Alaska Safe Schools Act

[bearcreek]

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.

Another requirement in the bill is that the person "(1) agrees to accept the assigned duty;". Obviously they're not going to require someone to take a position like that if they don't want to.

 

[buck460XVR]

Another requirement in the bill is that the person "(1) agrees to accept the assigned duty;". Obviously they're not going to require someone to take a position like that if they don't want to.

Yes....and that tells me that they are not "required" to assign that duty if no one wants the responsibility.

Your previous post seemed(at least to me) that they would be required to assign someone that duty under the proposed law. Maybe I misinterpreted your statement?

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.

 

[bearcreek]

Yes....and that tells me that they are not "required" to assign that duty if no one wants the responsibility.

Your previous post seemed(at least to me) that they would be required to assign someone that duty under the proposed law. Maybe I misinterpreted your statement?

The schools would be required to assign the duty to someone, if that person meets certain requirements, one of which is that they're willing to accept the assignment.

 

[bearcreek]

Text of the bill again, in case anyone missed it in the OP. https://www.akleg.gov/basis/Bill/Text/33?Hsid=SB0173A

 

[Hasaf]

As a teacher, but not in Alaska, I would be entirely willing. However, I know that I would not be able to meet the physical standards. I struggled to meet those standards in my 20s'.

Further, as so many have commented such standards are pointless. It is not about "Ramboing" it through the school. It is about defending a single classroom and the students who have been entrusted to me for that class.

I find it funny, in a sick sort of way, that we mock cultures that allow their militaries to rely on "human wave" attacks. Yet we seem to be unable to come up with any other politically acceptable solution for protecting the children entrusted to us than to tell them to rush the attacker, in mass, with the hope that a small number will make it through and overwhelm him.

the physical and mental standards established may not be less stringent than the physical and mental standards the Alaska Police Standards Council has established for the employment of police officers

 

[Mk-211]

I guess I'm going to go a little different on this. I fully support teachers being armed. They should've been 50 years ago, even though it wasn't a thing back then.

Physical requirements are a joke, if they can pass the training for a CCW, that's all that's needed. Been stated already, the teacher is there to defend the kids, not chase down a perp.

The other thing that needs to happen, schools need to be hardened. If a person can't enter or doesn't find a way in, it could delay or prevent an attack.

I would rather see tax dollars spent on hardening schools, then having a school resource officer standing around drinking coffee.

 

[bearcreek]

Further, as so many have commented such standards are pointless. It is not about "Ramboing" it through the school. It is about defending a single classroom and the students who have been entrusted to me for that class.

From the bill;
"It is the intent of the legislature that the concealed carry of firearms on school grounds by certain qualified persons augment responses by law enforcement during a crisis."

What makes you think it's only about defending a single classroom?

 

[D.B. Cooper]

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.

So, to be fair, in the twenty years I've lived here, I can't recall ever seeing an overweight city police officer or state trooper, not that I've seen or met every one of them. In any case, it's not terribly relevant as citizens should not be denied rights based on physical fitness. In my view, this is akin to a literacy test in order to vote in the Jim Crow south. Worse, because one can study for and pass a literacy test, but as you stated, a person with major injuries/surgeries will never pass a fitness test.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

From the bill;
"It is the intent of the legislature that the concealed carry of firearms on school grounds by certain qualified persons augment responses by law enforcement during a crisis."

What makes you think it's only about defending a single classroom?

Yeah, I can't imagine an armed teacher barricading in a classroom and just listening to the gunfire. That's some Uvalde level stuff right there. One never knows what one will do unless and until the moment arrives, but one can hope one does the right thing.

 

[bearcreek]

Physical requirements are a joke, if they can pass the training for a CCW, that's all that's needed.

As someone who taught CCW classes for years, my opinion is that, when it comes to fighting with a pistol, CCW classes are what is the joke. Most focus almost exclusively on legal questions. That's not a bad thing necessarily, but it doesn't help when the time comes to actually use the weapon. I don't know about Alaska's CCW training requirements. Maybe they're different, though I doubt it.

Been stated already, the teacher is there to defend the kids, not chase down a perp.

In this case, the armed person would be there to (quoting the bill) "augment responses by law enforcement", which would, presumably, include defending kids, but I see nothing that precludes also chasing down a "perp". I used to live near a community where a school shooting occurred a number of years back. The shooting was stopped when the football coach did just that. He (unarmed) chased the "perp" from the building.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

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.

I read as thought it does require all teachers (who qualify) to be allowed to carry guns in school. Of course, those fitness requirements, and, to be honest, this discussion is highlighting to me that even the text of the bill itself will be used to eliminate as many teachers as possible. I also don't see this as a police auxiliary. The local police doesn't even have an aux or reserve officer program.

Remember, Alaska is already a no-permit carry state.

And open carry all the way down to age 19.

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.

I disagree. Of the teachers I know who are shooting enthusiasts, which is a very very few, I'm pretty sure every one of them would concealed carry at work without compensation.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

As someone who taught CCW classes for years, my opinion is that, when it comes to fighting with a pistol, CCW classes are what is the joke. Most focus almost exclusively on legal questions. That's not a bad thing necessarily, but it doesn't help when the time comes to actually use the weapon. I don't know about Alaska's CCW training requirements. Maybe they're different, though I doubt it.

About the same. The instructor who taught my CCW class said much the same as yours did. I think the whole purpose of CCW permits and classes is to inform citizens of the parameters in which the use of deadly force is legal and the consequences of using deadly force outside of those parameters. The courses aren't designed to produce effective gun fighters. It's the responsibility of each citizen to build his or her own proficiency level.

 

[buck460XVR]

Physical requirements are a joke, if they can pass the training for a CCW, that's all that's needed. Been stated already, the teacher is there to defend the kids, not chase down a perp.

From what I have read, there is no required training to CWC in Alaska. I also have read that one can CWC in a school with the knowledge and consent of the school administrator. As for the physical requirements, they may not be because the teacher is gonna run the perp down, but that they don't have a SCA or are incapacitated by a panic attack, because of the stress they need to do something if there is an active shooter. There does need to be some discretion, not every teacher who can own a gun should be allowed to carry it in a school.

The other thing that needs to happen, schools need to be hardened. If a person can't enter or doesn't find a way in, it could delay or prevent an attack.

I would rather see tax dollars spent on hardening schools, then having a school resource officer standing around drinking coffee

While I totally agree with the SRO, if you have been around most schools in our country, you will see that they are hardened. Schools in our district all have bullet resistant glass or coatings on any exterior and interior windows. Every exterior door is locked during the school day and monitored with a camera. Only access to the building during school hours is to be buzzed in by a receptionist behind bullet proof glass a the main entrance. Exceptions are staff with swipes that activate exterior doors. All interior doors except for bathrooms are locked with the exception being passing time between classes. Every hall and exterior door is monitored by a camera. Biggest complaint we get from the community is access to the building during the school day, as they consider it an inconvenience to deal with the security. They also claim that the schools are more like a prison than a school because of these measures. These measures have cost our district many millions of dollars to implement because of the 9 buildings in the district. Budgets for others things have been cut because of what it costs every year. While there are grants available, they are spread thin, so much comes out of the general operational budget. More security means less of everything else.....and the community protests whenever there is a proposal to increase the budget. So for the safety of the kids we deal with outdated and leaking plumbing, and poor energy conservation. Everyone says they want the schools to be hardened even more, but when a referendum comes up in an attempt to finance it, it gets voted down.

 

[bearcreek]

About the same. The instructor who taught my CCW class said much the same as yours did. I think the whole purpose of CCW permits and classes is to inform citizens of the parameters in which the use of deadly force is legal and the consequences of using deadly force outside of those parameters. The courses aren't designed to produce effective gun fighters. It's the responsibility of each citizen to build his or her own proficiency level.

To be clear, my instructor didn't say that. He basically just went through the motions and got the class done. That's what I said to my students when I was the instructor. Unfortunately, I don't think many listened, but at least I tried.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

There does need to be some discretion, not every teacher who can own a gun should be allowed to carry it in a school.

I disagree.

While I totally agree with the SRO, if you have been around most schools in our country, you will see that they are hardened. Schools in our district all have bullet resistant glass or coatings on any exterior and interior windows. Every exterior door is locked during the school day and monitored with a camera. Only access to the building during school hours is to be buzzed in by a receptionist behind bullet proof glass a the main entrance. Exceptions are staff with swipes that activate exterior doors. All interior doors except for bathrooms are locked with the exception being passing time between classes.

None of that exists in the schools up here.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

To be clear, my instructor didn't say that. He basically just went through the motions and got the class done. That's what I said to my students when I was the instructor. Unfortunately, I don't think many listened, but at least I tried.

In any case, I think we're on the same page on that.

 

[bearcreek]

None of that exists in the schools up here.

None of that here either.

 

[AlexanderA]

From the bill;
"It is the intent of the legislature that the concealed carry of firearms on school grounds by certain qualified persons augment responses by law enforcement during a crisis."

It sounds to me that this is a backdoor way to recruit school teachers to serve as reserve police officers. The obvious questions, then, are (1) will they have full police powers, including the power to arrest? (2) will they be shielded from civil / criminal liability in the same way as active police officers? and, most importantly, (3) will they be paid extra for this service? After all, being a reserve policeman is not part of the job description of a school teacher.

Also, we seem to be focusing on mass shooting situations. More likely, though, is the "teacher as policeman" becoming involved in maintaining classroom discipline among the students. (This is something that "school resource officers" -- policemen -- do today.) Would an armed teacher be able to handcuff -- or draw a gun on -- unruly kids?

 

[The Night Rider]

Even going back to my school days (Class of 84) the majority of teachers in my schools could pass that test.

The ones that couldn't were well past 50.

 

[The Night Rider]

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.

But they might have to fight off a kid trying to take their gun

 

[Basura Blanca]

More likely, though, is the "teacher as policeman" becoming involved in maintaining classroom discipline among the students. (This is something that "school resource officers" -- policemen -- do today.) Would an armed teacher be able to handcuff -- or draw a gun on -- unruly kids?

General classroom management (i.e. discipline) definitely isn't a job that school resource/police officers do. Nor should they. If something rises to the level of needing to handcuff or use a firearm in a classroom, something went wrong twenty steps back in the equation. I work in education and my job is around 85% discipline oriented yet I rarely even have to raise my voice to get results.

As for this proposal, the job would most likely fall onto non-certificated, classified positions anyway. It sounds like an attempt to score political points more than anything. It's cheaper to assign some guy to a security position than it is to invest in real, front line measures like denying access (i.e. gates and fences) or cameras, etc.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

It sounds to me that this is a backdoor way to recruit school teachers to serve as reserve police officers.

I kind of doubt that. For one, to my knowledge at least, there is no reserve police officer program in Alaska. I also doubt many teachers would sign up to be reserve officers. In other states in which I've lived, reserve officers had to go through the regular police academy and membershio in the reerves was largely seen as a point of entry into a paid law enforcement position.

is the "teacher as policeman" becoming involved in maintaining classroom discipline among the students. (This is something that "school resource officers" -- policemen -- do today.)

Teachers already do that. Indeed, you've got that backwards. Teachers do almost the entirety of classroom discipline, and teachers are actively discouraged from "writing up" students and/or sending them to the office. Even in the case of "unruly students" - even in the extreme case of an actual fight, school security officers (non-sworn, no arrest power, unarmed) are called in. SROs only get involved when laws are broken (and even them, arrests are rarely made-school discipline is usually the limit) or a situation that exceeds the capacity of school security to deal with it (large scale fights, guns on campus, active shooters etc)

Would an armed teacher be able to handcuff -- or draw a gun on -- unruly kids?

That is an absurd statement. Why would a teacher be privileged to threaten deadly force in a non deadly force encounter? That is the kind of statement I would expect to hear from anti 2a activists opposed to this bill.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

But they might have to fight off a kid trying to take their gun

That's a plausible scenario, but even in that scenario, I'm not sure how being able to run an 8 minute mile, do a bunch of sit ups or jump 14" in the air will make much of a difference. If that scenario is your concern, why not at a requirement that all armed teachers must all be black belts in martial arts?

Besides. Having one's EDC sidearm taken from them is a risk every armed citizen runs, yet we don't deny the 2nd amendment to citizens based on that. All I'm asking is why teachers, in this bill at least, are being required to meet standards that other citizens are not required to meet.

 

[Basura Blanca]

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.

But would you agree all of those in bold are the biggest stakeholders in this, particularly parents? Because I do.
A better bill would be to just carve out a new position, which the state itself funds, that assigns a qualified security officer to each school. I don't know how many individual school districts there are in Alaska, but I imagine that every one of them has their own contract and it seems sort of lazy to let each of the sites within those districts decide how to apply this law (if passed) instead. The opposition may have more to do with contractual and practical concerns than gun politics. Lot's of people in education aren't 2A prohibitionists.

 

[The Night Rider]

That's a plausible scenario, but even in that scenario, I'm not sure how being able to run an 8 minute mile, do a bunch of sit ups or jump 14" in the air will make much of a difference. If that scenario is your concern, why not at a requirement that all armed teachers must all be black belts in martial arts?

Besides. Having one's EDC sidearm taken from them is a risk every armed citizen runs, yet we don't deny the 2nd amendment to citizens based on that. All I'm asking is why teachers, in this bill at least, are being required to meet standards that other citizens are not required to meet.

But these aren't citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights. These are employees of the school board who are going to be acting as employees of the school board while they're carrying a gun.

When I was working as a security guard my employer had the right to tell me what kind of gun I was going to carry. They had the right to tell me what kind of holster I was going to use. They had the right to tell me what kind of ammunition I was going to use and exactly how many rounds I could have on me and God help me when it was company issue ammunition if one round went missing.

If they're letting you carry on the clock they have the right to set the ground rules