Oklahoma Teacher Carry - Looks like a good start...

[Glocktogo]

That's nice and dandy, but why should my wife be required to take 120 hours of CLEET developed training to protect herself? They don't trust my wife with their children that they already leave with her all day? While I believe that everyone should train and regularly practice with their firearm if they are carrying, I think CLEET training is a little overkill for self protection. She's not a cop, she's not a security guard. If anything, the cost of said training would be an excuse for the administration to deny the option.

Consider this: If she attends the mandated training, becomes certified and follows the program requirements, she's legally protected from civil liability. On her SDA permit alone? Your family is liable for any mishap that occurs involving her firearm. Now consider what the size of that liability might be in a school setting.

Still comfortable with that avenue?

It's no different for me. If I carry one of the firearms I've qualified with at the sheriff's office, they back me legally. If I carry another gun I haven't qualified with, I may lose that legal support. Guess which guns I carry?

 

[KOPBET]

If you mean the teachers should have the option to carry without going to any classes, I agree.

There are over 1800 public schools in over 500 districts in Oklahoma. 250 volunteers won't spread very far, so the likelyhood of having even one in a particular district is slim. So show me the benefit of spending a half million to train just 250 volunteers for an event less likely than winning the lottery.

If you want to give guns to teachers, just set standards and do it.

 

[Rabbitcreekok]

There are over 1800 public schools in over 500 districts in Oklahoma. 250 volunteers won't spread very far, so the likelyhood of having even one in a particular district is slim. So show me the benefit of spending a half million to train just 250 volunteers for an event less likely than winning the lottery.

If you want to give guns to teachers, just set standards and do it.

It seems that the bill has set the standards which are 120 hours of additional training through CLEET, above the requirements for the Handgun License.

Most of that time should be spent shooting. I have had folks take my class who were doing good to hit somewhere on the target, but in Oklahoma, we don't have an accuracy requirement, just a safety requirement. A school is a guaranteed congested area with all the kids and we sure don't want anyone shooting children because they can not hit the broad side of a barn. When I went through the Dallas Police Department Academy, we spent a week at the range, not the fifty rounds required for a Oklahoma Handgun License.

And we should not be making the teachers who may be armed responsible for the safety of the schools, it is a voluntary responsibility they take on and it is certainly not for every teacher. I know teachers who would take on the responsibility immediately.

If this is what it takes to begin to get some protection for our children, then it is a start.

As far as the suggestion of the chances of a shooting being greater than winning the lottery, talk to the parents in Sandy Hook. If the principal of the school had been armed and properly trained, the only dead person would have been Adam Lanza. We cannot continue to stick our heads in the sand and hope it won't happen to us. The world is a different place than it was years back, a more dangerous place.

 

[KOPBET]

As far as the suggestion of the chances of a shooting being greater than winning the lottery, talk to the parents in Sandy Hook. If the principal of the school had been armed and properly trained, the only dead person would have been Adam Lanza. We cannot continue to stick our heads in the sand and hope it won't happen to us. The world is a different place than it was years back, a more dangerous place.

Actually there have been more lottery winners in Oklahoma than mass school shootings.

 

[jakerz]

There are over 1800 public schools in over 500 districts in Oklahoma. 250 volunteers won't spread very far, so the likelyhood of having even one in a particular district is slim. So show me the benefit of spending a half million to train just 250 volunteers for an event less likely than winning the lottery.

If you want to give guns to teachers, just set standards and do it.

I agree with you.

 

[Arin Morris]

Consider this: If she attends the mandated training, becomes certified and follows the program requirements, she's legally protected from civil liability. On her SDA permit alone? Your family is liable for any mishap that occurs involving her firearm. Now consider what the size of that liability might be in a school setting.

Still comfortable with that avenue?

It's no different for me. If I carry one of the firearms I've qualified with at the sheriff's office, they back me legally. If I carry another gun I haven't qualified with, I may lose that legal support. Guess which guns I carry?

If taking the training gives her a legal avenue in a possible shooting scenario, then I can see why it may be needed/required/wanted. I'm sure it's more to protect the school than the individual. Considering the NEA and possibly OEA are proponents of the AWB, I doubt we could rely on any of them to represent her in this type of situation. Thanks for the clarification on what CLEET may offer.

In regards to what I'm comfortable with... I would prefer her to be alive and us go through a civil lawsuit rather than lose her forever.

 

[BamaAlum97]

No mention of how this would affect those of us that teach at the college level...

 

[CoachR64]

It's about money. The money isn't there so the schools won't buy in. We had a lock down recently for a credible and legitimate threat in the area. I was asked to go stand guard in a hallway of all female teachers where there were two external entrances into the building. I was nothing but a bullet catcher had an active shooter arrived. Schools are about presenting an illusion of safety. What can we do to make it appear we are protecting kids without having to put out the funds to actually do it.
I can carry in a crowded mall, movie theater,etc... Under state law. It's really no different in a school. The "for the children" cries are the same cries the anti gun folks use to try and take our guns. Sorry, I am just as valuable of a life as my students. I support my wife and son. My life has value and I have the right to protect it. Kids are used too often as fodder for political fights. In all honesty, the students shouldnt even be part of the equation. It is our right to keep AND bear arms to protect our way of life. Period.

 

[rawhide]

While I understand not wanting your wife hunting down a shooter, nothing in this law requires them to do that. Simply gives them the ability to get additional training so they may continue to protect themselves at work while making the nay sayers feel a bit better because the teachers have additional training.

The law may not require them to pursue a violent threat but the school district paying for the training will. And a whole can of liability issues with it. As a teacher I should be able to carry to defend myself or immediate protection should be provided. The immediate protection will never be provided.

 

[Old Fart]

. Schools are about presenting an illusion of safety. What can we do to make it appear we are protecting kids without having to put out the funds to actually do it.

Bingo!