TX Governor To Sign Bill To Train Teachers As Armed Marshals


The Texas house and senate have passed a bipartisan bill that is on its way to Governor Rick Perry to sign which will allow schools to train and maintain teachers as "armed marshals" on campuses.

Houston weather, traffic, news | FOX 26 | MyFoxHouston

The Associated Press reports,

A bipartisan 28-3 Senate vote gave final approval to the marshals bill, which was proposed after the December mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. It had already passed the House over the objection of the Texas State Teachers Association.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a Republican, had pushed lawmakers to help school districts provide teachers or other employees with special weapons and tactical response training.

The bill allows school districts and charter schools to place one armed marshal on campus for every 400 students. After 80 hours of training, the marshals could bring a weapon on campus. Their identities would not be subject to public records law.

Marshals working directly with students would have to keep their guns in a lockbox "within immediate reach," according to the measure. Marshals not working with students would be allowed to carry concealed weapons.

“We’ve created a new class of law enforcement officers here in Texas to protect our kids in a moment of crisis," said State Rep. Jason Villalba (R)

The AP claims that this bill follows a "relaxing" of gun restrictions.

This measure doesn't help anyone because the gun must remain in a lockbox, not in the possession of the teacher at all times. However, it will cost the taxpayers money in order to provide the lockboxes, train, provide ammunition and weapons for those teachers making the cut.

Some teacher groups are pleading for armed professional security and they opposed the bill. Be careful what you wish for.

Texas teachers are already permitted to carry guns in class with the permission of their local school boards. However, a small number of districts have actually granted that permission.

Law enforcement officials also warned lawmakers that teachers with guns were at risk of being shot by police responding to emergencies at schools. However, if teachers are armed, more than likely they would be able to remove any threat before police arrived. Thus, that argument is probably not a good one.

I have been no friend of the public education system and have openly stated so. I think children can best be educated at home, not in a state run school. I also think children are best protected in their home where their parents are not restricted by lockboxes and state approval to defend themselves and their families.

What should be taking place is that Texas should take the lead and simply let teachers and school officials carry their weapons at school, not keep them in a lock box where they are doing no one any good.

Senator Brian Birdwell (R) said the concern over law-abiding citizens possessing guns on campus is misdirected: "The Second Amendment is not about the gun, it's about the right to self-preservation." 

I agree it is, and if it is about the right to self-preservation, why then does one need to get permission from the state in order to defend their lives and the lives of the students they teach? Hmmm? Why does the state get to tell teachers they can have a gun in the classroom, but they must have it in a lockbox within reach? Honestly, that is about as helpful as having a rock on your desk.

Should the teacher be at lunch or out of the classroom, say in an assembly with their class, that gun is doing you absolutely no good. In fact, one could argue that it opens up the potential for the gun to be stolen, lockbox and all. In my opinion this is a bad idea. Again, I simply ask, what is wrong with letting law abiding citizens, who you are already trusting to take care of and indoctrinate your children, simply carry their firearms for protection?

I do think the training is a good thing for anyone who carries a firearm, but I do believe that should be something that the teacher is responsible for, not the taxpayer.

Perhaps we should not be surprised at a bill that allows teachers to keep a gun in a lockbox in a state that allows for pro-Muslim, American history revisionism, and anti-Christian
CSCOPE curriculum to be taught in their schools.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.






Comments

comments

  • JungleCogs

    Don't stop there, as there are many concealed carry trained parents who would volunteer time-shifts to help. The resources, at no cost to the taxpayer, are there. Give them the special training needed and let them help as they have a pretty heavy personal interest. The cost effective solution is sitting right in front of our noses.

  • bull57

    That is insane. The weapon in a lockbox! Why not have them open carry, but allow no ammunition on person or in the school including their vehicles! Same result.....people will die!!!

  • gavinwca

    The police have been responding to calls with privately armed security guards for centuries without shooting them. What is so different with teachers? This is a great plan, wish they would activate it in Virginia.

  • BigUgly666

    Some of you people are just too stupid for words.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Wolfman4u Wolfman Thomas

    now we can also have trigger happy teachers

    • BigUgly666

      You are an idiot!

    • http://fanon.clubpenguinwiki.info/ TurtleShroom

      Really? ...REALLY?

  • Robby777

    BTW It first came out that the Sandy Hook kids were gunned down by a handgun, then later they were killed with an evil "assault rifle"- just what the administration wanted. The official unedited Coroner's report says handguns....Can't trust this pack of clowns and politicos....

  • Robby777

    Lockbox within reach. Yeah right! Almost there but not quite. The lockbox will advertise its presence to the students. As if students haven't learned the super glue in the lock trick, or sandpaper the biometric window, or smear it with peanut butter.... Kids can be malicious. A concealed security holster IWB is the best bet. with all that weight on their belt, I can guarantee you the teacher would be constantly cognizant of its presence and responsibility.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kenneth.bowman.773 Kenneth Bowman

    A step in the right direction for sure. We the People already have the God given RIGHT to defend ourselves as our founding fathers made certain was included in the Bill of Rights that government could not infringe upon. All legislation that infringes upon this right is illegal and even criminal.

  • livefreeordie

    Where do you live, Colorado?

  • obfusk8

    CSCOPE was just neutered and rendered to the ash bin of history in Texas. And the revisionist history is going the same route now that We the Citizens have become aware of what was in the curricula of our state schools. But the author is correct that ANYONE who possesses a valid CHL license in Texas should be allowed to carry ANYWHERE in the state and all the states with reciprocity without asking ANYONE for permission. There are hundreds of thousands of valid CHL's in Texas and there has yet to be the first incidence of misuse. Not a one. The problem is the perpetrator, not the gun. More armed and trained private citizens = less crime.

    • http://fanon.clubpenguinwiki.info/ TurtleShroom

      You are correct in saying that weapons present reduce the risk of crime.

      For the sake of debate, consider this:
      Do you think that the state should fund schools to train people that possess concealed weapons, like they do with policemen, or like private security officers and PMCs do with their men?

      One of the liberals' allegations is that men who receive a concealed weapon "have no idea what they are doing". I told them that wasn't true with handguns, pistols, or even revolvers, but if we're going to allow greater weapons, such as "assault" rifles and large-capacity semi-automated firearms, into the hands of any kid my age waiting to turn twenty one, how can we trust that they know what they are doing? Someone needs to step up and train them if they don't train themselves. Would you?

  • http://www.facebook.com/kendall.garmon Kendall Garmon

    TEXANS LOVE THEIR CHILDREN MORE THAN THOSE THAT ARE MERE SHEEP AS WE ARE WILLING AND ABLE TO FIGHT FOR OUR CHILDRENS LIVES! Our TEXAN students will have a FIGHTING CHANCE as we take moves to defend them!!!!! SADLY....all those Children in SANDY HOOK will still be just as vulnerable as when there classmates where gunned down. WAKE UP AND ARM YOURSELF! ostrich...

  • http://fanon.clubpenguinwiki.info/ TurtleShroom

    Are you so ignorant that you don't get the lock box? Itʻs so some brat doesn't snatch the gun off the teacher's hip to get back at the kid that called him fat! Itʻs so that a kid doesn't snoop in the teachers' belongings and find a gun on her purse or in his desk! Kids aren't supposed to have guns without the presence of a responsible adult. Itʻs like letting a toddler swim alone.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kendall.garmon Kendall Garmon

      Try and snatch a gun off a Marshall you clown

    • http://www.facebook.com/robert.young.54 Robert Young

      Many teachers are veterans, go ahead and try to take a weapon from a combat trained soldier!

    • http://fanon.clubpenguinwiki.info/ TurtleShroom

      Look on the recent replies.

      My grandfather took me aside to explain why I was in error on concealed carry, and that right there was essentially it.

      "Y"You can take anything from a corpse," he pontificated, knowing I had
      lost. "-but you can not wrestle a gun from a concealed carrier while he
      draws breath."

    • http://www.facebook.com/robert.young.54 Robert Young

      An Armed Society is a Polite Society!

    • Robby777

      Weapon would not be on his hip. IWB or otherwise concealed. Remember what concealed means? It must be on his body at all times ! Off body carry is not secure..

    • http://fanon.clubpenguinwiki.info/ TurtleShroom

      I did not know. I've never been educated in what "concealed carry" meant under the law, except the face value, that "the gun is on their person and unseen". For example, if a man wears a suit jacket, and his weapon, is a small, say, an older revolver or pistol, and it's small enough that he puts it in the inner pocket of his suit jacket, does that count as concealed carry?

      Read my second comment about how I was wrong.

    • http://www.facebook.com/hiram.holiday Hiram Holiday

      Just a minute Mr. mass-shooter while I unlock my gun.

    • blogengeezer

      Dad, as his sibs and others, were school teachers..and Principles 'back in the day' of 'The Greatest Generation'. Dad's nickle .38 snub concealed, attended school. Of course that was long before violent classroom 'atrocities', now so common. No One tried to take his concealed weapon...No One. A stern leader, Scout master, protective of his family as well as his students, lived to almost 90. His students survived and prospered as well. They were 'taught', they were 'disciplined'. He never shot one. That same school, after over 70 years of well armed safety, is now helpless, defenseless and a 'No Gun' Zone by Fed/state mandates. Someone or more, somewhere, sometime desiring to attain a record 'High Score', is only a matter of time away.

    • http://fanon.clubpenguinwiki.info/ TurtleShroom

      Within the time I wrote this, I received a schooling on modern day concealed carry, a topic I am poorly educated on. I am not advocating a Gun Free Zone. At least acknowledge that I was in favor of guns on campus, for, as you said, they are the only way to stop another madman.

      Now, for the interesting part.
      I repeated this same thing to my grandfather- what all of you have caught me on -as what I commented here. He chastized my error and noted that gun holsters and manners to conceal them on one's hip or person have evolved since his time.

      He explained to me that it is as hard to remove a concealed weapon from its living owner as it is for a pick pocket to remove a wallet from someone when their pockets are buttoned or zippered shut on their hip.

      I listed several recent examples, including how the Boston Bomber stole a gun from a dead man- which he had killed -with a concealed weapon on his person. (The Bomber had killed him before he could react by sneaking in.)

      My grandfather told me that I had just proven his point.

      "You can take anything from a corpse," he pontificated, knowing I had lost. "-but you can not wrestle a gun from a concealed carrier while he draws breath."

      As you have explained here, I was in error.

    • blogengeezer

      Thank you for the open mind and acknowledging the entire point of 'Concealed Carry'. I would recommend that Everyone of the legal status to own and carry a weapon, or anyone that was just curious and desiring a bit of knowledge... 'Take the course for CCW' certification. Although I carried a weapon for over 40 years in my traveling profession, I learned much more about split second decisions, aftermath and legal repercussions.

      Our first TI was experienced Blackwater (Xe) operative assigned the duties of protecting ours/others political figures clandestinely. His active duty international experience over 30 years (former US Marine) coupled with other LEO TI's during certification renewals, totaled over 80 years of changing times and tactics.

      Fascinating courses, each of them I have been privileged to attend. The beauty of CCW is the 'actor', in states where CCW is common, has no idea what opposition, or from who, he will face during his planned 'accomplishment'. Risk is not squandered, or relished, even by those intent on creating mayhem. Over 8 million FBI fingerprinted certified
      CCW's are now roaming the streets and byways of America, with the distinction of being one of the most remarkably law abiding demographics...ever. Note FBI's falling crime rate stats in many states since the acceptance of CCW. Not to say it is the Only reason, but it most definitely is a factor.

    • http://fanon.clubpenguinwiki.info/ TurtleShroom

      First off, I'd like to thank your friends- and you, if you were also fighting -for your service to your country and your privatized interests. Your sacrifice will never be in vain,

      I guess you're curious as to how I ended up on the gun scene despite mental conditions and what-not barring me.

      I'm possibly one of the most interesting gun rights' cases you'll ever see, so lean back and enjoy the contradiction.

      I hate guns. HATE THEM, and by that, I mean Bloomberg. They repulse me. (The same goes for hunting, mainly because I don't get what makes killing animals, fun.)

      While guns do not kill (for people use guns TO kill), I still acknowledge firearms as instruments of death and take them gravely seriously, in a sort of fear that is a combination of repulsion and respect. My hatred of guns has led to my personal decision never to bare one, except in the gravest of emergencies where I have no options left, and my back is to the wall.

      (Instead, I've considered items that are hypocritically easier on my conscience: with technology in tasers advancing, I hope to acquire one that can go long distance. Hornet spray, baseball bats, and most hypocritically, Molotov Cocktails are all items I would consider using to defend my property and myself.)

      Now, with that sort of hate and fear of firearms, you'd expect me to be some twit like Bloomberg, yes? Wrong!

      My grandfather, uncle, and cousin-in-law have armouries in their homes. They are willing to sacrifice their lives before they sacrifice their guns. That is, only forced entry and confiscation of guns from his detained (or worse!) body would "liberate" his weapons. Naturally, I look up to my grandfather with immense and abundant reverence, as I do my own mother and father. I hang on his words, and treat what he says as gospel, even if I dispute it.

      So convicted is he for his weapons, that he would die for them, as he would for his family.

      That is the biggest reason. If some of the greatest men I'll ever know have that deep a conviction on firearms, I'd dishonor and shame my entire family if I was to say "you don't need those weapons".

      That brings the second point: coldness and statistics.

      It is pure fact that firearms reduce violent crime and increase death by weapon in self defense. This is a good thing. People with weapons defend themselves, their property, and their families with weapons, and that in itself makes it justified enough that I'd be sinister to intervene.

      In this country, hammers, baseball bats, and simple fists kill more (combined) than guns. All gun crimes are classed as violent crimes, but not all violent crimes need guns. Indeed, there's a long list of things that kill more than firearms, even in tragedies. (Example: did you know that the all-time greatest schoolhouse massacre body count was a school boardman-turned suicide bomber IN THE 1930'S?)

      Statistics prove, point blank (pun intended), that firearms reduce violent crime in areas without police presence, and balance the world of good versus evil by equally arming the good and the bad, lessening the defenseless and increasing paranoia of criminals.

      A professional burgler who repented and then used his felonious skills to rob houses in order to demonstrate the ease a criminal can attack made an interesting note:
      "If I see a 'BEWARE OF DOG' sign or hear a dog, I will not rob that house. A dog is always there; a dog can not be turned off, and a dog can kill."

      This logic applies to weapons. My grandfather rests on the fact that his weapon is a deterrent, just like a WMD is between sovereign states. People fear that a gun could end their life, leading to the age-old saying: "This house is armed. No possession in my house is worth your life, right?".

      Look at security systems! They too are just as effective. I consider a weapon a "poor man's security system" and support the people's right to obtain it.

      I am pro-gun RIGHTS but fiercely anti-gun. You will never force a gun into my hands and order me to kill with it. Who am I to tell you that you, a licensed and trusted gun owner with all the proper certifications, can not wield that weapon?

      It's an irony and a hypocrisy to walk, but it's the political line I tread. I ardently defend the right to keep and bare arms against the Bloombergs of the world, even though I hate the arms themselves as much as I despise the control freaks that wish to steal them.

      Long story short: I support YOUR right to own a gun and will defend it, and I close on the following note,.

      My family lives on a six-acre compound. My grandfather or uncle can run to any of the family houses in mere minutes.

      My family, like most, as an emergency preparedness procedure.
      In my family, the burglary invasion protocol is actually quite funny. "First, get out of the house. Second, find [your grandfather] or call [him] and tell him our house is being robbed. As soon as he hangs up, dial 911."

      You see, in this family, my grandfather trumps 911, because of his own word of wisdom: "911 is for summoning the people to take THE BODY to the morgue!"

    • blogengeezer

      History...'Arms'..those with the strongest, had advantage over those weaker. Clubs (rocks attached to sticks) Swung by the strongest 'Arms' were most effective. Pointed sticks 'Spears'. Again the strongest Arms were advantageous. Swords, same logic. Only the Fire 'Arm' equalized the Power among the strongest to the weakest of humans.

      As Sam Colt was credited with saying about making all men 'Equal'. The Equalizer... Colt Peacemaker.

      Read the well documented history of the Rwandan Genocide and discover what instrument (guns) brought Rwanda a return to sanity. Bear in mind that the Tutsi were vastly outnumbered .....and Disarmed.

      Firearms were NOT the primary weapon in the UN promoted Genocide. Belgian troops were even 'sacrificed' to present an image of 'Doing something'.

      . UN (Boutrous Butros Ghali...Egypt) financed 'Machetes...530 Thousand of them... Huto slaughtered, maimed and sexually mutilated millions of the Tutsi, especially Females, Countless trapped and slaughtered in their Govt Offices and their Churches, lured there by 'officials' promising 'Safety' and protection. All to bring More power to the majority Huto.

      Agenda Media failed to clarify the Rwandan Genocide. It is Not taught in US Public Schools. 1994, in case anyone is interested, Clinton presidency.

      Only organized Tutsi.... with Firearms, returned into Rwanda and brought a return to order and a halt to the Genocide. True to their agenda form, UN is still trying to 'Disarm' the Tutsi's... For their own Safety.

      Uganda (where Tutsi's gathered to reform their 'offensive'), as the USA, is the UN's goal for a 'Small Arms Treaty'. Conveniently enough, they do not mention the resurgence of hundreds of thousands of their favorite 'Tools'... weapons... 'Machetes'.

      Your Grandfather's wisdom has history on his side. Humanity is violent and no amount of political reasoning or Laws are going to change innate 'human nature'.

      Add in the ' modern chemistry' rampant in today's society and the prospect of instant retaliation (armed potential victim) is the only scenario that holds mayhem at bay.

    • http://fanon.clubpenguinwiki.info/ TurtleShroom

      I've seen several petitions circulating for the Rwandan Genocide to be recognized as such, long with an Armenian Genocide (which was performed by the Turks).Other than that, not a peep on EITHER.

      To genocide a population, you must first either disarm them or out-arm them.

      As an example, Adolph Hitler's only two gun control bills of note were 1) to disarm all Jews and confiscate their property, and 2) to disarm conquered territories (Poland, Czechloslovakia, etc.) until they were firmly under the new Nazi infrastructure.

      Guess who went to the gas chambers the most?

      --

      Anyway, I did a quick Googling of the Rwandan Genocide:

      "The Rwandan Genocide was a genocidal mass slaughter of the Tutsis by the Hutus that took place in 1994 in the East African state of Rwanda. Over the course of approximately 100 days over 500,000 people were killed[, but] estimates of the death toll have ranged from 500,000–1,000,000, or as much as 20% of the country's total population. It was the culmination of longstanding ethnic competition and tensions between the
      minority Tutsi, who had controlled power for centuries, and the majority Hutu peoples, who had come to power in the rebellion of 1959–1962."

      According to my research, the Tutsis had been ousted, so they invaded Rwanda to establish their own state. They were curb stomped in a civil war and the result was merciless.

      "In response, many Hutu gravitated toward the 'Hutu Power' ideology, with the prompting [cooperation] of state-controlled and independent Rwandan media. As an ideology, Hutu Power asserted that the Tutsi intended to 'enslave the Hutu' and must be resisted at all costs."

      Since you are more versed in this civil war than I am, I'd like to ask you: why did the Tutsi invade? Was Rwanda their country and the Hutu an occupying force (sort of along the lines of our ancient Indian situation), or were they out for land?

      None of these justify genocide, but I'd really like to learn more. You don't force out a group, nor does a group invade, without reason. What reason did the Tutsis have to invade? Why was genocide the solution chosen by the Hutu instead of repeating what the did in the sixties? Where are the Tutsis now, and most importantly, whom do you side with in this ongoing conflict?

    • http://fanon.clubpenguinwiki.info/ TurtleShroom

      One other thing I found that was an "odd coincidence".

      The Tutsis are a Christian tribe, but after the genocide:
      "Reports indicate the percentage of Muslims in Rwanda has doubled since the genocide due to Muslim sheltering and protection of Tutsis and Hutus during the genocide."

      With so many Christians killed, Muslims have been taking a large chunk of the youth. Was that part of the plan in the civil war? Was that intentional, or are Muslims filling the vacuum of a now slaughtered Christian faction?

    • blogengeezer

      History is written by the winners.. often Re-written by the repetitive, loudest masses. Rwandan Genocide has power on two factions, both write their version of history from their own perspective, as I am sure you have discovered.

      Germans followed by Belgians controlled Rwanda, as you most likely noted. Documentation of the tribes and location of each family and individual was impeccable, due to the European methodology of accounting. Numbers given were more likely over the million count, due to that regimen of accuracy that allowed the focus on Tutsi residents.

      Tutsis were co-existing with Hutus as relatively peaceful trading partners across Rwanda, for a long period before being factionalized by Europeans. Density population is also one of the highest in the world, which leads to competition for resources. Huto are the most prolific 'breeders' and as you noted Muslim.

      Germans and Belgians noted the Tutsi favored the European 'look' (taller, lighter skinned) so they were appointed to positions of administration. This was viewed as envious by the primarily agrarian Hutu. Tutsi were cattle owners 'Rich in Cattle' name refer to Tutsi.

      Jealousy and envy are powerful. When the majority is armed to overwhelming odds...530,000+ Machetes... by a govt that was steeped in redistributive 'fairness and equality' (get your share) by the UN (Sec Gen Boutrous-Butrous Ghali {Egypt} in particular) Mayhem at the hands of the immature males, is predictable for any imagined reasons.

      The fact that UN installed NPRTV system the Huto used advantageously, along with the UN financed Machetes and other weapons to promote the Rape, HIV, Sexual mutilation of Females... Genocide, is incomprehensible.

      Armed expat Tutsis, returning in military order from their retreat position in Uganda, restored a semblance of functional govt in Rwanda. Youthful Hutu were driven to obsession with slaughter, to the point of being rabid. They were on track to repeat Pol Pots destruction of Cambodia.... across Rwanda. Today they are in Uganda as are the always wary Tutsi. Today UN is focused on Disarming Uganda. They would 'finish' the job with Machetes,... if they have their way.

      Turks did also use a 'Disarming' mandate (ever more common in totalitarian govts) to slaughter the resident Armenians, also Christians btw. Turks (Islamic) to this day, are also digging up and removing any history of Jews Ever living in Turkey. You Tube depicts Turkish military removing the historic Jewish grave sites from millennium of being interred. As often said, History is written (and Rewritten) by the winners.

      Lesson? Do Not under Any Circumstance..... or Presidential mandates, allow the Agenda driven UN to restrict, regulate and eventually Disarm the Citizens of the USA.