Totin' Teachers Bill Heads for a Vote

[gun sane]

TN bill allowing teachers to carry concealed handguns advances (tennessean.com)

[derf]

No doubt something needs to happen but when some teachers have a problem teaching which bathroom to use, I don’t think they need firearms in the classroom. It’s not their individual responsibility to protect the children. 
 

[Garufa]

1 hour ago, derf said:

I don’t think they need firearms in the classroom. It’s not their individual responsibility to protect the children. 
 

You bring up an excellent point.  It is often said that one who carries a firearm for self defense is not responsible for the protection of others. 

Is the state now making teachers responsible for the safety of kids in their classrooms using deadly force?  Will they have the same training and legal protections of LE?

[Snaveba]

I can tell you that none of the teachers I know want to carry in the school, much less the classroom. While they all would sacrifice themselves for their children, carrying in the classroom is not and should not be their responsibility. And if they do carry, will the school district cover their legal fees if they did have to use their weapon?

[eRay]

20 minutes ago, Snaveba said:

I can tell you that none of the teachers I know want to carry in the school, much less the classroom. While they all would sacrifice themselves for their children, carrying in the classroom is not and should not be their responsibility. And if they do carry, will the school district cover their legal fees if they did have to use their weapon?

I don't think they are going to force any teacher to carry a gun. That being said, I know a couple of local male teachers who are firearms owners and regular shooters. With the responses from law enforcement to school shooters lately, I would feel better if these teachers had a gun to try and protect my kids. I can see valid points on both sides of this issue.

[BigK]

The bill wouldn't force anyone to do anything. It would just allow teachers who chose to carry to have an option if properly credentialed and trained.

[300winmag]

The bill is basically an extremely restrictive may issue public K 12 school employee carry bill.  It is even more restrictive than the public college employee carry law.  The K 12 school employees would have to get permission from what looks like the local police chief or maybe a sheriff's department.  I would guess most of the populated areas, like Memphis and Nashville, will reject any interested applications to carry at a school.

I doubt many public school employees are going to be able to carry under this restrictive law, even if they want to.

 

[Thearmededucator]

In my school, there are 3 Rangemaster graduates on my hallway alone. I would put those willing to carry about 5-10% of the population of our teachers, which is close to the national average for permit holders. 
 

It’s not about arming teachers, it’s about no longer actively disarming them. 

[chances R]

I have always been in favor of arming teachers that volunteer to do so.  Vetted by the principal, vetted and trained by county sherriff.  Would have rotating mandatory schedule for carry.  Must always be on person.  Private schools have had this perogative for years.

[BigK]

Just putting this out there...I was talking about this with a school resource officer last night. I learned that most of them are not in favor of this bill because they're concerned about what might happen if an angry armed teacher has to be fired and if the teacher has to break up a fight in a crowded hallway and loses control of their weapon in the scuffle.

I don't lend much credence to the first argument. Carry permit holders on average are typically the model of what being a law-abiding citizen looks like.

I can't say I haven't thought about that second argument, especially in a HS scenario, but weapon retention would surely be part of the required training.

[NoBanStan]

Not a fan of this one. I have a certain level of trust for adults and for permit holders. In my heart I want to believe that everyone would be doing the right thing.

In my gut though, I think it's going to up the % of accidents and that older kids will make plays for the weapon. I'm all for having guns in school, but I want it with someone like an SRO who's somewhat separated from the classroom.

[pop pop]

Why can't the teacher simply protect himself in a school? That is what I do at church. Been doing it since TN passed the Concealed carry laws years ago. You guys are worry warts! 

Edited to add; How is it working now? By all means pass the law. 

Edited April 9 by pop pop

[OLDNEWBIE]

If passed Teachers who choose to carry should neither be obligated to protect nor be liable if their choice to protect ends badly. I feel this is a good deterrent but without legal immunity most teachers will opt out.

 

[Thearmededucator]

4 hours ago, BigK said:

Just putting this out there...I was talking about this with a school resource officer last night. I learned that most of them are not in favor of this bill because they're concerned about what might happen if an angry armed teacher has to be fired and if the teacher has to break up a fight in a crowded hallway and loses control of their weapon in the scuffle.

I don't lend much credence to the first argument. Carry permit holders on average are typically the model of what being a law-abiding citizen looks like.

I can't say I haven't thought about that second argument, especially in a HS scenario, but weapon retention would surely be part of the required training.

The answer to this is: "What's stopping them (or SROs for that matter) from doing so now?

Concealment is a form retention. Teachers are not required to break up fights. (I do as a personal perrogative, but that calculus would change if I were armed at the time. 

Edited April 9 by Thearmededucator

[OLDNEWBIE]

2 hours ago, NoBanStan said:

Not a fan of this one. I have a certain level of trust for adults and for permit holders. In my heart I want to believe that everyone would be doing the right thing.

In my gut though, I think it's going to up the % of accidents and that older kids will make plays for the weapon. I'm all for having guns in school, but I want it with someone like an SRO who's somewhat separated from the classroom.

Sounds like one of the few times those high tech proximity switch guns that only fire when the owner holds it would be way to go "IF" they actually work. Not a fan but if that helps arm Teachers who wish to carry then why not?

[pop pop]

Teacher "Volunteers" have been carrying in Ohio for a few years (3-4) now. Same old, same old blood will be running in the streets/hallway's thing happened there when they first decided to allow teacher to be armed. HAS NOT happened in Ohio. Those trained for the Ohio program are more highly training than most Police Departments are. You guys are holding up SRO's but you know Cop hit rates are, in many cases, much lower that armed citizens. SRO have some additional training, but not that much. I am glad we have SRO in Rutherford County, and have had for years. I am not against SRO's, but believe volunteers could be an asset to them.  

You guys are sounding like the TN Dems on Capitol hill. I watched the head Democrat leader saying just about the same as you guys, a week ago when this bill came up, and just about every time a new gun bill comes onto the scene. Blood has NEVER ran in the streets, because of one of these new laws, and it will not in schools if volunteers get to conceal carry. 

The evidence is "TOTALLY" "NO DOUBT" "CLEAR", one needs to be on scene ASAP to stop continued/prolonged carnage. Young, capable, "well trained" people, on scene, is/has a much faster response than 3- 6 minutes away. Nashville handled the Covenant shooting as good as it could have been handled, and yet they still had carnage. 

The Lakewood church, in Houston Tx, was handled, IMMEDIATELLY upon entry by the shooter, by security on scene. Don't know if paid or volunteer, but both work. Just consider the Texas church of Christ that the shooting was on film. That volunteer did a head shot at 40 feet with a room full of people.  Out of the 3 shot there, out of 170 or so people, was the perp after he killed 2 the two. Only Seconds passed before he was stopped. What would they have done if they waited for 3-6 min for the Police to respond. Open your eyes guys, please! The church shooter, at the church of Christ, had 8 more rounds on him. 

By no means bragging, but I could have been a volunteer when younger because I could shoot and had a level head on me. I am sure some of you could have also. I can't now because I am "old", however the young can. I don't compare myself to the young now because I know better, and so do most of you old guys. Let the young "WELL TRAINED" guys and gals do it, IF THEY WANT TOO. Many of them can and will if given the chance.

Not going to say there will never be any collateral damage, that is an impossibility. I am saying it will not out weigh the good that can possibly be accomplished by allowing them to protect themselves. 

[NoBanStan]

2 hours ago, OLDNEWBIE said:

Sounds like one of the few times those high tech proximity switch guns that only fire when the owner holds it would be way to go "IF" they actually work. Not a fan but if that helps arm Teachers who wish to carry then why not?

hah, well i'm equally resistant to a tech barrier with a firearm.

[BigK]

4 hours ago, Thearmededucator said:

The answer to this is: "What's stopping them (or SROs for that matter) from doing so now?

The SRO I was talking to was telling me about an altercation that happened recently at a metro school. There were 2 female students fighting in the hallway. A male teacher and the SRO were breaking it up when the SRO somehow lost control of his backup firearm somehow. IIRC, it had been in his cargo pocket, but I could be mistaken. Regardless, one of the girls did gain control of it momentarily, but only very briefly.

I'd call that a fluke and estimate it to be somewhat highly unlikely, but it did happen. I don't plan my life around hoofbeats being zebras instead of horses, but it is worthwhile mental exercise to plan for as much as possible. I still favor arming willing, competent, and capable teachers. I just want them prepared for as many scenarios as possible.

[Chucktshoes]

18 minutes ago, BigK said:

The SRO I was talking to was telling me about an altercation that happened recently at a metro school. There were 2 female students fighting in the hallway. A male teacher and the SRO were breaking it up when the SRO somehow lost control of his backup firearm somehow. IIRC, it had been in his cargo pocket, but I could be mistaken. Regardless, one of the girls did gain control of it momentarily, but only very briefly.

I'd call that a fluke and estimate it to be somewhat highly unlikely, but it did happen. I don't plan my life around hoofbeats being zebras instead of horses, but it is worthwhile mental exercise to plan for as much as possible. I still favor arming willing, competent, and capable teachers. I just want them prepared for as many scenarios as possible.

Not to be too mean, but this story really makes it seem like his opposition is based upon his own inadequacies. 

[pop pop]

If you want to inform yourself google armed teachers in Ohio. You can read some of the pros and cons on that site. Ohio has had armed teachers since 2019 except for a short time. The lame media has blown the subject out of proportion predicting blood in the halls, so to speak. All kinds of news stories reporting about terrified teachers. Their predictions have not happened, and it seems to be working well for the 46 school districts where armed teachers are allowed. One story states there are other county's considering the practice. I read aa story where the writer stated most of these teachers do practice often on their own time and dollar. You, as an honorable citizen, if you were armed teacher would do you own training as well. You and I both practice just to carry concealed. 

These teachers are schooled for 24 hrs of mandatory training along with active scenario training and qualification yearly. The carriers must be competent or they don't get to carry. Most Police do about the same amount of formal training per year. A couple other states have done the same and armed teachers. Seems to be working for them volunteers as well. No school district has made carry mandatory, and TN bill does not make it mandatory either. 

There are a lot of military veterans in the teaching field and some may be good candidates to volunteer. I am for the bill. Think it will be a good thing. The Nashville shooter passed over several schools because she thought they had good security. IMO, I think armed teachers will be a good deterrent and the  "possible" faster response will hold down the count. 

   Edited for spelling.

Edited April 10 by pop pop

[Thearmededucator]

It should be noted that in the actual text of the bill that all training costs for the 40 hours of yearly, mandated, training "shall be at the expense of the person seeking authorization." As week long courses of this type can easily cost in excess of $1000, this is a significant financial hurdle for otherwise willing applicants. It is one I, personally, am willing to bear, but I feel many will balk at it. I emailed my Representative about creating a grant or scholarship to help offset some of these costs today, and I would appreciate it if you do the same.

Barring that option, I feel that it might be necessary to create a non profit organization to help out. 

[TripleGGG]

21 minutes ago, Thearmededucator said:

It should be noted that in the actual text of the bill that all training costs for the 40 hours of yearly, mandated, training "shall be at the expense of the person seeking authorization." As week long courses of this type can easily cost in excess of $1000, this is a significant financial hurdle for otherwise willing applicants. It is one I, personally, am willing to bear, but I feel many will balk at it. I emailed my Representative about creating a grant or scholarship to help offset some of these costs today, and I would appreciate it if you do the same.

Barring that option, I feel that it might be necessary to create a non profit organization to help out. 

Email sent. 

[deerslayer]

On 4/6/2024 at 9:47 PM, Snaveba said:

I can tell you that none of the teachers I know want to carry in the school, much less the classroom. While they all would sacrifice themselves for their children, carrying in the classroom is not and should not be their responsibility. And if they do carry, will the school district cover their legal fees if they did have to use their weapon?

Because they don’t want to nobody else should be allowed?

[Snaveba]

I’m not saying that. I’m just saying that the teachers I know don’t want to carry in the classroom. 

[deerslayer]

42 minutes ago, Snaveba said:

I’m not saying that. I’m just saying that the teachers I know don’t want to carry in the classroom. 

Are they opposed to the bill?  I fully support their right to not carry if that is what they wish, but many opposed to the bill are making the same irrelevant "It's shouldn't be the responsibility of the teachers" argument.  The bill doesn't mandate any responsibility, but ALLOWS a teacher who wants to carry to do so.  Why do teachers who don't want to carry have such a problem with that?  

Edited April 11 by deerslayer