when compared with a more omnibus plan I suggested whereby the fed government would fund grants to each school to be used toward increasing armed security, improving security technology, providing "hard points," or training existing & qualified staff in armed defense (what this legislation seems limited to). Thus, a kind of local option for improving school security..

Some will criticize these or similar proposals, but they go directly to the problem of school shootings, unlike unworkable bans.

I do NOT support the deployment of the National Guard to patrol each school in this country as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has.

Note: IIRC, there are already 10k armed LEOs assigned to 100k schools. I see no proposals to rid schools of them.

The Harrod ISD in Texas have had armed teachers for several years.

Hopefully no school board will be stupid enough to take part in this program.

Mind numbingly stupid idea!

And the ones that are, have parents from outside their district wanting to send their children there.

It's not a bill either. It is the fact that a property owner in Texas can allow weapons to be carried on the property. It's been the law for decades.

BTW, Harrold ISD has armed its teachers since 2008.

OP is about SD law......... not TX.

Which it is not.

Texas is already ahead of the curve, with at least one school district that has been doing this since 2008.

Gee, they've had no school massacres, and no kids have been hurt.

Were there any massacres in those "pistol packin' schools" before they adopted the program?

before they had their massacres?

..... you've answered my question. Thank-you!

Mass shootings don't happen where people can be armed and defend themselves. They happen at gun-free zones.

That's why they happen at schools, malls, theaters, etc. That's why the Aurora gunman drove past several nearby theaters to go to the one that banned guns.

Now that I know I have to explain all these simple concepts to you, in the future I'll be more thorough.

..... or just friggin' crazy.

I need to explain to you how the courts look at constitutional rights.

When the government wishes to infringe on someones rights, like the right to free speech, or the right to assemble, or the right to religious beliefs, they have to pass a constitutional scrutiny test. There are three levels of this test, rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny. Got it so far? Please don't hesitate to ask questions.

OK, back to the lesson. Rational basis is the lowest level, and SCOTUS (that's an abbreviation for the Supreme Court) has ruled that it cannot be applied to the Second Amendment (that's the one where the people have a right to carry guns). That leaves intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. So far, strict scrutiny has not been applied (probably because everytime it is applied, the restriction on the Constitutional Right is held to be invalid). So that leaves us with intermediate scrutiny. That means you have to come up with real reasons why the right should be infringed and that they way you want to infringe upon it is the least restrictive option.

That's why the court cases are coming out against the BansALot folks in Illinois, DC, and Chicago.

In other words, we don't have to show why they are needed, you have to show why our rights should be infringed on.

Again, please let me know if you have any questions.

Class is over.

If it were, any Tom, Dick or Harry should be allowed to carry his/her gatt into the nearest grade school. Right?

Do school employees have special constitutional rights?

What don't you understand about "shall not be infringed"?

Forrest, are you a statist controller or something?

Since obviously you don't get it.

Can you freely assemble outside a school? Sure. It's a right to do so. Can you do so in a manner that disrupts the educational process? Nope, that can be subject to time, place, and manner restrictions. These restrictions have to be the least restrictive possible to protect the educational process.

Apply those same principles to guns.

Yes, Tom, Dick, and Harry should be allowed to carry, subject to time, place, and manner restrictions. Those restrictions have to be the least restrictive possible.

I understand "shall not be infringed" perfectly - we are here today to educate you, not me.

LOL, I always think it's cute when my students talk to themselves - but I don't think you're a statist (yet). We're trying to make sure that you don't become one.

Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2013, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)

...... Wow! Sorry...... but your false equivalency doesn't make sense to rational folks who don't share your paranoid fears.

I don't have any paranoid fears.

I know what happens out there, and I've seen the result too many times of someone that wasn't prepared to protect themselves. In the police, we had a term for those people. We called them "sheep" and we were the "sheepdogs" to protect them from the "wolves."

Sheep are cute creatures, incapable of harming anyone, and with no desire to do so. They abhor violence and want everyone else to abhor violence too. There is nothing wrong with being a sheep. Sheep are great and make up the overwhelming majority of the population, but they don't believe that violence will happen to them or their families. They only harm each other by accident and are not generally capable of using violence.

But there are people that are capable of using violence against others and have no moral compulsion against it. If you have something that they want, they don't hesitate to take it, by force if necessary, if they can do so without danger to themselves. These are wolves, and they are evil. Once you've seen into the eyes of a wolf and seen the evil, you don't forget it. I've seen it. It is scary.

On the other side you have people whom are capable of using violence, but care deeply about your fellow citizens and don't want to see them harmed. These are the ones that wish to protect others, the sheepdogs. They can and will use violence to protect the sheep from the wolves. They exist to protect the sheep. Most are police officers and the military, but everyday citizens can be and are sheepdogs.

Most sheep don't like sheepdogs. They have fangs and look sort of like wolves, so the sheep would prefer that they go away. Until something happens, then you'll find twenty sheep trying to hide behind one sheepdog. It happened at Columbine and it happened at Sandy Hook. It'll happen again.

But in the meantime the sheep try and prohibit fangs, because it makes them nervous. They ignore the fact that a mass shooter kills an average of 14.29 people before he is stopped by police, but only manages to kill 2.33 people if stopped by a civilian. They don't want fangs in schools because fangs make them nervous. This is despite the fact that a fang by itself never attacked a single sheep.

You've been watching too many cop movies there, Dirty Harry!

Besides, I didn't have to watch cop movies, I lived it for over 20 years.

Then you are a slow learner. And you failed the final exam.

No. I think you watched BS cop movies....... and fantasized that you were one of the heroes in those movies!

I've seen that phenomenon before.

Unless you have police experience, you're not qualified to comment on what I've seen.

Thanks for playing though.

no comments?: Schools have been hesitant to adopt this new liberty, however. Although this is only the first day of implementation, no schools have reported plans to utilize the program, according to a local news station. Unsurprisingly, the bill was met with much controversy with opponents concerned about accidental shootings. Last month in Kansas, the state’s largest insurance provider announced it would not provide coverage to schools allowing teachers to possess firearms.

Gotta take the bad with the good I guess. Kinda like 'get ready, get set, GO', but nobody goes, afraid to go.
Maybe readers could update the thread here if any schools get an armed guard. I'll bet the percentage will grow, like a chia pet of ted nugent's head.
First update today july8: No news of armed teachers in SDak. STOP. There’s a Tennessee law which went into effect on July 1 that permits teachers with previous police training to carry guns on campus. STOP. Eat at Joes. STOP. END UPDATE#1.

Eleanors: I do NOT support the deployment of the National Guard to patrol each school in this country as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has.

How could you have anyway? since boxer didn't propose that. Posters should strive towards accuracy & truth in their posts & comments. Strive.
LATimesDec2012: — Federal funds would be made available to deploy National Guard troops at schools under legislation introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Cal) .. The Save Our Schools Act would leave it to governors to decide whether to call out the National Guard and how to use troops around schools. Boxer said the National Guard legislation is modeled after a program in place since 1989 that allows governors to use the National Guard to aid law enforcement in anti-drug operations. Troops could be deployed at schools, or assigned to desk jobs at police stations to free up local law enforcement to patrol schools.

going to start striving for that?

Not a very clever post, ExCop-LawStudent, Esq. (wannabee).

It was, however, true.

Riiiggghhhtt!

I won't lose sleep waiting for that post.

All of the ones I read about were cops. There was a case in, IIRC, Portland where a cop drove off with an AR on the trunk. Some guy grabbed it off the street and called the cops, and held it for them to return.

not sure of teachers.

and the ATF getting SMGs getting stolen from a back seat of a car. Teachers and students usually don't share bathrooms.

Really?

or the top of the urinal, odds are it won't be a student that finds it.

the security would be uniformly armed with what gun and ammo our experts determine the best for the job. I would also have a strict "buy American" rule. So, no Glocks.

teachers themselves.

Many of whom may just decide they want to carry what they like best.

Though not my 1st choice, many people, including 'professional', do like Glocks.

I doubt local PD would care. Let me explain how I would do it. Selected individuals would be armed and trained to augment the resource officer in the event of the emergency. I have nothing against Glocks, although I like Walther and CZ. However, I would prefer to by from a US company for issue.

over-armed killer(s) loaded to the gills and looking for a massacre. With their own personal weapons on their own personal CCP.

They are not part of some uniform regulated militia, or a large PD that has to support their handguns and supplies same.

You (likely have to) let them use what they are most comfortable with, what they can qualify with, and what they can handle safely & can conceal effectively.

Maybe some minimums like 'NO Glocks cause no safety' or 'DAO' or 'no single actions', or some such guidelines, and recommendations for reliability, caliber & ammo etc.???

Hmmm....

where the super went to great lengths to research physical security, to make the schools more secure than banks, and (if necessary) the armed staff be specifically trained for the task, armed with recommended by frangible ammo and laser sights. that to me would be the smart way to do it. Not be a soft target to begin with.

Given your example, DAO autos or revolvers with frangible ammo. Something in the .38 Special-45 ACP range. But if that is your first or only line while waiting for the cops, I think it sucks and needs more work.

Are teachers in SD renowned for their pugilistic talents? Punching isn't really the first thing I think of, when I think of teacher-like skills...