TexasCHLforum.com

I had the opportunity on Fox and Friends this morning to raise awareness and educate folks on my program for keeping our schools safe.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shield 91

I'm all for allowing faculty to carry with a CHL, but I'm a little concerned about the required psych eval. Does that become ammo for anti-2nd amendment folks - if teachers have to have it, shouldn't everyone?

I honestly have no problem with a psych eval. I mean, if you're in a position as a teacher / leadership, shouldn't you be able to pass one?
However, I recognize that the devil is in the details. Those psyc evals could be expensive and they place the people doing the evaluations perhaps in a position of great liability. There would also need to be some uniform standard around the evaluation, which isn't terribly easy to make such an exam totally objective.

Again, I'm in the minority here, but requiring some sort of basic mental competency would put and end to a major complaint of the anti-2nd amendment establishment. If you point out that it wouldn't prevent someone from illegally obtaining a firearm, that's true... And if you pointed out that it *might* be used to somewhat less than subjectively deny ownership, I'd say that's true also. So basically, I support the idea, but can't come up with a practical way to implement.

I was in the second Federal Flight Deck Officer class back in August of 2003 (I am retired now so I can publicly say this). We too had to have a psych eval. There was ONE shrink in Houston that was approved by the Feds for the entire state of Texas. Everyone from Texas applying for this program had to use this gentleman. He was a gun friendly Psychologist and the evaluation was fairly straight forward. We also took the standard psych written test. California also had only one shrink for the entire state, and that person WAS NOT gun friendly. Almost everyone going before him/her was rejected for the program. I was a former Military Pilot with a nuclear mission and it struck me as kind of ironic when the shrink asked if I thought I could kill someone.

howdy wrote:I was in the second Federal Flight Deck Officer class back in August of 2003 (I am retired now so I can publicly say this). We too had to have a psych eval. There was ONE shrink in Houston that was approved by the Feds for the entire state of Texas. Everyone from Texas applying for this program had to use this gentleman. He was a gun friendly Psychologist and the evaluation was fairly straight forward. We also took the standard psych written test. California also had only one shrink for the entire state, and that person WAS NOT gun friendly. Almost everyone going before him/her was rejected for the program. I was a former Military Pilot with a nuclear mission and it struck me as kind of ironic when the shrink asked if I thought I could kill someone.

Pretty much everything I have ever read about the FFDO program makes it seem as if the government intended to make it as difficult as possible for a pilot to have and use a pistol to defend himself and the aircraft. It's almost like they didn't really want to the program to work....

I would like to see an upgraded level CHL that allows carry in schools. That random untraceable coverage might go a long way toward keeping schools saver since bad guys couldn't know if/when there might be additional capable armed individuals at the campus.

LDB415 wrote:I would like to see an upgraded level CHL that allows carry in schools. That random untraceable coverage might go a long way toward keeping schools saver since bad guys couldn't know if/when there might be additional capable armed individuals at the campus.

I would like to see schools as a CHL allowed area.

troglodyte wrote:
I would like to see schools as a CHL allowed area.

that I would like too... i eat with my daughter once a week at her school and have always been locking my weapon in the truck while visiting

I was a former Military Pilot with a nuclear mission and it struck me as kind of ironic when the shrink asked if I thought I could kill someone.

HUMMM it strikes me as he is stupid. I've never saw a shrink but from what I hear about the kind of questions they ask, they are the ones who need examined. Example a person is taken to shrink ward because he attempts to kill himself. Short time later they release him because he promised not to hurt himself or anyone else. Well that tells me one of 2 things, either he shouldn't have been taken there of else he should be kept.

cb1000rider wrote:I honestly have no problem with a psych eval. I mean, if you're in a position as a teacher / leadership, shouldn't you be able to pass one?

At what point does a spotless record become proof that a psych eval is not needed? I mean, I would think that walking the earth for 50 years (or some number less than that) without ever having an 'incident' worse than a single '15 mph over' speeding ticket is proof of psych fitness in itself. So doesn't the background check function as a practical (and ongoing) exam?

NOMW wrote:I had the opportunity on Fox and Friends this morning to raise awareness and educate folks on my program for keeping our schools safe.

Greg, thanks so much for spearheading this. Regardless of the difficulty in getting school districts to accept a School Marshal program, the requirement compromises we might have to make, or the stress of advertising it (on live television), these kids deserve to be protected and I'm glad you've gotten some success with this. I just wish more school districts would see the light...

tyree wrote:

NOMW wrote:I had the opportunity on Fox and Friends this morning to raise awareness and educate folks on my program for keeping our schools safe.

Greg, thanks so much for spearheading this. Regardless of the difficulty in getting school districts to accept a School Marshal program, the requirement compromises we might have to make, or the stress of advertising it (on live television), these kids deserve to be protected and I'm glad you've gotten some success with this. I just wish more school districts would see the light...

Thanks Tyree and it is a sad state of affairs when we have to use this measure to keep our schools safe.

cb1000rider wrote:I honestly have no problem with a psych eval. I mean, if you're in a position as a teacher / leadership, shouldn't you be able to pass one?

That sounds like a good argument for all teachers and administrators K-12. No reason to single out those who carry a gun, wear a Saint Cristopher medal, or take birth control pills.

troglodyte wrote:

LDB415 wrote:I would like to see an upgraded level CHL that allows carry in schools. That random untraceable coverage might go a long way toward keeping schools saver since bad guys couldn't know if/when there might be additional capable armed individuals at the campus.

I would like to see schools as a CHL allowed area.

troglodyte wrote:

LDB415 wrote:I would like to see an upgraded level CHL that allows carry in schools. That random untraceable coverage might go a long way toward keeping schools saver since bad guys couldn't know if/when there might be additional capable armed individuals at the campus.

I would like to see schools as a CHL allowed area.

So would I but I doubt it will happen.