• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

John R. Lott, Jr., CPRSC. Should schools have teachers carry guns? AAHB Health Behavior Research December 2018

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,503
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
No, I am saying that it is a reasonable question to be answered, during a civil or criminal trial resulting misuse of a firearm, whether or not the defendant was trained in the use of the firearm.

If the defendant had no training at all, that fact is relevant when determining negligence.
Maybe in a civil case, but not in a criminal case.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,530
Location
here nc
Hummm, OSHA 1970 governmental training mandates for employers to provide to their employees...

Specialized safety training for temporary employees
Employee Rights & Responsibilities
Emergency Action Plan
Personal Protective Equipment
Confined Space
Lockout/Tag Out
First Aid & CPR First Aid
Fire Protection & Prevention
Powered Industrial Truck
Electrical Hazards
Hazard Communication
Blood borne Pathogens

Tho absolutely nothing about nationally mandated firearm training...

Oh wait something tells me those BLET training stds are mandated at each state’s statutory level!

NC’s LE training standards are covered by DoJ, 17E, found here https://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/c4bb8d68-7612-4ee7-857c-4192adf2fae4/17-E.aspx
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
657
Location
Kentucky
Rights carry with them responsibilities.

I know I will not convince you of this. However, my replies are meant to sway those who are reading, but not participating in the discussion. I believe that my posts so far have accomplished this, so thanks for the discussion.
I asked you a direct question. You have an answer or you don't.

Why would a court consider that someone had no training with a firearm , when No training was required?

A paralegal would knock that out of the park.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Maybe in a civil case, but not in a criminal case.
There are crimes whose names include the word “negligence”. If a particular incidence of criminal negligence involved a firearm, and if that negligence included choosing not to be trained before handling the firearm negligently, I think that fact would be pertinent to the jury who was deciding whether the defendant was criminally negligent.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,503
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
There are crimes whose names include the word “negligence”. If a particular incidence of criminal negligence involved a firearm, and if that negligence included choosing not to be trained before handling the firearm negligently, I think that fact would be pertinent to the jury who was deciding whether the defendant was criminally negligent.
That thinking is the result of you not having a clear understanding of criminal law.

Statutory law cannot impose a duty on someone inwhich the constitution protects.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I did not say the training was a duty.

Once the Right to carry results in a negligent shooting—which is NOT a Right—then the choice not to train would become very relevant in a civil or criminal proceeding.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
657
Location
Kentucky
I did not say the training was a duty.

Once the Right to carry results in a negligent shooting—which is NOT a Right—then the choice not to train would become very relevant in a civil or criminal proceeding.
Unless the law required it, no it would not be pertinent nor even allowed to be presented as it would be a legal non issue.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,962
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
3. Laws are complicated, leading to misunderstandings.
That's a blanket statement, and blanket statements are usually not very accurate.

How about this, instead:

3. Many laws are unnecessarily complicated, leading to misunderstanding. Some laws, however, are clear and even a few are crystal clear, leaving no room for misunderstanding.

Ohio gun law is a good example. It is full of this-is-illegal with an except-when-this (that makes the act legal), later modified by an except-when-that (that makes the act illegal again). It’s not too bad when the original pronouncement is in the same section with all the exceptions. Sometimes that is not the case.

Years ago, Ohio had a magazine limit. Most people did not know. It was impossible to find. Reading all the sections regarding what you can do and what you cannot do proved fruitless. The ban was in the definitions! Automatic weapons were banned in the you-can’t-do-this sections. The definitions section included in the term “automatic weapons” firearms that, when the detachable magazine was inserted, had a capacity of greater than 30+1.

You shouldn’t have to have a law school education to know and understand the law fully. These days you do.
That's a great example, eye95, of how convoluted some laws really are. It's an abject indictment that our legislators do a poor job of condensing regulations with clarity in mind.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,818
Location
White Oak Plantation
If a school district provides its employees the opportunity to CC for the teacher's and the student's protection the school district has the authority to dictate the terms for CCing. Getting 40 hours of training from LE, as an example, is reasonable and would demonstrate that the school district and its employees went to substantially adequate measures to mitigate risk. A civil jury would need to decide if the districts measures were reasonable.

Knowing what I know about the teachers at my kid's school I'd have some qualification scheme to filter out the nitwits who should not have a gun on that particular job.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
But, should the district “provide the opportunity”, or should they just get out off the way of the RKBA?

I believe that they should get out of the way of the RKBA. The decision to get the training would then be the responsibility of the carrier—to the point of his being held responsible for any negligent use of the firearm aggravated by any choice not to be trained.

Mandatory training would be appropriate—IF a teacher carries as part of duties assigned by the school, a governmental entity.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,818
Location
White Oak Plantation
Great question. Given federal laws on guns in schools, school districts should provide the opportunity under state statute. This provides the legal protections from federal interference that I think the federal statute implies with that "license" term. Though, I could be misunderstanding the federal license thing all together. Anyway. If the state says a school district can approve guns in school then the district should be able to implement the state statute that define the requirement for guns in school.

I am not in favor of any prior restraint on our 2A guarantee...but this ain't the reality today.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,530
Location
here nc
But, should the district “provide the opportunity”, or should they just get out off the way of the RKBA?

I believe that they should get out of the way of the RKBA. The decision to get the training would then be the responsibility of the carrier—to the point of his being held responsible for any negligent use of the firearm aggravated by any choice not to be trained.

Mandatory training would be appropriate—IF a teacher carries as part of duties assigned by the school, a governmental entity.
EMPLOYER is the key word...their work place, facilities, property, their policies ~ period!

just like your EMPLOYER doesn't allow firearms in employee's vehicles on their property!

just like your EMPLOYER mandates you have a background check prior to working.

just like your EMPLOYER can fire you on the spot w/o cause.

absolutely nothing to do with constitutional mandates

oh a bit of a nit eye95, school's are not a governmental entity whatsoever!
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
OCforMe: Thank you.

The solution that I advocate is that the State and federal laws that make it hard to impossible for a teacher to exercise his or her RKBA should be removed, either by legislation or by being ruled unconstitutional.

Government schools granting permission to teachers to carry is an acceptance of the (IMO) anti-constitutional status quo.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,530
Location
here nc
Great question. Given federal laws on guns in schools, school districts should provide the opportunity under state statute. This provides the legal protections from federal interference that I think the federal statute implies with that "license" term. Though, I could be misunderstanding the federal license thing all together. Anyway. If the state says a school district can approve guns in school then the district should be able to implement the state statute that define the requirement for guns in school.

I am not in favor of any prior restraint on our 2A guarantee...but this ain't the reality today.
OC for ME, remember the federal GFZ mandates signed into place by George #1 allows for 'carry exceptions' and the state level statutory educational BoE's to provide for the education policies of the state's youn'gs in any way the BoE sees fit, to include establishment of 'rifle teams, ROTC, etc.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,530
Location
here nc
OCforMe: Thank you.

The solution that I advocate is that the State and federal laws that make it hard to impossible for a teacher to exercise his or her RKBA should be removed, either by legislation or by being ruled unconstitutional.

Government schools granting permission to teachers to carry is an acceptance of the (IMO) anti-constitutional status quo.
Eye95 there is absolutely no issue...nor constitutional discrepancy whatsoever!

Eye95, can you carry a firearm in your place of employment ~ yes or no?

Eye95 is it a constitutional infringement ~ yes or no?

Eye95 you can't even carry a firearm, loaded/unloaded disassembled firearm in your vehicle.

Again eye95 your employer or any member's employer mandates something...it shall be or you/employee is fired.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,962
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Let's get something straight. All yous guys seem to refuse to ask the experts. I offer the following.

In 2014 R.C. 2923.11(E) was amended by striking "Automatic firearm" means any firearm designed or specially adapted to fire a succession of cartridges with a single function of the trigger. "Automatic firearm" also means any semi-automatic firearm designed or specially adapted to fire more than thirty-one cartridges without reloading, other than a firearm chambering only .22 caliber short, long, or long-rifle cartridges.

The definition of "Firearm" includes "handgun" and "Semi-automatic firearm" meaning any firearm designed or specially adapted to fire a single cartridge and automatically chamber a succeeding cartridge ready to fire, with a single function of the trigger.

The problem with the repealed statute is it would be close to impossible for the State to prove that an "Automatic firearm" was designed or specially adapted to fire more than 31 cartridges. The capacity of a magazine has no relationship to the firearm itself.
Well said. We've all seen videos of 100+ round drum magazines designed for use with semi-automatic pistols. It's a bit ridiculous given the pistol's form and function, but the point remains the same: Almost any firearm that uses a magazine can use a far larger magazine without any modification of the firearm itself.

It's like putting oversized tires on a truck. If they'll fit in the wheel wells, you just mount 'em. That's it. No modification to the car necessary.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,962
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
If a school district provides its employees the opportunity to CC for the teacher's and the student's protection the school district has the authority to dictate the terms for CCing. Getting 40 hours of training from LE, as an example, is reasonable and would demonstrate that the school district and its employees went to substantially adequate measures to mitigate risk. A civil jury would need to decide if the districts measures were reasonable.

Knowing what I know about the teachers at my kid's school I'd have some qualification scheme to filter out the nitwits who should not have a gun on that particular job.
I wholeheartedly concern. Darn spell-check... That's "concur." Most anti-gunners are self-limiting. But nitwits aren't always antis.
 
Top