TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:I do not favor making the right to keep and bear arms conditional, but if we refuse to acknowledge political reality, we will accomplish nothing. If this is what it takes to get a foot in the door, so be it.- Jim

I do acknowledge political reality, perhaps more than most. How do you keep the identity of armed staff members confidential, so that they do not become "first targets?" It's still early, so I haven't yet heard any plans that I think are feasible.

There have been many threads on school carry and how "the CHL good guys" should be able to carry because bad people kill good people in "gun free zones". Now that it may be a possibility, all of a sudden you want to mandate special training and permission. What gives?

Either the staff can carry under the authority of CHL or they can't. The school board can either grand persmission or not. They can not supercede Texas State Law by imposing more strict requirements. Requiring them to be licensed security guards defeats the whole purpose.

Teachers or staff with CHLs would be ordinary citizens carrying just like normal. They would now have the means to protect themselves and people they cared about, but they should not be given the responsibility for protection of the students. That is not their role. Giving them special bullets or a few hours of training won't make them LEOs.

I am not saying I don't think additional training isn't a good idea. I am all for taking advanced CHL and conflict resolution training, just not mandating or requiring them. I am merely presenting some of the associated legal and administrative issues that would have to be dealt with.

anygunanywhere wrote:Any special training requirements are absurd for several reasons. Anygunanywhere

Mandating special training requirements could be construed as the CHL holder being employed by the school to protect students as a security person or a body guard. This is against the law.