No Debate, please just official policy: Are guns allowed anywhere at WDW???

[mattsdragon]

Perfectly said. My husband is a state trooper & there's no power trip-just reality. So true about a time card! Let's hope they all stay safe!

That only applies inside your jurisdiction. Outside your jurisdiction, you have no authority. You are then limited by the rules of citizen's arrest and cannot do all the things that you are authorized to do in your own jurisdiction, unless there is an agreement between departments. It's a lot more complicated than some peole think.

If your department does have an agreement with the local jurisdiction, then you are in fact obligated to enforce laws in another jurisdiction off duty. But I really don't need to get into all the legalities and loopholes.

In the end, someone posted the policy that only on duty police officers, with proper jurisdiction, may carry fire arms in the parks. Enough said. Case closed.

 

[CanadianImagineer]

Let's just hope none of you ever decide to come up here to Canada, I think you'd be shocked by the gun laws here!

 

[CarolA]

I have seen the "bag check" find a weapon. (Contrary to myth on here it's not as "useless" as folks think)

The "Owner" was required to sit in the sun while law enforcement dealt with him and his gun.

His family was all made to wait also.

 

[swald91]

That only applies inside your jurisdiction. Outside your jurisdiction, you have no authority. You are then limited by the rules of citizen's arrest and cannot do all the things that you are authorized to do in your own jurisdiction, unless there is an agreement between departments. It's a lot more complicated than some peole think.

If your department does have an agreement with the local jurisdiction, then you are in fact obligated to enforce laws in another jurisdiction off duty. But I really don't need to get into all the legalities and loopholes.

In the end, someone posted the policy that only on duty police officers, with proper jurisdiction, may carry fire arms in the parks. Enough said. Case closed.

I'm not talking about jurisdiction-I was just commenting on the carrying a gun while off duty. He never brings it when we travel-especially to our favorite place Disney-I believe that Disney has rules for reason & I am in total agreement. I never said they SHOULD be allowed to carry it. I also know of police officers & CO -that LOVE the power trip thing. I was also in agreement that many police officers carry their guns for protection purposes. I understand the jurisdiction thing-rules are in place for reasons-and police officers help to carry them out.
According to my husband...
The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (2007) states: allows trained, active duty & retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms nationwide as an enhancement to public safety. Obviously private property rights apply. Such as the restriction at WDW.

 

[swald91]

A horrific news story has slowly made its way into the headlines here in the Twin Cities. A local resident, his wife and three daughters spent the evening of the Fourth of July at Valleyfair, a local amusement park. They were leaving the park at midnight when a criminal began to molest his twelve-year-old daughter.

The father intervened to defend his daughter, and the offender put out a call for his "homies." Eight "men" materialized and began to beat up the father. They knocked him to the ground and took turns stomping on his head. The man's wife and daughters tried to protect him, unsuccessfully, and Valleyfair's security guards apparently tried to help, but ineffectually.

The father is still hospitalized, but the criminals are out on bail. The family's name is being kept secret, lest the criminals find them and kill them to avoid prosecution.



Initially, the local media downplayed the story, presumably because of the race of the criminals. But today, the Minneapolis Star Tribune broke down and covered it. Still, the story was apparently too hot for the paper to allow comments; if you follow the link, you'll see that, contrary to the Star Tribune's usual policy, it is impossible to comment.

The story is an infuriating one in several ways, but what strikes me most forcibly is that it would have been a good thing if a few armed citizens had happened by while the assault was in progress. It's no surprise that the victim's wife and daughters couldn't protect him from eight "men," and apparently Valleyfair's security force is unarmed. So the optimal outcome here would have been for one or more normal citizens to pull a firearm, shoot a couple of the criminals, and hold the rest until the police arrived. Criminals who carry out outrageous assaults in public do so on the assumption that passersby will not be able to stop them. Absent firearms, that assumption is reasonable. So let's hear it for concealed carry.

Under Minnesota law, any business can ban guns on its premises, and, while a few minutes of research yielded nothing, I assume that Valleyfair bans guns, as most businesses that are open to the public do. This strikes me as a mistake. Against a gang such as the one that is now on the loose in the Twin Cities, only armed citizens can be effective.

 

[Buzz Litebeer]

The story is an infuriating one in several ways, but what strikes me most forcibly is that it would have been a good thing if a few armed citizens had happened by while the assault was in progress.

Of course, let's say an off-duty cop was one of those "armed citizens" who happened by. He pulls his piece, and opens fire. Another cop, responding to the call, sees a civilian with a gun firing on a group of men. What do you think he's going to assume?

Click here for a hint...

 

[anthony2k7]

A horrific news story has slowly made its way into the headlines here in the Twin Cities. A local resident, his wife and three daughters spent the evening of the Fourth of July at Valleyfair, a local amusement park. They were leaving the park at midnight when a criminal began to molest his twelve-year-old daughter.

The father intervened to defend his daughter, and the offender put out a call for his "homies." Eight "men" materialized and began to beat up the father. They knocked him to the ground and took turns stomping on his head. The man's wife and daughters tried to protect him, unsuccessfully, and Valleyfair's security guards apparently tried to help, but ineffectually.

The father is still hospitalized, but the criminals are out on bail. The family's name is being kept secret, lest the criminals find them and kill them to avoid prosecution.



Initially, the local media downplayed the story, presumably because of the race of the criminals. But today, the Minneapolis Star Tribune broke down and covered it. Still, the story was apparently too hot for the paper to allow comments; if you follow the link, you'll see that, contrary to the Star Tribune's usual policy, it is impossible to comment.

The story is an infuriating one in several ways, but what strikes me most forcibly is that it would have been a good thing if a few armed citizens had happened by while the assault was in progress. It's no surprise that the victim's wife and daughters couldn't protect him from eight "men," and apparently Valleyfair's security force is unarmed. So the optimal outcome here would have been for one or more normal citizens to pull a firearm, shoot a couple of the criminals, and hold the rest until the police arrived. Criminals who carry out outrageous assaults in public do so on the assumption that passersby will not be able to stop them. Absent firearms, that assumption is reasonable. So let's hear it for concealed carry.

Under Minnesota law, any business can ban guns on its premises, and, while a few minutes of research yielded nothing, I assume that Valleyfair bans guns, as most businesses that are open to the public do. This strikes me as a mistake. Against a gang such as the one that is now on the loose in the Twin Cities, only armed citizens can be effective.

optimal outcome? do you know for sure none of criminals had guns? maybe one of them had but wasnt intending to murder any of the victims.

IF your "optimal" outcome with citizens shooting people had taken place and the whole situation escalated even more out of control maybe none of the victims would have lived to even report it to the police.

Thats assuming those citizens didnt miss the criminals and shoot the victims instead...

 

[swald91]

Of course, let's say an off-duty cop was one of those "armed citizens" who happened by. He pulls his piece, and opens fire. Another cop, responding to the call, sees a civilian with a gun firing on a group of men. What do you think he's going to assume?

Click here for a hint...

That's very unfortunate. I lost my brother on duty. I know what it's all like. I don't know why this is turning into a debate-something the OP didn't want. Just information. I am not a big fan of guns-I have many family members who are police officers & I know they LOVE their job-the men & women they work with are family. They take an oath to protect & serve. It's very sad that these police officers feel they have to constantly take their work home- but it's the job they love. And I am thankful for the service my brother gave-my other retired brother gave, cousins & my husband continue to do-everyday. But it's unfortunate what the world is-I understand the thin blue line & am grateful for the police officers who put their lives on the line everyday. Sorry that some people reading this may take offense.

 

[maxiesmom]

The story is an infuriating one in several ways, but what strikes me most forcibly is that it would have been a good thing if a few armed citizens had happened by while the assault was in progress. It's no surprise that the victim's wife and daughters couldn't protect him from eight "men," and apparently Valleyfair's security force is unarmed. So the optimal outcome here would have been for one or more normal citizens to pull a firearm, shoot a couple of the criminals, and hold the rest until the police arrived. Criminals who carry out outrageous assaults in public do so on the assumption that passersby will not be able to stop them. Absent firearms, that assumption is reasonable. So let's hear it for concealed carry.

I don't agree that a bunch of civilians running around armed would have made for an "optimal outcome". I don't think what we need as a society is everyone running around with guns, shooting before they know the half of what is going on. Who is to say they would hit what they were shooting at? Who is to say other civilians wouldn't misread the situation, and start shooting back? I think it best to leave the Wild West attitude back in the past.

OP--I think you have the answer to your question.

 

[bytheblood]

Okay, so the concensus is that he is not allowed to take his weapon into the resorts and/or park. Can anyone direct me to some type of official policy on the WDW website. Not that I don't believe you, because I do, but my BIL is going to require more than just our word for it.

Also, no one has answered the question of how they (WDW) police that policy. If my BIL decides to disregard WDW policy and carry his weapon on him into a park how will WDW know???

hugs -

lisa

Hey Lisa -

My advice is to email Disney Guest Communications and get something in writing from them to present to your BIL.

 

[pashari]

Of course, let's say an off-duty cop was one of those "armed citizens" who happened by. He pulls his piece, and opens fire. Another cop, responding to the call, sees a civilian with a gun firing on a group of men. What do you think he's going to assume?

Click here for a hint...

And this is my point. My BIL has his rights and what not that I may or may not agree with - but that is personal choice. However, if his worst nightmare happens and some lunatic opens fire in Magic Kingdom what are the chances for my BIL (and his family) to come out unscathed if he (my BIL) opens fire??? I have to assume that a place like WDW would have both armed and unarmed security people all over the place. I highly doubt they would wait to see if my BIL was a good guy or a bad guy before they acted.

hugs -

lisa

 

[pashari]

Thank you everyone for your comments. I think I have my answer in that

(1) WDW does not allow people to carry firearms either on the resorts or in the parks.

(2) If they do bring firearms they need to be checked at the hotel security safe (not a room safe) or the checked with security at the entrance to the parks.

(3) If he chooses to ignore WDW and carry his weapon there really isn't any way for WDW to know as they don't have metal detectors or do body checks. It would have to be a pretty alert security official or other CM that would know how to spot someone who is carrying a concealed weapon. They would then call WDW security.

What would the park do??? Kick him & his family out of the park or just make him check is weapon??? I wonder if this has happened before.

hugs -

lisa

 

[swald91]

Disney, as with any other PRIVATE property owner has the right to not allow certain behavior, clothing, or firearms. This is their legal right. They had recently fired an employee for leaving his fireram locked in his car, in their parking lot. Obviously I am a proponent of the Second Amendment as well as enforcement of current laws regarding that right. Mentally unstable and people convicted of violent crime should not have guns. My position is based upon the law and COMMON SENSE.

 

[CanadianGuy]

As per the list of prohibited items in Disney Parks:

The following are not allowed to be brought into the Disney Theme Parks:

• Items with wheels, such as wagons, skateboards, scooters, inline skates, shoes with built-in wheels, two-wheeled or three-wheeled conveyances, strollers larger than 36" x 52", suitcases, coolers, or backpacks with or without wheels larger than 24" long x 15" wide x 18" high (coolers required for medication may be stored in a locker or at Guest Relations), and any trailer-like object that is pushed or towed by an ECV wheelchair or stroller
• Alcoholic beverages
• Weapons of any kind
• Folding chairs
• Glass containers (excluding baby food jars and perfume bottles)
• Pets (unless they are service animals)
• In Disney's Animal Kingdom Theme Park (for the safety of the wildlife), balloons, straws and drink lids are not permitted. Note: they now have biodegradable paper straws.

I don't see any exceptions listed beside the bolded item. The only exceptions were noted by a Castmember earlier in this thread. Unless your brother in-law is going to be 'on duty' or with the Secret Service during this trip - then I don't see that either applies.

As for the question above - if they catch you with a concealed weapon in the parks - you may be escorted out of the parks and off Walt Disney World property... you may even be invited to enjoy another vacation destination in the future... really, is it worth all that?

Asked, answered, closed.

Knox