Nebraska Considers Arming Teachers

Omaha school shooting (courtesy cambio.com)

“Teachers who obtain 24 hours of additional training could carry concealed handguns in schools under [legislative bill 879] introduced Tuesday in the Nebraska Legislature,” omaha.com reports. “The bill would create a ‘level II’ concealed carry permit that would require the holder to undergo training in addition to the roughly eight hours for a standard permit. The additional training would include best practices for active shooter situations, weapons retention methods and techniques related to barricading and evasion. The governing bodies of each school would have to grant permission for a teacher or staff member to carry a concealed gun.” While gun control laws in Colorado, New York, New Jersey and Maryland have gotten a lot of ink in the year since the Newtown massacre . . .

“more than 30 states considered proposals to arm teachers. Seven states passed related legislation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.” Meanwhile, on the federal level, Uncle Sam’s shelling-out $25m worth of your hard-earned money to study the problem of firearms-free school security [story to follow].

Wait! I’ve got an idea! How about repealing Bush the Elders’ Gun Free School Zones Act, tell the left-leaning teachers’ unions to read the Constitution and make it possible for any law-abiding citizen to carry inside a school. It sounds so crazy it just might work!

comments

  1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    About time, every state should do this. How many more children must die? Shannon Watts has blood on her hands from these tragedies!

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      and since most of the “children” dying are Black, let’s call it out: SHANNON WATTS IS A RACIST

      1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        Does that mean your quest to woo Sunsine is at an end?

      2. avatar Mina says:

        This would be a great tagline for an anti-Shannon campaign.

        We could follow up with Shannon Watts is a misandrist for good measure.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      And an elective course at the gov’t teacher college. THAT would cause the earth to move.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        This should NOT be an elective. It should be a requirement for graduation and receiving a teaching certificate.

        Additionally, all regulation allowing teachers to carry in school should include the requirement if

        1) The weapon must be carried on-body. It must NEVER leave the person’s control at any time while inside the school or on campus.
        2) A certified retention holster, along with proper training in its use, must be used.

        Assuming no repeal of the Gun Free School Zone act, these would be useful regulations, IMO.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        Elective, no. This course should be REQUIRED in order to obtain a teaching certificate.

        Assuming no repeal of the Gun Free School Zones act, I suggest:

        1) Any regulation allowing school personnel to be armed on campus require that only on-body carry is allowed and the weapon must be on their person at all times while on campus, and
        2) A certified retention holster, along with training in its use, should be required.

  2. avatar Marcus says:

    Wow. Kind of shocking, really.

    1. avatar JR says:

      How so? Shocking that some common sense is making its way into state laws?

      NC is considering this, too…one of the other 30 states.

  3. avatar Michael B. says:

    The governing bodies of each school would have to grant permission for a teacher or staff member to carry a concealed gun.

    There’s the flaw in the bill. How many would actually do this?

    And how many teachers who want to carry wouldn’t because asking for permission could lead to scorn and intimidation?

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Exactly. As wonderful as these programs sound, they force teachers to jump over numerous hurdles to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

      If they want training, good! Forcing them to train in order to exercise their RKBA? Not good. We already have two classes of gun owners: LEOs and “civilians.” Why create third class citizens?

      1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

        I guess living in Kalifornia has clouded my view RF. I don’t remember what it is like to have freedom anymore.
        Hoops or not, at least this is an option. I figure once we stop seeing shootings in schools that allow teachers to carry, people will figure out what a soft target is, and how gun free zones are really victim killing zones.
        Then we can sit back and say see I told you so.

        1. avatar BT in Afghan says:

          As much as I agree with you, NO liberal will ever come to that conclusion. The mass killins in gun free zones will continue and each time you will see a greater push to restrict and confiscate guns. The fact that no school which allows carry will ever be even given a thought.

        2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          Like BT above, agree with you 100% but believe the civ. disarmament fanatics have no real interest in public safety. They will say the guns used to murder kids in gun-free schools come from states with lax gun laws, proving the need for strict Federal regulations. Predictable as night following day.

        3. avatar ropingdown says:

          It is necessary to take into consideration AG Holder’s recent proclamation, that punishment in schools should not have a disparate impact on minorities. Complying with this will necessitate maintaining a log of perpetrators previously shot by teachers, so that CCW teachers don’t make the onerous mistake of shooting the next minority active shooter when the running totals are far out of balance already. Such an oversight could lead to DoJ and DoEducation sanctions, reductions in federal funding, and a visit from the Rev. de Mau Mau. It might be wise to card the active shooter first, lest the teacher find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having shot “a child. Just a child. With a long life ahead of him. He was turning his life around. His friends say he was just a wonderful human being.” This will be especially problematic if it turns out the perp’s gun was found to be “barely functional, rusty, probably not capable of firing another four or five shots …accurately.” It is, indeed, terrible to contemplate the repercussions if the teacher shoots the shotgun-wielding perp before he even gets off a single round: “He was a bit upset, but his dream was to become a policeman or possibly a soldier, and he had just finally been mainstreamed into a regular classroom after years of being misunderstood.” Caution is the word.

      2. avatar SAS 2008 says:

        This is exactly why I am against this. I don’t support further expanding a concealed carry class system.

      3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        It shifts the decision making to a forum, the local school board, much closer to the people and presumably more aligned with local community values. That isn’t everything, but it is a good thing.

        Second, it doesn’t create another class of “citizen”, as the retired police and military carve outs do. Those apply to certain people state- or nationwide. This level of license applies only to these people in their current capacity as teachers. It doesn’t give a Nebraska teacher on vacation in New York, or even elsewhere in Nebraska, free reign to traipse about any campus while armed.

        It simply provides teachers with a credential of sorts reflecting their additional job-related training to take on additional job-related responsibilities specific to their workplace. It’s no different, in principle, from requiring police to graduate from the academy, as opposed to sending them out on patrol with just a Glock and a copy of the Constitution.

      4. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        I’ve used the analogy of the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program (implemented after 9/11) as a “compromise” solution for school carry that has proven to be very hard for the anti’s to combat even at an emotional level. This is like going from CCW permits to Constitutional Carry. You need the stepping stone.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          That’s interesting. I’m not familiar with that term, though. Is that what’s commonly referred to as an Air Marshall?

        2. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          @Jonathan: No. The FFDO program is for arming commercial pilots. The pilots go through a training class in NM with specific training on how do deal with threats on aircraft. There are some problems with this program (mainly due to the TSA), but the more successful parts of the program could easily be transfered to a teacher-based training class being that the TSA oversight is not required.

        3. avatar Cliff H says:

          This brings up an interesting question:

          Since it is widely regarded that of all the changes enacted for airplane safety the securing of the cockpit during flight is one of the most effective, how does having armed and trained personnel in that locked compartment work? The only way the armed flight officer can affect what’s happening in the passenger compartment is to breach the cockpit security and take the offensive against the hijackers. Seems counter-intuitive.

        4. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          @ Cliff: The point for the FFDO’s is to stay in and defend the cockpit, not enter the cabin. There are always scenerios (such as having someone rush the cockpit door while the pilot is entering/exiting for a bathroom trip) where cabin training needed, but they aren’t supposed to storm the cabin, they are supposed to defend the cockpit.

      5. avatar Data Venia says:

        I differ only slightly. Teachers, while they are teaching, are not regular civilians. They have increased responsibilities over the children and teens they have to teach. It’s not even too much of a stretch to say they are agents of the state. Not the same as cops but not the same as civilians either.

        Viewed from that POV, I like the idea of training for them if they want to carry while teaching. The situations they would face would be very different from the situations most people with a CC licence would face. Of course if that’s the case I also think that the state ought to pay for it.

        Actually they ought to do that everywhere training is required. You want require training to exercise a constitutional right? You’d better be providing that training to all the citizens who want it.

        Don’t want to pay? Don’t require it then. Either way we win.

        1. avatar Drew says:

          I can agree there along with allowing regular civilians like parents and voluntieers to carry in restricted.

      6. avatar tmm says:

        When I first read the headline, I thought “Nebraska Considers Allowing Teachers to Arm Themselves” might be more accurate. After reading the story, I’m thinking more like “Nebraska Considers That They ‘May Allow’ Teachers to Arm Themselves,” because of the “governing body”‘ language. I’m a little tired of feeling like having to ask permission for everything is the status quo.

    2. avatar Brandon says:

      That was my thinking. Lincoln and Omaha, the only major population centers in the state, are not all that gun friendly. Omaha even has a city handgun registry. I can see some of the rural districts “allowing” teachers to jump through hoops and carry, but probably not where the vast majority of NE children attend school.

      1. avatar Drew says:

        Lol before I moved out of town three cops offered to buy my ruger off me when I went in to register it. I now no longer have to register anything locally and am close enough to take advantage of the metro for anything I might want there.

    3. avatar Gregolas says:

      “Aye there’s the rub.” Teachers should, at most, should only have to notify the local school board and submit their 24-hr training credentials. (To be kept top secret and under lock and key). Local school boards, superintendents, or principals should have NO veto power over this enlightened legislation.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Great theory but there are NO secrets in a school system. (or anywhere else where women run the joint).

        1. avatar Chris says:

          haha, yeah, I’ve heard enough details from teachers about students and parents that were certainly not supposed to be shared with anyone.

        2. avatar Gregolas says:

          True. I taught in public schools for 8 years, sub and full time. No secret is safe in a teacher’s lounge!

    4. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      “How many would do that” depends on how many people get off their rears, forego watching “Idol”, and go vote in the next school board elections, now doesn’t it? Such elections have scandalously low voter turnout, often because they’re off schedule from major elections.

      And it’s not just parents. Guns in schools affects gun rights across the board, regardless whether one has school age children or children at all. Draw up some signs, knock on some doors, make some calls. It’s called grassroots organizing. Check it out!

      Liberty is an imposition on nature. It’s not natural itself. There are constantly other forces out there trying to control you: criminals, other citizens, foreign governments, even our own government. If you want to live in freedom, you have to push back against these forces all the time. You can’t just sit around waiting for someone in power to divest themselves of some of their power unilaterally.

  4. avatar Joe Anderson says:

    I thought that the Gun Free School Zone Act already allowed people with a license to carry a gun (such as a handgun permit) to carry that licensed gun in school zones, unless otherwise restricted by the state. Is this not the case?

    1. avatar Defens says:

      Nope – you can drop off or pick up a student at a school, or drive through while carrying, but you can’t actually stop, work, attend an event or meeting, or do any other activity within a victim disarmament zone.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Defens,

        Different states have different laws. For example there are no “gun free zones” in Utah. Have a concealed carry license? Go ahead and carry into schools in Utah.

      2. avatar ErrantVenture11 says:

        Untrue. I can open carry in schools in Michigan. The Gun Free Schools Act changes the default state nationwide from allowed to banned. The states can still override the Act with their own licensing system.

      3. avatar Joe Anderson says:

        18 U.S.C § 922:
        “(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm […] (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located […] and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license”

        I don’t see anything about restricting what you do when carrying your licensed firearm in the school zone, or restrictions on how long you are allowed to stay in the school zone.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      All other arguments aside, the GFSZA id DE FACTO infringement of the Second Amendment and absolutely unconstitutional.

      Whether we like, agree with, or simply tolerate (for now) state permitting of CCW, the attempt by government to limit when and where any citizen may exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms is as blatant a violation of the “…shall not be infringed.” clause as can possibly be imagined.

  5. avatar DisThunder says:

    It’s a good start.
    While I’m not a fan of “If we require ‘X’ amount of training, THEN a teacher might be safe enough for carrying in a school” since it’s usually an arbitrary number, at leas this sounds like the kind of extended training that might actually be helpful, especially if it’s designed specifically to the needs of campus carry.
    Although I doubt it’s just me, but has anybody been to training in the last year that WASN’T somehow focused on active shooter response?

  6. avatar ThomasR says:

    Wow! Sanity is breaking out! May it continue!

    P.S. (Thread drift).The Bushes, elder and younger, were no more conservative than Mcain or Romney. RINO’s to the core, and the republican party wonders why more and more people are listing as Independent or libertarian.

    Democrat or Republican- Statist large or statist medium – they are still both statist.

  7. avatar LJM says:

    A freaking men. Both of my parents were teachers and I guarantee you if they taught in this day and age they would push for in school carry. They treated every student as their own child and would have done everything possible to protect their students.

    1. avatar ErrantVenture11 says:

      If I were a teacher in this day and age, I wouldn’t wait for a permit. I’d carry a pocket pistol in an area where common interaction would never reveal it. No hugging allowed.

  8. avatar TX GAL says:

    As a member of Women’s Shooting league, do shooting on the move, multiple target, from behind a barrier
    50 rounds to warm up, then 100 rounds on the move, twice a month. Lot more fun than shooting a still, sitting duck target!. About 300 rounds total,per month, now you know why I shoot a Ruger SR .22lr pistol or sometimes a Ruger 95 double action 9mm pistol. So no DisThunder, you are not the only one that practices regularly active shooter drills

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      In these drills is it only you moving, or does the target change position or seek cover as well? Does the target look like an actual (teenage) person, or is it a bullseye? Are there tapes playing in the background of screaming, wounded, or frightened bystanders? Are there other targets of innocent bystanders moving through your field of fire? During the drill does ANY sort of return fire come at you from the target area (even paintballs or AirSoft)?

      Training is good, at whatever level, but who’s paying for all that ammo and range time? And if the target isn’t shooting back, how realistic is it? You may be at the next level of efficiency, but it still isn’t even close to reality.

      Perhaps CQB with AirSoft and full protective equipment is the closest that can be obtained and THAT should be pursued. IMO.

  9. avatar JR says:

    300 rounds total per month…I did not feel like I was even STARTING to get better at pistol shooting until I was shooting in the ball park of 1000 rounds per week.

    Hard to sustain that, though…both in terms of $$ and in terms of time at the loading bench.

    Your training / practice sounds fun and challenging. I know I completely stink at shooting moving targets as well as seriously needing more work with weak hand only skill.

    1. avatar TX GAL says:

      JR, once you have the basics down (proper trigger finger placement, proper sight alignment) you should be hitting where you aim, even on the move. The rest of purpose, is to build muscle memory so it ecomes utomic After a year of 300 rounds a month I’m a pretty good shot but took a good 2-3 months in the beginning until I attaiined compency with both .22lr pistol/revolver 9mm/pistol, and .38 revolver. Just have to make metal adjustment before first shot of trigger finger placement, then it’s all good

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Much of is presumes a protracted gun battle with a determined opponent. Since statistically this is seldom the case and active shooters are hoping for helpless victims and not prepared to go from offense to defense, usually preferring to suicide at that point, how much training other than showing your weapon and firing in the direction of the active shooter without hitting bystanders is really necessary?

      I suspect these people are (for the most part) walking through a fantasy in their own heads and that the sound of a gunshot not their own tends to bring them back to reality where they must confront what is actually going on and their role in it, hence the tendency to suicide. This is obviously just my opinion and each situation will be different, but in this country, other than the Navy Yard, how many active shooters have effectively engaged armed responders?

      Please, train to the level you can afford or where you feel comfortable. Like ammunition, I doubt you will ever come away from a gunfight wishing you had less training. But keep in mind as well the number of DGUs that never require a shot being fired far outnumber those where the BG is shot at, shot, or killed.

  10. avatar Doc Brown says:

    I agree finally some common sense in the legal system. Perhaps the Pres and his bunch can learn from this. NOT

  11. avatar Model 31 says:

    “for a teacher or staff member to carry a concealed gun.”
    Hope all the Nebraska school buildings are small. Some of the school buildings in Texas can be measured in fractions of a mile (1/8th and 1/4 mile inside). Teachers walk the hallways for exercise during their lunch and conference periods.
    when seconds count….

    1. avatar Drew says:

      Hopefully there will be multiple armed folks in each building when the students number 3000 or more. Another issue is many schools are made up of several buildings or properties. My high schools sports field was completely separate from the main building and it was far from the best neighborhood.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      I would hope the final wording of the legislation to say “carry a concealed pistol.”

      Even though all of the male staff already carry their “guns”, the mechanical, firearm variety can be notoriously difficult to conceal, especially for the women.

  12. avatar Rob in UT says:

    Here in Utah anyone with a CCW permit can carry in schools, including teachers. Utah elected to enable the gun free school zones exception for CCW permit holders that I understand the federal law allows.
    I think the fact we’ve had no problems with it (kids getting a hold of teachers guns, for example) is a good case study to show that enabling the RKBA in schools doesn’t cause any unique problems.
    I also dislike the idea of requiring extra training to allow a teacher to exercise their natural right to self defense. And I love the ability I have as a CCW permit holder to carry when at my kids school, and knowing that my kids teachers can as well.

  13. avatar EagleScout87 says:

    “Wait! I’ve got an idea! How about repealing Bush the Elders’ Gun Free School Zones Act, tell the left-leaning teachers’ unions to read the Constitution and make it possible for any law-abiding citizen to carry inside a school. It sounds so crazy it just might work!”

    WHAT?! madness! [/sarcasm]

  14. avatar Cosmos says:

    There are several East Texas schools that have a program already in place with armed teachers at each campus. These teachers are armed, trained, and willing to defend students if needed. The school boards have given their support by allowing money towards a gun purchase, monthly allowance for training ammo, and frequent training at gun ranges and active shooter situations. There are even signs posted that the staff is armed and willing to use force. Seconds do count, and the first responders are the ones at the scene first—the armed teachers.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email