Utah Teachers Concealed Carry

[jmra]

Good morning. I knew when I wrote this that there would be disagreement. I still stand by my position. In my opinion the correct response to the increase in school shootings is to place a police officer in the schools.
A few people compared this to other scenarios such as church shootings. I am carry in church as well, but again, unless my life or that of someone in my immediate vicinity is in danger I am taking a defensive position and not actively pursuing a suspect. This is exactly the same stance an armed teacher would take. Why is that OK in Church but not OK in a school? Why? Our church has a safety/security team. They are all off duty police officers, except for the one uniformed officer present. They have a response plan that does not, and will not include CHL. Why not? Simple, the response plan is practiced for several different scenarios and responses. None of the CHL holders have been involved in that response. Having folks not familiar with the plans complicates matters. If this is all true then why do you feel a need to carry in Church? Doesn't your carry complicate things? The exact same reason why if there is shooting in a mall, once the police get on scene they really don't want CHL holders involved. Our team tells CHL holders to defend yourself That's all any of us want to do is defend ourselves. But for some reason you are opposed to that just because of my location., but stay down and out of the way, we don't want someone mistaking you for a gunman, especially once the on duty police start to arrive. By the time you get there more than likely what's done is done. But you do a great job with the paperwork and the body bags. The team at our church have ID badges that makes them identifiable.

To clarify one point. A few that responded compared my not wanting teachers to carry to many other professions not carrying. Here is the difference, when it is a one on one situation such as a clerk in a store, taxi driver in a taxi, etc, I have no issue. However, when the environment is anyplace where there are hundreds of bystanders such as a school, church, or mall type setting I do not feel that a CHL holder has the proper training So, what you are really saying is you think CC should not only be banned in schools but also in churches, malls, amusement parks, any place where there are hundreds of people - would that include crowded streets? , except for strictly defending yourself or those in a your immediate area Bingo! You finally get it! This is exactly what teachers want to do!, to respond to that event. I am not saying you should not defend yourself Actually, yes you are. You are against allowing me the opportunity to do exactly that exactly when and where it is most critical., I am against having people start looking for shooter, that creates more problems than it does solutions. Please point to any post anywhere on this forum where it has even been remotely suggested that an armed teacher would go looking for a shooter. I will concede one point, in the Sandy school shooting 3 people did go looking for the shooter. And as is your desire, they were all unarmed. Did I mention that they are all dead?

I can wrap this up very neatly. All one has to do is look at your very words and it becomes obvious that in reality you are opposed to anyone other than police carrying firearms.

You can say you are pro CHL and pro 2A all you want. But the Ideology portrayed in the thoughts you have posted scream otherwise!

Good day sir.

[jmra]

Well let's throw another wrench into this. Under current Texas law, if a group is charged with the protection of others then the DPS requires a security license. This same law makes a "team" of Chl holders providing protection at a church illegal.
Interesting enough law makes it illegal for a Chl holder who is a licensed private investigator to carry a firearm while acting as a private investigator..
Our own state makes it harder to defend ourselves depending on how we are titled at the moment.

Teachers are asking only for the same thing everyone else, including yourself, is asking for - the right to defend ourselves. If in doing so, we save the lives of a couple of dozen kids, well Texas law (the last time I checked) does allow a CHL to defend others whose life is in danger.

By the way, your argument is blown out of the water by the actions of Harrold ISD who has been doing the very thing you just suggested was illegal since 2008.

[Purplehood]

And our conversation was going along so cordially thus far...

[Divided Attention]

Chasfm11 - You are right, those that I wouldn't want to see armed are likely not the type that would pursue their CHL in the first place.

I am a firm believer in ANYONE carrying anywhere should pursue further training other than a static range. Even the PPITH & PPOTH the NRA offers gets the wheels turning.

As a parent, armed citizen, and school employee, this is a tough subject. There are some great observations floating around here! Perspective is an amazing thing!

[TexasCajun]

I'd like to see a licensing provision that allows for reduced restrictions on where a CHL holder could carry based on increased training. For instance, get a basic CHL with the current 10hr course or get an enhanced CHL with the current 10hr course plus additional traing such as the NRA Personal Protection series. Several of the bigger indoor ranges around Houston already offer advanced training for just a little more than the CHL course. It probably wouldn't take much to tweak those into an enhanced licensing requirement.

But regardless of how it's done, the arming of school personel is still a last-ditch-effort at reducing the intended effect of the next psychotic murderer out there. And it should only be done on a voluntary basis as an addition to the professional & armed staff that need to be in place first along with making the schools harder targets.

Edited to include: The enhanced CHL would allow concealed carry by CHL holder almost everywhere an on-duty LEO could carry (minus bars & 30.06 posted businesses).

[jmra]

And our conversation was going along so cordially thus far...

You are correct. I will edit my last post.

[sfemti33]

And our conversation was going along so cordially thus far...

You are correct. I will edit my last post.

Why? I, for one, agree.

[jmra]

And our conversation was going along so cordially thus far...

You are correct. I will edit my last post.

Why? I, for one, agree.

Keeping the same thoughts, just trying to be more civil.

[jmra]

I'd like to see a licensing provision that allows for reduced restrictions on where a CHL holder could carry based on increased training. For instance, get a basic CHL with the current 10hr course or get an enhanced CHL with the current 10hr course plus additional traing such as the NRA Personal Protection series. Several of the bigger indoor ranges around Houston already offer advanced training for just a little more than the CHL course. It probably wouldn't take much to tweak those into an enhanced licensing requirement.

But regardless of how it's done, the arming of school personel is still a last-ditch-effort at reducing the intended effect of the next psychotic murderer out there. And it should only be done on a voluntary basis as an addition to the professional & armed staff that need to be in place first along with making the schools harder targets.

I see where you are coming from, but I would like to see less restrictions/requirements on our God given right - not more.

[TexasCajun]

If we could get extended carry priveleges under the current system, I'd be all for it. But with the latest cluster of lawlessness & mass murder incidents, I'm skeptical that it would pass. The enhanced training provision would be a fall-back position that our allies in the state legislature could use to keep things moving in the right direction. It just seems to me that an all-or-nothing approach gets us mostly nothing.

[fickman]

Well let's throw another wrench into this. Under current Texas law, if a group is charged with the protection of others then the DPS requires a security license. This same law makes a "team" of Chl holders providing protection at a church illegal.
Interesting enough law makes it illegal for a Chl holder who is a licensed private investigator to carry a firearm while acting as a private investigator..
Our own state makes it harder to defend ourselves depending on how we are titled at the moment.

The idea is NOT to equip teachers as an organized armed response!!!

Respectfully, you're missing the argument. I also encourage CHL advocates to stop with the "a CHL could stop a mass murder". Maybe they could. Maybe they wouldn't. We are not counting on armed teachers as our school defense program.

The POINT is that - at the very minute a firearm turns in the direction of one individual teacher, that person should have the dignity to exercise a right to defend themselves if they so choose. If a mass murder is happening and the offender never engages the teachers that chose to arm themselves, he would likely continue unopposed until the police arrive (and finally get around to deciding to enter the building).

But if the shooter happened to force his way into a classroom where a teacher has decided that their life (and the lives of the children for whom they are responsible) are worth defending, then the attacker will meet resistance.

In all likelihood, if the shooter had already been active elsewhere in the building, the teacher would be in a defensive position, behind a closed / locked / barricaded door, between the students and the shooter, and give it all they can should the attacker gain entrance to the room.

Yeah, 10 hours is more than sufficient for that. Four hours is more than sufficient for that. Many will voluntarily choose to get additional tactical training. Good for them if they do.

If you value the sanctity of life and the dignity of self defense, you have to see that allowing CHLers - teachers, administrators, and parents included - to carry in school is the right thing to do. It's a moral imperative. The only additional restriction I could back is to enforce on-body carrying in schools. That's it. Otherwise, allow unfettered access for CHLers to all school grounds, whether they are employees or not.

[Dragonfighter]

My guess is that you could eliminate virtually all school shootings by merely eliminating gun free zones, and making CHLs "shall issue" and nationwide. I can drive anywhere in the US on my driver's license, no problem, and always have been able to do so since the day I passed the driving test a long, long time ago.

Anybody ever heard of one of these goons going nuts and attacking a gun shop?

Yes (1990 up in Washington state). Didn't work out to well for the bad guy though. He walked past a cop car parked outside and the cop that was visiting and the owner returned fire (one account says several patrons as well) and he went down with multiple shots to the torso. Died some time later in the hospital.

[jmra]

Well let's throw another wrench into this. Under current Texas law, if a group is charged with the protection of others then the DPS requires a security license. This same law makes a "team" of Chl holders providing protection at a church illegal.
Interesting enough law makes it illegal for a Chl holder who is a licensed private investigator to carry a firearm while acting as a private investigator..
Our own state makes it harder to defend ourselves depending on how we are titled at the moment.

The idea is NOT to equip teachers as an organized armed response!!!

Respectfully, you're missing the argument. I also encourage CHL advocates to stop with the "a CHL could stop a mass murder". Maybe they could. Maybe they wouldn't. We are not counting on armed teachers as our school defense program.

The POINT is that - at the very minute a firearm turns in the direction of one individual teacher, that person should have the dignity to exercise a right to defend themselves if they so choose. If a mass murder is happening and the offender never engages the teachers that chose to arm themselves, he would likely continue unopposed until the police arrive (and finally get around to deciding to enter the building).

But if the shooter happened to force his way into a classroom where a teacher has decided that their life (and the lives of the children for whom they are responsible) are worth defending, then the attacker will meet resistance.

In all likelihood, if the shooter had already been active elsewhere in the building, the teacher would be in a defensive position, behind a closed / locked / barricaded door, between the students and the shooter, and give it all they can should the attacker gain entrance to the room.

Yeah, 10 hours is more than sufficient for that. Four hours is more than sufficient for that. Many will voluntarily choose to get additional tactical training. Good for them if they do.

If you value the sanctity of life and the dignity of self defense, you have to see that allowing CHLers - teachers, administrators, and parents included - to carry in school is the right thing to do. It's a moral imperative. The only additional restriction I could back is to enforce on-body carrying in schools. That's it. Otherwise, allow unfettered access for CHLers to all school grounds, whether they are employees or not.

[Dragonfighter]

Well let's throw another wrench into this. Under current Texas law, if a group is charged with the protection of others then the DPS requires a security license. This same law makes a "team" of Chl holders providing protection at a church illegal.
Interesting enough law makes it illegal for a Chl holder who is a licensed private investigator to carry a firearm while acting as a private investigator..
Our own state makes it harder to defend ourselves depending on how we are titled at the moment.

The idea is NOT to equip teachers as an organized armed response!!!

Respectfully, you're missing the argument. I also encourage CHL advocates to stop with the "a CHL could stop a mass murder". Maybe they could. Maybe they wouldn't. We are not counting on armed teachers as our school defense program.

The POINT is that - at the very minute a firearm turns in the direction of one individual teacher, that person should have the dignity to exercise a right to defend themselves if they so choose. If a mass murder is happening and the offender never engages the teachers that chose to arm themselves, he would likely continue unopposed until the police arrive (and finally get around to deciding to enter the building).

But if the shooter happened to force his way into a classroom where a teacher has decided that their life (and the lives of the children for whom they are responsible) are worth defending, then the attacker will meet resistance.

In all likelihood, if the shooter had already been active elsewhere in the building, the teacher would be in a defensive position, behind a closed / locked / barricaded door, between the students and the shooter, and give it all they can should the attacker gain entrance to the room.

Yeah, 10 hours is more than sufficient for that. Four hours is more than sufficient for that. Many will voluntarily choose to get additional tactical training. Good for them if they do.

If you value the sanctity of life and the dignity of self defense, you have to see that allowing CHLers - teachers, administrators, and parents included - to carry in school is the right thing to do. It's a moral imperative. The only additional restriction I could back is to enforce on-body carrying in schools. That's it. Otherwise, allow unfettered access for CHLers to all school grounds, whether they are employees or not.

Well put. This mastication about training, extra training, tactical training, ad nauseum brings me to this question. Given that many who carry would (and do) voluntarily seek extra training and practice, who gets to decide that teacher A who has a CHL (or anyone for that matter) and no additional training has less right to protect themselves than teacher B who has military and/or additional tac training?

When we look at states such as Utah, remember that teacher carry is voluntary, not mandatory. Additional training is available. Harrold ISD has extra training and frangible ammunition requisites for their teachers to carry. And ALL is on person carry.

If you knew there was a resource officer or armed security on location, who would be the first you'd take out if you were cooked and looking to massacre? But enven in the most deranged and evil mindset, if your intended target had an unknown number of weapons in unknown locations, you'd go elsewhere. History proves this out, again and again.

[srothstein]

We are not counting on armed teachers as our school defense program.

<snip>

But if the shooter happened to force his way into a classroom where a teacher has decided that their life (and the lives of the children for whom they are responsible) are worth defending, then the attacker will meet resistance.

In all likelihood, if the shooter had already been active elsewhere in the building, the teacher would be in a defensive position, behind a closed / locked / barricaded door, between the students and the shooter, and give it all they can should the attacker gain entrance to the room.

I beg to differ. I AM counting on teachers as our school defense program. I want them to defend my child while he is in school and I do hold them responsible for this defense. In this case, by teachers, I am truly referring to all school personnel in general. We sometimes mistakenly think teachers are the only people in the school. This is one reason I am so strong in my position that teachers should be allowed to be armed.

I put my money (what little I have) in a bank with armed guards to protect it. I put valuable documents in a bank safety deposit box for the same reason. I value my children more than any amount of money or documents. Why would I not want them to be guarded by armed guards who feel responsible for their defense?

Your argument about how to defend the children, such as search out the shooter or blockade the door to their room are merely questions of tactics. I agree that a teacher in a room full of children should probably blockade the door and take a strong defensive position while trying to maneuver the children into a safer spot (much like the one teacher did at Newtown, hiding the children in the closet). But we are missing the fact that no teacher is with the children the whole time they are in school. A certain number are always on a break, in the office, preparing for class, lunch, etc. I would expect them to respond in some way also.

One of the reasons I have always recommended CHLs is that it takes too long for the police to respond. The quickest response in a school will be by the school personnel. It could be a teacher who is not with the class at the minute, an administrator, a police officer assigned to the campus, or a volunteer parent allowed to carry. In any case, I do think the school system is responsible for the safety of the children in their care and we MUST make sure the administration is aware of this responsibility.