Alaska Safe Schools Act

[D.B. Cooper]

So, I'm putting this here, rather than in legal or activism, in hopes it doesn't get immediately quashed. State senator Hughes has put forward Alaska SB 173. In short, it is a bill that would require Alaska school districts to allow teacher and staff to carry concealed handguns on school grounds...if...IF...the teacher/staff member has a concealed carry permit and...AND...the teacher passes the same physical fitness standards as law enforcement officers.

This is something that is needed, however, my concern is that the requirement for the applicant to pass the law enforcement fitness standard will be used to moot the entire law, because I highly doubt there are very many teachers who can pass that physical fitness standard, which is very similar to that of the Air Force.

So my question is thus: should gun owners in Alaska get behind this and support this as a "step in the right direction" or should they not support it because of the fitness standard, which will only serve as a loop-hole to nullify the law in practical terms? If the bill passes as is written, I would be surprised if any teacher were allowed to carry gun because of it.

Additionally, with the Bruen decision now almost two years in the rear view mirror, what is going to take to get the Supreme Court to restore teachers' constitutional right to self defense? Because, as I see it, that is the only real solution.

On a related side note, NEA (National Educators' Assoc. - the teachers' union for all Alaska public school teachers) just published a front page article calling for more gun control on their monthly journal. (I didn't read it; we know where they stand.)

Here is a link to the primary source, full text of the bill. https://www.akleg.gov/basis/Bill/Text/33?Hsid=SB0173A

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

I say step in the right direction. The physical fitness requirements can always be amended/ rescinded later.

 

[buck460XVR]

This is something that is needed, however, my concern is that the requirement for the applicant to pass the law enforcement fitness standard will be used to moot the entire law, because I highly doubt there are very many teachers who can pass that physical fitness standard, which is very similar to that of the Air Force.

I say step in the right direction. The physical fitness requirements can always be amended/ rescinded later.

I agree, it is a step in the right direction. As for the physical fitness test, do all LEOs in Alaska have to pass the same physical test? I have to say, here where I live, the fitness tests required for local LEOs is pretty lax. Many would have a hard time keeping up with a 70 year old grandma.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I agree, it is a step in the right direction. As for the physical fitness test, do all LEOs in Alaska have to pass the same physical test? I have to say, here where I live, the fitness tests required for local LEOs is pretty lax. Many would have a hard time keeping up with a 70 year old grandma.

This prompted me to do some research. There is a state standard. 1.5 mi run in 17 mins. (8.5 min mile pace; I run about a 16 min mile pace.) 20 something sit-ups in 1 min. 27 or something push ups no time limit, a high jump (min 14") and a 300 m dash in no less than 74 seconds. (about 9 mph or about a 6 min mile pace) I can spring 10-20 yards during a USPS run n gun match, but I can't do it for 300 meters. No way. And none of this is in anyway connected to whether or not one can safely and effectively wield a firearm.

There are also requirement s for firearms proficiency, which I'm obviously not concerned about, as well as a pychological exam requirement. Although, one could make the argument that one's Constitutional rights are not/should not be predicated upon meeting such standards. Imagine if people had to run a 9 minute mile before they could vote.

 

[AJC1]

It a step in the right direction and fitness has zero to do with markmanship..... it's not like these teachers are authorized to give chase or apprehend.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

...fitness has zero to do with markmanship..... it's not like these teachers are authorized to give chase or apprehend.

My thoughts exactly. My concern, as I stated, is it will be used to disqualify almost everyone who applies. Better to have an out-of-shape teacher with a gun who might or might not get to the attacker in time than to eliminate teachers who can carry guns. My wife can hike across her entire school campus (hike, not run) in five minutes. The police response time on the recent Iowa shooting was seven minutes.

 

[AJC1]

My thoughts exactly. My concern, as I stated, is it will be used to disqualify almost everyone who applies. Better to have an out-of-shape teacher with a gun who might or might not get to the attacker in time than to eliminate teachers who can carry guns. My wife can hike across her entire school campus (hike, not run) in five minutes. The police response time on the recent Iowa shooting was seven minutes.

I would not expect a teacher to engage, but if they were at the screen take out the murderer. They are a line of defense not swat

 

[jmr40]

I taught from 1980-2010 when I retired. The average teacher when I taught was in better physical shape than the average cop.

 

[bearcreek]

If I'm reading that document correctly, this isn't just a blanket allowance for school staff to carry in Alaska schools. It requires the schools to designate a "qualified person granted an assigned duty" who must meet certain requirements. Seems reasonable to require such a person to meet certain physical standards. It's not the same thing as just allowing any staff member with a CCW permit to carry. This person would be specifically designated to be part of school defense and the school would be paying for their continuing training.

 

[Hartkopf]

I call slippery slope BS. What’s next?

EVERYBODY should have to pass a physical test to be able to exercise their rights?

Who decides the physical test? “Experts?” We saw how experts in science were used in early 2020..

Pass the concealed carry shooting test and let the teachers carry in school.

 

[bearcreek]

I call slippery slope BS. What’s next?

EVERYBODY should have to pass a physical test to be able to exercise their rights?

Who decides the physical test? “Experts?” We saw how experts in science were used in early 2020..

Pass the concealed carry shooting test and let the teachers carry in school.

Did you read the bill?

 

[D.B. Cooper]

If I'm reading that document correctly, this isn't just a blanket allowance for school staff to carry in Alaska schools. It requires the schools to designate a "qualified person granted an assigned duty" who must meet certain requirements. Seems reasonable to require such a person to meet certain physical standards. It's not the same thing as just allowing any staff member with a CCW permit to carry. This person would be specifically designated to be part of school defense and the school would be paying for their continuing training.

That wasn't how I read it, but perhaps you are correct. There is also a requirement to notify local law enforcement which room numbers have teachers with guns, and there is also talk about paid work time for exercises/training, but no other specific details to what that would entail or what the exact duties of a conceald carrier would be.

What I read was "shall issue an assigned duty...to carry for defensive purposes." Meaning the local district superintendents could not arbitrarily deny an applicant. I read it in the same light as the difference between "may issue" and "shall issue" concealed carry permit states. ("May issue" now having been obliterated by the Bruen decision.) If you read further down, there is talk about immunity from prosecution, and I thought the words "assigned duty" were to facilitate that, so as to make the carrying of a gun part of your job as a public servant-something akin to qualified immunity. But you know how lawyers and politicians like to obfuscate things with words.

 

[bearcreek]

That wasn't how I read it, but perhaps you are correct. There is also a requirement to notify local law enforcement which room numbers have teachers with guns, and there is also talk about paid work time for exercises/training, but no other specific details to what that would entail or what the exact duties of a conceald carrier would be.

What I read was "shall issue an assigned duty...to carry for defensive purposes." Meaning the local district superintendents could not arbitrarily deny an applicant. I read it in the same light as the difference between "may issue" and "shall issue" concealed carry permit states. ("May issue" now having been obliterated by the Bruen decision.) If you read further down, there is talk about immunity from prosecution, and I thought the words "assigned duty" were to facilitate that, so as to make the carrying of a gun part of your job as a public servant-something akin to qualified immunity. But you know how lawyers and politicians like to obfuscate things with words.

Check out the part about the school paying for that person's training. Personally I don't have a problem with there being physical standards for a person for whose training the school is paying.

 

[AJC1]

That wasn't how I read it, but perhaps you are correct. There is also a requirement to notify local law enforcement which room numbers have teachers with guns, and there is also talk about paid work time for exercises/training, but no other specific details to what that would entail or what the exact duties of a conceald carrier would be.

What I read was "shall issue an assigned duty...to carry for defensive purposes." Meaning the local district superintendents could not arbitrarily deny an applicant. I read it in the same light as the difference between "may issue" and "shall issue" concealed carry permit states. ("May issue" now having been obliterated by the Bruen decision.) If you read further down, there is talk about immunity from prosecution, and I thought the words "assigned duty" were to facilitate that, so as to make the carrying of a gun part of your job as a public servant-something akin to qualified immunity. But you know how lawyers and politicians like to obfuscate things with words.

I shoot a lot and have tons of weapons training. The roe is everything, and after operating in the nuke weapons theater, I don't think I could make the mental shift to a school. In nuke weapons there are no rules except secure the weapons and deny further access at all costs... when kids are involved everything is a legal trap.

 

[Appalachiannative]

With the way things are going in popular culture and politics today I assumed based on the title of this thread that I was going to read of some crazy new regulation I'd completely disagree with but was pleasantly surprised to read about something that sounds like a good common sense policy. Good going AK

 

[D.B. Cooper]

With the way things are going in popular culture and politics today I assumed based on the title of this thread that I was going to read of some crazy new regulation I'd completely disagree with but was pleasantly surprised to read about something that sounds like a good common sense policy. Good going AK

It still has to pass two houses and be signed by the governor. We're an extremely gun friendly state (the best IMO) but you can count on the teachers' union, the PTA, school boards and their association, superintendents, and outside interests fighting this one pretty hard.

 

[Oldschool shooter]

I call BS on the physical requirements. At 64, with 2 hips and 1 knee having been replaced, I could never pass those requirements, but am still perfectly capable of getting around, going to work every day, and maintaining my proficiency with a firearm. And sadly, I have seen police officers that can't look down and see their own peckers for the belly that is in the way. How about making officers maintain some semblance of physical fitness, not expecting a 50 or 60 somethung officer to maintain the same things they could do in their 20s.

 

[Walkalong]

I might not be able to pass that mile run thing, but I can assure folks I would be a step above most teachers if you needed a gun in school to protect children.

There are far better test to determine if one is fit for that. A step in the right direction, which of course will be tweaked along the way, let's hope rationale world experienced people make those tweaks. I know, politicians will, but we can hope.

 

[Doc Samson]

Had a School Resource Officer tell me one time that he'd almost rather have any random from the shooting range have his back rather than some of the officer's in his dept...

It blows my mind that the current main strategy is to cower in the classroom and THROW BOOKS should a bad guy enter the room. Willful cowardice and stupidity on the part of "know nothing" legislators. Makes me sick to my stomach and angry beyond thought...

 

[jmorris]

EVERYBODY should have to pass a physical test to be able to exercise their rights

No pun intended...

 

[buck460XVR]

If I'm reading that document correctly, this isn't just a blanket allowance for school staff to carry in Alaska schools. It requires the schools to designate a "qualified person granted an assigned duty" who must meet certain requirements. Seems reasonable to require such a person to meet certain physical standards. It's not the same thing as just allowing any staff member with a CCW permit to carry. This person would be specifically designated to be part of school defense and the school would be paying for their continuing training.

I read it as schools are required to "grant" the assigned duty to those individuals who request such duty. The key word being "grant". I work at the local High school and am on the Security/Safety response team and the Sudden Cardiac Attack team. Both have minimal requirements(similar to the proposed bill) and are voluntary. You can be asked, but you are not required. We have talked about the arming of building employees and administrators many times in training sessions and the general consensus is, that while only about 10% of staff would want to CWC in the building, there would still have to be some discretion, requirements and training, similar to what I see proposed in the posted link.

 

[bearcreek]

I read it as schools are required to "grant" the assigned duty to those individuals who request such duty.

Would that be compatible with this part though? Emphasis mine.

"(a) A school district shall

(1) grant one or more persons who meet the requirements of (b) of this

section an assigned duty to carry a concealed handgun on the person on school

grounds for defensive use unless there is no person available who meets the

requirements of (b) of this section;"

That reads to me like they must officially designate at least one person, if a qualified person is available. They can designate more if they choose. It also states;

"(a) A school district shall

(3) pay the fees for the training and continuing education required by

this section of a qualified person who is an employee of the district and compensate

the qualified person for time spent attending training and participating in on-site drills

as time worked; and

(4) pay or reimburse the fees for the training and continuing education

required by this section of a qualified person who is a volunteer for the school district

and requests payment or reimbursement. "

They're required to pay for the training of this person.

 

[Milt1]

Not every teacher is going to want nto do this, however, there may be enough who do want to do it and are in good enough shape to do it. The fitness part is fuzzy to me as a teacher can be fit one year and not fit the following year so that needs to be discussed further. The other factor is securing the school buildings and I hope that is well thought out. Safety can be achieved for children in school if the desire to do it is present!

 

[buck460XVR]

Would that be compatible with this part though? Emphasis mine.

I don't know. I read that too, but the idea that they "have" to designate someone who does not first volunteer to risk their life, seems like a far fetch. In our security training, we are constantly told we do not need to intervene if we feel our own personal safety is at risk. It is actually suggested we do not. I would assume it's a liability thing, as most staff and teachers would put themselves in front of the kids in the building. But telling them they have to? I guessing the law says if you have someone who is qualified and wants to CWC in the building, you have to allow them, not that they have to designate someone.

 

[AlexanderA]

Well, the proposal (as described in the OP) is not for all teachers to be allowed to carry guns in schools, but only for a select few to be designated as a sort of auxiliary police. As such, it doesn't have much effect on gun rights generally. Remember, Alaska is already a no-permit carry state.

For teachers -- those few that would qualify -- to volunteer for this additional duty, they would have to be paid a salary supplement. Otherwise, it would make no sense for them to do so. Since the schools aren't going to pay a salary supplement, and nobody is going to volunteer, the issue is moot.

So whether this proposal passes or not, it's no big deal.