TexasCHLforum.com

I think it makes more sense to allow any CHL to carry, instead of only allowing the employees to carry, while prohibiting carry for taxpayers who pay the employees' salaries.

I'm reasonably certain there will be no action taken regarding this, but its always good for discussion. I truly hope the folks that are planning to appear before the board are fully and professionally prepared, meaning able to keep emotions in check, have their facts and figures ready and such. Personally, I think if a person is allowed to carry by law, he/she should be allowed to carry on school premises, whether an employee or visitor and would support the initiative. I also think there are just too many people that would have a visceral reaction to the thought of CHL in the buildings. Much in the same manner that they feel the Gun Free Zones are good protection.

lonewolf wrote:I'm reasonably certain there will be no action taken regarding this...

I'm not a teacher, but have a few in my extended family. IMHO, at least in the major urban area school districts, this will be a tough sell due to the political leanings/nature of the NEA and TEA. Although the decision to allow carry on campus may reside with Superintendent of the I.S.D. or Principal, there are many administrators with political ambition who will not "rock the boat".

Best of luck to them, but I'm afraid Lonewolf is correct.

I think the acceptance of chl in the school building is related to the combat experience of those making policy. If you appreciate the value of a firearm in the defense of the community it isn't so hard to approve concealed carry on the campus. In my district, with thousands of employees, I am aware of three people who have seen challenging times, and none of them are in a position to create policy.

In taking a little more time and reviewing this in my little ol' noggin, another thing comes to mind. As a CHL holder, I don't consider myself a body guard, a security guard, or a law enforcement officer. Keeping that thought, if there were an incident and a child was injured/killed, I can easily see some litiginous happy attorney filing suit because the CHL did not protect the child. My reckoning is that while a CHL holder can be justified in using such force in defense of others, he/she is under no obligation to do so. This whole thing could get real sticky, real fast. Make no mistake, I am in favor of allowing licensed CHL holders to carry in public institutions where they are employed, but there has to be an understanding that they are not security guards, nor on any "response team" (my quotes), or anything of that nature.

If I were the teacher and an incident was taking place at my school, I would do whatever possible to protect my students and myself. Lock the door. Barricade the door. Take cover. Establish communications with the outside world. Be a good witness. I would not go out roaming the halls looking for trouble.

My ex is a teacher at a very rough middle school in Arlington still. I could see this going so many ways wrong, and so very few ways it could go right. I wouldn't support it. We keep saying that a CHL is not a Batman License, yet that's exactly the expectation that would be laid at a teacher's feet.

If they were gun rights advocates, they would not limit the right to teachers.

As a professional educator I agree with IKD. There are many things that can go wrong with a teacher having a firearm. I am not against it but it is not something to be considered lightly. I won’t begin to list all the problems that could happen but I do think certain security measures must be increased, especially in the high school grade levels.

I work at a high school and over the years they have increased the number of armed district police officers because of the ever increasing violence and drugs that go on inside our school. I think at the very least administrators (principals) should carry tasers, just like the officers. On many occasions principals are the first responders to violence or incidents and police are secondary.

I think more training would be needed by teachers to carry guns in a school, not just a CHL. If anything teachers should become a Texas law enforcement officer and serve a dual purpose while in the classroom. I would be the first in line for training if this was the case. Teachers as it stands currently have very little or no authority to restrain students in violence related incidents and I know I am always worried about getting sued when even breaking up a fight. I think a lot of teachers; me included would be worried about getting sued. This is already a problem now and I could only imagine what would happen with firearms in the mix.

CC Italian wrote:I think more training would be needed by teachers to carry guns in a school, not just a CHL. If anything teachers should become a Texas law enforcement officer and serve a dual purpose while in the classroom. I would be the first in line for training if this was the case. Teachers as it stands currently have very little or no authority to restrain students in violence related incidents and I know I am always worried about getting sued when even breaking up a fight. I think a lot of teachers; me included would be worried about getting sued. This is already a problem now and I could only imagine what would happen with firearms in the mix.

Harrold ISD requires additional training, and certain non-wall penetrating ammo, as a condition.

lonewolf wrote:In taking a little more time and reviewing this in my little ol' noggin, another thing comes to mind. As a CHL holder, I don't consider myself a body guard, a security guard, or a law enforcement officer. Keeping that thought, if there were an incident and a child was injured/killed, I can easily see some litiginous happy attorney filing suit because the CHL did not protect the child. My reckoning is that while a CHL holder can be justified in using such force in defense of others, he/she is under no obligation to do so. This whole thing could get real sticky, real fast. Make no mistake, I am in favor of allowing licensed CHL holders to carry in public institutions where they are employed, but there has to be an understanding that they are not security guards, nor on any "response team" (my quotes), or anything of that nature.

If I were the teacher and an incident was taking place at my school, I would do whatever possible to protect my students and myself. Lock the door. Barricade the door. Take cover. Establish communications with the outside world. Be a good witness. I would not go out roaming the halls looking for trouble.

There is no general duty for any citizen to protect any other person. There are exceptions like LEOs, your kids, spouse, etc., but an armed teacher will not have such a duty under current law. No "litigious attorney" is going to file suit where no cause of action exists. However, if the teacher said they would protect his/her students and didn't, then a cause of action would exist.

That said, if my kids were still school age, I would expect their teachers to jump on a grenade to save them. If they didn't, getting sued would be the least of their worries. I would do that for any of the kids in my student Bible study class. Some things you do simply because it's right, not because the law requires it.

Chas.

RPB wrote:Harrold ISD requires additional training, and certain non-wall penetrating ammo, as a condition.

What ammo is that? I'd like to have me some non-wall penetrating ammo.

I do apologize for the attorney comment, with all due (and well deserved) respect.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

lonewolf wrote:In taking a little more time and reviewing this in my little ol' noggin, another thing comes to mind. As a CHL holder, I don't consider myself a body guard, a security guard, or a law enforcement officer. Keeping that thought, if there were an incident and a child was injured/killed, I can easily see some litiginous happy attorney filing suit because the CHL did not protect the child. My reckoning is that while a CHL holder can be justified in using such force in defense of others, he/she is under no obligation to do so. This whole thing could get real sticky, real fast. Make no mistake, I am in favor of allowing licensed CHL holders to carry in public institutions where they are employed, but there has to be an understanding that they are not security guards, nor on any "response team" (my quotes), or anything of that nature.

If I were the teacher and an incident was taking place at my school, I would do whatever possible to protect my students and myself. Lock the door. Barricade the door. Take cover. Establish communications with the outside world. Be a good witness. I would not go out roaming the halls looking for trouble.

There is no general duty for any citizen to protect any other person. There are exceptions like LEOs, your kids, spouse, etc., but an armed teacher will not have such a duty under current law. No "litigious attorney" is going to file suit where no cause of action exists. However, if the teacher said they would protect his/her students and didn't, then a cause of action would exist.

That said, if my kids were still school age, I would expect their teachers to jump on a grenade to save them. If they didn't, getting sued would be the least of their worries. I would do that for any of the kids in my student Bible study class. Some things you do simply because it's right, not because the law requires it.

Chas.

My concern is solely what you stated, that there would be a general perception among many that allowing teachers to be armed in classrooms would infer a duty or obligation to provide such protection. Rest assured that I would, if in that situation, be the guy that jumps on the grenade or uses his own body as a shield for the children, whether I was armed or not. It would still be a contentious situation if a child were hurt or killed and the perception of protection were in place. Although one sees no cause of action, others may, and it could get really expensive really quickly. I can see where a parent would sue a school and/or teacher for failing to provide protection regardless of whether or not a CHL holder were involved.

Charles, you are an asset to us all on this forum, and I would hasten to add an asset to your profession.

By the way, I have the same expectations of those who are teaching my children, but have my doubts about how many could/would make that kind of sacrifice. I hope none of us ever have to find out.

lonewolf wrote:I also think there are just too many people that would have a visceral reaction to the thought of CHL in the buildings.

I had this very thought when I saw a Jared Jewelers with a 30.06 sign on the door. I can imagine the corporate/owner having only one thought: a gun in a jewelry store = robbery.