Bill would allow CLEET certified educators to carry in OK schools

[SMS]

Well, then they'll have to describe a new set of credentials in the proposed law...is that what you're saying? I mean, armed PI is another license that might currently work, but like you say, maybe we need "educational security detail" training.

Whatever it is, it needs to be more than an SDA permit. Unless we are just going for the Talisman...

 

[ExSniper]

Just change the current law to allow all SDA license holders to carry on school property. Then develop specific training classes for schools to know how to respond to active shooters. This plan would include both armed and unarmed response and be much more productive. It would also allow parents to volunteer their time to be a part of the solution.
Remember, in the USA, no one has been injured or killed after confronting an active shooter with any armed response.

 

[TallPrairie]

As I posted in the other thread on this subject, I think full CLEET cert is a waste of training. We're not asking school employees to enforce the law. We're asking them to be a last resort defense against an active shooter under very narrow rules of engagement. The training and certification should focus on that. The FFDO program certifies pilots as federal law enforcement officers, but their jurisdiction is about 6'X6' and their role is defense of the cockpit. That's how this should be tailored.

And as I posted in the other thread, this sounds exactly right to me. Some kind of training beyond the SDA license should be required. I think of the SDA license as a fairly narrow, "protect yourself and your family" proposition -- whereas we're talking about willingly accepting a responsibility for a much broader group of people in more complex situations.

It could be CLEET security certification or some new training and certification as envisioned above. Either way, meaningful training requirements should help make this idea politically palatable.

One final thought. Some think most schools would reject this option, and that might be true. But maybe not. A lot of the counterproductive, make-believe "no guns" policies we see today are not really driven by ideology. They are driven by legal departments, citing liability concerns. If a district had capable, certified and trained employees available who wanted to become volunteer security detail, but the district refused, it might risk liability being imposed on it the "other way" if people were then hurt or killed in some terrible incident. A skilled plaintiff's lawyer could make hay with that decision if he gets an administrator on the witness stand. The more serious, detailed, and training-based the armed volunteer program becomes, the more questionable it looks for a school to refuse to make use of such assistance.

 

[Old Fart]

I don't think any school employee would be opposed to additional training for any type of confrontation they might experience in a school setting. Actually I believe most would welcome it. Not sure having them meet reserve officer status is really necessary, but I wouldn't be oppsed to that either if it could be attained in a reasonable amount of time. I think right now though the real issue is acting soon and then improving on it. I mean these people are the last line of defense for our kids. How many more of these type of thing needs to happen while we figure it out?

 

[SMS]

I'm going against the grain. I think teachers should teach. They are sheepdogs in their own right, but protecting an entire school and it's population from an armed assault requires a different breed, with an entirely different skill set. It's a skill set that isn't an "additional duty" or "alternate duty function"...it's a lifestyle and a life's work.

BUT falling short of having trained warriors protecting our kids (perfect being the enemy of good), I could agree to arming teachers if, and only if, a very clear set of guidelines and training is set forth.

 

[vvvvvvv]

I would say because having a SDA permit does not make one qualified to defend a school and it's population from an armed attack. If we are going to intentionally place an individual(s) in a school for the purposes of defense, they need to be properly trained.

Why should a school be treated differently than any other place of employment?

 

[Glocktogo]

This is very well thought out and I agree.

OTOH the appeal of CLEET certification is that it's an existing body of training and certification. They wouldn't have to come up with some new set of certification requirements and wait for classes and instructors to appear.



Does CLEET process renewals, or the state? Sounds like, at a minimum, the bill should provide that being employed by a school or school system would also enable you to maintain the license or certification.

Any indication of whether McCullough's bill encompasses colleges and universities?

Oh I think it should definitely be a CLEET certification, just not an existing one. It needs to be specialized. We need to keep some things in mind:

Recognize that taxpayer dollars are tight and as little public funding as necessary needs to be considered.

We're talking about increasing the safety of our children and we have to sell it to people opposed to arming schools on principle.

Because of that, we need to make sure the training is somewhat stringent. Nothing like obstacle course fitness, but hey, we don't want employees trying to save kids to inadvertently shoot them.

I feel that maintaining the cover of the armed employees is critical to the success of the program in two ways. 1., if no on ever knows who's carrying, accidents are far less likely to occur. 2. Kids talk and if the identities are discovered, everyone will know. That reduces the effectiveness of their response AND, it increases the risk to the employee.


We don't need to train them to SWAT operator levels, but they need to be sharp.

 

[nandb]

Great discussion. Think the important point here is the pro-gun voice needs to be just as loud or louder than the anti-gun voice. A good way to do that is for everyone to write/call their legislators.

 

[Okieprepper]

If they allow trained teachers to carry guns in schools and they are looking for funding to pay for it, then they needn't look any further than our lottery program. After all its for the good of school system and students isn't it?

 

[skyydiver]

Oh I think it should definitely be a CLEET certification, just not an existing one. It needs to be specialized. We need to keep some things in mind:

Recognize that taxpayer dollars are tight and as little public funding as necessary needs to be considered.

We're talking about increasing the safety of our children and we have to sell it to people opposed to arming schools on principle.

Because of that, we need to make sure the training is somewhat stringent. Nothing like obstacle course fitness, but hey, we don't want employees trying to save kids to inadvertently shoot them.

I feel that maintaining the cover of the armed employees is critical to the success of the program in two ways. 1., if no on ever knows who's carrying, accidents are far less likely to occur. 2. Kids talk and if the identities are discovered, everyone will know. That reduces the effectiveness of their response AND, it increases the risk to the employee.

We don't need to train them to SWAT operator levels, but they need to be sharp.

Yep, this is basic protection detail, and the training should match the job.

Okieprepper, I almost took that same shot at the lottery and all that extra school money earlier. Where is all the magic fairy gambling dust we were promised?