Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Missouri Lawmakers Pass Bill to Arm Teachers

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    why?
    Posts
    432

    Missouri Lawmakers Pass Bill to Arm Teachers

    .
    Last edited by scott58dh; 06-15-2014 at 03:51 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member hhofent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    142
    Would this be the second state where kids are actually safe at school? Next to Utah?

    "Reader, suppose you were an
    idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But, I repeat myself."
    -Mark Twain.

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    RSMo 571.107.1

    (10) Any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility without the consent of the governing body of the higher education institution or a school official or the district school board. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;


    (11) Any portion of a building used as a child care facility without the consent of the manager. Nothing in this subdivision shall prevent the operator of a child care facility in a family home from owning or possessing a firearm or a concealed carry permit or endorsement;

    2. Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121, or a concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises....
    Schools in MO have had the authority to grant anyone to carry on school grounds for quite a while.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Schools in MO have had the authority to grant anyone to carry on school grounds for quite a while.
    Yep, one rural district in my area has had some school personnel carrying concealed for 2 or 3 years now with no issues what so ever.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    The change that 656 allows is the schools can now train the teachers for specifically 'School Protection Officers'. The 107.1 just allowed the schools to allow teachers to carry for "their' protection; they couldn't act in a SPO capacity.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by 9026543 View Post
    Yep, one rural district in my area has had some school personnel carrying concealed for 2 or 3 years now with no issues what so ever.
    Seriously? But won't there be a gunfight in the schools with teachers shooting each other and hit the innocent children?
    /S off
    Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    I suspect that being allowed to defend yourself, while uncertified to do so, is not much different that being certified to do so. All ya gotta do is get teachers to sign up for the job.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513
    The New York Times even had a half decent article at the time on the arming of the school staff.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/us...anted=all&_r=0

    Another article on this. None of the guns have jumped out of their holster and shot anyone so far.

    http://www.ozarksfirst.com/story/oza...-0arEdyOo577eQ
    Last edited by 9026543; 05-30-2014 at 08:27 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513
    Gov Nixon has stated that he is against arming school staff. There is nothing in this bill that forces school districts to arm their staff but Nixon will probably twist it all around to make people think that it does and will use that as a reason to veto.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Oddly enough, I think that Nixon vetoing it is the best outcome politically. If he does, it will be overridden easily in the veto override session in September. Plus we will have the members inclined to vow against it doing so just about one month before a general election. That kind of thing is a blessing to the Republicans. If Nixon had half a brain he'll stick it in his pocket and not mention it again. Luckily, I don't think he's that smart.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by kcgunfan; 06-01-2014 at 11:29 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by 9026543 View Post
    Gov Nixon has stated that he is against arming school staff. There is nothing in this bill that forces school districts to arm their staff but Nixon will probably twist it all around to make people think that it does and will use that as a reason to veto.
    Nope, but it is definitely being twisted. The Snooze-Leader here has tried to portray the bill as the teachers can just automatically start carrying immediately. They like to quote the PTA leader for MO who is against it. They don't list a teacher can now carry with permission.

    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    Oddly enough, I think that Nixon vetoing it is the best outcome politically. If he does, it will be overridden easily in the veto override session in September. Plus we will have the members inclined to vow against it doing so just about one month before a general election. That kind of thing is a blessing to the Republicans. If Nixon had half a brain he'll stick it in his pocket and not mention it again. Luckily, I don't think he's that smart.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
    Nixon being lame duck, plus those who are lame ducks in the House/Senate can do as they wish with no fear of reprisal. That can go both ways. With Senator Dixon's history this year; I could see him voting against it. Nixon has nothing to gain by signing it. The teachers union and the PTA are lobbying heavily for it not to be signed. Gubbinor Nixon will follow their wishes.

    Can the veto be over-ridden? Good question. We will see.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lees Summit
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post

    Can the veto be over-ridden? Good question. We will see.
    Unlikely, As we saw last year with "VETO PROOF MAJORITY" there is no such thing!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    Nope, but it is definitely being twisted. The Snooze-Leader here has tried to portray the bill as the teachers can just automatically start carrying immediately. They like to quote the PTA leader for MO who is against it. They don't list a teacher can now carry with permission.



    Nixon being lame duck, plus those who are lame ducks in the House/Senate can do as they wish with no fear of reprisal. That can go both ways. With Senator Dixon's history this year; I could see him voting against it. Nixon has nothing to gain by signing it. The teachers union and the PTA are lobbying heavily for it not to be signed. Gubbinor Nixon will follow their wishes.

    Can the veto be over-ridden? Good question. We will see.
    I think you overestimate the number of lame ducks. According to http://www.house.mo.gov/researchdocs/?file=termlim.htm , there is a max of 10 Reps that are lame ducked, and that doesn't include any that are looking forward to moving onto other political offices. Out of 163 represntatives, that's only 6% max that might be lame ducks. I'm not considering that to be overly important. As far as Nixon goes, we'll see, but I think getting everyone's position on this bill a couple months before the election is good for democracy, but something the Democrats don't particularly want. So, that's why I think Nixon will pocket sign it. That way he doesn't lose face, and nobody has to be on the record as being against it.

    Do you have a link to that News Leader article? Having grown up there, I like to keep track of what the dummies are saying.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    I think you overestimate the number of lame ducks. According to http://www.house.mo.gov/researchdocs/?file=termlim.htm , there is a max of 10 Reps that are lame ducked, and that doesn't include any that are looking forward to moving onto other political offices. Out of 163 represntatives, that's only 6% max that might be lame ducks. I'm not considering that to be overly important. As far as Nixon goes, we'll see, but I think getting everyone's position on this bill a couple months before the election is good for democracy, but something the Democrats don't particularly want. So, that's why I think Nixon will pocket sign it. That way he doesn't lose face, and nobody has to be on the record as being against it.

    Do you have a link to that News Leader article? Having grown up there, I like to keep track of what the dummies are saying.
    I stand corrected....sorry about the mis-information....there were several articles around the same time preaching the same montra and I thought the Snooze-Leader had the article. Instead, it was KY3, through the AP. Here is the link: http://www.ky3.com/news/local/teache...48998_26265590

    As to the House lame-ducks; I haven't researched the numbers and if you know, of those 10 or so, how many of them voted for it initially? What about the Senate? My concern has been the Senate. IIRC, it passed the Senate but with only with a 1 or 2 vote margin for an override, at best. My Senator, Dixon was conspicuously absent for the vote. 21 voted for it, 8 against and 2 absent.

    I don't disagree about Nixon possibly pocket signing it. IIRC, in some prior conversations, he is interested in pursuing a Senate seat in the next couple of years. This would give him some conservative credence if he did allow the pocket signing. I would rather him do that then take it to a veto session. Again, my concern in it getting an override is the Senate.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •