Churches with Schools

[hrdware]

As dieseltech09 already posted, the law states, "any elementary or secondary school".

Public schools Definition What included.
The public schools of Oklahoma shall consist of all free schools supported by public taxation and shall include nurseries, kindergartens, elementary, which may include either K 6 or K 8, secondary schools and technology center schools, not to exceed two (2) years of junior college work, night schools, adult and other special classes, vocational and technical instruction and such other school classes and instruction as may be supported by public taxation or otherwise authorized by laws which are now in effect or which may hereafter be enacted.

“School” means a public school district, governmental entity that employs teachers as defined in Section 1-116 of Title 70 of the Oklahoma Statutes, or private kindergarten, elementary, or secondary school.

As near as I can tell the difference between a public and private school is that a private school does not receive public money. Other than that, I can't find any stipulation that it depends on the activity in progress.

Therefore I still believe that just the presence of a school on the property makes it a prohibited place.

Home school wouldn't count because you are not an accredited institution.

 

[mons meg]

Well, some churches (like mine) hold partial schools. By that I mean private pre-K and kindergarten, and that's it. There's no school zones, no signs, nothing to tell an outsider there's school happening. After lunch, it's a day care. So, you're legal after 12pm?? It's another issue that needs to be cleared up.

Someone correct me if I'm dreaming here, but IIRC in Texas, it's delegated to the individual districts to set their own rules regarding firearms on school campuses. Presumably that would mean private schools do as well.

 

[338Shooter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

 

[abajaj11]

It seems that boundaries for a school need to be clearly marked, just as they are fr regular K-12 schools. So if the church has a school, the boundaries needto be marked so folks know where the "safe" gun free zone begins.

 

[hrdware]

It seems that boundaries for a school need to be clearly marked, just as they are fr regular K-12 schools. So if the church has a school, the boundaries needto be marked so folks know where the "safe" gun free zone begins.

If a church has a school, then the parking lot for the entire complex could be used for the school. As such you would not be able to get out of your car without being in violation.

 

[abajaj11]

If a church has a school, then the parking lot for the entire complex could be used for the school. As such you would not be able to get out of your car without being in violation.

People park just outside the clearly marked school grounds all the time when they have to go in for a school event or even just to walk their kid to the classroom; and leave firearms in cars legally. Just because a piece of property OUTSIDE a clearly demarcated school boundary is being used for parking and CAN be used for parking for school related activities does not make it de-facto PART of the school property.

the issue is: who owns the parking property, not how it MAY be used.
So, if a large corporation has a large campus, and a small portion of this corporate campus is set for, say, elementary education for children of employees, but presumably ALL the parking lots of the corporation's campus can POTENTIALLY be used to park by parents dropping kids off to school, does not then make ALL the parking lots subject to the "safe" gun-free zone act.

Again, it boils down to: who owns the parking lot: the school or the larger corporation. and does the parking lot have clearly demarcated boundaries that signify it is part of the school property along with the standard NO GUNS sign? It would seem it would need to. We can't just take a "safe" gun free zone and extend it based on potential use of the property.

As someone else, said, what about home schools where one family teaches kid of 2-3 families? Are those "safe" gun free zones as well during school hours when they engage in k-12 educational activities? The answer is "no" because they are not part of a k-12 school property, and the primary use is as a private home, not as a school. So it is clear based on current practice, that identification of a "safe" gun-free zone is based on clearly demarcated property boundaries that signify that the primary purpose of that property is k-12 activities, not just based on POTENTIAL and non-primary use of the property for k-12 activities.

the same argument would then apply to churches whose primary purpose is a place of worship and community, but who may have a separate, clearly demarcated area whose primary purpose may be k-12 education. The smaller, clearly marked area would be a "safe" gun free zone, but not the larger church property.

 

[hrdware]

When it comes down to it, I think we will end up agreeing to disagree until there is a court ruling on the issue.

People park just outside the clearly marked school grounds all the time when they have to go in for a school event or even just to walk their kid to the classroom; and leave firearms in cars legally. Just because a piece of property OUTSIDE a clearly demarcated school boundary is being used for parking and CAN be used for parking for school related activities does not make it de-facto PART of the school property.

Agreed, where these people park is not part of the property where the school is located. However these people are not allowed to carry their gun across the parking lot on the way to dropping the child off for class. By the same token, a person could not park off church with a school property and carry a gun across the parking on the way to class because it is a school.

the issue is: who owns the parking property, not how it MAY be used.

Correct, but if the church falls under the definition of school according to law, how can you argue that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. A public school can't choose when it's a school and when it's a voting location just because there are not kids there.

So, if a large corporation has a large campus, and a small portion of this corporate campus is set for, say, elementary education for children of employees, but presumably ALL the parking lots of the corporation's campus can POTENTIALLY be used to park by parents dropping kids off to school, does not then make ALL the parking lots subject to the "safe" gun-free zone act.

In this case I would say that the school building and adjoining parking lot are school property.

Again, it boils down to: who owns the parking lot: the school or the larger corporation. and does the parking lot have clearly demarcated boundaries that signify it is part of the school property along with the standard NO GUNS sign? It would seem it would need to. We can't just take a "safe" gun free zone and extend it based on potential use of the property.

No, it doesn't matter who owns the parking lot, the law says you can not leave a firearm in your car on a school property. The location is either an accredited school or it isn't. You can't deem it a school when kids are present and not other times.

As someone else, said, what about home schools where one family teaches kid of 2-3 families? Are those "safe" gun free zones as well during school hours when they engage in k-12 educational activities? The answer is "no" because they are not part of a k-12 school property, and the primary use is as a private home, not as a school. So it is clear based on current practice, that identification of a "safe" gun-free zone is based on clearly demarcated property boundaries that signify that the primary purpose of that property is k-12 activities, not just based on POTENTIAL and non-primary use of the property for k-12 activities.

As I pointed out earlier, home schools don't count because they don't meet the definition of a school. You have to be accredited in order to be considered a school.

the same argument would then apply to churches whose primary purpose is a place of worship and community, but who may have a separate, clearly demarcated area whose primary purpose may be k-12 education. The smaller, clearly marked area would be a "safe" gun free zone, but not the larger church property.

I would agree with this only if the separate demarcated area also had it's own parking lot and not a joint parking area.

 

[jmoney]

Thanks for the info.
Not sure if opinion from a law professor is final or binding (we have one in the white house telling the supreme court what they can and cannot do). . there may actually be legal precedent here if someone were to look for it.
and what do they mean by the "area round the school"? does that include the whole church? The primary purpose of the rest of the church is to be a church, and only a small area is designated k-12.
Say a large employer has a k-12 school on its campus as well, but it occupies a very small portion of the campus. So does that mean the entire corporate campus is out of bounds for leaving a firearm in your parked car and stepping out? doesn;t seem reasonable at all.
If it were the case, all a large employer would have to do to ensure no law abiding citizens could leave firearms in their cars, would be to set up a small school for the kids of their employees somewhere on their campus. and what about first time visitors to the corporate campus? Are they expected to know if there is a tiny school somewhere on campus?

it wouldn't be final or binding, but O'Shea knows his stuff and is an active member of the shooting community not some professor looking in from the outside...I would take his interpretation pretty seriously.