• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A Real Solution to Protect Our Children From Homicidal Maniacs

ODA 226

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
1,603
Location
Etzenricht, Germany
Guys,
The Progressive/Authoritarians will NEVER allow teachers to carry firearms in schools, with or without a concealed handgun permit. Most state laws prohibit even a holder of a CHP to come onto school property and federal law prohibits the carry of a firearm within a 1000 feet of a K-12 school without a state issued CHP.

Here's a better answer. Let's turn to our "Constitutional Officers" to fix this problem of protecting our children from the crazies and use the same tactics that the Progressive/ Authoritarians use. They circumvent the US Constitution, we USE the power of our "Constitutional Officers" i.e. our local Sheriffs, to circumvent Progressive/Authoritarian "acts" and "laws". How do we circumvent their laws?

We petition our local Sheriffs to Deputize faculty members at our K-12 schools, Junior Colleges and Universities, thus allowing them under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, to carry a concealed weapon in ALL of our schools, thus providing a REAL deterent and providing an IMMEDIATE RESPONSE to any threat to the lives of our most precious resource: OUR CHILDREN.

What say you?
 
Last edited:

Kryteon

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
78
Location
Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
No thanks

I'd be happy to hire professionals with experience and training.
I really don't want to put any childs' life in the hands of someone who I already have serious issues with.
 

KYKevin

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
323
Location
Owensboro, Kentucky, USA
Hire our unemployed and retired vets who want some part time work. I am sure they would love to help protect our children. I can't think of a better and more rewarding job for vets.
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
Guys,
The Progressive/Authoritarians will NEVER allow teachers to carry firearms in schools, with or without a concealed handgun permit. Most state laws prohibit even a holder of a CHP to come onto school property and federal law prohibits the carry of a firearm within a 1000 feet of a K-12 school without a state issued CHP.

Here's a better answer. Let's turn to our "Constitutional Officers" to fix this problem of protecting our children from the crazies and use the same tactics that the Progressive/ Authoritarians use. They circumvent the US Constitution, we USE the power of our "Constitutional Officers" i.e. our local Sheriffs, to circumvent Progressive/Authoritarian "acts" and "laws". How do we circumvent their laws?

We petition our local Sheriffs to Deputize faculty members at our K-12 schools, Junior Colleges and Universities, thus allowing them under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, to carry a concealed weapon in ALL of our schools, thus providing a REAL deterent and providing an IMMEDIATE RESPONSE to any threat to the lives of our most precious resource: OUR CHILDREN.

What say you?

This is a great idea, but there is only one problem: it places more power into the hands of "officials" and creates another special class.

We need to work at the state level and get our state legislatures to rescind any law that prohibits the carry of firearms on K-12 school property; yes, in some states this will be easier than others. We already have a federal law that allows only license holders to carry on K-12 school property, so rescind any state legislation standing in the way and then anyone with a license/permit can defend our children. I know, the license/permit is a joke, but atleast we would have some that would then be able to defend our children's lives.

It would be hard to get a sheriff or other Constitutional officer (if they even still exist in some states) to deputize certain people. Also, LEOSA states that "As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an EMPLOYEE of a governmental agency who..." I don't think a reserve officer would be considered an employee in most departments, because they are not a full or part-time officer/deputy, they are a reserve. Being a reserve, they are not employed by the agency, and they would not qualify for LEOSA protections.

Also, the real killer is the following: "This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that: prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park." So, if there is a state statute that prohibits the carrying of firearms on K-12 school property, LEOSA does not apply. Most states make exceptions for officers of the state, but most states exclude reserve or special officers/deputies from this exception.
 
Last edited:

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
A lot depends on what state your in Wis. deputizeing some one would make them a LEO requireing them to attend police officer Minimum standards training thats over 500 hrs of training.

Really no need for that amount of training.

40 hrs of intense training with 8 hrs of refresher a couple of times of year would be plenty.

The biggest thing would be finding people that would want to and commit themselves and would be willing to protect the school and students.

Heck most people with out traning can tell when some one is trying to kill them.

Be able to shoot when needed being willing to go towards gun fire instead away from it.

Not useing your weapon improperly. Other wise good stable cititzens who have common sense.

There are most likely a couple of those among the staff of any school. Not all staff would meet those requirements.

But we would most likely just need a few in each school.
 

Ken56

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
368
Location
Dandridge, TN
There is a school administrator (principal) in Texas that has told all his CPL holding teachers to arm themselves. It was on the national news last night. Sorry I can't provide a link.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
571.030 - Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.

1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

(10) Carries a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any school, onto any school bus, or onto the premises of any function or activity sponsored or sanctioned by school officials or the district school board.

4. Subdivisions (1), (8), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 or a valid permit or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another state or political subdivision of another state.

5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031.

563.031 - Use of force in defense of persons. http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5630000031.HTM
We here in Missouri seem to have addressed this issue. The rub with this is that the "shall not apply" is different that "is a defense against." Not being a lawyer, or attorney, a member well versed in the legal linguistics is required to explain the difference. My layman's interpretation may be far off the mark.
 

matt2636

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
201
Location
cedar rapids
Hire our unemployed and retired vets who want some part time work. I am sure they would love to help protect our children. I can't think of a better and more rewarding job for vets.

good idea but i would do it for free.we have volunteer firefighters why not have some sort of volunteer security force that works with leo? i find it a little offensive that people are trying to create a new security job off the deaths of people and kids. not only that the cost of going to school would sky rocket.
 

KYKevin

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
323
Location
Owensboro, Kentucky, USA
good idea but i would do it for free.we have volunteer firefighters why not have some sort of volunteer security force that works with leo? i find it a little offensive that people are trying to create a new security job off the deaths of people and kids. not only that the cost of going to school would sky rocket.

So would I as I am retired. But this would also help out those vets who are unemployed and in need of money for living expenses. I find nothing offensive about it myself. It is something we should have had BEFORE this incident. As to the cost. I don't care if my taxes go up for this. The safety of the children over ride the cost in money in my opinion. In fact worrying about the cost would seem more offensive to those who have lost children in such incidents and future ones.
 
Last edited:

RGRTim

New member
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
9
Location
Manassas Park
Sounds good, take it a step farther and increase the pay for any teacher or administrator who signs on to be a guardian. kinda like jump pay, X $ per month that starts once their training and certs are complete.
 

matt2636

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
201
Location
cedar rapids
So would I as I am retired. But this would also help out those vets who are unemployed and in need of money for living expenses. I find nothing offensive about it myself. It is something we should have had BEFORE this incident. As to the cost. I don't care if my taxes go up for this. The safety of the children over ride the cost in money in my opinion. In fact worrying about the cost would seem more offensive to those who have lost children in such incidents and future ones.

yeah your right. i guess i was thinking about school security becoming unionized and bargaining over the safety of kids.
 

unreconstructed1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
695
Location
Tennessee, ,
Sounds good, take it a step farther and increase the pay for any teacher or administrator who signs on to be a guardian. kinda like jump pay, X $ per month that starts once their training and certs are complete.

This has been my position for some time now. It would be a win-win situation. Those who are willing would be rewarded for it, those who aren't wouldn't have to. And as I've said before in other posts, If you can't trust a teacher with a gun, why would you trust them with your child?
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
A lot depends on what state your in Wis. deputizeing some one would make them a LEO requireing them to attend police officer Minimum standards training thats over 500 hrs of training.

Really no need for that amount of training.

40 hrs of intense training with 8 hrs of refresher a couple of times of year would be plenty.

The biggest thing would be finding people that would want to and commit themselves and would be willing to protect the school and students.

Heck most people with out traning can tell when some one is trying to kill them.

Be able to shoot when needed being willing to go towards gun fire instead away from it.

Not useing your weapon improperly. Other wise good stable cititzens who have common sense.

There are most likely a couple of those among the staff of any school. Not all staff would meet those requirements.

But we would most likely just need a few in each school.

I disagree that any person needs any "extra" mandated training to be able to defend themselves and the children in their care. They are either qualified to carry in teh general public, or they are not. It is that simple. We are not talking about law enforcement here, we are talking abouyt bearing arms for our own personal self defence and the defense of others...See WA state Constitution 1/24
 

Keylock

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
196
Location
OKC
I'm surprised anyone would transfer the well being of their children to anyone other than themselves, least of all government employed teachers or government employed prison guards. Boggles the mind.

Of course, if we had constitutionally constrained government (both federal & state), with the restraint coming in the form of minimal, voluntary sales taxes that kept said government small, then perhaps at least one parent could remain home to fulfill the duty of parenting while being able to survive on just one income... much like parents did in the past.

Granted this means that four and five bedroom homes with three bathrooms, two car garages, big screen televisions and tons of other consumer goods might not be affordable... but think... it would be for the benefit of the children. If the welfare of the children is paramount in this nation as claimed...

I digress... who am I kidding, most adults my age were raised spoiled and they've spawned to raise even more spoiled spawn who view guns an evil and therefore to be banned. Ain't karma a beech...
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
The original poster's idea is pretty good in my humble opinion. It deserves to be kicked around on forums across the nation, added to blog comments where relevant, discussed with your local sheriff, etc. Get the idea out there!

Granted, it may not fly in some parts of the country, but that shouldn't diminish the fact that deputizing certain school faculty (and even others willing to provide volunteer security) isn't such a bad idea, really! It is an end-run around state legislative paralysis. Finally, implementation in a handful of jurisdictions would provide helpful precedent to counter the naysayers.

The idea is spot-on and quite clever.

Thanks to the OP for bringing it to our attention. The idea deserves a chance!
 
Last edited:
Top