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

[eye95]

The government, just like any other employer, have the authority to dictate whether a person may carry on the job while in their employ. More to the point, the government has the responsibility to ensure that anyone carrying on that job, while they are acting as an agent of the government, does so responsibly.

That means that the government has the absolute authority to determine whether one of its teachers, one of its agents, may carry on the job and under what conditions.

Personally, I want all government agents who are carrying to be trained in the use of the arms which they carry on the job—and the laws under which they do so.

Also personally, I want teachers trained and carrying. I want members of the general public, who are not acting as agents of the government, to be able to exercise their RKBA in schools. That will make even rarer the already rare incidence of “school shootings”.

 

[Ghost1958]

The government, just like any other employer, have the authority to dictate whether a person may carry on the job while in their employ. More to the point, the government has the responsibility to ensure that anyone carrying on that job, while they are acting as an agent of the government, does so responsibly.

That means that the government has the absolute authority to determine whether one of its teachers, one of its agents, may carry on the job and under what conditions.

Personally, I want all government agents who are carrying to be trained in the use of the arms which they carry on the job—and the laws under which they do so.

Also personally, I want teachers trained and carrying. I want members of the general public, who are not acting as agents of the government, to be able to exercise their RKBA in schools. That will make even rarer the already rare incidence of “school shootings”.

Where pray tell are employers given the authority to deny basic human right protected by the COTUS?

 

[eye95]

Employers have their own “basic” Natural Rights to dictate the conditions under which others may use their property. That is an actual Natural Right, one you seem to ignore, favoring your perceived rights over their actual Rights.

If we are to defend Liberty, we must first defend the Liberty of others. Otherwise we don’t really believe in Liberty. We just believe that we ought to be able to do whatever we want to do. That ain’t Liberty.

 

[OC for ME]

Let me try this angle.

I can carry a gun anywhere I want as long as I don't violate a private citizen's right to control his property. The government has no say as to my packing heat, unless I start violating some other fella's rights to life, liberty and property. Then again, the gun aint violatin nobody's rights, I am.

 

[eye95]

Let me try this angle.

I can carry a gun anywhere I want as long as I don't violate a private citizen's right to control his property. The government has no say as to my packing heat, unless I start violating some other fella's rights to life, liberty and property. Then again, the gun aint violatin nobody's rights, I am.

This line of thinking is why I agree that the government has no moral authority to limit private citizens carrying on school grounds.

They absolutely have the authority to limit their employees’ carry on school grounds. Moreover, they have the responsibility to control the behavior of their agents on the job!

 

[Ghost1958]

Employers have their own “basic” Natural Rights to dictate the conditions under which others may use their property. That is an actual Natural Right, one you seem to ignore, favoring your perceived rights over their actual Rights.

If we are to defend Liberty, we must first defend the Liberty of others. Otherwise we don’t really believe in Liberty. We just believe that we ought to be able to do whatever we want to do. That ain’t Liberty.

The COTUS acknowledges the RTKABA as a basic human right.

I don't find "employers rights " anywhere but in employers head's.

So who is arguing an actual right vs a created one? Not me.

 

[eye95]

1. It is not the function of COTUS to “acknowledge” Rights. It merely restricts government behavior that might abridge Rights that it does not even mention.

2. There aren’t “employer rights” just like there are no “[insert and group’s name here] rights”. There are Rights. Period. I am saying that employers have the same Rights as everyone else when it comes to the enjoyment of their property.

3. You are indeed inventing “rights”. Any claim of a “right” to be able to carry on the property of another without his or her consent is inventing a “right”.

Anyway, I have no hope of convincing you. I don’t care. I am hoping to enlighten those who are reading this conversation and possibly not replying.

 

[Ghost1958]

1. It is not the function of COTUS to “acknowledge” Rights. It merely restricts government behavior that might abridge Rights that it does not even mention.

2. There aren’t “employer rights” just like there are no “[insert and group’s name here] rights”. There are Rights. Period. I am saying that employers have the same Rights as everyone else when it comes to the enjoyment of their property.

3. You are indeed inventing “rights”. Any claim of a “right” to be able to carry on the property of another without his or her consent is inventing a “right”.

Anyway, I have no hope of convincing you. I don’t care. I am hoping to enlighten those who are reading this conversation and possibly not replying.

That would be fine if you were correct.

However. One has the right to carry on private property. An absolute right.

That said one doesn't have the right to remain on that property once told to leave. Armed or not armed.

 

[since9]

My department hired a lot of combat vets some were good shots some were not.

Some were not very good at all.

Some brought some bad habits with them.

Two come to mind one would never engage his safety on his M16 saying we never did in the sand box.

Another would never properly lube is M16 causing him to have numerous malfunctions he said the same thing we didn't do it overseas.

People are people some are good,, some are great, most do not really care.

Sounds more like a discipline problem than an aim problem. I've known people who were crack shots, but if they invited me over to lunch, their home was, quite literally, worthy of being condemned.

Robert A. Heinlein, the notable science fiction writer and former officer in the United States Navy once said:

"To stay young requires unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn of falsehoods."

Whether they were incorrectly taught (not likely) or they picked up bad habits (possible, but from whom?) or they were just plain sloppy and had become more sloppy (likely), it sounds to me like none of your combat vets with bad habits had learned to unlearn old falsehoods.

As aviators, we used checklists 100% of the time. Didn't matter whether we could recite the steps by heart. We used checklists because the human brain is notorious for creep. We might get it right 99 times, then that 100th time, BOOM! We forgot a step. Checklists help prevent us from forgetting that last step.

I recall as a younger aviator with about five years and more than 1,500 hours flying B-52s and C-130s, we were pulling into the parking on Green Ramp at Pope AFB, when I felt "the pinch." Something wasn't quite right. I quickly ran through my after landing checklist, double-checking the position of all the switches. Yep. I'd forgotten to turn the radar to STDBY. It was illuminating the young airman who was marshaling us into chocks. Fortunately, he was still well outside the danger zone, and the inverse square law meant that he was getting less than 25% of a dangerous level of EM radiation. Furthermore, the "danger zone" is defined as "continuous illumination" and he'd only been in the sweep for about 20 seconds i.e. 2 sweeps since he got out of his truck.

The point is, checklist discipline is imperative.

Complicated machinery like airplanes require hundreds of checklist steps to properly operate and fly.

Significantly less complicated machinery like the M16A2 on which I qualified employs a bit of "self-critiquing" design. If it doesn't fire, you did something wrong.

I never did learn how to properly lubricate the M16A2. Class was too short, and I didn't develop the curriculum. We learned how to field strip it and clean it, but everything was "Hoppe'sed," or whatever cleaner/degreaser/lubricant they used at CATMS.

I treat my firearms with a bit more care. Sure, I use Hoppe's. It's a great cleaner. But I bore brush the copper out using a copper cleaner, Hoppe's clean everything, then thoroughly spray the Hoppe's off with a (gulp!) green (non-liver-killing) brake cleaner, before greasing high-impact moving surfaces, oiling the rest of it, and wiping it down for use/storage.

I find the brake cleaner removes all previous cleaners, many of whose oils tend to break down the grease I'm trying to work into the actions and slides. I don't want grease on top of oil. I want grease against the pure, bare metal, hence the need for brake cleaner.

But I'm digressing...

 

[since9]

This is simple. Teachers and staff already have the RTKABA. That government attempts to squash that right is another matter.
. Simply give those teachers and staff their RTKABA back, and the problem takes care of itself.

You seem to confuse "public area" with various private, local, county, state and federal property quite often, Ghost1958. I understand your reasoning. However, I do not agree with it, and neither does the law. Heck, neither does the Constitution, for that matter. Even the feds can't just walk all over private, local, county, and state property without a lawful reason for their presence.

They're called "public schools" because they're open for attendance by school-age children from the general public. They are not, however, open to the general public at large.

As a parent, I really did not want just any teacher carrying firearms at school. While two-thirds of my son's teachers were good people, a third of them were a bit loony. Of the two-thirds who were good people, half showed decent dexterity while the other half were a bit bumble-fingered. Of the half that showed decent dexterity, only a quarter of them had the situational awareness I'd trust with respect to having access to a firearm in constant close proximity to children, adolescents and teens.

2/3 * 1/2 * 1/4 = 0.0833... That's just 1 out of 12 teachers, there, Ghost1958, and teachers are generally a cut above the general populace as it is, at least around these parts.

The steps outlined in A Sensible Plan Towards Armed Teachers weeds out those who:

1. Don't want to carry firearms
2. Aren't legally allowed to carry firearms (yes, some teachers have criminal records)
3. Don't have the basic manual dexterity to safely handle a firearm
4. Don't have the mental capacity to safely handle firearms (some teachers are on psychotropic drugs)
5. Aren't responsible enough to safely handle and secure a firearm (scatterbrains)
6. Don't have the situational awareness to do all of the above in a classroom full of kids.

As temporary guardians of our children, the school systems have the same responsibility to keep them away from those who might intentionally or inadvertently cause them harm as we ourselves would exercise as parents.

Finally, while Lombard Street, Fifth Avenue, Bourbon Street, and every town's Main Street are public areas, despite bearing the name of "public school," the area inside a public school is not lawfully accessible to the general public. It's restricted. Go for a walk around Juniper Way if you want to. It's a nice loop around the Garden of the Gods park. OC or CC, I'll even join you. But you have no Constitutional right to walk into a school, much less a classroom, without a lawful reason for being there:

1. Student
2. Teacher
3. Administrator
4. Maintenance
5. Security
6. Contractor working on a specific and current contract, usually pre-scheduled with the administration for dates and times of access
7. Parents, to/from the school counselers' office; other areas and times by invitation or arrangement.
8. Guests by invitation only.

Heck, even law enforcement needs RAS/PC or one of the aforementioned reasons to enter a school without permission.

Thus, your subsequent comment is blatantly incorrect:

Training and requirements are blatantly unconstitutional to do so.

If you believe otherwise, then I suggest you tell the military to stop training it's members. Same for the police. Nope, they can't require training -- it's un-Constitutional!

Teachers used to mostly be armed before the gov got into the act. Nobody was shooting up schools then either

Wrong on both counts. I still have my great-grandmother's teacher employment contract with a county in the state of Oklahoma. If you'll search the Internet, you'll find Rules for Teachers, 1879 and 1915. I'm not sure if those were ever real. My grandmother's employment contract was rather simple, but ran two pages, printed both front and back.

One section is entitled, simply, "ARMS." It reads:

"No school teacher or board official in the employ of the County of X will be armed while on duty. Teachers must allow students to keep and bar arms but will corral arms in a store room during school. Should no store room be available, arms may be arranged, unloaded, in a suitable corner. Students may not access arms during school duty periods except in times of danger."

Another section entitled, "Danger" included provisions for dangerous weather i.e. tornado and blizzards. Teachers were to ring the school bell only during the start of the day and re-start after lunch. If they rang it at any other time, it meant Danger and the local constable would come a-runnin'!

As for shooting up the schools, yes they were. Read on...

 

[since9]

One has the right to carry on private property. An absolute right.

You have an absolute right to carry on your own private property. You have absolutely zero right to carry on my private property.

If someone enters my domicile carrying a firearm and I do not know them, they're dead, period, bar none, end of discussion.

What will happen to me? Absolutely nothing. It's my private property, not theirs.

By the way, a fair number of wonderfully nice and well-armed gents who frequented this forum helped me move back in 2011. I treated them to a barbeque feast. Thanks, guys!

They were in and out of where I lived, back and forth, many times.

The key difference, there, Ghost1958, is I'd invited them. They had advanced permission, and I was very grateful for their assistance due to majorly bummed ankle. I needed all the help I could get!

That said one doesn't have the right to remain on that property once told to leave.

I think you're mixing up business private property vs domicile private property. Businesses open to the public have an implied invitation of entry. If the sign says, "Open," then it's a written/posted invitation. If the sign says, "Closed," then it's a temporarily revoked invitation. A locked door is equivalent to a "closed" sign. Lacking any open/closed sign, if it looks, acts, and feels like a business and the door is unlocked, you're not trespassing if you enter, but you are trespassing if you do not leave the moment they say "we're closed" or "please leave."

Castle laws do not require me to ask or tell someone to leave. Without an express oral or written invitation, you're tresspassing the second you cross the threshold. B&E is equivalent to highly probable forfeiture of your own life.

 

[Ghost1958]

You seem to confuse "public area" with various private, local, county, state and federal property quite often, Ghost1958. I understand your reasoning. However, I do not agree with it, and neither does the law. Heck, neither does the Constitution, for that matter. Even the feds can't just walk all over private, local, county, and state property without a lawful reason for their presence.

They're called "public schools" because they're open for attendance by school-age children from the general public. They are not, however, open to the general public at large.

As a parent, I really did not want just any teacher carrying firearms at school. While two-thirds of my son's teachers were good people, a third of them were a bit loony. Of the two-thirds who were good people, half showed decent dexterity while the other half were a bit bumble-fingered. Of the half that showed decent dexterity, only a quarter of them had the situational awareness I'd trust with respect to having access to a firearm in constant close proximity to children, adolescents and teens.

2/3 * 1/2 * 1/4 = 0.0833... That's just 1 out of 12 teachers, there, Ghost1958, and teachers are generally a cut above the general populace as it is, at least around these parts.

The steps outlined in A Sensible Plan Towards Armed Teachers weeds out those who:

1. Don't want to carry firearms
2. Aren't legally allowed to carry firearms (yes, some teachers have criminal records)
3. Don't have the basic manual dexterity to safely handle a firearm
4. Don't have the mental capacity to safely handle firearms (some teachers are on psychotropic drugs)
5. Aren't responsible enough to safely handle and secure a firearm (scatterbrains)
6. Don't have the situational awareness to do all of the above in a classroom full of kids.

As temporary guardians of our children, the school systems have the same responsibility to keep them away from those who might intentionally or inadvertently cause them harm as we ourselves would exercise as parents.

Finally, while Lombard Street, Fifth Avenue, Bourbon Street, and every town's Main Street are public areas, despite bearing the name of "public school," the area inside a public school is not lawfully accessible to the general public. It's restricted. Go for a walk around Juniper Way if you want to. It's a nice loop around the Garden of the Gods park. OC or CC, I'll even join you. But you have no Constitutional right to walk into a school, much less a classroom, without a lawful reason for being there:

1. Student
2. Teacher
3. Administrator
4. Maintenance
5. Security
6. Contractor working on a specific and current contract, usually pre-scheduled with the administration for dates and times of access
7. Parents, to/from the school counselers' office; other areas and times by invitation or arrangement.
8. Guests by invitation only.

Heck, even law enforcement needs RAS/PC or one of the aforementioned reasons to enter a school without permission.

Thus, your subsequent comment is blatantly incorrect:



If you believe otherwise, then I suggest you tell the military to stop training it's members. Same for the police. Nope, they can't require training -- it's un-Constitutional!



Wrong on both counts. I still have my great-grandmother's teacher employment contract with a county in the state of Oklahoma. If you'll search the Internet, you'll find Rules for Teachers, 1879 and 1915. I'm not sure if those were ever real. My grandmother's employment contract was rather simple, but ran two pages, printed both front and back.

One section is entitled, simply, "ARMS." It reads:

"No school teacher or board official in the employ of the County of X will be armed while on duty. Teachers must allow students to keep and bar arms but will corral arms in a store room during school. Should no store room be available, arms may be arranged, unloaded, in a suitable corner. Students may not access arms during school duty periods except in times of danger."

Another section entitled, "Danger" included provisions for dangerous weather i.e. tornado and blizzards. Teachers were to ring the school bell only during the start of the day and re-start after lunch. If they rang it at any other time, it meant Danger and the local constable would come a-runnin'!

As for shooting up the schools, yes they were. Read on...

I didn't read the entire essay.

That said, we must agree to disagree again.

Until fairly recently teachers janitors, even the students on occasion could and did carry a firearm to school.

They had and still have that right. Unconstitutional law not withstanding.

Please stop hopping all over the constitution trying to find a part that invalidates the 2A because it doesn't exist.

Though the RTKABA does not require the 2A to exist, the 2A is one simple sentence barring anyone the authority to limit or interfere with the RTKABA.

Even SCOTUS cannot point to any part of the 2A or COTUS for that matter that grants anyone that authority.

Not without simply making something up that isn't written there.
Police and military are actually much more limited as to where they can go than the citizen

Now. That said, we are never going agree. The COTUS says what it says. Courts and judges, tradition, precedents and unconstitutional laws, no matter how many times quoted do not change that.

Agree to disagree and let's leave it at that.

 

[Ghost1958]

You have an absolute right to carry on your own private property. You have absolutely zero right to carry on my private property.

If someone enters my domicile carrying a firearm and I do not know them, they're dead, period, bar none, end of discussion.

What will happen to me? Absolutely nothing. It's my private property, not theirs.

By the way, a fair number of wonderfully nice and well-armed gents who frequented this forum helped me move back in 2011. I treated them to a barbeque feast. Thanks, guys!

They were in and out of where I lived, back and forth, many times.

The key difference, there, Ghost1958, is I'd invited them. They had advanced permission, and I was very grateful for their assistance due to majorly bummed ankle. I needed all the help I could get!



I think you're mixing up business private property vs domicile private property. Businesses open to the public have an implied invitation of entry. If the sign says, "Open," then it's a written/posted invitation. If the sign says, "Closed," then it's a temporarily revoked invitation. A locked door is equivalent to a "closed" sign. Lacking any open/closed sign, if it looks, acts, and feels like a business and the door is unlocked, you're not trespassing if you enter, but you are trespassing if you do not leave the moment they say "we're closed" or "please leave."

Castle laws do not require me to ask or tell someone to leave. Without an express oral or written invitation, you're tresspassing the second you cross the threshold. B&E is equivalent to highly probable forfeiture of your own life.

Shoot someone on your property, not illegally entering your home because they have a holstered firearm on and see what happens.

Even if you tell them to leave.
Even if you have a no trespassing sign.
Or a moat.

Do that and I hope you look good in stripes.

I'm not confusing anything. I live in a strong castle state and SYG state.

Come in my home or occupied vehicle illegally , your turtle meat, armed or not armed. Legally.

Other than that.
There is no state in the nation where the property owner has the authority to disarm a person on their property simply because they don't want them there with a gun.
They have every right to tell them to leave.
And every chance of being quite legally shot in their own lawn if they actively try to disarm the person just because they are there, making no threats but armed.

I have the right to be armed on anyone's property as long as I'm there. Once told to leave I must leave. Armed or not. But the property owner has no right to disarm me simply because I'm on his property.

You are simply,,, again,,, mistaken.

And again we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[eye95]

That would be fine if you were correct.

However. One has the right to carry on private property. An absolute right.

That said one doesn't have the right to remain on that property once told to leave. Armed or not armed.

Let me put it this way, you, in particular, are barred from carry on my private property. If you do try to exercise your perceived “right” on my property, I will exercise my actual Rights, to whatever extent Ohio law allows and is necessary to stop you. You are on notice.

Everyone else who respects the property Rights of others, you and your weapons are generally welcome.

 

[OC for ME]

... the 2A is one simple sentence barring anyone the authority to limit or interfere with the RTKABA. ...

Not anyone, only government. You have, simply stated, no rights, in a society without a government to enforce laws on citizen behavior, if no one recognizes your rights. Law of the jungle if you will. Only the strong survive.

 

[eye95]

Just because you cannot lawfully shoot someone for a particular action does not mean that action is a Right.

A shop owner can’t shoot someone for stealing candy, but stealing candy ain’t a Right.

Just because there is not a black-letter consequence in the law for an action does not mean that action is a Right.

If someone can lawfully tell you that “You may not do this,” then “this” is not a Right.

You may not carry on my property. You are on notice.

 

[eye95]

Not anyone, only government. You have, simply stated, no rights in a society without a government to enforce laws on citizen behavior, if no one recognizes your rights. Law of the jungle if you will. Only the strong survive.

Some people just don’t get that enumerated Rights are actually just prohibitions on government behavior in an effort to protect Rights, many of which are not even mentioned in the COTUS.

 

[Ghost1958]

Not anyone, only government. You have, simply stated, no rights in a society without a government to enforce laws on citizen behavior, if no one recognizes your rights. Law of the jungle if you will. Only the strong survive.

Forget government . I'm not speaking about the effort the founders made to protect the RTKABA with the 2A . Though the 2A applied and applies to everyone. Not just gov.
Read the founders writings to know their intent.
Nowhere in the 2A is the word government mentioned.

The RTKABA preexisted this gov by thousands of years. Actually preexisted all governments.

The founders knew this and protected that right in no uncertain terms from ANYONE interfering with it.

 

[hammer6]

Forget government . I'm not speaking about the effort the founders made to protect the RTKABA with the 2A . Though the 2A applied and applies to everyone. Not just gov.
Read the founders writings to know their intent.
Nowhere in the 2A is the word government mentioned.

The RTKABA preexisted this gov by thousands of years. Actually preexisted all governments.

The founders knew this and protected that right in no uncertain terms from ANYONE interfering with it.

ummmmmmmmm. the 2nd amendment only applies to government. it applies to the government to the extent that government is not allowed to infringe on anyone's right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Ghost1958]

Just because you cannot lawfully shoot someone for a particular action does not mean that action is a Right.

A shop owner can’t shoot someone for stealing candy, but stealing candy ain’t a Right.

Just because there is not a black-letter consequence in the law for an action does not mean that action is a Right.

If someone can lawfully tell you that “You may not do this,” then “this” is not a Right.

You may not carry on my property. You are on notice.

Don't know where you live. But if I'm my state put up a no trespassing sign.
A no gun sign means nothing here as does your "notice" as my right to be armed while on your land is absolute and nothing you can do anything about.

Except tell me to leave.. verbally, which I must do legally.