So, back on topic: Are there any reasons you'd like to see this law removed or conversely, any reason you would like it to stay? Do you think Police and Sheriff's Depts would lobby for or against?

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

I don't portend to speak for the Sheriff's Assoc or whatever group Chiefs belong to. I will keep my opinions on those groups to myself. I don't know your wife nor am I disparaging her but how likely is she to be able to don armor correctly, under fire, while grabbing kids, and escaping to a safe area? Is running upright a sound idea? is running into an unknown a sound idea? Why is she unarmed? What necessitates that? The point is train for what you can do not lament/fantasize about would you could do.

 

[altimar]

I don't know your wife nor am I disparaging her but how likely is she to be able to don armor correctly, under fire, while grabbing kids, and escaping to a safe area? Is running upright a sound idea? is running into an unknown a sound idea? Why is she unarmed? What necessitates that? The point is train for what you can do not lament/fantasize about would you could do.

Ok, now I see what you're getting at, but I doubt I could get her into one of your training classes. I'm still working on getting her out to the range. Between her demanding job, multiple pregnancies, and a small child, it's hard to find the time for that. In about a year, she should have more flexibility job-wise. So in the meantime, a "widget" is better than nothing. Can we stick to the topic now?

 

[AustinBR]

I think it would be a good idea to have said law revoked, but good luck with that. It will be difficult to convince the *majority* that having evil body armor on campus is a good idea. While you are at it, I would like to be able to CC a gun @ LSU. You should work on that one too!!

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Ok, now I see what you're getting at, but I doubt I could get her into one of your training classes. I'm still working on getting her out to the range. Between her demanding job, multiple pregnancies, and a small child, it's hard to find the time for that. In about a year, she should have more flexibility job-wise. So in the meantime, a "widget" is better than nothing. Can we stick to the topic now?

That wasn't a pitch for training. The widget is no good of it's in the car in the parking lot. We can't get a Sodomy Law that's been nullified off the books on this state. So good luck. In the meantime you should probably rethink your plan if it consist of your wife donning soft armor under fire.

 

[madwabbit]

You've got multiple sides of information here - make your own decision.

Yes. they are manufactured and sold and if you want to use it, they are readily available.

No. it is not better than educating your wife/child how to respond to something like that. It will usually have more to do with their shoes than a vest or backpack.

No. I don't predict this law to change. Historically stupid pieces of poor legislation stay on the books because people find it too irrelevant to lobby over.


Yes. its a stupid law. Guess what, we have dozens.

It is illegal in louisiana:
for you to hold a fake wrestling contest in your backyard. RS 4:75 Sham or fake contests or exhibitions
for you to get burned and not report it to the Fire Marshal. RS 14:403.4 Burn Injuries/Wounds/Reporting

So.. if you and some friends wrestled for $50.00 in your backyard OR you burned your finger lighting a campfire, you could be arrested. Now I ask, would you ever be?


If you don't like stupid laws, get them fixed. It's your responsibility, personally. Voters hold ALL the trump cards in our system. You (registered voter) pick the people that make the laws, you pick which cases the DA can prosecute with minimal evidence, and you choose whether or not the defendant is actually guilty or innocent. You also elected a sheriff and police chief, and are presumably in favor of their policies and procedures.


so, back on topic: we all agree, its stupid. what are you going to do about it?

 

[Kraut]

The Principal can't "have people arrested".

They frequently stand as complainants in incidents in which students causing disruptions in the classroom are charged for interfering with educational processes. I really think WAY too many arrests are made in our high schools for things that used to be just handled in house, but those interactions with the school board are handled above my pay grade.

 

[Kraut]

So I'm perfectly fine to violate state law, because you can presume to speak for every commissioned officer in the state and say that all cops are super cool and very understanding (or is it because as a group, none of you care about crimes that don't bring in money for the dept?) Can I have your name and badge # so I can print up a Get-out-of-jail-free card?

I guess I should mention I'm a bit of a type-A, slightly OCD rule-follower, aka law-abiding citizen.

Anyone okay with a new law barring private ownership of all firearms? Oh, but the police won't enforce it unless you're a "bad guy"... The phrase "arbitrary and capricious" comes to mind.

Deputy Schmuckatelli, St. Tammanard Metropolitan Police Regiment, Special Flying Squad.

Of course I can't speak for every cop, and if it was just about money my ticket-writing hand would have already been replaced by a prosthetic and my wife would have left me for never being around.

I guess it's just the improbability of the scenario proposed regarding this law, and many others on here do the same, that brings out the silliness in me. What scenario do you envision where somehow, someway, while you are within 1000 feet of a school with a piece of body armor material tucked in a "tactical diaper bag" or some other piece of luggage within your vehicle or on your person, that you will come to the attention or run afoul of a law enforcement officer to the degree that said bag will be opened and the contents will somehow be taken in totality of the circumstances with other unspecified issues present that you might conceivably be arrested for such an infraction? It's kind of like the "thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters" deal, the odds against it happening so staggeringly high as to make the point almost entirely moot.

"Arbitrary and capricious" is not the appropriate phrase. It is "discretionary authority" which allows an officer, when presented with a set of circumstances that may well by "letter-of-the-law" be a crime, to decide what level of enforcement, if any, to take based upon the totality of the circumstances. I see you pushing a stroller down the sidewalk near a school and you stumble and drop your "tactical diaper bag" (I only keep using that because that's what you stated) which falls open and body armor falls out with the extra binkies and Cheerios. You're not doing anything else suspicious and I've yet to see a weapon. Even if I do get out and make contact with you, once you've explained "I was walking home after bringing my older child to school, and I just like to be prepared and safe," I may advise you that "technically" you are in violation of the law, but then I tell you to "Have a nice day" and we're done. If later that evening I stop a car full of subjects that were just reported threatening students and spectators at the high school game and find they do indeed have guns as well as body armor, their criminal intent in their actions is plainly articulable, and they would get that charge stacked on top of any others. "Arbitrary and capricious" would be stopping another guy just like you, and charging him after not doing so with you.

I wholeheartedly agree that it is a pointless law, and I'm ALL FOR paring down the titles by removal of useless, redundant laws. Take a look at how many subsections there are to the theft statute (14:67). It's absurd, because no matter what the item is, it's still THEFT!

 

[altimar]

No. I don't predict this law to change. Historically stupid pieces of poor legislation stay on the books because people find it too irrelevant to lobby over.

So I shouldn't bother? I suspect most people don't know about this law and if word got out there would be a pretty strong opposition to it. It seems very relevant these days, unfortunately.

If you don't like stupid laws, get them fixed. ... so, back on topic: we all agree, its stupid. what are you going to do about it?

Why do I keep having to repeat myself? I'm not here trying to convince you guys in order to magically make the statute disappear. I'm asking for reasons pro or con for having the law removed. I have stated two or three times now that I intend to write something up to send to our reps to get the ball rolling. Instead of staying on topic, I keep having to reply to people trying to convince me that it's not a problem and I shouldn't worry about violating the law because I won't be caught / charged. Interestingly enough, these people happen to be LEOs. Things that make you go "hmmm."

 

[altimar]

Deputy Schmuckatelli, St. Tammanard Metropolitan Police Regiment, Special Flying Squad.

I wanted a get-out-of-jail-free card, not a go-directly-to-jail-do-not-pass-go-do-not-collect-$200 card.

I guess it's just the improbability of the scenario proposed regarding this law, and many others on here do the same, that brings out the silliness in me. What scenario do you envision where somehow, someway, while you are within 1000 feet of a school with a piece of body armor material tucked in a "tactical diaper bag" or some other piece of luggage within your vehicle or on your person, that you will come to the attention or run afoul of a law enforcement officer to the degree that said bag will be opened and the contents will somehow be taken in totality of the circumstances with other unspecified issues present that you might conceivably be arrested for such an infraction? It's kind of like the "thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters" deal, the odds against it happening so staggeringly high as to make the point almost entirely moot.

I refer to my previous statement about my personality.

"Arbitrary and capricious" is not the appropriate phrase. It is "discretionary authority" which allows an officer, when presented with a set of circumstances that may well by "letter-of-the-law" be a crime, to decide what level of enforcement, if any, to take based upon the totality of the circumstances. ... "Arbitrary and capricious" would be stopping another guy just like you, and charging him after not doing so with you.

I understand your point, but that's restricted to your viewpoint as a single officer. Unless every officer out there has the same discretion, the law can and will be applied arbitrarily and capriciously. There are officers like you who would let the "technical violation" slide, but a more type-A, rule-following officer might be bringing me in. My whole point is that in any situation where you, as an officer using your discretion, might feel like charges are appropriate would be covered by the 14:95.3. Thus 14:95.6 only serves to potentially ensnare otherwise-innocent people. If you can think of a good reason for continuing to being able to charge someone with 14:95.6, but NOT 14:95.3, then reply, as that will be what I am asking for here.

 

[JadeRaven]

I don't think there are any cons.

The only con I could imagine is that some kid wearing armor to school would cause disruption in the classroom, and as such schools should be able to reasonably regulate dress and appearance.

I don't think we should be encouraging kids wearing or bringing armor to school, but I don't think it should necessarily be criminalized either.

I agree, likelihood of arrest for a bad law should not factor into whether or not the bad law is repealed.

 

[Gilbee]

What about this piece of the legislation:

F.(1) School officials shall notify all students and parents of the impact of this legislation and shall post notices of the impact of this Section at each major point of entry to the school. These notices shall be maintained as permanent notices.

This seems different than the normal firearm free zone legislation, so wouldn't a separate sign be required for this? I have never seen a sign related to body armor at any school entrance...

 

[oscar615]

They have signs at pearl river high school. I believe it is a no gun sign and then various legal references listed underneath. I will see if I can get a picture of it soon.

 

[bhart89]

Would a backpack insert even be considered body armor? Doesn't body armor have to be protecting a body? A backpack insert just protects a backpack.

 

[hdfinder47]

".....(besides shop at Target instead)?"

Anybody else see the humor here?