School Security Act of 2013 (Chattanooga: insurance, home, school districts)

[An Einnseanair]

I almost posted this in the "Politics and Controversies" forum, but decided to try here first because it's local.

Way back in April, the TN legislature passed a bill that allows school districts to arm teachers. It was signed by the guv on 5/13.

Brief summary:
Schools are already allowed to hire security guards, and they are allowed to be armed. Police officers, active-duty military personnel, and even students participating in a school-sponsored shooting clubs are also allowed to possess weapons on school property. Parents are allowed to possess weapons in vehicles on school property as long as they're just driving through to drop off/pick up students (see TN law 39-17-1309 (c) and (e)). So guns are already allowed on school property, even if most people don't know it.

This bill allows a school to permit a staff member (administrator, teacher, janitor, etc.) to go armed on school property as long as the person:

(1) Possesses a handgun carry permit;
(2) Has the joint written permission of the director of schools and the principal of the school to carry; and
(3) Is a law enforcement officer, or has prior service as a law enforcement officer who is in compliance with all laws, rules and regulations of the peace officer standards and training (POST) commission, and who has successfully completed 40 hours in basic training in school policing. Any such training must be approved by the LEA and the cost of the training, firearm and ammunition will be at the expense of the person seeking authorization and not the LEA.

Requirement (2) is very restrictive, but (3) is the killer. I know lots of teachers, and exactly zero are current or former police officers. The two professions don't exactly attract the same type of person. Plus they would have to pay for their own training. When I read the final version of the bill I dismissed it as useless and forgot about it.

Until an opinion piece in today's Chattanooga Times-Free Press: Arming Tennessee teachers [Note: I'm the "jwkilgore" who left one of the comments on the piece]

Apparently Bradly county has one principle who meets the criteria (former police officer), and a director of schools who is willing to sign the permission slip. The piece is full of hyperbole and misinformation about the law, but it will likely influence a lot of people.

So what do you think? Is it a good idea to provide teachers with a means to defend themselves and their school in the case of a madman attacking, or should that be left to the police?

[hiknapster]

I don't like the current or past law enforcement requirement because, like you said, that knocks almost everyone out of even being able to carry a gun in the schools. But if they are required to have some sort of training then I'm all for it. If you have a carry permit then you have already taken a handgun safety course. Whether that is enough, I'm not certain. I don't have a permit so I don't know.

I find it ludicrous that this writer is afraid of having teachers armed. I'm not and I have a child in the Tennessee school system. What I am afraid of is another nut walking in and gunning down children, again.

I like what you wrote about the teachers sacrificing their lives at Newtown. They did the same in More, Oklahoma during the recent tornadoes. Teachers are a special breed.

[J&Em]

Many teachers are too fearful of guns to ever want to train properly in their use but there are those who also dread being next month's or next years' victim who will not only do a great job getting trained and but will be far less likely to take out kids than that tazer bearing "officer."

It was great that you pointed out just who would and could be armed by law, and that there have been guns in some form in the schools, legally, for a long time with little or no violence ensuing.

[BirdieBelle]

Originally Posted by jwkilgore

I almost posted this in the "Politics and Controversies" forum, but decided to try here first because it's local.

Way back in April, the TN legislature passed a bill that allows school districts to arm teachers. It was signed by the guv on 5/13.

Brief summary:
Schools are already allowed to hire security guards, and they are allowed to be armed. Police officers, active-duty military personnel, and even students participating in a school-sponsored shooting clubs are also allowed to possess weapons on school property. Parents are allowed to possess weapons in vehicles on school property as long as they're just driving through to drop off/pick up students (see TN law 39-17-1309 (c) and (e)). So guns are already allowed on school property, even if most people don't know it.

This bill allows a school to permit a staff member (administrator, teacher, janitor, etc.) to go armed on school property as long as the person:

Requirement (2) is very restrictive, but (3) is the killer. I know lots of teachers, and exactly zero are current or former police officers. The two professions don't exactly attract the same type of person. Plus they would have to pay for their own training. When I read the final version of the bill I dismissed it as useless and forgot about it.

Until an opinion piece in today's Chattanooga Times-Free Press: Arming Tennessee teachers [Note: I'm the "jwkilgore" who left one of the comments on the piece]

Apparently Bradly county has one principle who meets the criteria (former police officer), and a director of schools who is willing to sign the permission slip. The piece is full of hyperbole and misinformation about the law, but it will likely influence a lot of people.

So what do you think? Is it a good idea to provide teachers with a means to defend themselves and their school in the case of a madman attacking, or should that be left to the police?

That's quite a leading question there at the end.

[An Einnseanair]

Originally Posted by Wmsn4Life

That's quite a leading question there at the end.

I think it's a fair question. In the case of an armed madman attacking a school, would it be better for the teachers to try and hide and/or run away while waiting for the police (i.e., good guys with guns) to save them, or would it be better if a few (NOT ALL) teachers had extra training and access to defense weapons already on site?

If you think this revised version is also leading, how would you ask the question?

[BirdieBelle]

Your version is full of emotion, especially the "a means to defend themselves" part that belies your point of view and desired response.

First let's clarify your point.

Are you asking should the school systems pay for and provide training for teachers or if they should ALLOW armed teachers on staff, or BOTH?

[nashvols]

I think a lot of school districts are going to stick with SROs instead. I can understand it in the small counties. I think the larger counties and districts will shy away from it.

[An Einnseanair]

Originally Posted by Wmsn4Life

Your version is full of emotion, especially the "a means to defend themselves" part that belies your point of view and desired response.

First let's clarify your point.

Are you asking should the school systems pay for and provide training for teachers or if they should ALLOW armed teachers on staff, or BOTH?

"A means to defend themselves" is the way I see it, so that's the way I asked it. If your point of view is to not allow teachers the ability to defend themselves and their charges then feel free to phrase your response in wording that makes that position sound reasonable.

Clarifying my point:
Current law allows schools to hire armed guards and/or pay for armed police officers (SROs). As of right now these guards can ONLY serve as guards and cannot perform any other function. As of July 1, the law will be modified to allow teachers/administrators who meet very strict criteria to go armed. Effectively, this means that rural schools without access to SROs and without the funding to hire a dedicated armed guard can have some protection... IF they can find someone who meets the criteria. There is no additional training cost; the employee must be a pre-trained current or former police officer. The only potential cost could be an increase in insurance premiums.

I'm asking if you think this is a step in the right direction, or like the author of the opinion piece I linked to, think that any guns in schools is a horrible idea.


It's slightly off topic, but since you asked, my personal opinion is that school systems should pay for and provide training for teachers who volunteer to go armed. They would be providing a service to the school and could potentially create significant cost savings by eliminating SRO or armed guard positions, but I know that will never happen. In reality, the best case scenario I can see happening would be a system like Utah or Mississippi where teachers who undergo significant extra training and testing (at their own expense) are allowed to go armed.

Originally Posted by nashvols

I think a lot of school districts are going to stick with SROs instead. I can understand it in the small counties. I think the larger counties and districts will shy away from it.

I agree. I live in Hamilton county with a large police force (both city and county), dozens of schools, and a VERY conservative (as in scared to try anything new) school board. Practices like having police officers idle in school parking lots while doing paperwork and occasionally patrolling the schools are cost effective here. But small schools in rural counties, especially where the school is a significant distance from a very small county police force, could immensely benefit from this law (again, assuming the school can find a teacher that meets the very strict criteria).

[jchometeam]

I think that as long as the principal knows about it and they are a registered gun permit holder, that all teachers should be allowed to be armed. Thats more of a principled position though, as I have absolutely zero fear of gun violence in the local schools. I recognize logically it could happen, but its very uncommon, and far less common than it was 20 or even 10 years ago.

Regardless, there might be more people than you think that could qualify under the current law. For example, I know alot of high schools that have criminal justice classes, tought by current or former law enforcement officers.

[septimus]

I don't think teachers should be carrying guns. My mother was a teacher. She had her purse stolen a couple times. She had a student throw a desk at her. I just don't think guns belong in schools.

I hate that my kids school now resembles a prison with a RSO walking the halls all day. Heck, I'm not even sure I trust the RSO with a gun. I don't know much about our RSO, but many were saying RSO would be a good job for a former military coming home from Iraq/Afghanistan. Just what I want someone with PTSD and a gun roaming our schools.