My wife is a teacher, and this is exactly how I feel.
My wife is a teacher, and this is exactly how I feel.
While I understand not wanting your wife hunting down a shooter, nothing in this law requires them to do that. Simply gives them the ability to get additional training so they may continue to protect themselves at work while making the nay sayers feel a bit better because the teachers have additional training.
School districts are already strapped for money in most cases. Now someone would expect any school district to pay for firearms training for a statistically near impossible threat? Ok, sure thing. You know that's going to happen.
I suspect any that are able to do this at thier school will probably have to find funding from the private sector.
As mentioned above most superintendents will not support this and most think they have nothing to really worry about.
Crap legislation when you really look at it, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
As mentioned above most superintendents will not support this and most think they have nothing to really worry about.
Crap legislation when you really look at it, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
The article said this:
McCullough said he intends to push for a $500,000 appropriation to school districts that would pay for training for up to 250 volunteers. He said rural school districts would be more likely to take advantage of the program.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...llow-armed-teachers-in-schools/#ixzz2NS3zud6B
Whether he gets it or not is something else.
Last edited:
Excellent, sir, and exactly right!
The secondary benefit, of course, is that this solution costs the taxpayers precisely zero in money, infrastructure, and time to implement. Food for thought: state-mandated control is always more expensive than simple liberty.
The money is better spent elsewhere. Like comdoms and sex ed for kindergarteners.
That's nice and dandy, but why should my wife be required to take 120 hours of CLEET developed training to protect herself? They don't trust my wife with their children that they already leave with her all day? While I believe that everyone should train and regularly practice with their firearm if they are carrying, I think CLEET training is a little overkill for self protection. She's not a cop, she's not a security guard. If anything, the cost of said training would be an excuse for the administration to deny the option.
If you mean the teachers should have the option to carry without going to any classes, I agree.
If the training is paid for by the district & she feels more comfortable being allowed to carry while at work what's the problem? No one said once certified they are responsible for hunting down a active shooter. It merely gives them the right & ability to stop that active shooter instead of cowering in their classroom praying.
I get your point that her right shouldn't be infringed, but at the same time it won't cost her anything out of pocket if the district foots the bill so it's really a non-issue at the end of the day. For teachers who want to be involved with this it's a great option. And the extra training will help other teachers & parents be more comfortable with it as well. Everyone knows how some of the el' cheapo CCW classes are worthless at best. At least this way school officials can say" hey, they passed a CCW course & CLEET training before being allowed to carry on school property." It just shows the districts are being cautious is all.
