Skip to comments.TX:Argyle school district votes again to approve gun policy
Posted on 02/02/2014 6:55:39 PM PST by marktwain
ARGYLE School board members voted unanimously a second time Wednesday to approve a controversial policy that will allow some teachers, administrators and other staff members to carry firearms on campus.
The new vote also authorizes some school board members to carry concealed guns at board meetings or on school property, a provision that was not spelled out in details provided by the school district after the previous vote. A copy of the policy was not posted until after board members voted on the policy last week.
Board President Kevin Faciane said the new vote was mostly procedural in nature.
The original agenda item posted for the boards Jan. 21 vote contained an error in wording that had raised questions about whether the policy could be legally challenged. While the board felt its initial vote was valid, trustees also felt it was prudent to eliminate any concern, he said.
Procedurally, there were some issues brought up about how the agenda item was listed, Faciane said.
The new policy will go into effect immediately, Superintendent Telena Wright said. Signs warning visitors that some district staff would be armed and authorized to use force to protect students could be posted at district facilities as early as this week, she said.
Only one person attended the meeting to speak on the policy. Justin Davis, an Argyle father of four young children who owns a gun-training business, told trustees he supported the policy and offered firearms training to the district at no charge. He said he is co-owner of Consolidated Training Group, which according to its website has ranges in Weatherford, Argyle and Fort Worth.
(Excerpt) Read more at dentonrc.com ...
Here is my article on the Gun Free School Zone Act
Armed peasants. What will they think of next? It's getting so a criminal can't ply his trade without interference.
Argyle and Flower Mound are pretty dangerous areas to ply a criminal trade.
Amen. All I would ask is that they take a tactical training class and demonstrate proficiency with or qualify with their weapon(s) of choice. If nothing else than to protect the school from liability - you wouldn't want them to accidentally shoot an innocent if there ever was an incident.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
So... you only want to infringe a little bit, for safety. Tell me more about how you support the 2nd Amendment.
Because cops in NY City shoot innocent bystanders pretty regularly. There was a story about that recently.
And I wish colleges had signs like this.
So, right now if there was a crazed nutcase killer in a building with a gun, students could head for their car, get their weapon and try to take the guy out. In that case, what would happen if the student who got gun out of car, went inside and killed the perp? Student just broke the rule and brought the gun inside. He should get a medal for breaking the rule and saving lives.
I would ask that teachers that are to armed pass a psychological exam as well. There's some teachers out there that have the emotional maturity of a 10 year old. I'd want to know that the teachers that are armed are mature and can be trusted with a gun in that environment.
If I were on the school board, in this day and age of litigation, yes, I would require demonstrated proficiency with a firearm before allowing staff to carry. Don't like it, don't carry on the job or take a job somewhere else.
I have been around ranges long enough (35+ years) and people who think they know how to shoot well enough to know... There are a lot of people out there that should not have firearms. Or, more precisely, who are in desperate need of training and regular practice. Someone who has sat through all of 4 hours of classroom training and made a couple of trips to the range, fired a grand total of a thousand rounds and got their CC permit? They are not safe in a crowded, stressful situation.
So yes, the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental. I'm not advocating the government infringe on that at all. An employer - ie. the school district - in a voluntary situation (your employment) yeah, I have no problem with that. Employees routinely sign NDAs giving up free speech as a condition of employment. Empoloyees routinely consent to random drug screens or personal searches giving up 4th amendment protections as a condition of employment. If a company is going to spend a hundred million on R&D, yeah, they should be able to keep that to themselves. If you're going to be piloting a few hundred people around the sky, yeah, you better be drug-free. You going to be shooting in a tense situation around a hall/room full of kids? You better be a good shot.
Are you ok with teachers with the emotional maturity of a 10 year old teaching your children? Because if they can't be trusted to carry a firearm... maybe... just maybe... they shouldn't be entrusted with your precious children.
Here are the new Texas laws regarding concealed carry and it includes the college campus new law.
You can read how Texas does it by clicking on the link on post 14. It speaks to the training of employees in school allowed to carry.
If you worry more about lawyers and litigation than children, I will question it.
So, hero from the range... who gets to have firearms?
Here's a hint.... if anyone is shooting at a school, it's an unsafe situation.
Who is going to require your standards? Government schools.
You know what... I’m already angry over a personal situation (no, not the super bowl, couldn’t care less). It is not worth replying to your condescension when I’m already angry. Enjoy your perfect world.
I know how stressful those situations can be.
I don't live in a perfect world. My world is full of fuzzy unperfect stuff. But government employees (school teachers) should be allowed to carry.
Late to the party here but I’m in your corner. Too many who are supposed to be on our side are too willing to negotiate on a clearly stated right that uses an unambiguous term (”shall not be infringed”) yet we have Fudds and Zumbos and Metcalfs among us. They don’t understand they’re merely negotiating to be eaten last while placing themselves in the position of Pastor Niemoller, having to write a lament on how they were milquetoast in their defense against a clearly-wrong government action.
I agree, immature teachers are less than ideal.
I managed to survive the public school systems despite those teachers. Actually it's not entirely bad because you encounter people in authority in real life that have that same mentality. So I suspect my kids will survive it too. My kids are in one of the best public schools in the nation. My daughter just scored a 35 on the ACT, so it hasn't hurt them too bad.
But you seem to be suggesting that if the school system has selected the teachers to be entrusted with the kids, that all those same teachers should be entrusted with guns too. I strongly dissagree. Many of them are trustworthy, but a handful are not. Thus psych exams.
Agreed. I'm not suggesting different standards for concealed carry for government employees. I'm suggesting different standards for concealed carry for employees in a school workplace environment.
What those teachers do outside of the school environment should be treated the same as everyone else.
If it’s legal for a school to ban guns outright, then it certainly should be legal for them to set standards on which employees can carry them.
If the student carries concealed, then the time from visibility of the student's weapon to stopping an attacker might be five to ten seconds. If the student has to race to a car and return to the scene of the attack ( a questionable judgement call) it might be two minutes or more of visibility of the student's weapon.
The chances of the helpful student being mistaken for an unlawful attacker probably increases in proportion to the amount of time one is visibly armed. Having to run to the car and back might increase the chances of the student being killed by responding law enforcement by a factor of ten or more.
Concealed carry is much better than "car carry". And if law enforcement takes ten minutes to arrive, either is much better than "no carry".
“Concealed carry is much better than “car carry”. And if law enforcement takes ten minutes to arrive, either is much better than “no carry”.”
The law as passed in May, 2013, allows car carry. It is what it is. I wouldn’t be surprised if another law is passed in the next session which starts next year, 2015.