Baltimore SROs Prevented from Carrying Guns in Schools

Baltimore_City_Schools_MDP

“In a country where we’re talking about arming teachers, Baltimore has decided to disarm the police. It’s crazy.” That’s the reaction of Sgt. Clyde Boatwright, president of Baltimore’s school police union, after the Maryland house of delegates couldn’t manage to agree that police officers should be armed while patrolling the Charm City’s schools. “In a city with as much crime and violence, I’m deeply saddened to know that Baltimore City students won’t have the same protections that every other K-12 student in the state of Maryland has” . . .

Baltimore, which appears near the top of just about every most dangerous cities list, employs a special police force to ensure school safety rather than using BPD cops. They’re allowed to pack heat while patrolling outside school buildings or in the immediate area, but when it’s time to stroll the hallways or watch over the cafeteria as kids try to find something edible in their federally-approved lunches, they have to disarm. It’s the only Maryland district that takes guns out of the hands of school resource officers by force of law.

In other districts, members of the traditional police force provide security at schools and don’t have special rules about carrying firearms inside buildings.

The city school board asked for the legislation to bring school police officers’ practices in line with their counterparts around the state.

The problem is that some of the state’s delegates and local parents felt the district didn’t kowtow enough before proposing the bill. Proponents hadn’t trudged up to Annapolis to kiss the necessary legislative backsides in the capital before trying to get the necessary authorization.

Shanaysha Sauls, city school board president, said the board “certainly made a misstep by not having an open conversation before we introduced the legislation.”

It seems that in the Old Line State, unless you genuflect sufficiently before the right people, it doesn’t matter how important or beneficial your cause may be. Student safety? No dice. Stopping another aspiring Adam Lanza? Not good enough. So when it became obvious that there weren’t enough votes to pass the bill, they tabled it for the year.

Del. Mary Washington, who did not support the legislation, noted that the decision to table was unanimous.

“There were so many unanswered questions, and there wasn’t enough data provided to us to take action,” she said. “Rather than winning a particular vote, what was more important was to have a comprehensive policy that would really make a difference in the lives of our students.”

Questions? Data? How much data will Del. Washington need if and when a school shooting happens in her state’s largest city? The answer, of course, is none. She and the rest of the anti-gun opposition will then simply fall into line, demanding that something be done to improve the safety the the city’s schools. Something she and her simpering cronies have now further compromised.

It’s always been gospel among members of the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex that the only people with the sufficient temperament and training who can be trusted with carrying a firearm in a civil society are the police. Only now, in the hoplophobic fairyland that is Maryland, not even the boys in blue are trustworthy enough.

So for the foreseeable future, Baltimore’s schools will be patrolled by good guys without guns whose only option for responding to the threat of bad guys with guns will be…Tasers, a night stick, and maybe some very harsh language.

 

comments

  1. avatar James St. John says:

    I’m conflicted on this. While I despise gun free zones I’m all for disarming police.

    1. avatar Jon in CO says:

      This is a pleasant read. I have no sympathy, but they do now know what we’ve been dealing with.

      And I’m not for disarming cops, but there should be a level playing field. If they stay, everyone should get to play. If they go, nobody should be exempted. All or nothing.

      1. avatar Rad Man says:

        Like in England, SRO’s will now be armed with only Cardigans and harsh language.

        1. avatar Avid Reader says:

          “If you don’t drop the weapon, your name will be taken down and entered on our records!”

        2. avatar Tallbloke says:

          Hey I’m English…… WTF are a SRO – they don’t exist in blighty mate.

          Although we do have a rather large issue with bullying and violent crime.

          Oh I wonder why I’m here….. thats right f**%ing freedoms!

        3. avatar Stinkeye says:

          SRO means “School Resource Officer” – usually a cop who’s permanently assigned to patrol a specific school.

      2. avatar Sian says:

        You said it, Jon.

        The only exceptions for Law Enforcement should be in that it’s their job to chase bad guys, not ours. No exceptions for what they can carry and where.

    2. avatar Jeff in CO says:

      James, I hear this all the time and agree with Jon in CO. Please do me a favor by going back and reading the ENTIRE US Constitution as well as your ENTIRE State Constitution so you can see how this actually all fits together. I am very pro-2nd amendment, but I also believe in defending the entire constitution when it comes to these issues. There are very few people that I have ever met that have read, let-alone comprehend, the entire document. People tunnel vision on one phrase but don’t have a clue what the other 98% of the document says.

      The Office of the Sheriff was retained in the original 13 colonies, and all subsequent states followed. The office of sheriff was designed in each state to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens and maintain law and order. That’s pretty hard to do unarmed. It is an elected position by the people. Please do some research as to what the position is supposed to be as well as the history of the office.

      Many of the east coast states have diminished the office of sheriff, while the midwest and west has maintained it as one of the highest offices. According to many of the state constitutions, the office of sheriff technically has more power than the President of the United States since they are mandated to enforce the state and US Constitutions. We’ve seen more sheriff’s across the US that have been rising to that calling. Here in Colorado, 54 of the 64 county sheriffs filed a joint federal lawsuit (one of them included my former agency) against the new gun-grabbing laws that our governor signed in 2013. Many of them even stepped forward and said they wouldn’t enforce the new laws since they believed they violated the United States Constitution.

      I would highly encourage you to read this piece: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2008/04/police-are-public-and-public-are-police.html. This “us vs them” mentality, based off of media bias and the truly small percentage of law enforcement that doesn’t care about the constitution is only making things worse. More in the law enforcement community than ever are signing up with organizations such as Oath Keepers (http://oathkeepers.org) and others, swearing allegiance to defend the constitution of the United States. When I first entered law enforcement (currently out of the profession in private enterprise), our oath we took was to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, uphold and defend the Constitution of the State of Colorado, and uphold and enforce the Colorado Revised Statutes. It is in that order for a reason. Many of us take it very seriously, but when you also want to take away our 2nd amendment rights, as well as the power to protect constitutional rights, I don’t understand your reasoning.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I don’t want our peace officers disarmed. However, I do want equality under the law in regards to bearing arms in public. Remember, when an agent of government carries a firearm for employment, he is not carrying under the exercise of a right. He is carrying under the exercise of a privilege. So, nobody is advocating the infringement of the individual officer’s right to bear arms. When an officer carries under any law, regulation, or policy merely because he is designated as an officer then it is a privilege. That is what I and others are on about. If we cannot exercise our right then the officer cannot exercise the privilege. The ultimate goal is for the officer to be able to exercise the privilege and the individual to be able to exercise the right.

    3. avatar Larry D says:

      Yes, disarm them, we still have space for more names on the Texas Peace Officers Memorial in Austin. {activate “grain of salt” mode}

      p.s. Geez, some people…

  2. avatar James69 says:

    Simple soulution. No cops on campus. Period unless sent by 911. Let the principal figure out how to handle problems, m’kay.

  3. avatar SouthernPatriot says:

    I wonder if governing committees (school boards, county commissioners, city commissioners, etc.) can be sued by parties which are hurt or relatives of those who are killed under these no gun policies? If so, a few huge judgments against insurances and/or bureaucrats would alter their views of what they allow or not.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Haha of course not.

      But don’t worry, someone will try and sue the company that manufactures the gun that the bad guy uses.

      1. avatar Julio says:

        Unfortunately, I have to agree with this comment. It’s such a sad statement on our “justice” system. A by-product of suing after a fast food corporation after spilling hot coffee one’s self.

  4. avatar Gman says:

    Just goes to prove the point that the anti’s don’t care about saving lives, they simply don’t like guns.

  5. avatar Shire-man says:

    They could just pay the indigent in free lunches to act as meat shields. That basically what any unarmed security personnel are doing.

  6. avatar The Mountain that Rides says:

    Have the police considered carry in anyway? I mean, who’s going to stop them? Somebody with a gun? Ha!

    1. avatar Jon N Lakeland says:

      That’s a hilarious response, I’d really love to see it play out that way.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Yeah, Jon. One of the good things about living in Grady Judd’s (“Because they ran out of bullets.”) Polk County is that kind of crap would never happen down here.

  7. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

    Good… now they know how WE feel when they tell us to disarm.

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. or something like that.

  8. avatar John P says:

    This would be a Galt moment for me if I was an SRO. Fuck this shit.

  9. avatar Stinkeye says:

    It’s Baltimore; there are probably dozens of students the SRO could borrow a handgun from if needed.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      You sir or ma’am win the Intertubez for the day!

    2. avatar Random_Commenter says:

      Too bad the county & city of Baltimore is a “body armor free zone” as well. You can’t even have passive protection.

  10. avatar Another Robert says:

    I don’t feel as bad about this as I should I guess. I would kinda like to see more of this subjecting the cops to the same restrictions that other citizens are subject to biz. Let the idiot hoplophobes see how that works out.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Exactly my thoughts.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      As satisfying as the thought is we will be the ones to get the blame if something bad happens with a gun on campus.

  11. avatar Hannibal says:

    They should all quit, but I guess that’s easier said from here than done when you need that paycheck to keep a roof over your head.

  12. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    It’s always been gospel among members of the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex that the only people with the sufficient temperament and training who can be trusted with carrying a firearm in a civil society are the police. Only now, in the hoplophobic fairyland that is Maryland, not even the boys in blue can be trusted any more.

    Hmm. Politicians acting with malice toward their constituents. Go figure.

    Personally, I would rather believe that they enacted the school policy because those politicians read TTaG’s March 9th article Leave Guns To The Police: They’re Professionals!

  13. avatar Retired LEO says:

    Locally we’ve had 2 SRO involved shootings in last 3 years. 1 attacked with a knife by an autistic teen the other was a Columbine wannabe. If the SRO’s had not been there would have been another Obama/Holder photo op moment. Do away with victim here zones.

  14. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Good. Cops shouldn’t be armed there if the People can’t. It’s past time to remove infringements.

    1. avatar jerry says:

      Right, the entire police department should be disarmed. All law enforcement should be handled by some kind of a volunteer vigilante committee made up of ordinary citizens who have no formal training (military or police) but who go to the range 2 or 3 times a week and make brilliant comments on blogs.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Your comment has nothing to do with mine. If government is going to make “gun free” school zones then let there be equality under the law. Let’s have everyone’s skin in the game.

        1. avatar Jerry says:

          Right, maybe police vehicles should have no emergency equipment unless you can have blue lights on your minivan.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Keep confusing rights and privileges to stuff those straw men. My point is simple and it is painfully obvious that you lack a direct, cogent counterpoint.

        3. avatar Jerry says:

          Yes Johnny, you should run for office, such a smart guy. Speaking of stuffing…

      2. avatar Jake Tallman says:

        “Who go to the range 2 or 3 times a week”

        which is about a thousand times more than cops do. If you haven’t done so, check out the recent article on TTaG, “Leave guns to the Police: They’re Professionals!”. It talks quite a bit about how officers rarely put more than a few boxes of ammo through their duty weapons each year. Your average gun-owning citizen is going to have FAR better marksmanship than a cop. Frankly, I’d be more confident seeing an average Joe with an AR rushing into a school to neutralize a shooter than seeing a cop doing the same.

        1. avatar Jerry says:

          Whatever jake, your opinion means about as much as mine I guess. Maybe we should have just sent you and john and a few others on here to kill Bin laden

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Or, even better, snarky airhead trolls!

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      “Good”? No, it’s not good, it’s bad. You’re part of the problem because you’re celebrating more citizen’s being unable to defend themselves or children.

      One bad law does not fix another.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I am supporting equality under the law. Officers carry under privilege while individuals carry under a right. If the right is to be infringed then the privilege ought not be allowed. It is preferable that the officers be allowed to carry under their privilege and the People be able to exercise their right to carry.

        When victims of the compulsory indoctrination system only see agents of government carrying under a privilege where individuals have their right to bear arms infringed, they are conditioned to look only to government for their safety and security.

        Oh wait… Your argument boils down to “For the children!” Hmm…

  15. avatar Ralph says:

    Maybe the SROs should learn how to carry concealed.

  16. avatar John Thomas says:

    i imagine it must be extremely frustrating to be told, “nope, you cant bring a gun in here.”

    hm…

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Answer is, “nope, you can’t bring ME in here”.

  17. avatar Arkady Reznekov says:

    This isn’t good. I operate with a militia down in Baltimore. When the only way to get the locals to refrain from robbing, raping, and killing each other for money and “respect” and just because they can, is to march down with a bunch of guys carrying Kalashnikovs and force the entire community to watch as all the troublemakers, and even just people who hang around or make excuses for the troublemakers, are slowly, bloodily, painfully executed in broad daylight, you need the license to use all the firepower and brutality you can muster. I kid you not when I say that Baltimore is worse than Chechnya. At least the Chechens have Islamic guidelines for their wars; this filth just goes ‘yo yo yo homy g’ and sprays bullets into a kindergarten because a 5 year old on the swingset is the kind of hard target only a true warrior could kill. And remember, they kill each other by the thousand, nothing. One guy without a ton of melanin in his skin kills ONE after one of them leaps on him with a knife for no reason in pursuit of pocket change / hood glory / “respect”, suddenly, there’s a massive racism / violence problem, because thug g homy was only a good boy who ain’t never done hurt nobody no how, except for all that stuff he did, but he was just trying to turn his life around and it’s all the fault of people who managed to drive him to criminality just because they happened to be born with pale skin, which drove poor thug g homy mad because all that melanin must’ve hijacked his body and forced him to sell drugs, rob stores, and spray bullets everywhere.
    Funny how after the Militia goes through and makes the scum pay the price for their crimes how suddenly nobody feels the overwhelming urge to sell crack or rob stores or stab people for wallets or shoot people over the color of their shirt. It’s like it was a choice all along…

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I hope you realize that you are delusional, and seek some help. This is not an online video game.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Well, the first sentence made sense. The second one went downhill fast.

    3. avatar Stinkeye says:

      A couple of tips:

      The correct spelling is “homie”.

      Also, next time, dial it back a little. The best trolls are the ones who are at least potentially believable. Your insane rant is just too ridiculous to fool anyone into thinking you’re for real.

  18. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Well….the schools are gun free zones…..

  19. avatar Dan says:

    Somewhere in that school is where they leave their firearms. Is that a safe? A drawer? Or do they leave them locked in the car? How many people can access the firearm if needed?

  20. avatar Josh says:

    Stop! Or I’ll say stop again!

  21. avatar SpecialK says:

    I understand the sentiment against having a different set of rules for the police, and I agree with it, but disarming even more people and leaving innocent children unprotected in the process is not the answer. The politicians responsible are the worst kind of moral filth and their inaction is shameful. They deserve neither their offices nor their citizenship. I would hope that their armed security would walk off the job immediately as a matter of conscience.

  22. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Gee in my kids old high school (south of Chicago) they always had a grim faced little white guy walking the halls with a gun on his hip. This is bizarre and beyond belief…glad my grandkids are home schooled.

  23. avatar rammerjammer says:

    Go away! Or I shall taunt you some more!

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