From the article:
“We have a lot of teachers that carry anyway. Why not get them the training they deserve so they can feel more confident and feel like they can actually perform to a higher level?” Jimenez said.
" legal protection, training and storage funding."
“If you have to use your firearm defensively, we want to make sure that you’re not pulling it out and the only thing you’re thinking about is a bunch of lawyers and a bunch of legal issues, but that you can focus on defending the children during that time.”
“Jimenez said a second key factor of the bill would be to provide a training requirement. Besides just making sure someone can handle and be safe with a gun, he said the training would focus on how to be tactically defensive.”
I know of a lot of teachers in the elementary, middle & high schools that carry on their person during class. Some are X-GI’s and others are just responsible citizens.
I always shy away from “training requirement”, not that it’s such a bad idea to train these folks but we all know once something becomes a government requirement it goes to . Let’s stand back and watch the politics play out.
After reading all this article, something doesn’t sit right. “incentives to teachers”, “If you have to use your firearm defensively”, “a bunch of lawyers and a bunch of legal issues”, TEACHERS are EXEMPT from prosecution, BUT NOT responsibly armed law abiding citizens according to these anti gun/gun control lawmakers! Got it!
Not sure I understand your concern. In Utah a teacher can carry a firearm in class without saying anything to anyone, as long as they have a Concealed Carry Permit. So far, we here in Utah haven’t seen much push back from when the Constitutional carry law passed. I think his point is, Give the teachers a little bit of room to react when SHTF.
Just thinking of how Utah laws seems to have better laws than other States since mass shootings occur nation wide that many states should do something like what Utah does to protect children in schools. I suppose the key word is “CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY”.
People think innocents should be proved. It’s impossible. They want responsibly are people to prove they are responsibly armed before they are allowed to have a gun. Nobody is perfect and we all make mistakes. We all have to learn to live with that. Our perfectness comes with mistakes. I know I am pushen it. It’s that I feel this is vital important for the human race to sustain itself.
Government employees (teachers) with guns, who carry those guns in large measure because they are afraid of the kids who attend their schools or believe the school is about to be invaded at any minute by a mass killer. What could possibly go wrong?
A teacher who carries a gun to stand in front of children starts with the assumption that those children are so dangerous that it requires him/her to carry a firearm, or that the workplace is so dangerous that a firearm is necessary to go to work everyday. Now, put that “scared of the students” teacher in charge of breaking up a playground fight or mediating a heated encounter with parents with all the training usually (not) provided to government employees.
I worked in KS when it passed a statute that specifically prohibited government from banning guns in public buildings, especially for government employees who choose to carry at work. Of course, no training was provided to employees who carried guns nor any demonstration of competency. One of the issues was how to ensure that firearms were secure and not just left in someone’s purse or desk drawer.
If a 4th grader takes a pistol from his teacher’s desk or unattended purse, then he will instantly turn into a threat that teachers should be afraid of.
From our local school district policy, after they say we don’t condone it and will not be held liable if you use it…
“ii. State law defines a “concealed dangerous weapon” as one that is
“covered, hidden, or secreted in a manner that the public would not
be aware of its presence and is readily accessible for immediate
use” (Utah Code 76-10-501(2)(a). With the exception of police
officers, employees who carry a concealed dangerous weapon may
not use district property to cover, hide, or secret a dangerous
weapon and it is unremediable, immediately terminable Improper
Conduct to carry a concealed dangerous weapon anywhere other
than readily accessible for immediate use.”
So leaving it in the desk where a 4th grader could get it is not only ignorant it’s against the district policy. Goes back to “Responsible Firearms Owner”.
A teacher carries a firearm to protect the student because it is better to have it and not need it. Then to need it and not have it. I don’t see where the fear comes in. I would think a teacher would carry a gun to save lives and that would remove the fear. If a teacher is fearing for their life in a school they shouldn’t be there.
Employee is a prison guard, when they work in prison. Employee in a school is an educator.
Having said that, some students in schools here could use transfer to prison, in care of actual prison guards. Unarmed teacher is a victim, nothing more, when they have students in class displaying knives closer than 20ft. Or if a pregnant teacher is opposed by a mob of middle schoolers, intent on throwing her down the stairs (and they had).
I spoke on this subject a couple of times, and I said, if teachers are armed in FL, there will be multiple students, middle and high school age, shot by teachers on school grounds, and investigators will declare it justified.
Think: untrained government employees with guns who carry them because they are afraid of their workplace and children. Seems antithetical to “Responsible Firearms Owner.”
. Let’s stand back and watch the politics play out.
something doesn’t sit right. 
“incentives to teachers”, “If you have to use your firearm defensively”, 
“a bunch of lawyers and a bunch of legal issues”, 
Got it! 
