TexasCHLforum.com

terryg wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Focusing on mental health issues in response to Newtown is a mistake, in my view.
Chas.

The school systems are, in most cases, burdened with caring for young children with mental health issues - usually inadequately - until the turn 18 at which point they are dumped on society. Then the justice and prison systems then take over in a vicious cycle with no treatment that only creates a larger monster. All of this cost more $$$ in many cases than if adequate treatments were provided early on.

I dont wanna pick apart your post but I graduated on Saturday with a History Major/SPED Minor. I spent the last year in SPED classrooms, particularly resource rooms.

Burdened, yes. I would like to make it clear that the special needs kids have a LOT of support inside the schools, and they receive the best possible care that we can provide. Keep in mind that inadequacy is a subjective thing. Measuring progress of any kind with some of these disabilities is impossible.... I don't want to sound brash or rude, but it's impossible to fix many of these broken children. The only thing we can do is contain them, and try to teach them enough life skills and self-awareness strategies that they might possibly be able to care for themselves in a minimalist way. Most of the kids I dealt with stand no chance and will require supervision for the remainder of their life.

One more thing--those kids, at least in Texas, have the option of staying in the schools till they are 22, not 18. They don't get dumped. They stay with their parents or go to group homes....

Controlling people with disabilities is as impossible as regulating guns. You simply can't.... not without restricting the rights of someone... and even special education/special needs people are humans, and are protected by the constitution just as much as gun-owners are.

If you ask me, it appears that the government has to do something... and it's a lot more PC, and easier to pass legislation that tramples the constitutional privileges of 2A folks than Special Ed/Special Needs folks.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Divided Attention wrote:Then there is the BIG question in my mind... Who is going to pay for the reinforcements and additional securities at the schools?

Remember, my article offers two alternatives. That's going to be my position in Austin also.

Chas.

Within state budgetary constraints that should be a really strong position.

What I worry about is the Feds coming in and making the price a moot point for the states. Whether it is significant federal funding for state/ISD administered security or no-kidding TSA in every school, how could it be countered? The federal government is bound and determined to spend us into oblivian, which seems to leave, as the only remaining argument, the TSA's repugnance to liberty and decency. And we already know with what little regard those values are held in D.C. I hope there is another good practical reason to avoid option 1 when the cost doesn't matter, but I'm not aware of it at this late hour.

If I remember correctly, we've already heard of doctors and school personnel questioning children about guns in their homes. Obviously a security force operated by anti-[our]gun people with similar access to the children is significantly worse; especially if mental evaluations become part of gun ownership.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:A parrent with a CHLshould be allowed to carry .

I agree, but passing that is more difficult. I already drafted a bill that would put CHL's on the same footing as LEO's except for carrying in bars and carrying while intoxicated. It's in the hands of a Texas Senator who is deciding if he will file it. I would hope that the Newtown tragedy would greatly improve the changes that it will be filed.

Chas.

Thanks Charles. This has been the need from the start and I am glad to see you have proposed this. Unfortunately, it takes a disaster such as Newtown to get rational people to clear their heads of the irrational and get REAL deterrents created.

A Good Samaritan Law protecting CHL's who may fire on an active shooter (bad guy) from prosecution would be good in this Bill as well.

Divided Attention wrote:Then there is the BIG question in my mind... Who is going to pay for the reinforcements and additional securities at the schools? I work in schools, and the last couple years the budget cuts havee been HUGE. Class sizes increased, programs cut all over the place. Heck we have to hope we have enough in our budget for paper. The changes you are suggesting sound awesome! Especially since I am in the "front line" in my building. I just have huge concerns over funding.

There have been several instances where I wished my sidearm weren't inaccessible. It never ceases to amaze me the way "adults" will behave in the presence of children. We have locked down because of threatening phone calls, and called the PD for irate guardians many times. Not that any of these are call to use my weapon, but would like to be prepared in the event of escalation.

The doors are minimal, and we have to lock with a key from the outside/hallside. This takes time we might not have. It is scary, and I hope that things settle down a bit after the holidays. If you think prayer is not in schools, the moment of silence is filled with prayer at my school - it makes me proud. They may be silent, but they are obvious!

I pray everyday I never have to use my sidearm, and thankful that I have that option if need be.

Maybe they need to get rid of some of the useless overhead "administrators". There is much fat in the school systems that could be eliminated and the funds used to make the schools safe.

Anygunanywhere

St. Louis Police Chief: We Arm Pilots, Why Not Teachers?

by AWR Hawkins 19 Dec 2012, 6:13 AM PDT

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... t-Teachers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

St. Louis Police Tim Fitch is pushing for this in his city because he understands that the ultimate check on criminal behavior is the threat of immediate repercussions which could prove fatal to the perpetrator.

As I've written previously, allowing the possession of weapons by teachers who have concealed carry permits or who have met legal requirements for carrying in states that don't require permits, is simply common sense.

Pilots have been armed now for many, many years, [and because of it] we've not had another hijacking ...

more at link provided

I agree, but passing that is more difficult. I already drafted a bill that would put CHL's on the same footing as LEO's except for carrying in bars and carrying while intoxicated. It's in the hands of a Texas Senator who is deciding if he will file it. I would hope that the Newtown tragedy would greatly improve the changes that it will be filed.

Chas.

How would the definition of "same footing as LEO's" apply to areas posted with 30.06? LEO's can carry into those areas but CHL's can not. Would this "same footing" invalidate those postings?

I just sent your proposal to allow teachers to be armed to both our Senators and my Congressman.

blwill wrote:

I agree, but passing that is more difficult. I already drafted a bill that would put CHL's on the same footing as LEO's except for carrying in bars and carrying while intoxicated. It's in the hands of a Texas Senator who is deciding if he will file it. I would hope that the Newtown tragedy would greatly improve the changes that it will be filed.

Chas.

How would the definition of "same footing as LEO's" apply to areas posted with 30.06? LEO's can carry into those areas but CHL's can not. Would this "same footing" invalidate those postings?

I mean in terms of the "Not Applicable" provisions in TPC §46.15(a). This means we could carry in everywhere except in bars or when intoxicated. It has nothing to do with private property that posts a 30.06 sign. LEOs can even enter private property that's posted, but it due to a revision to TPC §30.05(i). My bill will not address criminal trespass.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

blwill wrote:

I agree, but passing that is more difficult. I already drafted a bill that would put CHL's on the same footing as LEO's except for carrying in bars and carrying while intoxicated. It's in the hands of a Texas Senator who is deciding if he will file it. I would hope that the Newtown tragedy would greatly improve the changes that it will be filed.

Chas.

How would the definition of "same footing as LEO's" apply to areas posted with 30.06? LEO's can carry into those areas but CHL's can not. Would this "same footing" invalidate those postings?

I mean in terms of the "Not Applicable" provisions in TPC §46.15(a). This means we could carry in everywhere except in bars or when intoxicated. It has nothing to do with private property that posts a 30.06 sign. LEOs can even enter private property that's posted, but it due to a revision to TPC §30.05(i). My bill will not address criminal trespass.

Chas.

Thanks for the clarification. I do hope we can address some of the issues with TPC 30.06 sometime in the future but that's a battle for another day.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Trying to pre-screen violent people will not work and will not provide any semblance of security for our schools. Evil people are going to continue to target so-called "gun free" zones, .......

Chas.

It certainly doesn't work in the criminal court context. Look how many times a defendant gets probation, or parole, after extensive evaluation by a range of experts, and commits more violent crimes. The success rate seems awfully low. What makes anyone think any pre-screening regime would be even as good?

Of all the suggestions I've seen put forth so far, Gov. Perry's, to eliminate gun free zones, seems the most likely to offer a solution, albeit an imperfect one.

RHenriksen wrote:

n5wd wrote:

Moby wrote: Something not shown on liberal TV news channels was that the Colorado shooter (Aurora) went to three other theators first and when he saw no anti gun signs he went to the next theator. The fourth theator had Colorado's version of 30.06. He knew CHL holders would abide by the law so that was his target.

Could you provide a source for that information?

I'm not Moby, but see if this meets your needs:

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/s ... urora.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Actually, no, it doesn't. Moby made a statement that the Aurora shooter inspected three theaters for evidence of a 'gun-buster sign' and then chose the Cinemark because it didn't allow CHL holders to carry inside. I'm just asking for the source that gave that information from the shooter. Let's keep it to the facts, please.

snatchel wrote:

terryg wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Focusing on mental health issues in response to Newtown is a mistake, in my view.
Chas.

The school systems are, in most cases, burdened with caring for young children with mental health issues - usually inadequately - until the turn 18 at which point they are dumped on society. Then the justice and prison systems then take over in a vicious cycle with no treatment that only creates a larger monster. All of this cost more $$$ in many cases than if adequate treatments were provided early on.

I dont wanna pick apart your post but I graduated on Saturday with a History Major/SPED Minor. I spent the last year in SPED classrooms, particularly resource rooms.

Burdened, yes. I would like to make it clear that the special needs kids have a LOT of support inside the schools, and they receive the best possible care that we can provide. Keep in mind that inadequacy is a subjective thing. Measuring progress of any kind with some of these disabilities is impossible.... I don't want to sound brash or rude, but it's impossible to fix many of these broken children. The only thing we can do is contain them, and try to teach them enough life skills and self-awareness strategies that they might possibly be able to care for themselves in a minimalist way. Most of the kids I dealt with stand no chance and will require supervision for the remainder of their life.

One more thing--those kids, at least in Texas, have the option of staying in the schools till they are 22, not 18. They don't get dumped. They stay with their parents or go to group homes....

Controlling people with disabilities is as impossible as regulating guns. You simply can't.... not without restricting the rights of someone... and even special education/special needs people are humans, and are protected by the constitution just as much as gun-owners are.

If you ask me, it appears that the government has to do something... and it's a lot more PC, and easier to pass legislation that tramples the constitutional privileges of 2A folks than Special Ed/Special Needs folks.

Snatchel,

You are 100% correct when it comes to children with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD) or learning disabilities. The school systems do a fantastic job with them most of the time. There has been a recent push to integrate these children into the school systems and society and I applaud those efforts and count them as successful.

I am referring to children with mental health illness. In many cases, the school districts must also try to find appropriate methods to teach these children. Depending upon the severity of the illness and the successfulness of treatments - a single child with a mental health issue can cost the school district literally tens of thousands of dollars each year. Smaller school districts simply do not have the resources to provide the type of care needed in the the most extreme cases and they are fit into programs that were not designed to handle children with those issues.

Once they turn 22 (I believe you are correct on the age), the parents have no more resources with which to manage them. They end up committing some type crime or violence and move in and out of the criminal justice and prison systems. This only servers to aggravate the underlying condition making them more violent.

Charles I think you are going in the right direction. May I suggest a low cost addition. I am sure that there are numerous retired persons that have CHL's that would be glad to take additional training and spend time at the schools. We grandparents want our grandchildren safe.