TexasCHLforum.com

blwill wrote:

I agree, but passing that is more difficult. I already drafted a bill that would put CHL's on the same footing as LEO's except for carrying in bars and carrying while intoxicated. It's in the hands of a Texas Senator who is deciding if he will file it. I would hope that the Newtown tragedy would greatly improve the changes that it will be filed.

Chas.

How would the definition of "same footing as LEO's" apply to areas posted with 30.06? LEO's can carry into those areas but CHL's can not. Would this "same footing" invalidate those postings?

terryg wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Focusing on mental health issues in response to Newtown is a mistake, in my view.
Chas.

Mr. Cotton,

I understand those concerns - everyone of them. But we do have a mental health care crisis in this country. And as much as it rubs the wrong way to libertarian leaning folks such as ourselves - it needs public funding very very badly as is an issue that impacts all of us. Texas is one of the worst states, but most are very bad.

The school systems are, in most cases, burdened with caring for young children with mental health issues - usually inadequately - until the turn 18 at which point they are dumped on society. Then the justice and prison systems then take over in a vicious cycle with no treatment that only creates a larger monster. All of this cost more $$$ in many cases than if adequate treatments were provided early on.

When the children are young, the parents are capable of physical restraint. But that only works until the kids become stronger than their aging parents.

Read this one account from a mother with no real options for her son: http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.ca/2 ... kable.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So I would respectfully disagree that focusing on mental health issues is a mistake. We just need to make sure the focus is on treatments more than access to guns.

Divided Attention wrote:Then there is the BIG question in my mind... Who is going to pay for the reinforcements and additional securities at the schools?

2firfun50 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

2firfun50 wrote:While I agree with most of the article, I was somewhat put off by the use of the phrase "mental health bogeymen". I suspect many on the forum know or are familar with people who who maybe should not have firearms. If we continue to take the same old positions, we'll see the same results as the last election.

We really need to be ready to address the mental health situation and the wholely inadequate system we have now. It may be the only dog we'll have in the upcoming witch hunt.

Mental health arguments in this context are a bogyman. I'm not saying our mental health facilities and policies are sufficient to deal with people in need, but it's not the answer to mass murderers. There was nothing in Adam Lanza's medical records that would or should be used to involuntarily commit him, at least not that I have seen reported. Look at the other school shooters and to my recollection, none had been diagnosed with a mental illness that would have supported involuntary commitment.

So-called civil commitment is already being discussed and it scares the snot out of me! Declaring someone insane or incompetent was a favored tactic of Hitler, the Soviet Union, North Korea and numerous other oppressive regimes. When the government, rather than psychiatrists, gets to decide who's mentally incompetent, we're in trouble.

On a more practical note, there are people in Washington who support a mandatory psychological exam before being able to own a gun, much less carry it. Focusing on mental health issues in response to Newtown is a mistake, in my view.

Chas.

It has been reported that Adam Lanza had a recognized mental condition, diagnosed by psychiatrists.

2firfun50 wrote:I would suggest that it would be reasonable to require all mental health providers to report to local law enforcement such conditions with recomendations regarding public safety issues such as violent tendancies, driving restrictions, and firearms ownership. Failure to do so, could result in civil and criminal penalties. Local law enforcement would then visit the individual and other members of the household and report to NCIC as appropriate. This approach would be similar to the current requirements to report bullet wounds, child abuse etc.

Moby wrote:Campus-Police Are Not Enough
Some will argue that it is not necessary to spend the millions of dollars required to create truly secure campuses as set out in the first alternative, or to authorize teachers and staff to carry handguns in school as set out in the second alternative. The solution that will be offered is to simply require police officers to be present in all schools.

While having police officers present is desirable, this alone is insufficient. Schools that do have police officers on campus typically have only one or two officers available to respond to threats. This is insufficient even in a small school that has more than one entrance to the building and it is grossly inadequate in large schools that resemble junior colleges in their size and breadth.

Assuming the police officer is not killed attempting to protect students, it is quite likely that the presence of one or two officers will merely reduce the body count. When we’re talking about our children, there is no such thing as an acceptable casualty rate. If the lone officer is killed or incapacitated by the assailant, the students are defenseless and the tragedy at Newtown will be repeated.

I am always leary of absolute statements.
Sometimes police presence IS all that is needed.

Moby wrote:Something not shown on liberal TV news channels was that the Colorado shooter (Aurora) went to three other theators first and when he saw no anti gun signs he went to the next theator. The fourth theator had Colorado's version of 30.06. He knew CHL holders would abide by the law so that was his target.

Moby wrote:A police car and a cop or two is a pretty powerful deterent. I do in fact believe a single cop at an average school with a well marked car out front would be a very strong deterant. Add a cop or two at larger schools and I think this is a very cost effective way to handle school shootings. To add further "layers" of protection (such as the concern a cop get picked off first) add CHL administrators and teachers. A final layer would be single point entry with monitoring as most schools already have.

Moby wrote: Most schools already have single point entry.

Moby wrote:Park a police care near this (or other well exposed area) and a roving cop on campus and that is pretty much the total cost other than teacher administrator training which would be a minimal cost of city police did the training.

Kythas wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Very good article. Would it be possible to craft legislation that would grant immunity to those that are involved in defending the kids during such an incident? Maybe extend this to the trainers as well?

Wouldn't the current Castle Doctine law cover this? After all, a person is already immune from civil liability if he uses force to defend himself in any place he has a legal right to be, as long as he didn't initiate the confrontation.

2firfun50 wrote:While I agree with most of the article, I was somewhat put off by the use of the phrase "mental health bogeymen". I suspect many on the forum know or are familar with people who who maybe should not have firearms. If we continue to take the same old positions, we'll see the same results as the last election.

We really need to be ready to address the mental health situation and the wholely inadequate system we have now. It may be the only dog we'll have in the upcoming witch hunt.

stroo wrote:I really do not like your first proposal. Apart from the cost, it will lead to all the losses of freedom and abuses that the TSA has brought to airports since 9/11.
We do not need this kind of "police state".

Your second proposal is right on! Restrict access to one point. Put bullet proof doors on the classrooms and most importantly and the single thing that will be most effective, let teachers and school staff who have CHLs carry at school!

jimlongley wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I just published an article on http://www.TexasCHLblog.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; regarding two alternatives for increasing campus security. A copy is below.

Chas.

TexasCHLblog.com wrote:Do We Really Want Safe Schools?

In the wake of the tragic Newtown massacre of 20 innocent first grade children and six adults, as a society we have to ask ourselves “do we really want safe schools?” The obvious answer is yes, but if we really mean it, then we must be ready to pass the necessary legislation and provide funding.
There are basically two ways to make our schools safer and each takes a dramatically different approach. One amounts to the “gold standard” but it is incredibly expensive, while the other is less effective, but it is virtually cost-free. If either of these methods are implemented, our precious children have a realistic chance of surviving the rampage of a would-be mass murderer.

Secured limited-access to school buildings

The first method involves truly securing school buildings such that unauthorized entry is virtually impossible. To do this, every entry into a school building must be through double access doors. These doors must contain bullet resistant glass that will withstand all 30 caliber rifle rounds with minimal damage and offering no opportunity to enter the building even when shattered. These doors must also have high security locking mechanisms that are electrically controlled from a position inside the second door. Standard commercial grade locks are not sufficient for this purpose.

The distance between the outer secured door in the inner secured or must be large enough to house metal detectors that everyone entering the building will have to pass through before being allowed to pass through the inner secured door. Armed police officers must be stationed inside both the outer and the inner secure doors and the officer inside the innermost a secured door should also be armed with a 30 caliber semiautomatic rifle in the event the assailant is wearing body armor.

The procedure for entering the school would require that students, faculty and staff present their school identification cards to pass through the outer secured door. Once within the secure buffer zone, each person would then go through metal detectors and their backpacks, briefcases, and any other packages would pass through an x-ray machine. Once cleared, the officer manning the inner secured door can open the inner door to allow entry. A faster alternative for larger schools would require the use of large revolving doors for the inner buffer zone that would allow more students to enter each segment. The doors would have to be constructed from the same bullet resistant glass and the officer guarding this door must be able to lock electronically by pressing a button.

The purpose of the two secure doors is to create an enclosed area that would serve both as a security buffer zone and as a deterrent to anyone who would attempt to enter the school with weapons. If a would-be murderer were to gain access to the outer door by the use of a fake ID, or by following an authorized person and forcing his way in, he would be trapped in the security buffer zone. The officer stationed within the security buffer zone should be able to neutralize the threat either by making an arrest or by engaging the armed intruder. In a worst case scenario, if the officer is wounded or killed the armed intruder would be trapped and no escape would be possible. While there could be innocent students, faculty or staffed also trapped, the number of potential victims would be greatly limited. The close proximity of the potential victims to the assailant could also provide the opportunity for the assailant to be overwhelmed and disarmed, but this would hinge on the age and number of people within the buffer zone.

Double entry doors and a secure buffer zone are not the only changes that would be required. Interior classroom doors need to be made of steel and they must be self-locking that can be opened from inside the classroom simply by pushing on a bar. Entry from the outside will require a key or “smart card.” The same bullet resistant glass must be in a window in the door, but it should be no more than 3 to 4 inches wide so that even if it were broken, the gap would be too small for an assailant to gain entry into the classroom. Bullet resistant glass would also have to be used in all classroom windows and those windows could only be opened from inside the classroom.

At this point, you’re probably thinking that the above-described proposal is going to be shockingly expensive. You are right, it will be incredibly expensive. However, if the tragedy in Newtown is going to be the catalyst for discussion of school safety, then we need to discuss methods that can truly render our schools safe, not placebos such as gun control or mental health bogeymen.

Armed Teachers and Staff

The only other realistic alternative is to allow teachers and staff that have a concealed handgun license to carry handguns in school. If the school opts to do so, it could provide additional training to teachers and staff wishing to carry handguns in school, so long as the school provides this training at no expense to its personnel. It is quite likely that local police departments and sheriff departments will be more than happy to create training programs for such persons and provide the training at little or no cost to the school district.

Armed teachers and staff should be the last line of defense for the children, therefore reasonable steps should also be taken to secure the campus against unauthorized entry and the self-locking steel doors should be installed on each classroom.

Campus-Police Are Not Enough

Some will argue that it is not necessary to spend the millions of dollars required to create truly secure campuses as set out in the first alternative, or to authorize teachers and staff to carry handguns in school as set out in the second alternative. The solution that will be offered is to simply require police officers to be present in all schools.

While having police officers present is desirable, this alone is insufficient. Schools that do have police officers on campus typically have only one or two officers available to respond to threats. This is insufficient even in a small school that has more than one entrance to the building and it is grossly inadequate in large schools that resemble junior colleges in their size and breadth.

Assuming the police officer is not killed attempting to protect students, it is quite likely that the presence of one or two officers will merely reduce the body count. When we’re talking about our children, there is no such thing as an acceptable casualty rate. If the lone officer is killed or incapacitated by the assailant, the students are defenseless and the tragedy at Newtown will be repeated.

Conclusion

We have a choice that must be made and it should be made during the 2013 Texas legislative Session. We can accept the fact that school shootings are quite rare and do nothing. Unfortunately, attacks on our schools may not remain rare in view of the extensive media coverage that actually encourages other would-be mass murderers to commit these atrocities to gain their a “15 minutes of fame.” Regardless of the frequency however, to many Texans (this writer included) crossing our collective fingers and hoping for the best is unacceptable.

As noted previously, there are only two alternate methods of providing a reasonable level of security for our children. The gold standard is to create a truly secure campus, but the cost of doing so will be staggering and beyond the financial capability of most school districts unless federal assistance is available. Allowing licensed teachers and staff to carry handguns in school as they do everywhere outside of the school building, combined with self-locking classroom doors will establish a viable last line of defense for our children.

None of us like the idea of having to turn our schools into buildings that resemble a federal reserve bank or arming teachers and staff so they can prevent our sons and daughters from being butchered. Sadly, for reasons not relevant to this article, this is the reality of the world in which we live.

Chas.

Copy to Facebook?

knotquiteawake wrote:

The only other realistic alternative is to allow teachers and staff that have a concealed handgun license to carry handguns in school. If the school opts to do so, it could provide additional training to teachers and staff wishing to carry handguns in school, so long as the school provides this training at no expense to its personnel. It is quite likely that local police departments and sheriff departments will be more than happy to create training programs for such persons and provide the training at little or no cost to the school district.

This is really the only way I would be comfortable with any teachers or staff carrying in a school. There are a lot of factors to consider in a school active shooter situation that are not covered by the CHL course. I would be very happy if they provided a few days of active shooter and intermediate pistol training in order to allow faculty or staff to carry.

MeMelYup wrote:A parrent with a CHLshould be allowed to carry .

mojo84 wrote:Very good article. Would it be possible to craft legislation that would grant immunity to those that are involved in defending the kids during such an incident? Maybe extend this to the trainers as well?

gigag04 wrote:Chas -

Well written piece sir. Reading it prompted a follow up question though:

Currently, when LEOs attend training, especially use of force, firearms, etc, there is a measure of liability with the trainer. Sometimes in OIS, the trainers will be called to testify, to ensure the court believes the training was reasonable.

How does this liability get handled by the training agency? I don't doubt they would help. However, somebody with gold on their collar will want to know how to mitigate the risk, I'm sure.

TexasCHLblog.com wrote:Do We Really Want Safe Schools?

In the wake of the tragic Newtown massacre of 20 innocent first grade children and six adults, as a society we have to ask ourselves “do we really want safe schools?” The obvious answer is yes, but if we really mean it, then we must be ready to pass the necessary legislation and provide funding.
There are basically two ways to make our schools safer and each takes a dramatically different approach. One amounts to the “gold standard” but it is incredibly expensive, while the other is less effective, but it is virtually cost-free. If either of these methods are implemented, our precious children have a realistic chance of surviving the rampage of a would-be mass murderer.

Secured limited-access to school buildings

The first method involves truly securing school buildings such that unauthorized entry is virtually impossible. To do this, every entry into a school building must be through double access doors. These doors must contain bullet resistant glass that will withstand all 30 caliber rifle rounds with minimal damage and offering no opportunity to enter the building even when shattered. These doors must also have high security locking mechanisms that are electrically controlled from a position inside the second door. Standard commercial grade locks are not sufficient for this purpose.

The distance between the outer secured door in the inner secured or must be large enough to house metal detectors that everyone entering the building will have to pass through before being allowed to pass through the inner secured door. Armed police officers must be stationed inside both the outer and the inner secure doors and the officer inside the innermost a secured door should also be armed with a 30 caliber semiautomatic rifle in the event the assailant is wearing body armor.

The procedure for entering the school would require that students, faculty and staff present their school identification cards to pass through the outer secured door. Once within the secure buffer zone, each person would then go through metal detectors and their backpacks, briefcases, and any other packages would pass through an x-ray machine. Once cleared, the officer manning the inner secured door can open the inner door to allow entry. A faster alternative for larger schools would require the use of large revolving doors for the inner buffer zone that would allow more students to enter each segment. The doors would have to be constructed from the same bullet resistant glass and the officer guarding this door must be able to lock electronically by pressing a button.

The purpose of the two secure doors is to create an enclosed area that would serve both as a security buffer zone and as a deterrent to anyone who would attempt to enter the school with weapons. If a would-be murderer were to gain access to the outer door by the use of a fake ID, or by following an authorized person and forcing his way in, he would be trapped in the security buffer zone. The officer stationed within the security buffer zone should be able to neutralize the threat either by making an arrest or by engaging the armed intruder. In a worst case scenario, if the officer is wounded or killed the armed intruder would be trapped and no escape would be possible. While there could be innocent students, faculty or staffed also trapped, the number of potential victims would be greatly limited. The close proximity of the potential victims to the assailant could also provide the opportunity for the assailant to be overwhelmed and disarmed, but this would hinge on the age and number of people within the buffer zone.

Double entry doors and a secure buffer zone are not the only changes that would be required. Interior classroom doors need to be made of steel and they must be self-locking that can be opened from inside the classroom simply by pushing on a bar. Entry from the outside will require a key or “smart card.” The same bullet resistant glass must be in a window in the door, but it should be no more than 3 to 4 inches wide so that even if it were broken, the gap would be too small for an assailant to gain entry into the classroom. Bullet resistant glass would also have to be used in all classroom windows and those windows could only be opened from inside the classroom.

At this point, you’re probably thinking that the above-described proposal is going to be shockingly expensive. You are right, it will be incredibly expensive. However, if the tragedy in Newtown is going to be the catalyst for discussion of school safety, then we need to discuss methods that can truly render our schools safe, not placebos such as gun control or mental health bogeymen.

Armed Teachers and Staff

The only other realistic alternative is to allow teachers and staff that have a concealed handgun license to carry handguns in school. If the school opts to do so, it could provide additional training to teachers and staff wishing to carry handguns in school, so long as the school provides this training at no expense to its personnel. It is quite likely that local police departments and sheriff departments will be more than happy to create training programs for such persons and provide the training at little or no cost to the school district.

Armed teachers and staff should be the last line of defense for the children, therefore reasonable steps should also be taken to secure the campus against unauthorized entry and the self-locking steel doors should be installed on each classroom.

Campus-Police Are Not Enough

Some will argue that it is not necessary to spend the millions of dollars required to create truly secure campuses as set out in the first alternative, or to authorize teachers and staff to carry handguns in school as set out in the second alternative. The solution that will be offered is to simply require police officers to be present in all schools.

While having police officers present is desirable, this alone is insufficient. Schools that do have police officers on campus typically have only one or two officers available to respond to threats. This is insufficient even in a small school that has more than one entrance to the building and it is grossly inadequate in large schools that resemble junior colleges in their size and breadth.

Assuming the police officer is not killed attempting to protect students, it is quite likely that the presence of one or two officers will merely reduce the body count. When we’re talking about our children, there is no such thing as an acceptable casualty rate. If the lone officer is killed or incapacitated by the assailant, the students are defenseless and the tragedy at Newtown will be repeated.

Conclusion

We have a choice that must be made and it should be made during the 2013 Texas legislative Session. We can accept the fact that school shootings are quite rare and do nothing. Unfortunately, attacks on our schools may not remain rare in view of the extensive media coverage that actually encourages other would-be mass murderers to commit these atrocities to gain their a “15 minutes of fame.” Regardless of the frequency however, to many Texans (this writer included) crossing our collective fingers and hoping for the best is unacceptable.

As noted previously, there are only two alternate methods of providing a reasonable level of security for our children. The gold standard is to create a truly secure campus, but the cost of doing so will be staggering and beyond the financial capability of most school districts unless federal assistance is available. Allowing licensed teachers and staff to carry handguns in school as they do everywhere outside of the school building, combined with self-locking classroom doors will establish a viable last line of defense for our children.

None of us like the idea of having to turn our schools into buildings that resemble a federal reserve bank or arming teachers and staff so they can prevent our sons and daughters from being butchered. Sadly, for reasons not relevant to this article, this is the reality of the world in which we live.

Chas.