Hb1062

[870WingBlaster]

I'm going to add my two cents. My wife is a teacher and a mother. She isn't opposed to guns, but she sure isn't as in love with them as I am. When the school shooting happened in Connecticut, she told me that she was ready to get her carry permit. She told me that she would carry if they lifted the gun free zone. That being said, she loves our son. She teaches is a small rural town where most kids are taught to shoot before they are taught to read. The likely-hood of a school shooting there is about as good as a solar flare or polar shift, and there is no way in Hades that you're going to get her to sacrifice 240 hours of mother-son time to prepare for somthing so unlikely. The fact that there is debate about this topic on a pro gun forum makes me realize that whether it be fear of change, accidental discharge, etc that we are going to have to put some extra burden on teachers in order for them to be abe to carry. It is neccessary or the bill will never pass. I just hope that it's not enough of a burden that almost no teachers will go through all the crap. I hate it that this is the situation, but it IS the situation.

 

[CoachR64]

Asked Mr. flick about the officer status surpassing school board control and reciprocity. Here is what he said:


The way the language is set up in HB 1062, the local board would have to adopt their own policies on concealed carry before an employee could apply for the CLEET reserve officer training. *The author of the bill said that he wanted to ensure as much local control over the policies as possible. *As such, if a board does not adopt conceal carry policies, the employee will not be able to qualify for the training and it would still be illegal to carry on campus. *

As for your second question, there is no mention of reciprocity in the current bill. *There were several questions regarding reciprocity during the committee debate on the bill but nothing was decided. *The majority of the discussion focused on local control of the policies by the local school boards. *I assume that reciprocity could be possible if two neighboring school boards agreed to recognize and reciprocate each other's policies. *For example, if School X allows administrative carry and School Y does as well, they COULD adopt rules for reciprocity. *However if School Z does not adopt similar rules, it would still be a violation of state law for the administrator from School X to carry there. *Reciprocity may also depend on the sponsoring law enforcement agency as well. *Most likely, especially in rural areas, the county sheriff's office will be the likely sponsoring agency and as such crossing county lines, such as for a district or regional tournament, could lead to jurisdictional issues. *

There may be further discussion on reciprocity if the bill is heard on the floor of the House but currently there is no mention in the language. *

 

[CoachR64]

I think this legislation is looking more and more like a joke. Just another way to make the public feel safe without doing anything meaningful to insure they truly are safe.

 

[rawhide]

I'm not sure I understand the reciprocity issue with this bill. If the training essentially makes one a reserve officer, why would said reserve officer need permission from another school while on school business? For example, there have been a few times, and one in particular, when traveling to and from another school with a large group of students that carrying may have been a life saver.

 

[spcbrindley]

I have to agree that this seems like "feel good legislation". As someone stated before, the larger wealthier districts will apose this. While I do think the idea will be well recived in the rural areas I don't think that it wil be implimented due to budget constraints.

 

[CoachR64]

The article I read had the author of the bill basically saying they want a resource officer in every school, but this may help a community or district that cannot afford resource officers. So basically, even the author of the bill doesn't truly want teachers carrying.

Yesterday, I walked by the office and saw 4 officers. They all responded as back up as our officer was out for the day for training. Had an activ shooter scenario played out, we would have had no officer until the back up arrived. Also, with them backing us up, the school site each of them served had no officer while they were helping us.

Many times teachers that are involved in extracurricular activities such as sports, cheer, band, drama, etc. are there in the hours the officer is not present. I know I am there late nights and weekends as a coach. There was an incident a week ago where I went looking for the officer 30-45 minutes after school was out and he was gone. There were still many kids at the school for sports and ACT prep class.

These folks, including the NRA, who feel the answer is putting in an armed officer are really just trying to make people feel safer. If you want to keep the kids safe, allow the teachers the choice to carry without ridiculous hurdles to jump over just to get there.

 

[Poke78]

These folks, including the NRA, who feel the answer is putting in an armed officer are really just trying to make people feel safer. If you want to keep the kids safe, allow the teachers the choice to carry without ridiculous hurdles to jump over just to get there.

This ^^^^^^ is exactly on point and proven in at least two other states with no negative consequences on record. This whole thing is being overthought. Offer support through specialized training that is optional for those who desire it. Even something as simple as the 40-hour, 400-round Armed Security Guard Phase IV would be a good start for many without being onerous as to time or money but it still ought to be optional.

 

[rawhide]

These folks, including the NRA, who feel the answer is putting in an armed officer are really just trying to make people feel safer. If you want to keep the kids safe, allow the teachers the choice to carry without ridiculous hurdles to jump over just to get there.

absolutely

 

[Poke78]

Hopefully nobody sees this as too much of a zombie thread but I had a recollection this bill was on hold pending the Lt. Gov. report on school safety which was released this afternoon with the following recommendations:

-- Form the Oklahoma School Security Institute.

-- Establish a mental health first aid training pilot program.

-- Amend state law to consolidate and require safety drills.

-- Require the reporting of firearms to local law enforcement.

-- Establish a school security tip line.

Obviously none of the above really address the subject of this bill so perhaps this will bring the debate back to life in the legislature.

 

[CoachR64]

Had a recent lockdown where I was asked to stand in a hallway that had two entrances from the outside due to some threats in the local area of the school. As I was standing there, it occurred to me I was good for nothing but catching the first bullet if an armed attacked came through those doors. I was not given the proper tools to protect myself or the students. If you want me to be a first line of defense for my student, please give me the ability to do so.

This is why I think this bill is pretty useless. What difference is it in allowing the district to ban carry and restrict rights of the law abiding and the federal or state government doing so? Even if the law passes, the school board simply has to say "no" and I am still in no better position to protect my students.