Come on Indiana....get on the ball

[mrortega]

This thread gets me fired up again. Immediately after Newtown I talked to the people at my local parochial school and was told the bishop will not allow armed lay people to help out with security at schools in his diocese. I also talked to my local public school superintendent and at least I got invited to talk to the safety officer. When I went there the SRO and a county deputy were also there and we had a good discussion about using non-LEOs for added security. But that's as far as it got. There has been zero interest in using volunteers who are willing to lay down their lives to protect teachers, staff and students.

An LEO who goes to another church that I attend was also courteous and we had several discussions about security. However he finally made some comments to the effect that some in the schools are worried that a volunteer might go wacky and start shooting. WTF!!? So I emailed him a link to a story about a Las Vegas PO who had just killed his wife and son before offing himself. My LEO friend admitted that anybody could have a "bad day" but said that didn't change anything.

So, as it stands around Evansville, the Connecticut massacre is over and things are pretty much back to normal. Heads are largely back in the sand and "we don't need armed civilians running around in a school." Damn. Too bad there wasn't an armed anybody at Newtown! Anyway, I don't think, as someone said above, that an administrator is going to go out on a limb and give permission for a mere untrained civilian to carry in his/her school.

 

[dfranks]

Funny you mention Co. I was watching a repeat of 'Only in America' with Larry the Cable guy yesterday. He was in Colorado where he met with 'the Dragon Man. They said a couple of times how 'the DragonMan" had moved to Colorado because there you can own ANY type of gun as long as you had the proper paper work. I laughed to my self a little thinking 'my how times change so quickly'

 

[MTC]

Good on ya, Mr. Ortega, for trying to do something locally. There is a reason why you were not successful. And it's the same reason why the so-called "students for concealed carry" are unlikely to ever achieve their goals, and why the GFZs will not be eliminated. Here are some clues:

There has been zero interest in using volunteers who are willing to lay down their lives to protect teachers, staff and students.

An LEO who goes to another church that I attend was also courteous and we had several discussions about security. However he finally made some comments to the effect that some in the schools are worried that a volunteer might go wacky and start shooting...

Heads are largely back in the sand and "we don't need armed civilians running around [STRIKE]in a school[/strike]."

FTFY (and noticed also the often-used term "running around")

Damn. Too bad there wasn't an armed anybody at Newtown! Anyway, I don't think, as someone said above, that an administrator is going to go out on a limb and give permission for a mere untrained civilian to carry in his/her school.

Maybe that's because, in Indiana as well as the rest of the country, many folks - and especially among those who fancy themselves "public administrators" - have been conditioned to believe that only those with badges are "qualified to" or "have any business" carrying any kind of gun.

 

[CathyInBlue]

With respect, Cathy, why limit it to teachers and only when on the clock? Why not other school personnel or for that matter, parents or family members of students?

Bill,
I think Cathy meant that the administration couldn't take action on the teacher for carrying. They do have the ability to make you very uncomfortable in your job if you go against the grain.

Oh, Bill! I whole heartily agree! I was just writing in terms of the NRA's recommendation for how to address the needs of schools for trained security staff in the most economical way, to train and arm teachers. I completely agree that the existence or non-existence of the upper tier LTCH is a legal irrelevancy and anyone and everyone, associated with the school's payroll or otherwise, who has seen fit to go through the legal rigamaroll of the fees, fingerprints, and background checks, to obtain a current LTCH should be able to freely visit any public school campus for any non-criminal purpose while armed and not be hassled for it.

But, as DC mentioned, because IN is an at-will state, even if a unionized teacher were to take advantage of such a legal environment as I described, there would be no way the Leftists in the union leadership would stand up for such a voluntarily armed teacher/security officer in a public school, were his administration to take umbrage at such action and fire him. It would be insufficient to merely decriminalize the mere presence of otherwise legally possessed firearms on school property. The legal possessors would have to be indemnified and protected from reprisal by resistant government supervisors, i.e. school board members, principals, and other administrators.

 

[mrortega]

Good on ya, Mr. Ortega, for trying to do something locally. There is a reason why you were not successful. And it's the same reason why the so-called "students for concealed carry" are unlikely to ever achieve their goals, and why the GFZs will not be eliminated. Here are some clues:
FTFY (and noticed also the often-used term "running around")
Maybe that's because, in Indiana as well as the rest of the country, many folks - and especially among those who fancy themselves "public administrators" - have been conditioned to believe that only those with badges are "qualified to" or "have any business" carrying any kind of gun.

When I didn't get a serious response I came up with another idea to use "semi-armed" volunteers. I proposed that a screened volunteer could be allowed to lock an unloaded firearm in his vehicle while being allowed to carry an empty holster and ammunition on his person in the school. The administration would have to give permission for this since you can't have a weapon on school property unless you are dropping off or picking up someone and you stay in your vehicle. I further proposed that the school principal could be given written permission by the board/super to authorize the volunteer to become armed in an extreme situation such as: Ms. Apple, the 3rd grade teacher, comes in and is tired and upset and announces that her husband/boyfriend/girlfriend and her had a terrible fight and he is still upset and prone to violence. The principal would contact the super and say, "I've asked Mr. Ortega to arm himself and be locked in the building with us until law enforcement or the SRO can arrive from one of the other schools where he is today. We have a potential serious problem."

That idea met about the same resistance bordering on, "who does this guy think he is that we PROFESSIONALS can't handle any situation that comes about?" So, far now, I've kinda slunk back into my hole and am concentrating on continuing to watch out for my wife and myself. It's only a matter of time before we have another bloody disaster somewhere. Tick, tick, tick!

 

[JetGirl]

My understanding is that Noble County has already brought this to the school board meetings, put it up for a vote, and passed it.
Not so?

 

[Ahuey]

I am not sure that I would want just any teacher carrying a gun in schools. There needs to be some training before it should be allowed IMO

 

[PMR]

I agree that training would be a must, but getting it past by a school board isn't going to happen. I work at a school in Ind and we can't get a OK for YouTube and YouTube Khan education vids, I can't ever see them OK'ing staff CC'ing...

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I am not sure that I would want just any teacher carrying a gun in schools. There needs to be some training before it should be allowed IMO

How is that any different than the antis I'm not sure that I would want just anyone carrying a gun in parks/malls/grocery stores/libraries/etc."? What's the difference between schools and any of the places I mentioned?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I am not sure that I would want just any teacher carrying a gun in schools. There needs to be some training before it should be allowed IMO

Not to dogpile on you, but...

How is that any different than the antis I'm not sure that I would want just anyone carrying a gun in parks/malls/grocery stores/libraries/etc."? What's the difference between schools and any of the places I mentioned?

^^This. There is no magic about a school property line that removes the problem of bad people doing bad things. To stop them, we need good people, armed and prepared to stop them.
If it helps your comfort zone (and I don't mean this with any sarcasm,) "just any teacher" wouldn't be carrying there. It would be those who carry in their out-of-school lives as well. As an example: I'm a paramedic. I can't carry on duty for several reasons, not the least of which is an employer policy, but the bigger issue is that if I get sent to a school, I can't lawfully leave my gun in the rig nor otherwise unattended, nor can I bring it in with me. The same logic holds true at other government buildings and similar Criminal Empowerment/Victim Disarmament Zones. I carry regularly, but under the law, I can't do so here. Why? Am I somehow less firearms-conscious and less safe with a weapon because I'm wearing a uniform and have a stethoscope around my neck?
Those who choose to be lawfully armed should not be kept from being so in their own defense. To me, it's just that simple.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Cathy,
Thank you for clarifying! Having read your positions on this issue, I couldn't understand why you'd carve out such a narrow exception, but I do see your point. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but would not IC 35-47-11.1 provide the protection you're discussing? Or is there some union punishment that would be applicable to the unionized teacher, something not enacted by the employer and thus, not covered under that law?

Rep inbound, BTW.

Blessings,
Bill

Oh, Bill! I whole heartily agree! I was just writing in terms of the NRA's recommendation for how to address the needs of schools for trained security staff in the most economical way, to train and arm teachers. I completely agree that the existence or non-existence of the upper tier LTCH is a legal irrelevancy and anyone and everyone, associated with the school's payroll or otherwise, who has seen fit to go through the legal rigamaroll of the fees, fingerprints, and background checks, to obtain a current LTCH should be able to freely visit any public school campus for any non-criminal purpose while armed and not be hassled for it.

But, as DC mentioned, because IN is an at-will state, even if a unionized teacher were to take advantage of such a legal environment as I described, there would be no way the Leftists in the union leadership would stand up for such a voluntarily armed teacher/security officer in a public school, were his administration to take umbrage at such action and fire him. It would be insufficient to merely decriminalize the mere presence of otherwise legally possessed firearms on school property. The legal possessors would have to be indemnified and protected from reprisal by resistant government supervisors, i.e. school board members, principals, and other administrators.

 

[CathyInBlue]

CCorrect me if I'm mistaken, but would not IC 35-47-11.1 provide the protection you're discussing? Or is there some union punishment that would be applicable to the unionized teacher, something not enacted by the employer and thus, not covered under that law?

Damn good questions. I hadn't considered 11.1 reaching into labour relations between political subdivisions and their employees. Would a policy of disallowing the employees at the local county assessor's office to pack heat on the job run afoul of 11.1's prohibition on political subdivisions having general policies against the carrying of firearms? Not sure, to be honest.

My knee jerk reaction would be, "of course it would, an illegal policy is an illegal policy," but then there could be any sort of stealth exception under the law for negotiating and enforcing the terms of labour that I'm not aware of.

 

[ModernGunner]

I'm certain we have more than sufficient numbers of those who would volunteer a day or so a week that either have already gotten training in their lifetime (ex-cops, military, etc.) or those that would be willing to go through training.

Or, less limiting, qualification on some sort of repeated basis? I'm still not clear on why anyone is (IF they are) vehemently against being able to demonstrate their proficiency with a weapon.

There appears to be some real hostility against necessitating that anyone charged with overseeing a school (in this thread) being able to demonstrate that they are proficient with a firearm. If it's YOUR child in said school, wouldn't it ease your mind to know that the person performing the job of 'bodyguard' for your child is proficient in their ability to do so?

Some people are just sort of 'naturals' and have no problem being proficient. Others have the potential but need training to get to that point. Just depends on the individual. Either way, qualification and demonstrating individual proficiency resolves that issue.

 

[CathyInBlue]

It's the difference between a damn good idea (wearing a seatbelt, getting handgun training) and being mandated to do it by government fiat. It's an issue of choice and government arbitrarily limitting same.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Damn good questions. I hadn't considered 11.1 reaching into labour relations between political subdivisions and their employees. Would a policy of disallowing the employees at the local county assessor's office to pack heat on the job run afoul of 11.1's prohibition on political subdivisions having general policies against the carrying of firearms? Not sure, to be honest.

My knee jerk reaction would be, "of course it would, an illegal policy is an illegal policy," but then there could be any sort of stealth exception under the law for negotiating and enforcing the terms of labour that I'm not aware of.

No, it would not. When I was employed by a county EMS, we could be forbidden to carry while on duty or to bring firearms into the building, but could not be forbidden from having them in our cars parked outside. As applied to a government employer, I agree with the "parking lot law". As applied to private business, I do not, nonetheless, the preemption law does contain an exception (IC 35-47-11.1-4(2))that an employee may still be forbidden from carrying whilst on the clock.

IC 35-47-11.1-4
Not prohibited by chapter
Sec. 4. This chapter may not be construed to prevent any of the following:
(1) A law enforcement agency of a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing regulations pertaining to firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories issued to or used by law enforcement officers in the course of their official duties.
(2) Subject to IC 34-28-7-2, an employer from regulating or prohibiting the employees of the employer from carrying firearms and ammunition in the course of the employee's official duties.
....

 

[CathyInBlue]

Why do I always forget the depth and breadth of the list of exceptions in 11.1-4?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Why do I always forget the depth and breadth of the list of exceptions in 11.1-4?

Because none of them should be necessary?