The difference between California and Alabama.

ALBERTVILLE, Alabama -- A state legislator from Marshall County wants to provide a legal pathway for to school administrators and teachers to carry guns to keep schools safe.

Rep. Kerry Rich, R-Albertville, said today he is planning to pre-file a bill for the state House of Representatives to consider when it goes into session in February.

Under Rich's plan, the bill would authorize a school system superintendent and board of education to identify and approve potential administrators and teachers to carry guns.

The plan potentially thrusts Alabama into the midst of the ongoing national debate on how best to keep schools safe in wake of the Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 first-graders and six school employees dead.

Rich, who serves on the House Education Policy committee, pointed out that the principal at Sandy Hook, Dawn Hochsprung, encountered the shooter and attempted to stop him before being shot and killed.

"If she had had a gun, or someone in that school had a gun, they could have taken him out before he reached the students," Rich said. "That's all I'm trying to achieve here -- a way and a means where people have a way of protecting themselves and students in schools."

Rich said putting the decision of which school employees should carry guns in the hands of the superintendents and school boards would be most appropriate because they know the employees best.

"They know the people that work for them," he said. "They know their character and they know their background. They know if they be able to a handle a gun. These people would be required to go through the same training as far as handling a gun as a police officer would."

Rich said he has received favorable responses from other legislators he has discussed the bill with as well as law enforcement officials. He said he planned to have the bill ready when the Legislature goes into session on Feb. 5.

Rich said he was already considering similar legislation before the Connecticut shooting.

"I'm not saying this is what brought my attention to it but it's probably part of it," Rich said. "I've got a 6-year-old granddaughter in kindergarten now. Certainly I want her protected. I wanted all children protected. I don't want any of them to face this kind of situation."

Passing a restriction on guns would not be sufficient, Rich said.

"We need to be logical, we need to be realistic about this stuff," he said. "Passing another gun law is not going to help the solve problem, in my opinion. There are some things you can do maybe on the fringes of things. You don't want people with mental problems to be able to get guns. We don't want people convicted of felony -- especially convicted of crimes of violence -- to be able to get a gun. The only thing I would even think about in that regard would be at gun shows that you have to do a background check.

"I think the gun laws are basically adequate. We need better enforcement. If we would enforce the laws we have, they are probably adequate. The thing that's really bad, in my opinion, we have gotten to a point where our culture is in such a fix, these kinds of things happen."

Rich said he's "wide open" to entertaining other ideas on school safety. School safety will be at the forefront of a joint meeting between state representatives and senators on Jan. 9 that will include state Superintendent Tommy Bice as well as prosecutors and law enforcement officials, Rich said.

"I'm listening," he said. "I don't claim at all to have the corner on the market on the thinking on all this. I'm wide open listening to people and their ideas. This is one way that I think you could approach it that would be effective."

Good idea.

Similar concept is being explored in WA although I don't anticipate much movement due to the libs in this state.

Make the required training equal to what say a Federal air marshal gets and then pay the teachers extra for taking on the "sheep dog" role.... It should not be general knowledge who the highly trained teacher are....

Simple common sense solution..... Make it common knowledge that the program is in place....

My local rep here in Missouri brought up similar bill. Our great democratic governor said he'd veto it.

No, it's not. Another reason why Alabama's education system is in the bottom ten nationally. For one thing, it doesn't address the Federal Law preventing guns in the schools. The state, locals and school board can pass any laws and regulations they want to, but it doesn't keep the Feds from coming into any district and rounding up those carrying guns for violating the Gun Free Schools Act of 1994. All it does is identify the participants. What needs to be done is simply remove the offending Federal Law and then let whomever can legally carry do so. My guess is a bunch of state laws against carrying guns as well as local ordinances and school board policies against same. Locales which refuse to allow responsible parties to protect school children and school employees and patrons can be held accountable if something happens. In the better places, such as Wyoming and Oklahoma, there will be few problems. In places like Connecticut, at least it takes the monkey off the back of the Feds and places it back with people closer to the kids themselves. You disarm somebody and IMO you become responsible for their protection. You remove obstacles to taking responsibility for peoples' protection and that of those in their charge, and you empower them to prevent future acts of violence.

Yep, just like all that was needed to address 9/11 was to allow pilots to be armed and to reinforce their doors. But we got the TSA and the DHS anyway, i.e., big government "solutions."

Excellent reasoning, as usual for you, but I was under the impression that the Supreme Court struck down the Gun Free Schools Act of 1994.

What happens if a smaller stature female who is the armed teacher is attack and disarmed by a much larger person?

I'm not in favor of teachers carrying guns. Just seems like another reason for some scumbag who has gone thru the 8th grade for the 3rd time to assault teachers.

What i'm in favor of is armed guards train in the use of firearms and in protection of civilians.

Teachers are paid to educate...Armed guards are paid to provide security.

Emphasize that psychological screening and training for extreme high stress shooting with frequent re qualifying being required.... Maybe post scores for the area sheep dog teachers in comparison to average LEO scores.... That should help to shut up the anti gun crowd .

My guess there would be elite top level instructors willing to donate their time and facilities..... Cost would be LOTS of training ammo, funding for rigorous psychological screening (sorry Hawkeye.... Don't even think about applying) and then significant bonus pay for the 2 or 3% who make the cut.....

It would work and work very well.

Arm the teacher's, Might help a bit if the perp was going to kill my shooting. Wouldn't help a bit if the perp decided to run a car through a play ground at high speed or carry a bomb into a school
I don't know what the answer is but more gun control isn't the answer.

They may have, but it's still around in one form or another. Google it and you get a litany of years after the Act. Congress seemingly keeps changing it and bringing it back. Your schools don't still have the signs up? For awhile, I was under the impression most districts just left up the signs while they had no authority, but I'm pretty sure the law is back, modified somewhat. The rub originally was that guns weren't allowed within so many feet of a school and that violated the 2nd Amendment rights of those living within that measurement...IIRC. At any rate, I'm pretty sure it's still around, possibly with another year after it.

It won't help if there is a graveyard next to the school and the Zombies arise either. You cannot plan for every last scenario. People go on and on about costs too and then something like this happens and we've got plenty of money. It doesn't happen that way. I've been an employee of the schools and also on the board. There is no full contingency plan and in real life, it does cost money to protect everybody. It's just like insurance. Obamacare has lots of connotations but at it's root is the idea everybody has the RIGHT to healthcare. Nobody has ever had the right to life let alone the means to provide it. Healthcare and the insurance thereof, costs money. It costs money to protect people too and resources are finite. The main mission of a school is education just like the main mission of a grocery store is to sell groceries. You shift a huge amount of resources to protecting people in either, and that becomes the mission, not education or grocery sales. That's where addressing the problems before they reach your doorstep comes in. Sadly, IMO we are either unwilling or unable to do so anymore, as a society. If our whole society hadn't went, to put it in clinical terms, crazier than a shixthouse rat, then possibly there wouldn't be as many individuals wishing to strike out against it.

The removal of obstacles to people taking responsibility for their own protection and that of those in their care, is the best and most cost-effective way to do this.

Unfortunately you don't know Jack or Shixt.

To the poster concerned about a female teacher being disarmed.... The kids are not going to know who is armed.... Any female teachers would have the same high level weapon retention and hand to hand fighting training other elite security personnel would have.....

IMO the chances of a kid over powering such a woman would be pretty remote.

Ah, isn't that cute Ethan (at least that is the name he is posting under at the moment) is offended that his best Ron Paul buddy was singled out as obviously not stable enough to qualify....

You present excellent arguments, EE.

People never seem to remember the results when government gets involved, let alone takes control, over any situation. No matter how noble and righteous original intents and how well new programs and plans work... at first... history proves you're still dealing with fecal alchemists.

It's as undeniable as it is unavoidable.

More policing = more government, more rules, hoops to jump through, legal and liability problems and cases, more requirement for committees to study problems and invent solutions, more bureaucracies, etc etc, until all that remains is a very expensive, pointless, impotent, Charlie Foxtrot completely unable to deal with the source of its original intent (assuming that can any longer even be seen or remembered) let alone the confusion and corruption filled chaos created since then.

End result: they can't see the trees flames for the forest forest fire.

The simplest solution is always the best.
ESPECIALLY when gov is involved.

Relegalize the 2A and leave it alone to accomplish its obvious original intent, make government at every level stay out of the way of that, and leave the people that live and work there to do what needs done as each case, each locale, and each group of people is/are different than the next.
One size fits all solutions are just as useless, pointless, and ineffective as the guvernments and bureaucracies that dream up and implement them.

Make an effort to learn from history and apply the lessons learned. Wouldn't that be a refreshing change...

That's a typical statist attitude. The principal can set the training standard. Smart principals will require teachers to complete a course first, to include such topics as firearms retention.

If such signs are up they must be hidden from sight because I've never seen one.

You're on a roll. Another excellent post.

Allowing teachers to become armed guards is not the solution. I teach security guards to shoot & also work as an armed guard. Its a typical example of something that appears simple & is not. The average female teacher is not interested in guns or becoming proficient with firearms. If the gun is concealed where is the gun concealed. This is even more difficult with female teachers. Does the armed teacher have the skill & desire to put down an armed shooter? There are some on the Fire that think they are prepared to put them selves in harms way that at the moment of truth would fail. How many teachers are willing to become proficient & stay proficient with a firearm. Teachers need to focus on educating children not becoming armed guards.

Well, at any rate, it certainly behooves you and your ilk to promote and maintain said impression. Your strategy, when you cannot defeat a man's argument, is to attack the man himself. Old as the hills, and well practiced among the left at least since Stalin.

And that's the part I left out above.

There's enough way too much "us vs them" attitude and separation and elitism that inevitably arises with these things as it is.

The age old "divide and conquer" MO is another of life's and history's lessons that don't seem to soak in as should. Someone involved is going to start believing himself more special than everyone else and more deserving of power and authority and his head swells and his group of followers follow and yada yada yada.
That chit gets old.
I'd think people would tire of it, see through it, and strive to avoid it.

Well said.

So do we pay these teachers another salary? After all they're educaters and security guards right? Or do we just put trained professionals in the schools and let the teachers focus on what they're suppose to, education, NOT security.

I'd personally would rather have a professional trained security personel to protect my kid in the advent of a school shooting.

EXACTLY!!!!!!

Nah, you're the cutey. I don't see where TRH has ever taken a shot at you, but you cheap shot him when it has nothing to do with the topic. I didn't really single you out because of that, but it's as good a reason as any to bitchslap an undercover assclown. Where does Ron Paul come into this?

In all sincerity, you better get your ducks in a row and figure out whether you're down with your homey Obama or you want to keep your guns. As my amigo Archerhunter says, the simplest solution is generally the best. That's why it is unlikely to ever get done since the government loves both complications and efficiency.

Allowing teachers (those willing to receive the extra certification) to carry concealed while on the job isn't turning them into security guards anymore than I'm turned into a cop because I ordinarily go about with a concealed sidearm. An armed society was meant to be the norm, not the exclusive domain of special agents of state.

Exactly what, exactly?

Nobody is looking to force-feed teachers firearms. If John or Judy Smith are scared of the bad weapons, I sure as hell don't want them anywhere near them.

What many are looking for, myself included, is for everyone to stay the hell out of the way of those who are competent and willing to carry. Remove anything resembling the GFSA and let those who can carry do so.

I am well aware that there are many "armed professionals" who have not always been "gun guys". In this line of work, they are forced to be at least proficient but there's always that itch in the back of my skull when I'm around one. Luckily, I don't have any of "them" in the patrol ranks of my agency.

If we attempt to force anyone in the teaching profession, they likely wouldn't even meet a basic proficiency as they want nothing to do with it. Leave those folks alone and let them continue on as they are.

George

Exactly!

Keep up that haughty arrogance schtick and before you know it you will have painted yourself into the time for another screen name change corner....

The idea that a small % of educators would have both the aptitude and desire to function well in such a role has merit.... The possibility that someone one with only the very minimal training required to get a concealed carry permit making things much worse is also a concerning possibility...

The bad guys not knowing who might be blended into the school setting fully prepared to end them....... IMO, A priceless force multiplier

First sentence of his post "allowing teacher to become armed gaurds is not the solution"

I'd agree with this because that small % will educate themselfs how to react in a life treating situation,they will become proficant with a firearm...IMO. But unfortunately i think that would be a small % of teachers.

Just like violent crime always drops in shall issue States where only a small % of people actually carry..... Violent crime would drop in schools if only a small % of school personal had proper training in crisis management that included up to the use of lethal force if necessary.....

I'd think ammunition companies would be falling all over themselves to donate training ammo..... Gun makes wanting positive PR the same..... People will the skill set to offer advanced training to school personal who had first volunteered and then been CAREFULLY screened.... Who would not offer their time?

As long as only those with a need to know knew who had that training the psychopaths would think long and hard before targeting another elementary school IMO.

IMO we'll never see a bill passed to "arm teachers" just like we don't arm bank tellers,judges or attorneys in the court house, people that work in federal buildings and so on and so forth. They have trained professionals to provide security. I think that's what we'll see in our schools. HOWEVER,if a teacher "chooses" to be armed and takes the encentive to become trained, as long as they can legally carry a concealed weapon i would not be opposed. But to put the added responsability of security on teachers isn't the solution.

Certainly won't turn out any worse than unarmed. Pretty simple to figure that out. AND you have a good chance it'll turn out better or MUCH better.

BTW never known 2ndwind to be an Obama supporter FWIW.

Of course we have had Ron Paul here and I have personally spoken with the man. Not a bad legislator in many facets, but a fruit loop nonetheless.

I've been offline since 12/22 and only have few minutes to read and comment on this thread, but was asked to do so by a member, so, here we go.

First thing... as you say, Gravestone, the number of teachers who will seek training and meet proficiency standards will be small % of all teachers. This is NOT an argument against doing it, however. When you look at John Lott's More Guns Less Crime you see that only 2-3% of the citizens in any Shall-Issue CCW state elect to do so... but Lott's data show that the effect on crime is significant as criminals are aware that anyone they select as a victim may be a CCW holder.

It's probable that the % of teachers who elect to carry concealed firearms at school would be roughly equivalent to the % we see in the general population. But if school boards tack on higher requirements for them to do this, the number will go down.

It doesn't take a post-doc in math to figure that since most schools have fewer than 100 teachers (rough averages: elementary schools have 20-30, high schools 50-60, last time I looked) this means that if only 1-2 teachers out of every 100 would voluntarily carry guns, this means that only 1 out of 5 elementary schools would have an armed teacher, and only 1 out of every 2 or 3 high schools would have one. This is clearly insufficient. So while it seems to me to be a good idea to allow teachers to carry guns if they choose to meet the proficiency standards, it's not going to be sufficient.

The second option discussed here has been to put armed security guards in every school. This is a really good idea, perhaps the best idea. The problem is that it's gonna be really expensive. So we have to decide who's going to pay for it... will it be the already cash-strapped school boards? Or the cash-strapped police departments? Or some other entity? Whoever it is, guess who's gonna be taking it in the shorts? That's right, us taxpayers. But as Wayne LaPierre pointed out, as a society we put armed guards in our money/banks, our jewellery stores, our stock exchanges, etc, etc, etc, all the things we consider valuable. EXCEPT our children! What lunacy THAT is! So if we truly consider our children the most valuable resource we have in America, we shouldn't balk at paying the money needed for armed security guards.

The third option is to garner community support in the form of volunteerism. I am confident that in almost every rural American community, most suburban communities, and even in many urban communities, there is a small but dedicated cadre of private citizens who are proficient with firearms, possessed of high moral fiber and good character, who would be willing to give their time to serve as "monitors", or some such title, in their local schools. Active and retired cops and firefighters, former military personnel, concerned citizens with advanced firearms training, and so on.

The solution should be some combination of the above 3 choices, in my opinion. What combination of armed teachers, paid security, and armed volunteers is utilized within each school district should be that school district's choice. But federal legislation such as the GFSA needs to be dropped, and further federal legislation is unnecessary... just let the local communities how they want to provide armed security for their kids.

It might be of some value for the feds to pass a law requiring school districts to provide armed security on all school campuses and on all school activities, and open up the courts so that schools that fail to do so adequately are subject to tort remedies. But other than that, I don't think the feds should do a gawddamn thing.

Volunteerism? If they aren't eager enough to volunteer they really have no interest in protecting anything. Cowboy up or find other work.

Public schools pay stipends as incentives to teachers who will work as coaches for the sports teams after school. I see no reason why a similar stipend could not be offered to teachers who are willing to receive training and agree to carry concealed on a semester by semester basis.

Good point, Hawk.

You just make it a job requirement they cowboy up or leave. You don't get a option to use Osha required safety equipment on the job you use it or they fire you.

Damn few good people take up the teaching profession as it is.

Yep and some good ones looking for work in that field are looking for work and can't get it because of some lefty POS with tenure who wouldn't protect anyone even if it was required!

Someplace I saw a back-of-the-napkin calculation on how much it would cost per year to put an officer in every school and the figure was something like 20x the value of all guns sold in a year.