In blog-on-blog violence Friday, Steve Sibson and Pat Powers traded irrational insults. Sibby interprets the Constitution with a fervent detachment from reality. But Powers misrepresents the scope of South Dakota's new school gunslinger law. Read Powers's headline:
Nice Try Sibby. The School Sentinel bill does not allow Kindergarten teachers to open carry on their hip in class.
...and these two passages:
While Sibby may wish it allows Kindergarten teachers to open carry on their hips, the School Sentinel bill does not have anything to do with the 2nd amendment.
...If Sibby was expecting that it was a second amendment issue providing open carry in the schools, he should take it up with the authors of the measure, and those voting on it. Because that’s not what was passed by the legislature [Pat Powers, "Nice Try Sibby...," Dakota War College, 2013.03.15].
Now read the text of the school gunslinger bill, HB 1087, very carefully. It authorizes schools to "create, establish, and supervise the arming of school employees, hired security personnel, or volunteers" as they see fit. Local law enforcement must approve any local school gunslinger plan, and school gunslingers must receive training from the same state commission that certifies police to carry firearms. However, HB 1087 does not specify how weapons shall be holstered in the schools. A school board could thus vote to have its teachers carry firearms in visible holsters.
In other words, the school gunslinger bill does allow kindergarten teachers to open carry on their hip in class.
Senator Tim Begalka admits as much:
In theory, the school sentinels law is distinct in that it doesn't require firearms in schools to be concealed. But state Sen. Tim Begalka, a sponsor of the legislation, said school districts have the discretion to require guns are concealed, and he expects they will.
"It could be either way, but it was pretty much understood that they would be concealed," Begalka said [J.B. Wogan, "Advancing the Debate: Should Teachers Carry Guns?" Governing: The States and Localities, 2013.03.13].
You can blow all the smoke you want about expecting and pretty much understanding, but if some NRA-harassed school board decides to let teachers carry guns on their hips, the authorizing clauses of HB 1087 won't stop them. If blogger Powers and Senator Begalka say otherwise, it must be because the practical policies permitted under this over-the-top law make them squeamish.
I feel the need to say WTF?!? SD legislators are *insane*.
My question is this, the school sentinel bill allows individual school districts to set standards for personal carry/armed staff, which can then be taken to public vote after the district acts. However, if the district chooses to do nothing with the sentinel bill, do the citizens in that district have the right to put it to vote against the wishes of the school board?
The bill puts the power in the hands of the local school district and local law enforcement.
They deciede who will be trained to carry, they can deciede who can carry openly, where the firearm is to be stored,etc.
While the bill itself does not authorize kindergarten teachers to start packing. It does give school districts that one more tool they can use. I believe most school boards will pass on the option. however there may be one or two who may allow trained teachers to keep a firearm at the school.
SV: HB 1087 creates no local initiative option, and I don't think any such option exists in statute. If your school board won't arm your teachers, your only option is probably to elect a more gun-friendly school board.
MC: my point is still valid; Pat is still wrong. Before this bill, no teacher could carry a gun in school. This bill makes it possible for teachers to openly carry firearms. Why don't supporters of this bill want to own the bill's real impacts?
Thank you for answering my question. I was at a meeting with local district officials last week and they were unsure whether the public could take it from their hands if they choose not to act on it. I trust my district to do what's best for my school aged children and while I carry a concealed weapon in certain situations, I would not want my son's kindergarten teacher to do the same inside a classroom.
What is allowed? Could a schoolbus driver who is now a sentinel carry his gun onto the bus when he/she transports the BB team to the neighboring town? Is he allowed to then bring that gun into neighboring gym/facility? Would some schools have the option to not particpate at a school function at a neighboring school if their own school district doesn't have the sentinel program?
mc, you need to go back to school or at least proofread your posts.
"Sibby interprets the Constitution with a fervent detachment from reality."
Article VI, Section 24 of the South Dakota Constitution:
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied"
http://constitutions.vlex.com/vid/right-to-bear-arms-313707
So what part of "shall not be denied" does Cory Heidelberger and Pat Powers do not understand? Just so you know, I have been deprogrammed for UNESCO's New Age Theology that I was indoctrinated with while attending public schools, so I can now read English. Obviously Cory and Pat have yet to leave the irrational world that UNESCO has created in this country. No school board member, who takes the oath of office to defend both the US Constitution and the SD Constitution, should deny a citizen the right to bear arms. Obviously UNESCO's public school system has not taught Cory Heidelberger or Pat Powers about what Constitutional rights in a Constitutional Republic entails. Instead they believe in a democracy where elected officials and/or the majority can throw your rights out the window.
Instead the public schools UNESCO has created represents a totalitarian police state where only the police are allowed to have guns. The plan is to make this entire country a totalitarian police state...along with the rest of the world. That way we will have a new world order where there is no more war. History shows that is an irrational belief.
Wow it sure is windy in Mitchell today. Expect red flag warnings West River tomorrow.
Curious whether in Southern Dakota gun rights trump restraining orders:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/facing-protective-orders-and-allowed-to-keep-guns.html
No kindergarten teacher with a .38 Special is going to stop an Adam Lanza:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/18/newtown-sandy-hook-adam-lanza-massacre-school/1996455/
oh no.....they can open carry in class. They can now do what any law abiding citizen can do. Oh the HORROR!!!!
In South Dakota there has only been one instance of an armed individual inside of a school. It was over 20 years ago- the assailant was a student and the situation was taken care of by unarmed individuals and police who are trained to handle these kinds of situations. If his science teacher or math teacher had been armed, what's to say he wouldn't be dead or that both assailant and teacher (as well as other innocent bystanders) wouldn't be casualties? Schools have 1000 ft perimeter to keep guns, alcohol and drugs away. They are supposed to represent a safe haven for students, parents and communities. I believe our school districts already have a handle on keeping our kids safe within their buildings. The Rapid City police force does well partnering with our school district to put liason officers in our buildings, as well as having a special response team in place for situations that could arise from armed assailants. However, I do not disagree with the possibility that smaller, rural schools may need to consider the right to bear arms inside their facilities based on their exact needs and circumstances.
SV, what does any of that have to do with Article VI Section 24 of South Dakota's Constitution?
Cory, are you going to make police officers leave their guns in their car before they enter a school, or just hide them under their bullet proof vest?
Sibby,
Is your ideal society one that has everyone packing an visible pistol, a shotgun, a rifle, and a concealed handgun. Does it involve a having every person drive a 4x4 with a .50 caliber machine gun in the truck bed?
There is absolutely no evidence that more guns in school will prevent Lanza and others intent on doing harm to themselves and others from slaughtering innocents.
Just because one has the right to do something doesn't mean that one should exercise it at every opportunity. For example, freedom of speech allows me to call you a blockhead, bonehead, buffoon, cretin, dimwit, dork, dumbbell, dunce, fool, ignoramus, imbecile, jerk, kook, moron, muttonhead, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, pinhead, simpleton, and twit every time we interact. (Yes, I did use a thesaurus.) The price of living in free society is knowing that one may not always exercise every right.
The founders were wise people who understood that having rights meant people should have the prudence to restrain themselves. I wish the gun worshippers as distinguished from the legal gun users and gun lovers would accept the need for restraint.
SV, if your school board needs me to come in and explain the new law to them, feel free to pass along my name. I'll be glad to come down.
DB, seriously? Do you not recognize that there are some things we law-abiding citizens can do that are not appropriate for the classroom? See also LK above on exercising one's rights prudently.
If a school is a 'Gun Free' Zone and there is a Zero Tolerence policy that mean ALL guns should be removed. that means those that have been trained how to use a firearm should not bring them, right?
No. "Zero tolerance" policies usually apply only to students. As noted in my Feb. 22 post, The federal Gun-Free Schools Act applies only to expulsion of students carrying firearms, and even that law exempts students with hunting rifles safely stored in their vehicles and students using firearms in school for educational purposes authorized by the school.
LK, I have not advocated the premise that everyone has a right to take their gun into a school and shoot children. Sadly, no anti-gun liberal on this web site has dealt with Article VI, Section 24 of South Dakota's Constitution that says that law-abiding citizens of South Dakota has the right to bear arms to protect the state, which does include the state's public schools. Instead all we see from the liberal Educrats is their desire to maintain their Unesco styled totalitarian police state.
Sibby,
I never said you advocated shooting children. I asked, "Is your ideal society one that has everyone packing an visible pistol, a shotgun, a rifle, and a concealed handgun. Does it involve a having every person drive a 4x4 with a .50 caliber machine gun in the truck bed?"
Is that your stance?
Article VI Section 24 needs the caveat that Section 5 has, declaring that every citizen is "responsible for the abuse of that right." Implicit in every right is the understanding that it is not absolute.
Now answer LK's question... without mentioning UNESCO, which is irrelevant to this discussion.
And abuse of the right would be walking into a school and shooting children. Using that right to respond to such evil is not to be allowed? Isn't that a right exercised "with good motives and for justifiable ends" (per your link)?
"Is your ideal society one that has everyone packing an visible pistol, a shotgun, a rifle, and a concealed handgun. Does it involve a having every person drive a 4x4 with a .50 caliber machine gun in the truck bed?"
No, I don't expect you or Cory will do those things. But does that mean you two can take away the rights of those who choose to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state?
Cory, you haven't responded my question regarding a police officer in school with a gun openly strapped to his waist. Should that be banned? Or does the police officer have the right to bear arms and the rest of us don't?
So by Cory's lack of an answer, are we to assume he now understands that denying teachers their right to bear arms is a violation of the Constitution of South Dakota?
I want to open a cannabis dispensary next to Mitchell Middle School.
Steve, I will not be goaded into giving an answer when the responses I have offered are sufficient to address the question at hand or when your question is just silly.
But.
A police officer is not exercising the 2nd Amendment. A police officer is carrying out duties authorized by the community. I am uncomfortable with armed police officers roaming my school building. However, school policy and federal law already leave the door open for police officers to enter their schools with their weapons.