Alaska Safe Schools Act

[bearcreek]

Because this law has a higher standard for physical fitness than teaching positions. This isn't a School Marshal or School Resource Officer position, its a teacher being required to meet a training standard and physical fitness standard in order to carry a firearm, This law isn't putting another cop on campus.

No, it's a school staff person being required to meet training and physical fitness standards (very easy standards) in order to maintain a position as an armed first responder whose job is to assist police. That's very different than simply carrying a firearm.

 

[valnar]

No. Public schools are not private businesses.
If Target or WalMart want to restrict what happens on their property that's their business. The Bill of Rights is a restriction on government, not me, not a private business.
Public schools are not private property.

But they aren't quite public in the sense you're talking about either. Random people with no kids or connection to a school shouldn't be able to walk in and roam the hallways. I think you take the term "public" a bit far.

 

[The Night Rider]

I think they do.
Courts don't.

Well, guess who gets to make the decision.

 

[shafter]

The proper focus on securing schools should be to keep armed individuals out. It should be unacceptable for a gunfight to take place in a place crowded with children.

If my children were in a public school, something that would never happen, I would absolutely not be in favor of armed teachers without stringent training requirements. If you want to carry a gun in school, fine, but you aren't going to be a fud.

The majority of teachers would never carry a gun anyway and of those few who would I'm betting that most would keep it in a backpack or school bag and not in a proper retention holster on their person. Of those who do carry very few would be sufficiently trained to effectively engage a threat in a room packed with children, retain their gun in a physical confrontation and even fewer would be adequately prepared mentally to shoot one of their own students.

 

[IWAC]

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

You will NEVER get the NEA to back teachers' rights of self-defense! 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. Alaska does have shooting organizations and citizens that wil raise an effective campaign aginst the bill, doesn't it? I certainly hope so! Due to the recent attacks on the NRA, it seems they should definitely be interested in this. Good luck!

 

[dogtown tom]

No, it's a school staff person being required to meet training and physical fitness standards (very easy standards) in order to maintain a position as an armed first responder whose job is to assist police. That's very different than simply carrying a firearm.

Again, I understand that. And disagree with such a requirement when other teachers will be denied that right.

 

[dogtown tom]

But they aren't quite public in the sense you're talking about either. Random people with no kids or connection to a school shouldn't be able to walk in and roam the hallways. I think you take the term "public" a bit far.

They are public in every sense of the word.
"Public property" means its not private property.
Being public property doesn't mean the public has free access anytime they want, for any reason they want.

If the public park closes at 10pm, you might be ticketed if you remain.
You can't park your car on a public sidewalk, you'll be ticketed or towed.
Courtrooms are in public buildings, but you may be barred from being present in a particular trial.


I'm shocked and disappointed that some of ya'll can't grasp the concept of public property.

 

[bearcreek]

Again, I understand that. And disagree with such a requirement when other teachers will be denied that right.

Do you agree that there should be physical fitness standards for police officers? What's the difference?

 

[valnar]

They are public in every sense of the word.
"Public property" means its not private property.
Being public property doesn't mean the public has free access anytime they want, for any reason they want.

If the public park closes at 10pm, you might be ticketed if you remain.
You can't park your car on a public sidewalk, you'll be ticketed or towed.
Courtrooms are in public buildings, but you may be barred from being present in a particular trial.


I'm shocked and disappointed that some of ya'll can't grasp the concept of public property.

We grasp it just fine. You just don't see the irony.

 

[dogtown tom]

If my children were in a public school, something that would never happen, I would absolutely not be in favor of armed teachers without stringent training requirements. If you want to carry a gun in school, fine, but you aren't going to be a fud.

Just like the teachers at Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland and Uvalde? None of them were allowed to be armed either. Even if they were former military or PD. While being armed is far from a guarantee, its better odds than waiting for the police to arrive and deal with the active shooter.

The majority of teachers would never carry a gun anyway

So? Freedom of choice is a thing. One teacher could have made a difference at Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland or Uvalde. ONE!
Instead kids died because of waiting on the good guys with guns to arrive.

and of those few who would I'm betting that most would keep it in a backpack or school bag and not in a proper retention holster on their person.

You ever been in a school? Met a real teacher? Dude, they lock up their purses when they arrive for work. What evidence do you have that they would leave a firearm accessible to a student? None. You are grasping for reasons.

Of those who do carry very few would be sufficiently trained to effectively engage a threat in a room packed with children, retain their gun in a physical confrontation

Which pretty much describes every person who carries a firearm that isn't a police officer. Your argument is THE SAME as Moms Demand Action, Brady Campaign and Gavin Newsome. Congratulations!

Blood in the streets was the prediction if unlicensed carry passed in Texas.....hasn't happened.

and even fewer would be adequately prepared mentally to shoot one of their own students.

Who would be?

This Alaska law wouldn't magically eliminate that dilemma, nothing would. Since your kids aren't in public school, suppose you arrive home and see that your teenager has killed your wife and is shooting at his siblings.................are you "adequately prepared mentally" to use deadly force on one of your kids? Of course not. It a horrible scenario that you will hopefully never see.

 

[dogtown tom]

We grasp it just fine.

No, you don't.

You just don't see the irony.

I see guys who don't understand the difference between public property and public use.
Thats sad.

 

[dogtown tom]

You will NEVER get the NEA to back teachers' rights of self-defense! The requirement for law enforcement physical fitness is merely the Legislator's attempt to appear to be be reasonable, and nullify the Bill.

Nailed it.
It's one of the "common sense" gun regulations the antis love.

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. Alaska does have shooting organizations and citizens that wil raise an effective campaign aginst the bill, doesn't it? I certainly hope so! Due to the recent attacks on the NRA, it seems they should definitely be interested in this. Good luck!

This.
And ask your legislator why a teacher needs to meet the same physical fitness standards as a police officer. Then ask why legislators don't have the same standards.

 

[valnar]

No, you don't.


I see guys who don't understand the difference between public property and public use.
Thats sad.

They are public in every sense of the word.

Sigh...

 

[dogtown tom]

Sigh...

Sigh indeed.
If you think "public use" means free, unfettered, without limits, rules or regulation......you are wrong.
I've given multiple examples yet....sigh.

 

[valnar]

Sigh indeed.
If you think "public use" means free, unfettered, without limits, rules or regulation......you are wrong.
I've given multiple examples yet....sigh.

I don't. It's you that thinks that. You're the one that thinks there should be no limits or regulations in schools because they are "public".

 

[Elkins45]

The proper focus on securing schools should be to keep armed individuals out. It should be unacceptable for a gunfight to take place in a place crowded with children.

If my children were in a public school, something that would never happen, I would absolutely not be in favor of armed teachers without stringent training requirements. If you want to carry a gun in school, fine, but you aren't going to be a fud.

The majority of teachers would never carry a gun anyway and of those few who would I'm betting that most would keep it in a backpack or school bag and not in a proper retention holster on their person. Of those who do carry very few would be sufficiently trained to effectively engage a threat in a room packed with children, retain their gun in a physical confrontation and even fewer would be adequately prepared mentally to shoot one of their own students.

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?

 

[dogtown tom]

I don't. It's you that thinks that. You're the one that thinks there should be no limits or regulations in schools because they are "public".

I didn't write that.
I'm advocating for a teachers right to protect themselves and their students. If the school district were to require training OPEN TO ALL who desire it... awesome. But it isn't. Itm has physical fitness standards that are designed to limit, if not prohibit, full participation by teachers.

Does a teacher really need to match LE fitness standards in order to carry a firearm? I dont think so.

 

[dogtown tom]

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?

I wouldn't say Fudd, but its definitely not Second Amendment advocacy.
Lots of anti gunners in this thread.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

For the millionth time, this has nothing to do with individual 2nd amendment rights.

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

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Do you agree that there should be physical fitness standards for police officers? What's the difference?

Police perfrom tasks that require a certain level of physical fitness whereas teachers and other citizens do not. Furthermore, police are not exercising Constitutional rights in the performance of their duties, whereas teachers and other citizens wishig to carry for self defense are. As i've staed earlier, requiring a physical fitness test to carry a gun is akin to requiring a poll tax to vote.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

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?

Thank God. The voice of reason. I'm quite disappointed at a lot of the comments in this discussion.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

The Alaska standards do not involve bench press or a 3 mile run. The minimum standard is 25 push ups in a minute, 27 sit ups in a minute and a 1.5 mile run in 15 minutes 12 seconds. I'm in my 40's and could pass those standards with ease.

1.) You're an outlier in level of fitness at your age. Take a 40 yr old teacher who lives a sedentary lifestyle and see if he or she can pass it. Or a 60 year-old teacher nearing retirement.

2.) It doesn't matter what the standard is; it's not okay for the government to put those kinds of requirements as barriers to the exercise of civil rights. Imagine: you can't post on the internet or attend a religious gathering unless you can run a (set arbitrary standard here) mile.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

No, it's a school staff person being required to meet training and physical fitness standards (very easy standards) in order to maintain a position as an armed first responder whose job is to assist police. That's very different than simply carrying a firearm.

Easy for you perhaps. I'm in the gym and on a treadmill every single day. I can't run that fast. I see lots of people who run every day who can't run that fast. This isn't about being a 1st responder; it's about exercising Constitutional rights.

 

[bearcreek]

Police perfrom tasks that require a certain level of physical fitness whereas teachers and other citizens do not. Furthermore, police are not exercising Constitutional rights in the performance of their duties, whereas teachers and other citizens wishig to carry for self defense are. As i've staed earlier, requiring a physical fitness test to carry a gun is akin to requiring a poll tax to vote.

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?

 

[bearcreek]

1.) You're an outlier in level of fitness at your age. Take a 40 yr old teacher who lives a sedentary lifestyle and see if he or she can pass it. Or a 60 year-old teacher nearing retirement.

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.

2.) It doesn't matter what the standard is; it's not okay for the government to put those kinds of requirements as barriers to the exercise of civil rights. Imagine: you can't post on the internet or attend a religious gathering unless you can run a (set arbitrary standard here) mile.

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?