- Jan
22
2013
The members of the House Education Committee (sophomore Jenna Haggar is number two on this committee? really?) meet tomorrow morning at 7:45 a.m. CST to discuss and, we hope, dispose of House Bill 1087, the school-gunslinger bill. In their continuing assault on our schools, some legislators seem determined to pass laws that will make it harder for teachers to teach and students to learn.
| House Education Committee Members | |
|---|---|
| Bartling, Julie | |
| Campbell, Blaine | |
| Ecklund, Scott | |
| Haggar, Jenna, vice chair | |
| Hawks, Paula | |
| Johns, Timothy | |
| Kaiser, Dan | |
| May, Elizabeth | |
| Ring, Ray | |
| Schaefer, James | |
| Sly, Jacqueline, chair | |
| Stevens, Mike | |
| Tulson, Burt | |
| Tyler, Kathy | |
| Wick, Hal |
If you care about education, if you care about children not being subjected to unnecessary fear and risk of death, if you think that we should show our children that we put more faith in civil society and discourse than in deadly force, you should contact every one of the above legislators and recommend, urge, beg, and/or demand that they kill HB 1087 tomorrow morning.
77 Responses to “Call House Education Today, Tell Them to Protect Kids from Guns, Kill HB 1087”
"In their continuing assault on our schools, some legislators seem determined to pass laws that will make it harder for teachers to teach and students to learn."
In Cory's continuing assault on our Constitutions, he is determined make it impossible for teachers to excercise their Constitutional rights to protect themselves, their students and fellow cowardly teachers from acts of evil.
What's wrong with local control? Give them the option to do what they want.
South Dakota is a pauper state reliant on the federal dole to even exist: expect the Daugaard regime to cave.
Cory, (or anyone except Sibson, who will just confuse the issue further) can you outline for us your specific objections to this bill? On its face, it doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me. What am I missing here?
Providing local control is not a sufficient reason for allowing such a bad piece of legislation to pass. Bringing guns into the school is bringing us one day closer in SD to having a innocent student killed by a fellow student or provoked "armed school official". Money ?---but will insurance carriers be willing to provide liability coverage to local school districts if they go "packing"? Probably not unless the local school board signs off on a waiver of coverage which then brings liability to individual school board members and staff if an innocent student is harmed by a school "sanctioned" weapon.
What the Governor and legislature have to do is show some leadership and not pass the buck to the schools. Comon sense legislation is needed. We should pass a law that is similar to what New York did.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/us/new-york-gun-bill/index.html
Whether or not a teacher carrys a gun has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. It's just p[lain wrong!
It's probably fair to say that I grew up in a different age, and that perhaps I am just loathe to admit it. But when I went to high school in Custer in the '60's there were lots of us who had firearms in our cars and pickups, both teachers and students. It was just part of being from the hills. Most of us had taken the NRA safety training course and knew how to handle guns responsibly. I don't recall a single day being in fear the some student or teacher would go berzerk and start shooting us all. By contrast, the cold war was on, and everyone's deepest anxiety was nuclear war... that either our political leadership or the Soviet's would make an error in judgement and incinerate humanity on a global level. Times have changed alright. So yeah, maybe it is time to bring the disarmament talks down to the local level.
NY solutions won't work in SD. In rural schools where there is no resource officer or guard, I have no problem with them recruiting retired military, police, or anyone they deem fit for the job to patrol the area or simply have a presence in the school. In most small rural towns, this is a viable option and would work well for the community. It's not like some of these farm boys don't have a shotgun or rifle in their pickups anyways. They still hunt on the way to and from school, they just can't park on school property.
DumButt accidentally makes a great point: no solution will work in South Dakota.
Stay Classy Larry!
http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/21302/20130122/cuomo-budget-address-today
Larry, DB, more to the point perhaps is, "does SD actually have a gun problem to solve?" I note that Troy Jones brought this up on SDWC. Are we just reacting to what's in the national news? And are the "cures" perhaps more potentially harmful than the supposed "disease?" Troy notices, if I recall, that the conversation is about guns when it should instead probably be about better mental health care and recordkeeping. Good thinker, Troy.
What do you guys think? (Larry, no bullshit, okay? Just this once, bro.)
Bill: there is an armed insurgency brewing and not just in red states. Idaho and Texas may be ground zero but South Dakota and Montana are girding their loins for battle.
Troy has implied that he is ready for war as have many others: are you ready?
goddess, i love twitter:
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/22/right_wing_terrorism_is_real/
No, not ready, and no, I don't see where Troy has said any such thing, actually, Larry. Do you have a link?
(p.s. now don't be goin' all Sibbimopolis on us here, Kurtz ;-)
This comment from Troy stuck out:
http://dakotawarcollege.com/nra-ad-on-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-148137
"Comon sense legislation is needed."
That is what this legislation is. When gun-free zones become targets it is past the time to restore Second Amendment Constitutional rights. New Age Theocrats created this problem, now they want to expand their totalitarian state. A conservative common sense state like South Dakota needs to stand up and show the nation that it is time to move away from a totalitarian state and back toward a constitutional republic.
Larry, I have been giving similar advice to Cory. Why should his anti-Constitutional beliefs be shoved down the throats of his fellow teachers. It is bad enough that they are being shoved down the throats of the kids. Amazing to watch Obama take the oath of office and then take a breath and state that he is willing to immediately violate that oath by banning guns. And silly Cory tried to call us nuts for saying that Obama's plans were to ban guns if re-elected. Things in DC are really messed up and they are sending that same crap to Pierre.
sidearms for the preborn.
The AP is reporting that the Texas tower shooter has been resurrected.
Steve, I often wish Obama would do the things that the right accuses him of doing. He did not ban guns. He did ask Congress to take up reasonable limits. Every right, even Constitutional ones, have reasonable limits, or are you saying the First Amendment or Roe V Wade ought not have limits as they also are Constitutional rights?
I didn't read Troy's comment as anything even close to his saying he was ready for civil war, advocating for insurgency, or any other crazy right-wing extremist baloney, Larry. His comment is pure libertarianism, not unlike the kind of things Bob Newland says, actually.
"Every right, even Constitutional ones, have reasonable limits, or are you saying the First Amendment or Roe V Wade ought not have limits as they also are Constitutional rights?"
First off abortion is not a Constitutional Right. It is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Second, you do not have a Second Amendment Right to take a firarm into a crowded movie theatre and start shooting people. That does not mean that a law-abiding National Guard member, who also works for the government schools as a teacher, cannot take a firearm into school, nor does it mean that the semi-automatic version of the M16 that National Guard member is trained to use should be banned by those who took the oath of office to defend the Cosntitution. It is time to restore the Second Amendment, even if New Age Theocrats, such as Dictator Obama, insist on ignoring the Law of the Land and insist that it be their way or the highway. Having the majority behind you does not give you a right to ignore the Constitutional Rights of the minority, that is if the system of government is a constitutional republic. Instead it is looking more like we are living in a New Age Theocracy.
Sibby's sounding kind of like Malcom X, don't you think, guys? http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2010/05/malcolm-x-and-second-amendment.html Who knows? I might have to end up kind of agreeing with him on this a little.
Bill: Troy has made many, many more comments that are deeply troubling over there. I leave Newland alone because the LP takes five earth haters for every three Dems.
Sibby: reproductive rights advocates cite the 13th Amendment as protection from involuntary servitude.
I'm with you Bill Fleming. Although I don't think guns in schools are necessary, I'm o.k. with makng this a local school board decision.
Isn't it funny how folks are only selectively for local control. How about allowing local control to decide smoking restrictions in bars? I don't think Cory would be for that. How about allowing local control to impose nickel a drink taxes? A lot of gun slinging Republicans wouldn't be for that. "Local control" is just something to hang your hat on when it suits your purposes.
If Obama was a tyrannical dictator, Steve S, you wouldn't have the freedom to comment like you do on these blogs!!
And by the way.....Roe V Wade IS the law of the land and is constitutionally protected. Decisions that should be made between a woman and her doctor and no one else. Period. (btw, 70% of your fellow Americans support Roe V Wade. My math = huge majority)
But back on point to Cory's blog post.....call, write, do something so that these folks know how you feel about this proposed bill.
Steve, the Supreme Court decided what is Constitutional and what is not. You and I (and others) may very well have opinions about what our rights are, but ONLY those nine justices get to say definitively what we have for rights. Every court ruling defines our rights and has the power of the Constitution itself - a living, breathing document.
I also abhor how you slide in and out of "protecting the minority against the majority" when and only when it suits your argument.
I understand a school considering the idea of the armed guard/sentinel. It seems on face to be a way to promote security at a school. I however, disagree with that assessment. Arming people in schools sends a bad message to the nature and atmosphere of our public schools. A gun-free school zone makes a statement about a school's stand against violence. More guns don't reduce violence; more guns PROMOTE violence. I will not buy into the NRA sales pitch that more guns are the answer, like there is some tipping point of ownership we can purchase our way to that will prevent bullets from flying through the air.
Guns will not make us safe. Embracing the paranoia and fear of constant threat will not make us safe. it only lines the pockets of the companies making the money from that fear. What next - private security contractors for the schools? After Afghanistan, they need a place to work.
"Sibby: reproductive rights advocates cite the 13th Amendment as protection from involuntary servitude."
No body gets the death penalty without first given due process Larry.
"If Obama was a tyrannical dictator, Steve S, you wouldn't have the freedom to comment like you do on these blogs!! "
New Age Theocrats have shown patience Dana.
"Roe V Wade IS the law of the land and is constitutionally protected."
So the SCOTUS is above the Constitution? All they need is 5 people to destroy the true Law of the Land.
"Steve, the Supreme Court decided what is Constitutional and what is not. You and I (and others) may very well have opinions about what our rights are, but ONLY those nine justices get to say definitively what we have for rights."
"I will not buy into the NRA sales pitch that more guns are the answer, like there is some tipping point of ownership we can purchase our way to that will prevent bullets from flying through the air."
I don't have the right to apply the 14th Amendment to the abortion issue and I don't have the right to apply teh Second Amendment to the dabgerous gun-free zones. Yes, we are living in a New Age Theocracy. Nex thnig will be Christian thrown in jail for saying homosexuality is a sin. They call it hate crimes. Remember waht Dictator Obama said during the campaign about us bitter conservatives clinging to our religion and guns:
"But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
So if we want to use the SCOTUS, then the New Age Theocrats won't have their ways:
But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."
The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html
" What next - private security contractors for the schools? After Afghanistan, they need a place to work."
Sibby and his neo-con buddies will soon find another country to invade, so the private contractors won't stay unemployed for long
Steve, now that you are using the SC to suit your purpose, in the Heller decision, this was the second finding (after they found ownership to be an individual not collective right):
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
There are examples proper restrictions to ownership. One often used is the prohibition in school zones - a prohibition I fully support. The Second Amendment does not say we must allow guns in schools.
Sibby, the SCOTUS powers ARE part of the Constitution, and yes, what they say goes, Constitutionally speaking. Don't like it? Change the Constitution.
"There are examples proper restrictions to ownership. One often used is the prohibition in school zones - a prohibition I fully support. The Second Amendment does not say we must allow guns in schools."
It most certainly does. What the Second Amendment does not allow is for one to take their gun into schools to committ mass murder. The question becomes; how soon should we expect a response when someone decides to committ mass murder? If I am an armed teacher, the answer would be seconds.
"SCOTUS powers ARE part of the Constitution"
Yes they are, but their obligation is to protect it, not destroy it.
funny the far right hails the 2nd amendment and says the Supreme Court has upheld it but when it comes to abortion even though the Supreme Court has upheld it as legal and they go nuts.
Sorry Sibby but you and your right-wing friends are hypocrites
well-regulated militia shoots off his
brainwanger:http://wonkette.com/498099/if-guns-are-outlawed-only-outlaws-will-shoot-their-own-peckers-off
Just the newest reminder that guns are inherently dangerous:
The Dixie Gun and Knife Show in Raleigh, North Carolina was closed today after an accidental gun shooting in the Jim Graham Building injured two people.
Then organizers posted this:
“The Show WILL BE OPEN TOMORROW 1/20/2013 at 10am
NO PERSONAL FIREARMS ARE TO BE BROUGHT INTO THE SHOW.”
I know this is not apples to apples in comparison, but when a gun show, a place where I cannot even imagine the gun-to-person ratio, a place where the Second Amendment is treated more like a Second Commandment, when THESE guys say bringing in your own gun is too dangerous for their safety, I think schools ought to pay heed to the potential powder keg they could be sparking.
Wow, Steve: you show us gun-show organizers practicing gun control. Wow. Wow. Wow.
And more private security contractors—I love the smell of expanding markets in the morning. Ugh!
Well played Mr. O'Brien. Well played.
I sleep with a ball peen. So should you. They are not serialized.
"Sorry Sibby but you and your right-wing friends are hypocrites"
When SCOTUS ignores due processand allow mothers to kill their children, you support the decision. When the SCOTUS correctly states that the Second Amendment is an individual right, so we can protect our lives, our neighbors lives, and children's lives who survive the abortion mills, Owen and his far-left cohorts want to ignore that decision. A hypocrite calling someone a hyprocrite is as extreme as a hypocrite can get.
"I know this is not apples to apples in comparison"
That is right, the Second Amendment restrictions applies to the government, not private individuals.
HB1087 does not go far enough. It still allows the school board to NOT respect the Second Amendment rights of school teachers and officials. It is not up to the school boards, it is up to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
Good morning, Steve. Cold there?
"Well regulated militia," Steve. The Supreme Court has ruled that "militia" means an individual right to gun ownership. So the "well regulated militia" means regulating individuals. What you're looking for Steve is "unregulated," not "well regulated."
Rorschach, what was the "Founder's" meaning of "shall not be infringed"? Do you know what the "Founder's" definition of "well regulated" was?
Uh, it was to arm white guys to control slaves, sib.
Larry, were the slaves allowed to have guns?
The history of policing goes to slave patrols, my sick little friend:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/1640/Police-History-Early-policing-in-colonial-America.html#ixzz2AGRXNxKu
Larry, again...were the slaves allowed to have guns?
I think what the founders meant is that individuals can have stinger missiles, tanks, armor-piercing bullets, assault rifles, drones, F-16s, remotely denonated bombs, etc. Is that what you wanted to hear Steve? Clearly the founders anticipated all of these weapons, and inserted "well regulated" as meaningless surplus?
You have an amazing capacity to see into our world but still live in your own Bizarro world, Steve.
"You have an amazing capacity to see into our world but still live in your own Bizarro world, Steve."
You have yet to get into the Founder's world in order to better understand the rights intended when they wrote the Second Amendment.
And then we have Artilce VI of South Dakota's Constitution:
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied"
The government school's gun-free zone violate South Dakota's Constitution and any legislator who does not work to restore those rights.
Should SD schools decide to arm select personnel (or take some absolutist position and allow the arming of everyone -why not include individual students as well - they have Second Amendment rights too), would SD "Stand your ground" policies also be extended to schools?
This all gets out of control quickly when framed in an atmosphere of fear.
"This all gets out of control quickly when framed in an atmosphere of fear."
Fear of guns is how we got the school's gun-free zones. Who said, those who give up freedom for security will end up with neither? Sandy Hook proved him to be a prophet. So did Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union and several other cases in recent history.
So did your boss who won't let you bring your pop-guns to work, Sibby.
i would hate to be negotiating teacher contracts with an armed Steve O'Brein.
Fred, Steve's best weapons—and every educator's—are their heads and their hearts. A gun on Steve's hip adds only marginal oomph to the power already there.
Well, I know he's got pretty good legs too. Can whip me on a bike any day.
I know, I know.....it was only a 3 year old....
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/fountain-toddler-accidentally-shoots-himself-in-foot-after-finding-40-caliber-handgun
being proactive rather than being reactive (arming a teacher is a reactive solution) makes alot more sense to me!
http://www.9news.com/news/article/312183/339/School-districts-plan-on-securing-entrances
I would favor edusecurity legislation such as "all South Dakota public schools shall maintain comprehensive security plans and practices." Common sense is what is needed.
We could ask, Fred, whether school boards need Pierre to pass such a requirement. How many schools do not have comprehensive security plans? Would such a bill be just an unfunded mandate that legislators could use to pretend they've done something?
It seems some of our legislators feel a need to do "something" respond to the shootings. How many schools do not have a comprehensive security plan? I don't know. But the better question is how many schools do not practice their plan? How many schools do not review and revise their plan? How many plans sit on the shelf collecting dust? That local communities do everything possible to protect our children should be a given. In today's world, I don't think it unreasonable for the state to become involved by requiring comprehensive security plans and practices. We all know not all school-related terrorists attacks will come in the form of guns.
Fred, it sounds like you're moving in the opposite direction from the bill sponsors on local control. That's not necessarily bad... but it's interesting that our legislators want to "do something" without doing something themselves, while you advocate a more direct, hands-on approach to improving security. Republicans, which is the better route?
"How many schools do not have comprehensive security plans? "
You mean Sandy Hook did not have one?
"Common sense is what is needed." Like someone who has a dream about being stalked by a person hired to protect her and then wake up thinking it is real? And then go on to use her delusional story to persuade a legislative committee to not allow her union members their constitutional rights?
I believe locals should have the freedom to decide whether their school's security plan include an armed individual -- but that's just one piece of keeping our kids safe. Is an armed person going to prevent a biohazard attack? Prevent an airplane from flying into the school building? Prevent a car bomb from smalling through the front door? If we want to do more than we are currently doing than we have to look at the big picture. For me, the place to start, even before considering allowing an armed person in our schools is to study & understand the risk. Does anyone really have a grasp on the security provisions in place at our 150+ school districts? How many schools currently have SROs (police officers) in their buildings? What preventive measures are in place? In sum, what are the risks? It seems to me the current legislation is putting the cart before the horse.
"I believe locals should have the freedom to decide whether their school's security plan include an armed individual"
Pogeny disagrees with you. And when it comes to the right to bear arms, South Dakota's Constitution says that right sahll NOT be denied.
"How many schools currently have SROs (police officers) in their buildings? What preventive measures are in place? In sum, what are the risks? It seems to me the current legislation is putting the cart before the horse."
The cart was put in front of the horse when we accepted the Federal Gun-free zones. First we should have amended the US Constitution and the also South Dakota's.
Monroe bill defeated: Montgomery.
Randy Hartley of the SD Highway Patrol says removing concealed handgun permit would be an "open invitation for motorcycle gangs" RT @ArgusMontgomery
Timely article in today’s Edweek:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/01/23/18safety_ep.h32.html?tkn=YMYFwTuqMatkYKtSj3aNYA4xPY240KhJm%2B5w&cmp=SOC-EDIT-FB
This is the school security policy letter that went out to Sandy Hook Elementary school parents at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Members of our Sandy Hook Family,
Our district will be implementing a security system in all elementary schools as part of our ongoing efforts to ensure student safety. As usual, exterior doors will be locked during the day. Every visitor will be required to ring the doorbell at the front entrance and the office staff will use a visual monitoring system to allow entry. Visitors will still be required to report directly to the office and sign in. If our office staff does not recognize you, you will be required to show identification with a picture id. Please understand that with nearly 700 students and over 1000 parents representing 500 SHS families, most parents will be asked to show identification.
Doors will be locked at approximately 9:30 a.m. Any student arriving after that time must be walked into the building and signed in at the office. Before that time our regular drop-off procedures will be in place. I encourage all parents to have their children come to school and return home on the bus and to remain in school for the entire school day. The beginning and ending of our school day are also important instructional times and therefore we want all our students to reap the benefits of full participation in our program.
We need your help and cooperation for our system to work effectively. Our office staff is handling multiple tasks. Though they will work diligently to help you into the building as quickly as possible, there may be a short delay until someone can view you on the handset and allow you to come in electronically. There are times during the day when office personnel are on the telephone, addressing student concerns, or in the copy room; there are other times when only one person is in the front office. Please help our staff by identifying yourself and provide your child’s name. Keep in mind we will be following our district guidelines which may need revision once we test the system.
Please know your involvement continues to be critical to our school’s effectiveness and your child’s success. We continue to encourage and value your presence in our classrooms and are counting on your cooperation with the implementation of this safety initiative.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Hochsprung
Steve, I am afraid I am missing the point you are making with the letter. After a quick read, it does seem to be in line with policies I would guess many schools follow to help control outsiders in the school.
One element that has been left out of the discussion so far is "other options." My school has a safety plan. An earlier post referenced talking down the shooter. Although I still am against guns in schools, I think schools have to deal with this issue - just as they do fires, tornados, and other potential disasters. Schools have to face the ugly question of what they would do in that situation. Certainly that is not an open to the public discussion - it would be foolhardy to publish school security procedures, but it has to be discussed so that the "gunslinger" option is not the only option on the table. To be clear, I am not asking for a state intervention, I believe that plan to be a local issue.
"Steve, I am afraid I am missing the point you are making with the letter."
The point is that Sandy Hook already had more security than most all schools in South Dakota already. So why spend millions on what did not work, while continuing to ignore constitutional rights and insist on preserving dangerous federal gun-free zones?
Steve O. had a great point that wonders why students shouldn't be allowed to carry: how would you reconcile that paradox in the Second Amendment?
Sibby, read the article Fred provides: "Safety experts have said that much of how Sandy Hook teachers and students had prepared for emergencies was exactly right and that the school's safety measures had likely slowed down the gunman and prevented an even higher death toll." Spending those dollars apparently worked.
But there's the sad thing: we're spending dollars that could be spent arguably to greater benefit on solving the daily problems that keep every child and teacher from performing to their maximum ability.
Take a look at the Orlando example in Fred's article: they can find the money almost immediately to hire 78 new resource officers. Why can't we find the money immediately to hire new teachers and tutors and replace outdated equipment?
Says the Nat'l Assoc. of School Psychologists (again, Fred, great article!): "While any student death deserves extraordinary consideration, providing armed security in each school for the sole purpose of responding to violent crises would be an inefficient use of valuable resources and personnel, and further sends a message to students that there is in fact a risk worthy of such measures even in the absence of such risk." [quotes from Nirvi Shah, "Districts Get Bold on School Security," Education Week, 2013.01.24].
And look at the photo at the top of that article. Individuals walking around my school with guns undermine the daily lessons I try to teach, by example if not explicitly, that we don't need to use force to solve the major problems facing us every day. Those armed guards might as well just poke their heads in my door every 90 minutes and say to my kids, "By the way, Mr. H. is full of crap."
Leave a Reply