Alright, I ended it. Several more people responded by posting about how violence breeds violence, therefore peace breeds peace. Apparently they are confusing biology with philosophy now, and how police officers have a magic aura that helps them be safe with guns while the rest of us are scared little ladies (I got the distinct impression that included you guys too...) who need to be saved by the pros, lest we all be disarmed by rampaging students.
Quick question for the CPL holders out there: When was the last time you "got complacent" and left your gun unlocked, loaded, no safety, on a table surrounded by kindergartners?
Yeah, so, I'm walking away from this one in disgust. My final response:
-------
poster to list said:
First, the bill (if passed) would amend the current CCW (carrying a concealed weapon) law to include any school employee who is given permission by authorized school officials."
I just don't see that. I am reading that this section applies to
"...an individual
licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is
exempt from licensure under section 12a(f),..."
So, this section is talking about CPL holders.
"...shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:
(a) A school or school property..."
And where CPL holders may not carry concealed, and the following exception to where CPL may not carry
"...except that a AS FOLLOWS:
(i) A TEACHER, ADMINISTRATOR, OR OTHER EMPLOYEE OF A SCHOOL IS
NOT PRECLUDED FROM CARRYING A CONCEALED PISTOL IN THAT SCHOOL OR ON THAT SCHOOL PROPERTY IF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE SCHOOL HAS AUTHORIZED THAT INDIVIDUAL TO CARRY A CONCEALED PISTOL IN THAT SCHOOL OR ON THAT SCHOOL PROPERTY...."
It was pretty clear to me on first and subsequent readings that this bill proposes reducing a limitation on CPL holders, not abolishing the CPL requirement.
My husband and I have gone back and re-read it several times, and cannot come up with any alternate reading. Perhaps, as a second year law student and a paralegal, we're just more accustomed to reading statutes and proposals. The relevant section, you will note, is a subsection outlining a proposed exception to a subsection (limiting carry) of a statute regulating CPL holders. Laws and proposals are nested like that and a section read in isolation doesn't really make sense. This is, of course, not a qualified legal opinion, but merely a close reading of the proposed language.
I had a lot more to say and refutations to make, but frankly, interest seems to be waning and I have a lot of work to do tonight, and I seem to have irreconcilable differences of opinion on the matter of gun control with most posters.
I'd be happy to continue this discussion offlist with anyone interested, but not by email, since it simply is too time-consuming. (Most of these women have easy access to my telephone number)
Peace,
Sara
P.S.--sorry about the kooky formatting. My email client is misbehaving itself tonight. (Sara's being folksy and conciliatory instead of taking the effort to fix the formatting).
-----------
Well, it's been fun. I'm gonna limp away from this one and get my homework done. I wanna move to the UP...