I knew Rep. Rev. Scott Craig (R-33/Rapid City) was bad at writing bills the moment he offered the school gunslinger bill for debate last winter. He's defended the bill with tricks and lies and asserted that allowing armed volunteers to roam the halls of our schools is vital to creating an appearance of safety.
Appearance is right. Even after several amendments to fix Rep. Rev. Craig's bad writing, it turns out there's another trick tucked away in his new school gunslinger law. The state Law Enforcement Officers Standards Commission was supposed to provide an additional layer of oversight by training and certifying school gunslingers. But that commission just noticed that the language of the law doesn't authorize them to certify school gunslingers:
A South Dakota commission delayed a vote Thursday on proposed rules for training teachers, other school staff members or volunteers to carry guns to improve security in school buildings.
The Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Training Commission originally planned to certify the so-called sentinels _ essentially a license similar to the certification process the commission uses for law enforcement officers. Upon learning that the Legislature authorized the panel to train sentinels but not certify them, the commission changed the proposed rules so it will merely tell a school district when someone completes training.
The vote was delayed until Aug. 2 to allow time for public comment on the changed proposal.
South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley said the change is significant because it gives the commission less ability to immediately disqualify sentinels for misconduct indicating they should no longer be allowed to carry guns in schools. A school board could still decide if a sentinel no longer should carry guns in schools, officials said [Chet Brokaw, "SD Panel Delays Vote on Armed School Sentinel Rule," AP via Rapid City Journal, 2013.07.18].
The erroneous language lies in Section 7 of HB 1087, which added this one line to the statute (SDCL 23-3-35) that defines the powers of the Law Enforcement Officers Standards Commission:
(16) Establish minimum educational and training standards for school sentinels authorized in section 1 of this Act.
This langauge came in an amendment moved by Rep. Rev. Craig's district-mate Rep. Jacqueline Sly (R-33/Rapid City) and seconded by legal eagle Rep. Tim Johns (R-31/Lead). They didn't catch this foul-up. Neither did I, and I scrutinized the language of this bill as closely as anyone else in South Dakota.
But maybe this line really wasn't an error. maybe Rep. Rev. Craig and the other boosters of this bill really were serious about what sounded to me at the time like inconsistent smokescreen arguments for local control. As enacted, House Bill 1087 requires school gunslingers to complete the state's training program (which will cost schools $700 per shooter, plus the expense of spending two weeks in Pierre... plus another $2500 for increased insurance premiums, assuming the school can keep its insurer), but it doesn't give the state any power to certify such shooters or, more importantly, deny or withdraw certification of anyone unfit to carry guns around our kids. The decision of whom to arm lies entirely with the local school board and their local police chief or sheriff.
Thankfully, our school districts probably have the good sense not to put crazy people in their halls with guns. Consistent with the opposition to HB 1087 logged by every educational organization that spoke up during last winter's debate, not one school has signed up to authorize school sentinels. The LEOSC doesn't plan to start offering training until next summer. The Legislature will thus have a chance to meet again next winter and fix their flawed school gunslinger bill... or perhaps repeal this really bad idea entirely.
Cory, I don't want crazy people carrying guns, period.
Not just in the schools, and not just around 'our kids'
I don't want crazy people with guns in the mall, on the road, in a house with a mouse or a box with a fox. I don't want crazy people with a gun on a plane or a train. I tell you now I don't crazy people to have acces to a gun at any time.
But who is crazy and who is not? can you define what is crazy?
I am not going to re hash the arguments for this bill. Only because there was a lot to be done before French teachers could start carrying a side arm. None of this was done.
Repubicans provide solutions that nobody wants for problems that don't exist so they don't actually have to rock the boat on any actually serious, significant problems.
Ensuring crazy people don't have guns around our kids requires serious regulation, in this case with the extra eyes of the same outside agency that certifies cops. HB 1087 proponents told us we'd get that, but they wrote the bill wrong and thus didn't authorize that strict regulation. Oops. We don't have wiggle room on school gun laws for oops.
So you're Okay with crazy people having guns:
around adults
around the elderly
in a house with a mouse
in boxes with foxes.
on trains and planes
just so long as there are no kids around, right?
The way this bill was sold is not the way it is working out. Schools should have the option (I said option, as in not mandatory) to add additional security as the need arises.
It was supposed to be part of a package of bills that would have enhanced security at schools, including limiting access, upgrading door and windows, addressing mental health issues, etc. As I see it some of the other bills are not making much head way. As far as I'm concerned, this bill can stall until they rest of the pieces together.
Lets hope MC that no school board will enact this law. It never should have passed.
Putting guns in schools is just plain crazy.
It was a solution where there was no problem
You know that's not what I'm saying, MC. I'm speaking this specific policy, what we were told it would do, and what it fails to do because of inattentive lawmaking.
And what package of bills are you talking about? Who of HB1087's sponsors at any point during session offered any bill or amendment to provide resources for other enhanced security measures (like stuff that would actually work and not kill kids accidentally)?
I honestly hope there is never a need for guns to placed in schools, in vechicles, or in homes for self defense.
I sincerly hope that any school never have to deal with a active shooter. or that families have to deal with home invasions, or people have to deal with car jackings. These are mad times we live in, and these crimes do happen. Maybe not here, not yet.
Police and Sheriff's departments are stretched as it is, they are asked to cover more groud, and do more to protect, with fewer people. We, as citizens need to assume some responbility for our safety.
Right now, having teachers with guns in the classroom is unwise decision, however, the current situation can change and having an armed teacher may not be such a bad idea in the future.
Look what's happening in Kansas: guns = dropped insurance coverage.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/07/kan-law-thrusts-iowa-insurer-into-gun-debate/2495815/
"The EMC Insurance Cos. insures 85 percent to 90 percent of all Kansas school districts and has refused to renew coverage for schools that permit teachers and custodians to carry concealed firearms on their campuses under the new law, which took effect July 1. It's not a political decision, but a financial one based on the riskier climate it estimates would be created, the insurer said."
If police are stretched too thin, we should invest more in police. But our times are no madder than previous times. And violent crime has been going down over the last decade. Everybody chill out.
"Right now, having teachers with guns in the classroom is unwise"—well, that statement right there should justify a repeal of HB 1087. Legislators told us we needed the bill right now. We don't.
Invest more in police, that is a great idea! Where is that money going to come from? Education? Medicaid?
Do we need armed teachers right now? No. If the need arises, do you want wait a year for legislature to get their act together?
If a convention center or other business needs additional security, they can hire a priviate securty firm. But not schools. Don't schools deserve the same level of security as our banks?
The purpose of this law was to give schools that option, should they need it. I hope no school will ever have to go to this extreme.
"Invest more in police, that is a great idea! Where is that money going to come from? Education? Medicaid?"
The state had a $24 million surplus last year and over $159 in reserve funds. Cutting either education or Medicaid seems to be a false choice.
In face, hiring a few more cops seems doable without straining the state budget.
I would guess the surplus is designated for some slush fund to bribe another company to come to SD and then not pay its workers
Lawyers in the legislature write laws so that the state can not be liable or sued for authorizing a gunslinger in school. Yes, lawyers like to find work but not work to sue themselves.
If it was just that simple.
“We have extra money, let’s hire more cops”
Once the word is out there is a surplus, you can bet every agency in the state, will be looking to tear through that money so fast it would make Bonneville speed week look like a cross country turtle race.
More police officers does not mean better security, the same way more teachers does not mean better education. There are other things that can be done that cost less, and would be just as effective. The key to security is the community. I am not talking about arming every man, woman, child and dog. I am talking about getting to know your neighbors watching out for them, helping them when they need help. If something seems suspicious or out of place; let law enforcement know. This type of security is truly the best. Everyone has to pitch in, everyone has to contribute.
The supporters of HB 1087 would have us believe it's just that simple: more guns in school mean better security!
MC, your statement about strengthening community involvement totally undermines the case for HB 1087. I agree with your statement. The best way to keep kids safe is for all of us to keep an eye on them, to talk to them and to each other. And in that case, more teachers and/or more police officers really would make a difference, as they would be more pairs of eyes and ears to catch problems and more hearts and mouths to talk through those problems and help the kids before the need to draw a gun arises.
Just more guns in the schools, by itself, is not more secure.
Guns in the hands of well trained individuals
plus...
enhanced man trap entry ways
plus...
restricting access (show id and carry RFID tagged id badge)
Plus...
Windows designed to not allow 'quick' outside access(elevated, wire reenforced)
Plus...
Barricades in the driveway
Plus...
More eyes and ears on the street (then talking to law enforcement)
Plus...
Active public service groups (youth and adult)
Plus...
A moat of molten lava
Plus...
A Fire breathing Dragon
is more secure.
All of the above working together is needed to be more secure. (we can cancel the lava and and dragon, if you like)
BTW this is what the Second Amendment was talking about. Not individuals walking with hand gun strapped to their hip shooting anything that looks cross eyed at them. it is about a community coming together to address whatever threat may be.
I dunno. I kinda like the moat and dragon. The dragon could feast on SD feed. Or maybe dragons are carnivores? Prairie dogs! Stray dogs! Gophers! Republicans!
We're a little low on lava in SD. But maybe we can get frackers to drill deeply enough to strike hot rock!
With molton lava, communities won't have to worry about heat in the winter.
Small government MC has some new spending for back to school time...
http://dakotawarcollege.com/back-to-school/
I checked my Dragon lore,
Dragons do not like to eat humans. too many impurities