2013-01-11 Chron.com: Dewhurst on K-12 guns

[RHenriksen]

http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Te ... 186974.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Dewhurst says the state funding needed would depend on the number of participating districts and how many people want training. School districts wouldn't be required to participate."

I certainly hope there is more to any upcoming bill than this - that we'd escape from the need for a school district board to explicitly grant permission for a teacher, staff, or parent to carry on campus under their CHL.

[2firfun50]

http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Te ... 186974.php

"Dewhurst says the state funding needed would depend on the number of participating districts and how many people want training. School districts wouldn't be required to participate."

I certainly hope there is more to any upcoming bill than this - that we'd escape from the need for a school district board to explicitly grant permission for a teacher, staff, or parent to carry on campus under their CHL.

At least the subject is being brought up for discussion. I'd hate to see the funding pulled from the normal school budget to pay for the additional training.

Another suggestion might be to have a "school endorsement" for CHL holders similar to endorsements to drivers licenses. School bus drivers must have a CDL with a bus endorsement.

The CHL holder (whether a school employee or not) would complete a state approved additional training course and receive a "school endorsement" on their CHL. Training and licensing fees may be paid by the state for employees. If you are not an employee (or your distric won't pay) the training and licensing fees are on your dime. The endorsement would be a "shall issue" just like a CHL.

Once you receive your endorsement, every school district "shall" honor the endorsement for all school activities anywhere any time, employee or not.

Its another option if we can't get access to all school activities with a CHL.

Ok, feel free to pile on.

EDIT: This plan seems to fit in with other threads.

[RHenriksen]

I'm not gonna pile on :-)

I'll just say that I'd prefer less regulation, red tape, and expense. If the above was a necessary evil to get it passed, I won't fall over and die; but I'd prefer not to add yet more government.

[2firfun50]

I'm not gonna pile on :-)

I'll just say that I'd prefer less regulation, red tape, and expense. If the above was a necessary evil to get it passed, I won't fall over and die; but I'd prefer not to add yet more government.

I'm with you on the less regulation, red tape, and expense. However, I'm not completely comfortable that the current training is adequate for just throwing open the schools to any CHL holder. Especially when your mission is to provide some sense of emergency armed security. Specifically of concern is the firearms accuracy portion.

I'm sure the majority of board members here practice regularly and are well above the average and are mentally prepared.

I'm not completely comfortable with the CHL crowd who qualified a while back with a brand new firearm and haven't practiced since. I have an acquantance that has never fired his EDC. Bought it new, loaded it up and thinks he's good to go. He qualified with another gun and hasn't shot it since either.

Trying to get him to go to the range is like pulling teeth. He doesn't even own a cleaning kit.

In my plan, to get and keep the endorsement, one would need to shoot CHL instructor scores and regularly demonstrate profciency. A little help from the assigned school LEO might be needed.

[TexasCajun]

At least it addresses on piece of the puzzle. Teacher/Administrator enahanced CHLs are a good last resort, but the problem needs to be addressed first by funding & staffing professional security within the schools.

[artx]

This is what Mississippi did last year. While not optimal I'd support it.

At least the subject is being brought up for discussion. I'd hate to see the funding pulled from the normal school budget to pay for the additional training.

Another suggestion might be to have a "school endorsement" for CHL holders similar to endorsements to drivers licenses. School bus drivers must have a CDL with a bus endorsement.

The CHL holder (whether a school employee or not) would complete a state approved additional training course and receive a "school endorsement" on their CHL. Training and licensing fees may be paid by the state for employees. If you are not an employee (or your distric won't pay) the training and licensing fees are on your dime. The endorsement would be a "shall issue" just like a CHL.

Once you receive your endorsement, every school district "shall" honor the endorsement for all school activities anywhere any time, employee or not.

Its another option if we can't get access to all school activities with a CHL.

Ok, feel free to pile on.

EDIT: This plan seems to fit in with other threads.

[cyphur]

http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Te ... 186974.php

"Dewhurst says the state funding needed would depend on the number of participating districts and how many people want training. School districts wouldn't be required to participate."

I certainly hope there is more to any upcoming bill than this - that we'd escape from the need for a school district board to explicitly grant permission for a teacher, staff, or parent to carry on campus under their CHL.

At least the subject is being brought up for discussion. I'd hate to see the funding pulled from the normal school budget to pay for the additional training.

Another suggestion might be to have a "school endorsement" for CHL holders similar to endorsements to drivers licenses. School bus drivers must have a CDL with a bus endorsement.

The CHL holder (whether a school employee or not) would complete a state approved additional training course and receive a "school endorsement" on their CHL. Training and licensing fees may be paid by the state for employees. If you are not an employee (or your distric won't pay) the training and licensing fees are on your dime. The endorsement would be a "shall issue" just like a CHL.

Once you receive your endorsement, every school district "shall" honor the endorsement for all school activities anywhere any time, employee or not.

Its another option if we can't get access to all school activities with a CHL.

Ok, feel free to pile on.

EDIT: This plan seems to fit in with other threads.

I'm not gonna pile on :-)

I'll just say that I'd prefer less regulation, red tape, and expense. If the above was a necessary evil to get it passed, I won't fall over and die; but I'd prefer not to add yet more government.

I'm with you on the less regulation, red tape, and expense. However, I'm not completely comfortable that the current training is adequate for just throwing open the schools to any CHL holder. Especially when your mission is to provide some sense of emergency armed security. Specifically of concern is the firearms accuracy portion.

I'm sure the majority of board members here practice regularly and are well above the average and are mentally prepared.

I'm not completely comfortable with the CHL crowd who qualified a while back with a brand new firearm and haven't practiced since. I have an acquantance that has never fired his EDC. Bought it new, loaded it up and thinks he's good to go. He qualified with another gun and hasn't shot it since either.

Trying to get him to go to the range is like pulling teeth. He doesn't even own a cleaning kit.

In my plan, to get and keep the endorsement, one would need to shoot CHL instructor scores and regularly demonstrate profciency. A little help from the assigned school LEO might be needed.

I agree 100%. If you want to carry in a high risk zone, go through some extra training, and prove your proficiency quarterly. It would not cost much to have your local PD run a range session where everyone paid a nominal fee to cover admin costs, etc. Shoot it at a police range somewhere to further lower costs. This would make it VERY EASY to have volunteer "security advocates" on the campus to help keep watchful eyes on the campus and children during school hours without needing a full time force on the premises. Allows the school district to transfer all of the liability to the individual as the CHL already makes much of that clear, what leaves your gun is your personal responsibility.

I am a realist - and that means current reality does not match what I'd like to see. However, we need to fight for reasonable goals that can pass in the current legislative environment.

[Jumping Frog]

I'm not completely comfortable with the CHL crowd who qualified a while back with a brand new firearm and haven't practiced since. I have an acquantance that has never fired his EDC. Bought it new, loaded it up and thinks he's good to go. He qualified with another gun and hasn't shot it since either.

Trying to get him to go to the range is like pulling teeth. He doesn't even own a cleaning kit.

If an active shooter was in my children's High School roaming the halls and gunning down children, I'd still rather your acquaintance was there armed with a chance to stop the threat rather than leaving my children utterly defenseless.

I think the whole "schools are an extra-special case so we need extra-special training" is missing the mark, and actually playing into the anti-gunners mentality. Schools aren't fundamentally any different than businesses, shopping malls or any other place where crowds of people gather, and the general CHL has a proven track record sustained in many states over a couple of decades. If you argue for more training for schools, then you open yourself to the argument, "well, why not more training for shopping malls"?

None of these CHL's in schools are meant to be "tactical operators" or "emergency responders" anyway. Basically, instead of having a totally unarmed population, it simply makes sense to allow a responsible adult the opportunity to defend himself (and if he chooses, defend other innocent parties) instead of standing there defenseless. The same equation plays in a shopping mall or anyplace else crowds gather.

As far as this whole "quarterly qualification", geez, give me a break. This is the same session where we are looking to reduce the number of training hours from 12 to 4 because the additional training has not been demonstrated to save additional lives.

Training as a personal decision is something I fully support in my own choices, shooting and competing approximately 30 times a year. But I do not support the government making tighter restrictions.

[RPB]

According to the Secret Service study on school shootings and stats on various mass shooters ... even the presentation of a pocket-lint filled non-functional firearm gives everyone a better chance statistically since most times people like George Hennard at Lubys, Cho at VT, Clackamas Mall shooter ... and most all others stop the attack once confronted.

Of course I'd PREFER everyone kept in practice and had well maintained equipment, but ... statistically, they'd be better off presenting any sort of gun (or even a rubber one) if the shooter believed it was over now.

[2firfun50]

I'm not completely comfortable with the CHL crowd who qualified a while back with a brand new firearm and haven't practiced since. I have an acquantance that has never fired his EDC. Bought it new, loaded it up and thinks he's good to go. He qualified with another gun and hasn't shot it since either.

Trying to get him to go to the range is like pulling teeth. He doesn't even own a cleaning kit.

If an active shooter was in my children's High School roaming the halls and gunning down children, I'd still rather your acquaintance was there armed with a chance to stop the threat rather than leaving my children utterly defenseless.

I think the whole "schools are an extra-special case so we need extra-special training" is missing the mark, and actually playing into the anti-gunners mentality. Schools aren't fundamentally any different than businesses, shopping malls or any other place where crowds of people gather, and the general CHL has a proven track record sustained in many states over a couple of decades. If you argue for more training for schools, then you open yourself to the argument, "well, why not more training for shopping malls"?

None of these CHL's in schools are meant to be "tactical operators" or "emergency responders" anyway. Basically, instead of having a totally unarmed population, it simply makes sense to allow a responsible adult the opportunity to defend himself (and if he chooses, defend other innocent parties) instead of standing there defenseless. The same equation plays in a shopping mall or anyplace else crowds gather.

As far as this whole "quarterly qualification", geez, give me a break. This is the same session where we are looking to reduce the number of training hours from 12 to 4 because the additional training has not been demonstrated to save additional lives.

Training as a personal decision is something I fully support in my own choices, shooting and competing approximately 30 times a year. But I do not support the government making tighter restrictions.

I agree with everything you said. I was just trying to suggest something that might pass. Every CHL holder should be allowed to carry in a school or at school activities.

[SewTexas]

in a "perfect world" would be no active shooter ever again in a school...however, let's step away from the dreaming and go to a slightly less perfect world, just slightly...in this world, the teachers and admins would have a CHL, why? because they know how to interact with the students and they care, why did we have at least 3 die in Sandy Hook? because they cared so much they gave their lives for those kids. will a hired security guard do that? probably not.

[cyphur]

I'm not completely comfortable with the CHL crowd who qualified a while back with a brand new firearm and haven't practiced since. I have an acquantance that has never fired his EDC. Bought it new, loaded it up and thinks he's good to go. He qualified with another gun and hasn't shot it since either.

Trying to get him to go to the range is like pulling teeth. He doesn't even own a cleaning kit.

If an active shooter was in my children's High School roaming the halls and gunning down children, I'd still rather your acquaintance was there armed with a chance to stop the threat rather than leaving my children utterly defenseless.

I think the whole "schools are an extra-special case so we need extra-special training" is missing the mark, and actually playing into the anti-gunners mentality. Schools aren't fundamentally any different than businesses, shopping malls or any other place where crowds of people gather, and the general CHL has a proven track record sustained in many states over a couple of decades. If you argue for more training for schools, then you open yourself to the argument, "well, why not more training for shopping malls"?

None of these CHL's in schools are meant to be "tactical operators" or "emergency responders" anyway. Basically, instead of having a totally unarmed population, it simply makes sense to allow a responsible adult the opportunity to defend himself (and if he chooses, defend other innocent parties) instead of standing there defenseless. The same equation plays in a shopping mall or anyplace else crowds gather.

As far as this whole "quarterly qualification", geez, give me a break. This is the same session where we are looking to reduce the number of training hours from 12 to 4 because the additional training has not been demonstrated to save additional lives.

Training as a personal decision is something I fully support in my own choices, shooting and competing approximately 30 times a year. But I do not support the government making tighter restrictions.

I've read somewhere - do not recall where - that some police forces are actually now training to lay down suppressing fire during an active shooter scenario. As I understand it, many PDs train only to shoot at a valid, open target, but the case of an active shooter, even the suppressing fire will keep them down and not engaging targets(kids, etc).

In that case, a CHL is just as effective as a LEO. Your point holds a lot of weight. Also the concerns with arguing against CHLs when they have such a great track record makes little sense. I think you have changed my mind on the matter.



At the end of the day, I'm going to support the bill that has the best chance of passing, that maintains the most rights in it, and follows common sense as much as possible. I think the problem with spitballing here - and I am as guilty as the rest - is that I personally am not familiar with the legislative environment in Austin so I have no idea what is likely to pass.


Personally, I REALLY like the idea of shifting CHLs from 46.15(b) to 4615(a) - that solves most of our problems right out of the gate and eliminates all of this need for extra training, qualifications, etc. It is a simple fix to many problems at once and does not impact the language for the rest of the CHL program. Follows the common sense mandate, does not open us up to more restrictions, etc.

[gigag04]

If responding to an active shooter on duty, I'm going to have 170 rifle rounds and 84 pistol rounds. Along with quikclot, bandages, chest wound pads, etc.

The average CHL load out would not be equipped for a "proper" tactical engagement involving suppressing fire etc.

I am all for the idea, but saying a CHL == LEO in active shooter response is a stretch for me. If I'm caught in one off duty, ill likely have a compact 9 and an extra mag. I may use a few shots to convince the shooter it's over and time to kill himself, but I'm saving most of my rounds for game ending CNS/center mass shots.

[cyphur]

If responding to an active shooter on duty, I'm going to have 170 rifle rounds and 84 pistol rounds. Along with quikclot, bandages, chest wound pads, etc.

The average CHL load out would not be equipped for a "proper" tactical engagement involving suppressing fire etc.

I am all for the idea, but saying a CHL == LEO in active shooter response is a stretch for me. If I'm caught in one off duty, ill likely have a compact 9 and an extra mag. I may use a few shots to convince the shooter it's over and time to kill himself, but I'm saving most of my rounds for game ending CNS/center mass shots.

I do not think anyone is saying a CHL == LEO, I am merely saying that anyone who can lay down fire(even sporadic fire) until the cavalry arrives and puts the people down, is better than a shooter running rampant. If the CHL were able to take a clean shot and end it, then great.

[Liberty]

When ever I see comments claiming how useless mere civillian CHL holders would be at an active shooter situation at a school. I think back to Suzzana Grazia Hupps testimony about the Luby's Massacre. I believe in her statements that she could have stopped it if her government didn't disarm her even with the minimal training that she had at the time.

I recall incidents where CHL have made active shooter situations better. Can't recall anything where they made it worse. what really confuses me is why people believe that we CHL holders make the streets malls churches movie theaters safer, but for some reason we shouldn't trust teachers or janitors who hold CHLs to enter are our schools while armed. It will be a lot cheaper than turning our schools to armed fortresses with armed guards. Extra training is always nice, but we have set up minimal basic training so that we are allowed to mix in with the public, if the training isn't sufficient to allow a CHL into a school, then it isn't sufficient for us to be allowed into Luby's