Alaska Safe Schools Act

[shafter]

Former teacher here. This is about the most Fudd thing I have ever read on THR.

You’re arguing that only the “special” people should be allowed the right of armed defense. How does it feel to have the same view of the 2nd Amendment as Diane Feinstein, Dick Durban and Chuck Schumer?

Are prison guards denied their second amendment rights because they can't carry firearms in a location where they might be stabbed by a shank at any moment?

I don't really care what people think of my views. The founding fathers included the term well regulated in the second amendment which sounds alot like proper training to me. We can argue all day what proper training should constitute and who determines what that is but I stand by my position that a school should be a secure facility.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

True. We are a nation full of fat, unfit people. A person who is not fit should not volunteer for jobs that could potentially require decent levels of physical fitness.

This isn't about "volunteering for a job"; this is about a teacher's God given Constitutional right to defend himself or herself from an active shooter. There is nothing about teaching, or about using a firearm in self defense that requires a law enforcement/military level of fitness. I compete in run n gun competitions year-round. I can run all over a course, shoot from various positions, with rifle and pistol while safely and effectively using firearms. I run every day. I can't pass that test. There is absolutely no reason why a person like me should be denied the right based on physical fitness.

It's no more "exercise of civil rights" than it is for a police officer. No one seems to complain about fitness standards for cops. I'm not seeing how this is any different. Would it change your mind if the school paid the staff person extra for this job, rather than just paying for their training?

We have a fundamental disconnect in our understanding of the topic. You see this as the creation of some sort of Reserve Police program. It is not. Nowhere in the state of Alaska does any law enforcement department have reserve officers. The term "assigned duty" simply covers the bases for the Gun Free School Zone Act.

Even if it were a sworn position with arrest powers, no teacher is going to have to run a mile and a half in an active shooter event. The school campuses aren't that big. My wife can walk across her campus in 5 mins. This fitness requierment is a blatant ploy to disqualify as many participants as possible. Its sole purpose is to deny 2nd amendment rights.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I feel like we're talking in circles. The bill specifically says that this person would be accepting an assigned, designated position to augment police response. Is that not what the bill says?

Augment as in the armed teacher is going to be the first one on the scene because he or she is in the room when it starts. It doesn't mean augment as in the teacher is reserve law enforcement officer with sworn arrest powers and a badge. It doesn't mean augment as in the armed teacher will be expected to breach and clear rooms with the SWAT team. (If it does mean that, then I can all but assure you zero teachers will sign up for it. Perhaps the true goal.) There are no reserve police programs in Alaska. And if there were, like the reserve/auxiliary police programs in the lower 48 states, those officers go through the police academy and meet all of the same requirements as full time officers-which is not the case here.

You're right. We are talking in circles.

 

[valnar]

This isn't about "volunteering for a job"; this is about a teacher's God given Constitutional right to defend himself or herself from an active shooter.

Says who? Says you? You can make up anything you want, but it doesn't make it true.

This whole Act is not about personal defense. There is nothing in the legislation that mentions the second amendment.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

So. I just have to say how disappointed I am at many of the responses in this discussion. However, I'm grateful for these types of discussions and that moderators let it play out this long. The points of view shared here have helped my reform my own position on this.

I initially asked the question: should gun owners support this as a step in the right decision. I initially thought we should. After reading the comments here, and seeing how much support there is, even in a 2A friendly sphere, for denying the right to carry a gun based solely on physical fitness, I've come to agree with @IWAC in post 155 that this bill is poisoned from the start and should be opposed:

...The requirement for law enforcement physical fitness is merely the Legislator's attempt to appear to be be reasonable, and nullify the Bill.
WRITE, CALL or speak to your reps, and demand, on pain of non-reelection that they SHALL not pass the bill without removing that paraticular and any other negative clauses...

I'll be writing all of my legislators to that effect.

 

[bearcreek]

This isn't about "volunteering for a job"; this is about a teacher's God given Constitutional right to defend himself or herself from an active shooter.

I'm not really sure where you're getting that. Here's a quote from Senator Hughes, the bill's sponsor; "Due to distance, when law enforcement response in Alaska can take from a few minutes to a few hours, or with inclement weather in remote communities, even longer…We need well-trained individuals on-site who can respond immediately". That is quite clearly a description of someone who is going well beyond the legal responsibilities of someone who is carrying just to "defend himself or herself from an active shooter". That is a description of someone who is essentially doing the police' job, till they get there.

Whether or not there are currently reserve police officers in AK isn't relevant.

The running tests for police and other first responders are not so much about running that distance as they are a test of cardiovascular fitness. Searching through a school with a gun, fighting, either hand to hand or with a handgun, dragging or carrying injured people, etc. (all things that might be required of someone filling the role described in the above quote) are all things that require good cardiovascular fitness.

 

[valnar]

I think the argument comes from what somebody WANTS the bill to be out, versus what it IS about, as written. To that, I agree. I don't wish the high fitness standards were present either. But since the topic is about the bill itself, I'm on point. So is bearcreek.

 

[The Night Rider]

For the millionth time, this has everything to do with individual 2nd amendment rights.

Explain it to us please.

Is it any different For Burger King Of policies regarding employees carrying Firearms at work than it is for the State School Board of Alaska to do the same thing?

Where I'm at in Colorado Springs all the public property in this city is actually owned by an LLC called The City of Colorado Springs Incorporated.

That's why they can tell you that open carry isn't allowed in City owned buildings even though, City on buildings are supposedly "public property".

I would be willing that the schools of Alaska are not owned by "The People".

I would bet that they're owned by an LLC representing the school board.

But if you really want this question answered go carry a handgun in a public school in Alaska, get yourself arrested and then you'll have standing to sue the state for violating your constitutional rights

 

[Robert]

8 pages on physical fitness seems to be more than enough.