Indiana school board to reexamine firearms policies

[Bill of Rights]

I'm hearing you just fine. I'm just not agreeing with you, nor you with me.

Let people get whatever training they want to get. More, less, or none at all. I'm not interested in creating more "only ones" who are "allowed" to carry in "special" places. Lee Paige was the only one in the room professional enough to carry a pistol... presumably, as a federal agent, he had some pretty good training.... Pity it didn't keep him from ventilating his leg in front of a classroom full of kids.

The New Life Church in Colorado had (has?) a security team as well, volunteers who carry and who defend their fellow parishoners. I can't find the part of the story I remember from the time, but Jeanne Assam was not the only defender that day. She was the only one who actually fired in defense of her fellow worshippers, though, while a male team member froze and failed to shoot. Presumably, a team would be trained, right? Doesn't seem to have helped much.

From the above two stories, you might get the wrong impression of my thinking. I'm not at all saying training is undesirable or should not be sought. I'm saying only that whatever level of training someone has will never be enough in some minds, and THAT is the slippery slope that the wall you mention does nothing to eliminate.

I asked a couple of questions in my last post to you that you might have missed, so I'll ask again: The hypothetical armed teacher finishes her class day and leaves school, stopping by the mall for whatever. While she is there, a shooter pops up and begins picking off targets. She has training, but not with the mall's security team. Is she, therefore, unable to draw and stop the attacker because there is no "uniformity"?

And

Most if not all of us on here know at a minimum the Four Rules, how to prepare magazines, and how to load a mag into our weapons. None of us are required in Indiana to obtain training. How, then, did we all learn this? If we sought that on our own, why is that not sufficient for you? Why do you seem to feel that everyone must measure up to some arbitrary, as-yet-uncreated standard?

I'm interested in your replies to these two questions. (OK, so the latter is like three questions in and of itself, but focused at one issue)

Blessings,
Bill

I dont think your hearing me, are a town marshal and an English teacher not BOTH employees of the local government? People keep beating this to death, and your talking about a slippery slope that has a big wide wall right in the middle of it, in the shape of, not all private citizens are employed by the government. That makes this situation completely different.

We can go tit for tat all day about whether you like the idea or not, but the way I see it(always willing to accept the possibility of being wrong)
IT WILL NOT HAPPEN without some level of training, and some degree of uniformity.

Both of which should not apply to a normal citizen with a larry.

 

[danimal]

Your wife, if she has an Indiana teaching license, IS REQUIRED to have current CPR training in order to renew her license. This is a state of Indiana rule. This rule changed in the past 4 years, as it was not that way when I came to Indiana. If she has a lifetime license, then she won't have to renew, thus eliminating the requirement.

As far as the second statement, that is EXACTLY what is expected of us. Even those of us that are used to being the sheep dog, not the sheep. Not because we don't have the magic training, but because ... well, just because. Period. If they (powers to be) wanted my opinion, they would tell it to me.

David

Thanks for the info. I'll ask her and have her look it up when I get home. I have no idea which license she has or how long until she has to re-up if need be. She just got her masters in school admin 2 years ago, so maybe they waived a recent renewal?, not sure, but it's been a long time since she had to get one, that's for sure.

Stuff... cool pic... good stuff

All teachers are class security, armed or not, and have been since... well, forever. Corralling them to go to the bathroom, making sure everyone gets to gym/music/art on time and together; field trips, afterschool activities, all that jazz; never once seen a police escort for those things, though my experience is limit to my kids in a private school. Teachers already are the first line of defense no matter what. Teachers carrying a firearm turns the kids from target practice into a hardened target. I agree with you that if the option becomes present for teachers to carry, I will cough up the cash for me and my wife to take a vacation to Arizona and take a couple courses at Gunsite or anyplace else. There is only so much I and her 2 brothers (shields in IL) can teach and practice/show her on a general range. I would encourage other teachers/faculty to seek professional training, but I would never force it on someone that simply wanted to carry for their own protection. Ricochet on solid surfaces I know about, I was just ranting about the magic child seeking boolits. Wrong angle, bad results, right angle, stops dead; like why you don't shoot into a river/lake... bullets do skip on water just like rocks. And yes, I don't see anyone saying teachers are 2nd class or implying it, but the people saying that it be "required for thee and not for mee" I wanted to make them aware of their somewhat dangerous line of thinking.

Have you met some of these teachers? Dumb as a box of rocks with no actual thoughts of their own.

While not a 100% true statement, you don't know how scarily close your assessment is.

Right after Sandy Hook, there is a meeting with all the teachers in the building, the principle, and the corporation's "head of security" as the wife puts it. All talking about how you should lock your door and hide. 1st question my wife asked this guy was "if he has a gun, how are these doors going to stop them?"... blank stare. Later on the the guy makes a remark about how the outside doors are kept locked and people have to be buzzed in and if something were to happen the police are only 5 minutes away. She follows up with "Every entrance to the school has doors made with giant sheets of glass. Is that 5 minutes from when he breaks in, or 5 minutes from the earliest someone can call them?"... blank stare. "You know, my class room is right next to the the side entrance, if someone comes in at that door, I'm the first one that's going to die"... dead silence. There is absolutely nothing but cobwebs upstairs of the people that run some of these school corps.

Ok, how about allowing school employees (and the rest of us) to carry on school property. Period.
Then, out of those that do carry, ask for volunteers to be part of the security team. Give them (and any others interested in additional education) training and responsibilities above and beyond that of just a teacher? Win win!?

Yes. Having an additional OPTIONAL endorsement available for their license for security and defensive measures would be awesome. Having some sort of required training for the teachers is solving a problem caused by government with more government, how well has that ever worked! I have mixed feelings about forcibly stealing money from people to pay for the training though. I see the benefit, I'd like my wife benefiting for free, but I think I'd prefer the teachers pay for it, along with their own equipment, just like everyone else.

That's pretty much what I said several posts above...

Have a two-tiered system.

1 Tier would be the "average Joe/Jenny" that was carrying lawfully for themselves - more of a reactive in-classroom protector (IE aim at the doorway and try and not let someone in)

2 Tier would be those who volunteer to undergo training to be an active response to an active shooter. (IE team up and seek out the threat in order to hopefully stop it)

However - I know that both of these are pipe dreams.

-J-

Sorry, must have glossed over it first time through the thread or I would have give you props and commented. I could only see a tiered setup working if those endorsed teachers are allowed access to rifles, body armor, and comm. radios to talk on emergency bands to responders outside. It's not likely or practical that a teacher is going to go roam the halls with a handgun after shots fired to see what's up. Best case scenario, a teacher will get their class and possibly the adjoining classrooms outside behind a treeline or other large objects while providing cover. More than likely the teacher will stay just outside the exit to cover others trying to leave. Have a few others tap on windows to tell other classrooms that the exit over there is being covered by mr./mrs. So'n'so. I just don't see it ending well if a teacher is walking the halls with pistol drawn when SWAT walks in. 1. Get out, 2. provide cover, 3. give details to the guys with body armor; because the dude inside probably has you outgunned, and doesn't care who dies. Now, if you're tiered and geared... hunt that bastard down and hang'em from the flagpole in front of the school.

Awesome words here and in previous posts

Bill, stop being awesome, it's not fair to the rest of the Internet.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It's not about being awesome, but I appreciate your compliment, thank you.
All I'm interested in is doing what works without infringing on the liberties of free people.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill, stop being awesome, it's not fair to the rest of the Internet.

 

[Johnny C]

Is there a purpose to your post besides using Kirks favorite word?

Well, yes.
I don't advocate forcing folks to get training, but I have noticed that those that are trained, are less likely to play with their guns in public

 

[Captain Morgan]

You know what's most amazing about all of this to me personally? Homeschooling solves every problem and dilemma raised by this issue: physical safety of children, accountability and responsibility for the well-being of children, uncertainty whether staff have the appropriate skillset to be armed and effectively defend children - every single problem brought up by this is effectively resolved by homeschooling. Deny the State. Ensure your child(ren)'s safety. No one in this world has a more vested interest in your child(ren) than you: not the best teacher, not the best principal, not the most well-meaning private citizen - no one cares more about your child(ren) than you.

And what happens if you're a crappy teacher?

 

[Bill of Rights]

If you are a crappy teacher, then you ask for help. There are many excellent resources out there.

I'd also like to mention that, while I'm normally very much a proponent of the use of proper grammar, spelling, and word usage, I also recognize that anyone can make errors. I recall some of my teachers being quite strict on such points as beginning a sentence with a conjunction, for example.

And what happens if you're a crappy teacher?

The irony, it burns.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[LordTio3]

I find myself getting Cynical in my middle age.

I am about an inch from agreeing whole-heartedly about requiring training in order to carry on school grounds...

BUT...

Only as a stepping stone to get the ball rolling on our way to Constitutional Carry. I have been an idealist for my entire life, and I will never lose that... but the older I get and the longer I see us go with hardly any measurable advance in our rights, I would like to see SOME progress made.

I am remiss to use the word "compromise"; however, Swallowing and Elephant is easier accomplished one bite at a time than all at once.

~LT

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm a little confused as to your logic. It sounds like you're saying, "If I let you weld one leg iron onto me without fighting you, I'm one step closer to freedom."

As to not seeing any measurable advance in our ability to exercise our rights...

What follows is a graphic I found and have continued updating over the last several years. I hope it helps.

Blessings,
Bill

I find myself getting Cynical in my middle age.

I am about an inch from agreeing whole-heartedly about requiring training in order to carry on school grounds...

BUT...

Only as a stepping stone to get the ball rolling on our way to Constitutional Carry. I have been an idealist for my entire life, and I will never lose that... but the older I get and the longer I see us go with hardly any measurable advance in our rights, I would like to see SOME progress made.

I am remiss to use the word "compromise"; however, Swallowing and Elephant is easier accomplished one bite at a time than all at once.

~LT

 

[Simple Ed]

I'm quite new to the forum and have taught in public schools for over 25 years.


I'm new to forum-speak also, so forgive me if I'm beating a dead or wounded horse.


I have carried for less than a year, and have been quite curious concerning issues related to carrying in school in order to protect children. I recognize two issues that muddy the waters: 1. Lots of teachers come from a stock of folks whose temperaments are well suited to patience and compliance. Not that all of us are like this, but we're not known to be the types that chose between teaching and, say, law enforcement. I think there are a majority in teaching who are not well suited (by temperament) to accept the responsibility. (I would love to find that I'm in error in this statement.) 2. The kids we take responsibility for are not ours. Parents trust me to watch their kids. To what extent should a parent trust me to carry a gun in the presence of their kid? I know I'm safe. Why should the parent accept that. Putting myself in place of the parent, I'd have questions and certainly be super-aware of the character of that teacher.


I think "qualified" (whatever that is) teachers should carry. I accept that society will have to "shift" in their thinking. I've got questions, but not many answers.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm quite new to the forum and have taught in public schools for over 25 years.

to !

I'm new to forum-speak also, so forgive me if I'm beating a dead or wounded horse.

You're not.

I have carried for less than a year, and have been quite curious concerning issues related to carrying in school in order to protect children. I recognize two issues that muddy the waters: 1. Lots of teachers come from a stock of folks whose temperaments are well suited to patience and compliance. Not that all of us are like this, but we're not known to be the types that chose between teaching and, say, law enforcement. I think there are a majority in teaching who are not well suited (by temperament) to accept the responsibility. (I would love to find that I'm in error in this statement.) 2. The kids we take responsibility for are not ours. Parents trust me to watch their kids. To what extent should a parent trust me to carry a gun in the presence of their kid? I know I'm safe. Why should the parent accept that. Putting myself in place of the parent, I'd have questions and certainly be super-aware of the character of that teacher.


I think "qualified" (whatever that is) teachers should carry. I accept that society will have to "shift" in their thinking. I've got questions, but not many answers.

You've come to the right place. I'm going to go through your post item by item, not to pick it apart, but to answer you as thoroughly as I can.

You've carried for less than a year. That's not a problem: We all have to start somewhere, and we were all there once.
You're curious about carrying in school to protect your kids. In most cases, this is unlawful, with very few exceptions. Right or wrong (and I think it is the latter,) it is the law. For the sake of this discussion, we'll set that aside for the moment and presume that you've obtained a school board letter allowing that penalty (a felony charge) to not apply to you.
1) Teachers, by and large, come from the "stock" you describe. Not really an element I'd considered before, though my mother, an ardent liberal, was an elementary librarian for many years. Your description fits her perfectly. You're also correct that many, if not most, would not take on the responsibility of a handgun by choice, which is one point I made before: Those of us who carry would be the more likely ones to want to carry _there_.
2) Why should a parent trust you to carry around their kid? Well... If they take their kids to the store, they're likely around someone who's carrying legally. Likewise, a ball field, a movie, a restaurant, or just driving down the street. Approximately one in six adults in this state hold a lifetime LTCH, the last figures I saw. It would be very difficult to never be around one, though it would be more difficult to see one if most of them conceal_carry. So, the chances are that they already trust people they don't know about with guns... why not you?

Lastly, you mention "qualified" teachers, but what qualification did you have to have to carry other than within those arbitrary, imaginary boundaries?

None.

While training is certainly recommended, the necessity of it to be "allowed" to carry in "special" places is farcical at best.

I hope this helps!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[danielson]

While training is certainly recommended, the necessity of it to be "allowed" to carry in "special" places is farcical at best.

So you haven't considered EVERY OTHER government building then?

 

[Bill of Rights]

So you haven't considered EVERY OTHER government building then?

I consider all "gun free zones" to be farcical. I can maybe wrap my head around prisons and asylums for the criminally insane, because under our law, a man may be deprived of life, liberty, or property after due process. In addition, even the guards do not carry firearms within the walls of those places for fear of a gun grab. They have backup. I don't. In my view, I would disarm prior to going there, though I'd like to see lockers available for me to lock my pistol up and retrieve it at my convenience, that I'd not be disarmed to or from my car, not to mention that I'd be able to not leave an unattended, loaded gun in a parking lot, secured only by hiding and a piece of glass. I think that's preferable to forbidding it from the property in toto, but it's not the ideal solution, IMHO.

Note that I've not agreed to a law to that effect, just said I could see a reason there, and that it'd be a practice I'd think wise for me.

Also, danielson, still waiting on your answers to post #121.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[danielson]

Is formal training required to carry a firearm inside ANY other government building? Say the city/county building, downtown? Yes or no? Of course it is. What makes you think the government will treat schools any differently?

Think the government is going to lift that ban on firearms carried by us common folk in government buildings? Never happen under its own power. It just one more thing that keeps their elitism alive.

I have no need to answer those questions as they do not apply to me. Those questions were thrown, to try and prove a point that I already agree with. What your forgetting is, schools are government property, and logic doesnt apply there.

Im hearing your idealism loud and clear, and Im saying its gonna take a catastrophic event in order for it to become reality. Apparently, the thousands of innocent people murdered a year aren't catastrophic enough. Though its easy to turn a blind eye to a suffering of a people you share no relation with. Our country is divided between those who rule and those whose opinions do not matter. We are the latter.

Im not opposing you, Im just being realistic.

 

[Simple Ed]

Bill, thank you for your prompt, thoughtful reply.

I have not petitioned the school board for an exemtion as you mentioned. I've stopped quite short of calling attention to this issue at school. I fear that, to even mention the idea of carrying in school, will set into motion a polarized set of dominos that have been waiting to fall. That said, I live in a rather conservative district. I don't expect that many of those dominos would necessarily fall on me. But, since the conversation hasn't been had, there would be a lot of dust kicked up.

Our police department cooperates with the schools. We have an officer patroling our halls probably fifty percent of the time. While this is not the 100% kind of thing we'd like, it's a start.

I'd like the baby steps of simply carrying to school in the evenings and weekends to prepare lessons and the like when there are no kids there.

You mentioned about parents trusting me. I didn't know that one in six are licensed to carry. I doubt my parents know that either. I accept that, in as much as I'm conceal carrying, there's got to be others out there too. Ignorance is a cause for reduced anxiety. If I knew that the guy in front of me at the movie theater was carrying... hmmm... I'm new to that. I trust him? Aware of his movements? And I'm a guy who values MY right to carry.

Now transfer that concern, coupled with ignorance and lack of forethought to parents. How many parents does it take to cause a stir by saying: "I'm not comfortable with that guy toten a gun around my kid or in his school!"

Therefore, I've played my hand quite cautiously. I don't fully relalize the cost of opening my mouth. (there's a sound-bite for someone to run with.)

As for "qualified," I mean teachers who have been deemed as ready (trained) as anyone should be to carry in order to protect kids who "have" to be there.

Ed

 

[Rocko]

It's just sad that we even have to think about these steps.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Is formal training required to carry a firearm inside ANY other government building? Say the city/county building, downtown? Yes or no? Of course it is. What makes you think the government will treat schools any differently?

Actually, no, it's not. With a LTCH, you can carry into any gov't building (below state level) that does not have a courtroom in it. The way the law is written, they actually can (and anecdotally have) forbidden pocketknives, but allowed handguns.

Think the government is going to lift that ban on firearms carried by us common folk in government buildings? Never happen under its own power. It just one more thing that keeps their elitism alive.

I have no need to answer those questions as they do not apply to me. Those questions were thrown, to try and prove a point that I already agree with. What your forgetting is, schools are government property, and logic doesnt apply there.

Im hearing your idealism loud and clear, and Im saying its gonna take a catastrophic event in order for it to become reality. Apparently, the thousands of innocent people murdered a year aren't catastrophic enough. Though its easy to turn a blind eye to a suffering of a people you share no relation with. Our country is divided between those who rule and those whose opinions do not matter. We are the latter.

Im not opposing you, Im just being realistic.

No, you're not opposing me, and while I can see why you say you're being realistic, I have to disagree. Realism once said that Illinois would never allow concealed carry. Hell, for that matter, realism once said that almost no one would allow it. It's taken almost 30 years to do it, but we've gone from six states in 1986 that were "shall issue" and the majority of states were "no issue" to where EVERY state is at least "may issue" and four, rather than one, are Constitutional Carry. The former (IL) took a couple of SCOTUS decisions, which addresses your point of "being forced to", but every state that passed a change up to that point did so on its own.
If we limit our view solely to Indiana, let's look at such things as the Lifetime LTCH. That happened not because of elitists, but because a bunch of common folk (mostly farmers, IIRC) met every month in a little place down in the Evansville area and organized a campaign to make things better. They started during Clinton's term and in 2006, got the Lifetime passed. Let's look at preemption. Why did it happen? Because the same guy that led the charge on the LLTCH, now a Senator, continued the same fight and made it happen. Sen. Tomes pushed, and pushed hard, to change minds.

Now... I'm no Jim Tomes. I don't have a group I can lead to initiate change. I know a few people in positions of power and I know a lot of people here, but while I'm a mod here, that's more of a janitorial role on this board than that of a leader of men, not that there's anything wrong with keeping the board "cleaned" of various things its owner doesn't want here. I have, for several years, done what I could to "lead the charge" with letter writing campaigns, and I like to think it's made a difference at some point.

What is there about a "school" that makes people cringe so at the thought of peaceable citizens being armed there? I'll tell you what it is. It's the media. Over the 14 years since Columbine, they've drilled it into our skulls that "school" plus "gun" = "nitric acid" + "glycerine", and it just ain't so.

It. Is. Just. A. Building.

No magic, no difference from any other. Full of children? So what? So's the McDonald's PlayPlace. So's the amusement park. So's Chuck E Cheese. (not that anyone in their right mind goes THERE!) No training required to carry anywhere else. I guard my family. You guard yours. Any of us could protect another who might find him- or herself at the mercy of someone else.

I have said all along, I favor training. I oppose mandates emplaced on the people to rob them of their liberties, and favor mandates upon government that limit its power.

Danielson, if you think your opinion does not matter, I won't change your mind. Only you can do that. The fact is that the People, raising their voices together to a common goal, such as the emplacement or removal of unConstitutional "gun control" laws can and do have an effect. I'm trying to coordinate the raising of voices to remove some of those laws. If you're not pushing to remove them, how is that different from apathetically failing to oppose their emplacement?

We can submit to whatever "those who rule" wish, or we can clearly and politely inform them that their ability to continue to "rule" depends on us. (The good ones don't need that reminder.) Mr. Samuel Adams had a thought on the relationship between "those who rule" and the rest of us:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

Idealism? You bet your a** I'm idealistic, because I see good people in good places to do good things. We have some bad people in places they don't belong, trying to do bad things, too... and I'll be damned if I let them do them unopposed.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Ed,
I will begin with an apology. This may come across in some ways as patronizing, and that is in no way my intent. I'm sorry if it comes across as such.

I see where you are. It's where I used to be. It's where many people used to be, and where many more have yet to arrive. When I was still a liberal, I saw no problem with background checks, waiting periods, required training, and the like. I didn't yet see them as the crippling balls and chains that they are. I also favored such things as an increase in the minimum wage (or for that matter, its mere existence) because of how it would benefit me. When my eyes were opened, that was what opened them. It was shown to me how harmful things like that are. I saw how short-sighted I'd been. I started to see that it wasn't about what benefits me, personally, it's about what benefits our society as a whole. I started to learn how background checks are only as valid as the information that an individual is checked against, and then, only for those who actually submit to them. I learned how waiting periods are a wonderful idea until you need a gun right the hell now and can't wait two weeks to obtain it. I learned how a training requirement can be used as an impediment to prevent "the wrong people" (whoever that group may include) from exercising their natural right of self defense.

I started to learn about and understand what Mr. Franklin meant when he said that those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. One can be free, that is, he can have liberty, but he can only have it if he at the same time recognizes that ALL his fellow men have it, too. That means that while laws to which we all agree may and should exist to protect each man's rights to life, liberty, and property, we cannot expect those laws or other men to make us safe.

You have not sought special permission to carry. I can understand that. In your current environment, however conservative your district, the fact is that if you mention a gun in a school and no badge attached to it, you make people vapor-lock and start looking for reasons for you to be somewhere else.

Your police department cooperates with your school. One officer. I have to say, I'm underwhelmed. I bet his marked car is parked outside when he's there, too... So... if I'm intent on committing an evil act, I just wait for a time when he's not there, and I know where to find a bunch of these:

That number (1 in 6) is old data. It may be more now. I haven't checked it out in several years, but what I did to find it was to contact ISP to find out how many LTCHs were issued (and how many revoked, which is useful for other calculations) look at the state population with allowances for how many are adults vs. children, and check DOC numbers to eliminate the prison population. The number is not exact, of course, but it's a good indicator for ballpark measurements of such things. I think it's fair to say that the number has not diminished any.

You make another good point, too, about the guy in front of you at the movies. You might (and should) be aware of his movements. Not hyper-alert; you're there to watch a movie, not to ride herd on everyone in the theater, after all! but just "aware". Kinda like you're aware that you have pants on... It's not in the forefront of your mind unless you're cooking bacon, but if they're not there and the doorbell rings, you go put them on before answering it. Same thing in the theater... the guy might be OCing, so you KNOW he has a gun on him. As long as he's just sitting there, watching the movie, who cares? In the exceptionally unlikely event that he begins making "furtive movements" or otherwise acting suspiciously, you become more aware of him... check out Col. Cooper's "color codes" and you'll see what I'm talking about re: being "in yellow" vs. "in orange".

The full cost of opening your mouth might go as far as you being ostracized by your principal or school board... or it might be only that your fellow teachers come to you with arguments against gun rights, discussions of the fallacies of gun control, questions about this or that gun, or even taking them to the range.

Your last sentence was a little convoluted, but I think I follow it. We differ slightly on when someone can carry when there are children around. While we agree someone should be trained, I don't think they should have to prove it to anyone.

Again, I don't mean any of this to patronize... You're on a learning curve that can be very steep. For that matter, we all are, though we're at different points on it. The paradigm we have all lived under makes it tough to realize that people's rights are their own, and not for others to trifle with. Some of us reach points on that curve where we're comfortable, and we stop there for a time or possibly forever. I'm still learning, but I'm very comfortable where I am, respecting the rights of others so long as they don't infringe upon mine. (I laughed, for example, when in response to Justice David Souter's ruling that eminent domain allowed gov't to claim a property for commercial (not gov't) use... someone immediately attempted to lay claim to his home.)

In liberty and as always, with

Blessings,
Bill

Bill, thank you for your prompt, thoughtful reply.

I have not petitioned the school board for an exemtion as you mentioned. I've stopped quite short of calling attention to this issue at school. I fear that, to even mention the idea of carrying in school, will set into motion a polarized set of dominos that have been waiting to fall. That said, I live in a rather conservative district. I don't expect that many of those dominos would necessarily fall on me. But, since the conversation hasn't been had, there would be a lot of dust kicked up.

Our police department cooperates with the schools. We have an officer patroling our halls probably fifty percent of the time. While this is not the 100% kind of thing we'd like, it's a start.

I'd like the baby steps of simply carrying to school in the evenings and weekends to prepare lessons and the like when there are no kids there.

You mentioned about parents trusting me. I didn't know that one in six are licensed to carry. I doubt my parents know that either. I accept that, in as much as I'm conceal carrying, there's got to be others out there too. Ignorance is a cause for reduced anxiety. If I knew that the guy in front of me at the movie theater was carrying... hmmm... I'm new to that. I trust him? Aware of his movements? And I'm a guy who values MY right to carry.

Now transfer that concern, coupled with ignorance and lack of forethought to parents. How many parents does it take to cause a stir by saying: "I'm not comfortable with that guy toten a gun around my kid or in his school!"

Therefore, I've played my hand quite cautiously. I don't fully relalize the cost of opening my mouth. (there's a sound-bite for someone to run with.)

As for "qualified," I mean teachers who have been deemed as ready (trained) as anyone should be to carry in order to protect kids who "have" to be there.

Ed

 

[Bunnykid68]

1 in 6 seems awfully high. I know of 10 people in Evansville that personally carry a firearm. And I know quite a few people.

 

[Bill of Rights]

How many have licenses that don't carry?

1 in 6 seems awfully high. I know of 10 people in Evansville that personally carry a firearm. And I know quite a few people.

 

[Simple Ed]

Bill,

"vapor lock." That's a good word for it.

I, again, appreciate your vantage. You are up on a higher limb and, no doubt, had to take the climb reasonably, deliberately over time. I'm pleased to be on the lowest limb I could clamber on to. When you mention that we "differ" it may be that I simply haven't had the opportunity to see things from your limb. You've got me looking up in that direction though. I thank you for that.

A question: While receiving NRA pistol training (basic safety, newbee...) the instructor at Midwest Gun and Range in Elkhart mentioned that there is no law preventing carrying a gun in a school, only (I think) at airports. The thread of conversation never came back round to it. He was quite resolute however. Do you have any idea what he may have been talking about?