Join INGunOwners For Free
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: IGA SB 263 ... specialized weapons training .... (nerp!)

  1. #1
    Expert brotherbill3's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    IGA SB 263 ... specialized weapons training .... (nerp!)

    I didn't see a thread for this - and since it seems to be generating a lot of strong thoughts elsewhere ...

    I've been sharing w/ this:
    This is a LONG post
    - I think the summary of the message is -
    * Teachers SHOULD get training; and in the areas identified in the bill;
    --- but it should NOT be mandatory BEFORE they can carry.
    * What training is needed should belongs to the school board.
    * And the extent in SB 263 is also excessive;
    --- given the number of people that carry everyday (1 of 5.5 adults);
    --- and that it is above LEO/SRO levels.
    * Also, some of the training should apply to ALL teachers,
    --- not just those wanting to carry.
    * And we expect teacher to teach and police their class room / area -
    --- not to become SRO's - hunting down problems all over.
    * The goal is to get to remove the imaginary GFZ limits on law abiding people; just starting with teachers first.
    * The school should be able to help fund such training.

    TEXT from IMAGC:

    IGA 2020 SB 263 Specialized Weapons Training – What this bill DOES – and it does NOT Do – and why we Oppose this legislation – in its CURRENT draft / version. Sorry this is a very long post to cover the myriad of reasons we do not support this bill.
    We have seen some of the newscast posts on social media about this legislation; and there seem to be 4 general arguments: A) support it and its stringent state gov’t mandatory training; B) No teachers, but use Veterans; C) No teachers; use LEO/SRO’s only; or D) No Guns In School Period (we’ll drop this one, as we know that doesn’t work). Our argument is a bit different, perhaps, and more difficult to summarize. The best way to do this is … E) No state law mandated/required training; End the GFZ and allow those with LTCH to exercise their rights and get training.
    This is based largely on our view of what the purpose of the bill – and allowing teacher’s (and hopefully all of us) – the access to their constitutional rights. So, first a bit of background; BB3 writing this. 1) My dad is a retired teacher, who taught for 38 yrs. 2) I was class valedictorian 3) I knew a number of teachers “outside of school”; and heard the stories of “good/bad” things. 4) I have 2 grandsons, plus numerous nieces and nephews from ES to HS, in Indiana right now. 6) I have had my LTCH for a dozen years; and now carry, nearly every waking minute, every day, nearly everywhere, except where prohibited by law (“felony”). 6) I have been to training classes several times in several of the required areas; and was working on instructor-training as well until a couple of years ago, when little league came into my life again. (Yes, there are areas I want and need refreshed; and some need more development, too.) 6) I first carried a gun – a shotgun – when I started hunting at 12 in PA (min. age at the time). We discovered that the mechanical safety didn’t work after 4 yrs, when my dad was again using this gun. We never had an unintentional (“negligent”) discharge with it.
    Why all the background? So that you understand; I am not short sighted, nor only looking at this from 1 perspective.
    1. FIRSTLY – I am NOT against allowing teachers to protect themselves, and those in their charge. I simply want them to be able to exercise their rights, as they chose without the state placing made up rules on them. There are some districts that have already approved teachers and staff members to carry. Not all are known to the public, which is fine in my perspective. One (Jay County School Corp, JCSC), just had 48 teachers complete a very stringent program (see link below or in comments); yet by my reading of the published description of this complete training program – it falls well SHORT of the requirement of SB 263; yet several aspects of the JCSC are ABOVE the required training for LEO-SRO personnel.
    2. Secondly - I do not want teachers forced into this training if not by their choice (the legislation does NOT do this). ADDITIONALLY, I do not want most of them to feel like they need to police the school like an actual SRO/LEO in the event of an incident – (some would say “as agents of the state”). In years gone by, with other disciplinary issues, teachers did not “patrol” through some would respond to a fight “down the hall”. You watch your doorstep & classroom, and your neighbors’ porch. Just like you at home don’t go patrol the neighborhood; but you’ll watch yourself and your neighbor. Teachers used to operate “EN LOCI PARENTIS” (“in the place of parents”); perhaps we need that back and remove the “agent of the state” idea from our way of thinking.
    3. Third - Do I think they SHOULD seek training - ABSOLUTELY. The more the better. AND YES!! The school should be able to help them afford such training - ABSOLUTELY. This is a benefit to everyone.
    3.B - The details of type of approved classes? Anything covered by the legislation that is applicable. Basic safety, Marksmanship, Scenarios. But quite seriously – doing all these classes in 1 short burst – is not the best way to get this training to stick. I tried to add up the requirements of SB 263, I totaled well over 40 hours (and a comment I have seen indicated 56 hours or more) per the “current format”. Yet, I’ve heard trainers say an 8-hour class for a CC license (required in / for other states) is pushing “too long” (for this course/day). Covering all the areas is great; wonderful – do it – get the training – keep at it. But how has this become the mandate to “protect yourself and those around you”. This flies in the face of our rights; and the logic of it fails with the push and action to support SB 69.
    4. FOURTH - Another part of the bill, requires teachers wishing to carry a gun, to undergo a special personality (psychological) evaluation? I Disagree with this: If this is going to be the requirement for some teachers (because of the danger) THEN ALL TEACHERS should take it to be hired. In the normal course of their teaching they have a far more influential and dangerous (or beneficial) effect on students’ lives. If we don't trust them to carry (if they are interested), I'm not sure I want them teaching my grandsons either. The teachers I know - most are serious, dedicated, responsible; they care about their students (“kids”). But for a few bad folks in the mix, perhaps this would solve a few other problems as well.
    5. FIFTH - The required training also includes EMT / first responder training. AGAIN - ALL teachers should take this. This IS ACTUALLY the most effective training most people (teachers, LEO, citizens, everyone) COULD and SHOULD have that would dramatically change the loss of life, and significant or permanent injuries in the type of horrific events that we are trying to reduce in impact with this type of legislation.
    6. SIXTH And lastly - do I think the training should be "above the standards of LEO's" - and / or - require updates (significant investments in time / funds) every year? Again, NO I do NOT. Why? See next paragraph.
    REMEMBER - the same teachers you want to add all this training for them to carry "in the school" - are the same ones that already carry or are contemplating it for everywhere else they go now. Just like 1 out of every other 6 or so adults, with no training required to get their LTCH. Teachers are parents or grandparents at other events; they carry at the mall, at the park, on the street, at the grocery store; going about the rest of their lives. AND APPARENTLY ... based on a recent discussion thread in a very open public group … A lot of “other regular folks” DO carry (safely) on school property and simply shut up about it (except in a VERY public thread); admitting to a Felony offense in their boldness. And throwing a huge wrench in to the argument that all this training be "mandatory" for safety; or the perception that the public require it. I would wager most of these folks have not had anywhere near the "mandated" level of training, in all the required areas.
    It is frustrating to me that part of what the SB (263) does, is to require way more training than school district have required so far; and makes it law and binding, thus tying the hands of school corporation that may be looking at this. My understanding is that the training is also limited to only a few facilities throughout the state; and a limited basis. To acquire the funds – this must be done well before hand so the school can file paperwork well ahead to get the funds (what about a teacher that decides this is important midyear?) And, SB 263 could (probably would) invalidate many locations where school boards have made the decision to allow selected staff to carry. This is also largely in conflict with the idea of SB 69; which would allow retired LEO’s to carry at the school, with a much lower standard, that has had much less resistance. Why not 1 standard for all?
    A last thought / reminder is – I do not disagree with having actual TRAINED SRO’s either; or a teacher that WISHES to do both roles, with the training. I know many say Former Military for SRO’s or LEO for SRO or either; but that still should not limit a person’s right to protect themselves where they are; or those in their charge.
    The fact is we, as a country should ALWAYS err to the side of individual liberty and freedom – and the ensuing responsibilities on individuals. By removing the GFZ prohibition from the state law, would allow any with an LTCH (all proper people) to carry within the school or the school “safety zone” as defined by federal law. (This is why w/ an LTCH you “CAN” possess a firearm within the 1000 ft zone around a school) until we can get the Federal GFZ repealed.
    Feel Free to disagree, but I’ll need some compelling facts to convince me otherwise (as will most of you perhaps). “The Government has got to do something!“ is not an answer I support – unless it is to get out of the way of people doing something, in this case.
    As – always – give us a like, a share, a comment; on Facebook or to other media. Think and discuss. Reason this out in your head; play devil’s advocate. And be part of the solution.
    --- BB3 ---
    SB 263: Senate Bill 263 - Specialized weapons training - Indiana General Assembly, 2020 Session
    JCSC Article:

    Utah School Rules:
    "Brother" Bill - BB3 - Information Analyst, Indiana Moms Against Gun Control

  2. #2

    User Info Menu

    I didn't read the entire post but, since it's about arming school staff, I will add this. Until he retired a few months ago my brother lived in Sterling, CO. about 100 miles NE of Denver . A rural school district east of Sterling was told by the Sheriff it was not likely that they could have a deputy at the school in less than 15 minutes unless he just happened to be close when they call. The school board decided to look into arming staff members. They contacted a company, I think from Ohio, to do a presentation. All school employees and parents were invited to attend the presentation. I'm told the opening remarks included something like this. "If you don't think you're capable of killing a youth who you have taught, coached, transported, or have known all their life, you're not suited for this program." Clearly an eye-opener for school staff and certainly not something many had considered. Lots of folks are just not wired to be "sheep dogs" and some who think they are probably really aren't. I'll try to find out what was decided.

    Well here you go. My brother thinks there are 9-10 armed staff members in the program.

    Last edited by DRob; 02-12-2020 at 22:43.
    If your crystal meth dealer has all his teeth, he's a cop!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts