TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:Any special training requirements are absurd for several reasons. Anygunanywhere

Mandating special training requirements could be construed as the CHL holder being employed by the school to protect students as a security person or a body guard. This is against the law.

Only if they perform the duties of an unlicensed security guard ie. patrolling hallways, responding to security complaints etc. If they become licensed security guards or explicitly state that they are not to "perform" the same duties as a security guard then the problem goes away.

Either the staff can carry under the authority of CHL or they can't. The school board can either grand persmission or not. They can not supercede Texas State Law by imposing more strict requirements. Requiring them to be licensed security guards defeats the whole purpose.

Teachers or staff with CHLs would be ordinary citizens carrying just like normal. They would now have the means to protect themselves and people they cared about, but they should not be given the responsibility for protection of the students. That is not their role. Giving them special bullets or a few hours of training won't make them LEOs.

I am not saying I don't think additional training isn't a good idea. I am all for taking advanced CHL and conflict resolution training, just not mandating or requiring them. I am merely presenting some of the associated legal and administrative issues that would have to be dealt with.

I believe the training they mentioned is by crisis prevention institute http://www.crisisprevention.com/ . There are staff members trained in that on every campus afaik. I've been through it twice, mostly diffusing hostile or potentially hostile situations. There is some restraint training but how good it is depends on the instructor and group you're with. From my dealings with them I get the feeling they would be very much against teachers being armed.
I'm hoping this goes somewhere positive for all of us.

Enjoy!

I'm really interested in transferring to this district. According to the report, they have 50 employees & only 110 students. Must be tiny classrooms?

It seems like the school district can decide what requirements must be met before they give permission. They don't have to allow every CHL to carry just because they allowed some.

SCone wrote:I'm really interested in transferring to this district. According to the report, they have 50 employees & only 110 students. Must be tiny classrooms?

When they say "50 employees" that most likely means district-wide: teachers, administrators, teacher aides, cafeteria staff, custodians, bus drivers . . . and it's likely some of those responsibilities overlap.
DSW grew up in that area and says she always knew they had a school, but didn't know where they got the students.

boomerang wrote:It seems like the school district can decide what requirements must be met before they give permission. They don't have to allow every CHL to carry just because they allowed some.

True. I don't have a problem with chl-legal carry on campus, but I would like to see additional training for district employees who will be carrying. I am about to start my 15th year in a classroom. I've known teachers I would walk right along side into ANY situation, and I have known very good teachers who I don't think should have a driving license. Being a talented teacher and a safe bus driver don't automatically go together, much less firearm proficiency. We all know that the CHL qualification does not adaquately test this.

The superintendent of the school district will be on Gun Talk tomorrow. http://www.guntalk.com/

- Jim

I know the comment boards on different sites are a breeding ground for ignorance as well as insight,but, I couldn't help posting on one of them. Hope I didn't let us down:

Rok 11:03 AM
Statistics will show what the statistician wants them to show. Look at it from this perspective: Those that have been licensed to carry firearms are simply continuing to do so observing the laws they were educated on and tested for proficiency in the first case. We trust teachers to guide the minds of our children and in so doing their lives. Education about responsible firearm safety certainly should begin at home. You are doing a disservice to your children by sheltering them from the unfortunate reality that harm can come to them at any time, anywhere. When will we owe up to this? Take a basic safety course, go with an experienced shooter to a range, enjoy yourself and enjoy this sport. If it's not for you that's fine. The knowledge (facts) gained will be worth it. This is a tool folks just as much as a car jack. I don't drive around hoping to God I get a flat just so I can use it just the same as I don't walk the streets hoping I have to "slap leather". Nothing could be further from the truth. It's all about self and situational awareness and personal safety. Find a list of school shootings and tabulate out how many were indeed caused by a student disarming a teacher to cause such tragedies, 'mmmkay?

There have been many threads on school carry and how "the CHL good guys" should be able to carry because bad people kill good people in "gun free zones". Now that it may be a possibility, all of a sudden you want to mandate special training and permission. What gives?

WildBill wrote:There have been many threads on school carry and how "the CHL good guys" should be able to carry because bad people kill good people in "gun free zones". Now that it may be a possibility, all of a sudden you want to mandate special training and permission. What gives?

im not for mandating extra training but it is a good idea

I do not favor making the right to keep and bear arms conditional, but if we refuse to acknowledge political reality, we will accomplish nothing. If this is what it takes to get a foot in the door, so be it.

Planning and training increase the probability that you will respond to a situation effectively. Without them, you risk responding by instinct, reflex, and perhaps panic.

Everyone who deals with emergencies -- the military, police, firemen, EMTs, medical personnel -- train for as many situations as they can imagine. When your training kicks in, you do not waste time thinking through a situation at a time when clear thinking is difficult.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:I do not favor making the right to keep and bear arms conditional, but if we refuse to acknowledge political reality, we will accomplish nothing. If this is what it takes to get a foot in the door, so be it.- Jim

I do acknowledge political reality, perhaps more than most. How do you keep the identity of armed staff members confidential, so that they do not become "first targets?" It's still early, so I haven't yet heard any plans that I think are feasible.

WildBill wrote:How do you keep the identity of armed staff members confidential, so that they do not become "first targets?"

Schools already deal pretty well with multiple privacy and confidentiality issues, and this one wouldn't be hard at all. Simply create a policy that:

1. Requires teachers who want to carry not to share that information with anyone else, including staff.
2. Requires all staff members to respond to all inquiries on their participation or the participation of others with "School policy requires that I neither confirm nor deny anyone's participation or non participation in the CHL program, including my own."
3. Centralizes applications for the program and issuance of authorization with one senior administrator and one backup, both of whom are forbidden to share
that information with anyone except the other program participants (need for friend or foe ID during an incident) and as required by law.

The "first target" issue would be a concern if only one or 2 folks participated. Multiple teachers in different assignments in different parts of the campus at any given time make for a pretty difficult preemptive strike scenario. That's why this approach is so much more elegant than 1 armed guard at the main entrance who can easily be taken out first with a little planning.