• 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.

Missouri Lawmakers Pass Bill to Arm Teachers

hhofent

hhofent

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
130
Location
Iowa
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.
 
OC for ME

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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....
Click to expand...
Schools in MO have had the authority to grant anyone to carry on school grounds for quite a while.
 
9

9026543

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
509
Location
Southern MO
OC for ME said:
Schools in MO have had the authority to grant anyone to carry on school grounds for quite a while.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Redbaron007

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
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.
 
K

kylemoul

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
640
Location
st louis
9026543 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Seriously? But won't there be a gunfight in the schools with teachers shooting each other and hit the innocent children?
/S off
 
OC for ME

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 
9

9026543

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
509
Location
Southern MO
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.
 
K

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
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:
Redbaron007

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
9026543 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :eek:

kcgunfan said:
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
Click to expand...

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. :mad:

Can the veto be over-ridden? Good question. We will see.
 
K

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
Redbaron007 said:
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. :eek:



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. :mad:

Can the veto be over-ridden? Good question. We will see.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Redbaron007

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
kcgunfan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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/teachers-wary-of-concealed-weapons-in-class/21048998_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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top