Itís time to address mental health and gun-free zones. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Itís time to address mental health and gun-free zones.


RussP
12-28-2012, 13:23
Itís time to address mental health and gun-free zones. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#)

Two taboo topics, to some, that we've been talking about for years. Gun-free zones are discussed most frequently. Now, mental health needs discussing.

TDC20
12-29-2012, 01:04
I agree on both points, Russ. The article is mostly centered on gun free zones (gun free zones = helpless victims zone), but I have been writing my representatives and hoping that the mental health aspect gets at least some attention in the upcoming debates.

The brain is a complex chemical computer, so there may be ways of treating an imbalance. However, what may be a miracle drug for one person can apparently turn another person into a homicidal maniac. For that reason, treating people with such drugs with known dangerous side effects should be considered experimental. Maybe treating with these medications should only be allowed while the patients are institutionalized, for the safety of the public?

I would like to see data compiled on the shooters and their medications. Should the FDA be involved in suicides and homicides where certain medications are trending? I think so! Also, what about the mental health profession? We now know the Va. Tech shooter, the Aurora shooter, and the Newtown shooter were under psychiatric care (I'm sure many more, but these I know for fact). If I were a family member of someone affected in these horrific acts, I would be seeking compensation from the shrink for malpractice, not Bushmaster. If they are not held accountable through malpractice litigation, then their methods and procedures will not change for the better.

Can we continue to allow doctor-patient privilege to censor what the public should have known about for decades? Should we continue to remain silent, when the one thing we know for sure that is common in these acts is mental illness, psychiatric treatment, and the use of psychotropic drugs? I think the time to have that discussion was 20-30 years ago, so not to have it today is inexcusable.

If we really want to keep this from happening again and save lives, we need to address both mental health and gun-free zones. Not to do so is not only intellectually dishonest, but a recipe for a more dangerous society.

JW1178
12-29-2012, 02:00
Talking with even some non-gun or even anti-gun people, they even realize that it's not us gun guys and girls that have grown up with guns and/or have been owning and carrying for years, but it seems these killers were rather new to the gun scene. We are lucky, because most of those shootings the guns malfunctioned because they were in their break in phase. Either that or they had not tested what rounds function best in their weapons.

What I am saying is that these people get the guns for the purpose of doing these shootings. Perhaps if people had to have a mental evaluation before purchasing a firearm for the first time it could have prevented this. However, I'm fearful that the liberals will use this to make people get an evaluation often, causing the expense and time making it too much of a hastle to own a gun.

It doesn't have to be anything extensive, because these crackpots will be easy to spot for anyone trained in the field.

ComeAndGetThem
12-29-2012, 07:34
I am 100% for doing away with "gun free zones" which is nothing more than fantasy and of course I don't want anyone who mentally can't appreciate their actions to have access to firearms or any other dangerous devices. (cars, chainsaws, etc.) The problem is, if we were able to completely abolish the "gun free zone" today and there were ever another school shooting, the left would say, "see, it didn't stop school shootings." "We have to do away with military styled, semi automatic assault weapons and high capacity magazines." Even if the killer used a revolver. They don't want to stop school shootings or any other type of crime. They want to take your firearms.

AZson
12-29-2012, 09:17
I agree we need to address gun free zones. Here in AZ, a business can make them selves gun free zones, but in my opinion it is now their liability if I am robbed in or out side of their business because they opted to make me unarmed when I entered it and as for making schools gun free, it is like making fish in a barrel. This lock your doors and hide is the equivalent of the the old duck and cover against the nuclear explosion of the 50s.
Our favorite Sheriff Joe Arpio is looking for volunteers for armed guards to patrol schools while I'm sure our psycho Sheriff here in Pima county Dupedick will do nothing except call us names again if we ask him to do something about it.
I did write our local paper and said that if obama was really serious about ending these shootings, he needs to add free mental health care to his obamacare and no more just giving them meds then sending them home. It is way to easy for them to skip taking them.

SCmasterblaster
12-29-2012, 09:51
I CCW a G17 and 33 rounds of ammo in two mags, and the thought of committing murder is the furthest thought from my mind.

DustyJacket
12-29-2012, 12:03
Mental Health: HIPAA will get in the way of just about any sort of reporting, or database.

jph02
12-29-2012, 13:40
Addressing the pathetic way our country approaches mental health is an extremely complex and difficult subject. The answer is not putting them all on meds or locking them up, but the community-based approach that replaced institutionalization and lobotomies is woefully underfunded and an underpaid career field.

Besides being unwilling to pay for what we say is important to us (look at how much we pay paramedics and daycare workers compared to sports figures), we all too often want the simple solution. That's why "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazine" bans has such traction with politicians and the media. That's where "gun-free zones" came from in the first place.

Sadly, I don't think we have the political will to actually sit down and come up with workable solutions that could make a real difference. And, if we did, we would probably fail to underwrite the cost. :dunno:

emtp2rn
12-29-2012, 18:11
We tried to address the pfz's in Michigan, and everyone knows how that went..... The legislation will be reintroduced in 2013, but it won't go anywhere now.


Itís time to address mental health and gun-free zones. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#)

Two taboo topics, to some, that we've been talking about for years. Gun-free zones are discussed most frequently. Now, mental health needs discussing.

onebigelf
12-29-2012, 18:50
No doctor is going to certify anyone as sane to carry a firearm for fear that they'll be sued if wrong.

John

Glockgeezer
12-29-2012, 19:08
The Tampa Bay Times, formerly the St. Petersburg Times, has anti-gun editorials and articles nearly every day. They have never published a strongly worded pro-gun editorial and I have been writing them for yrs. Yet, in their classified ads, under Sporting Goods, they sell ad space for rifles, hand-guns and ammunition for face-to-face sales with no background checks or even ID. Every add I've seen asks more than the gun could be purchased for NIB. My guess is that most buyers could not pass a background check and are willing to pay extra for the gun. I'm not making a judgement call here just pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal rag sheet.

SCmasterblaster
12-29-2012, 19:10
My psychiatrist thinks that my CCW is AOK.

Dragoon44
12-29-2012, 19:23
My psychiatrist thinks that my CCW is AOK.

Yeah, but what does he think about you?

:tongueout::rofl::wavey:

SCmasterblaster
12-29-2012, 19:30
Yeah, but what does he think about you?

:tongueout::rofl::wavey:

He thinks that I am just fine with CCW.

dwhite53
12-30-2012, 12:48
If young Adam Lanza had been fighting cancer there would have been an out-pouring of community support for him and his mother that would have been overwhelming.

Apparently Adam's mother was quite the social butterfly in town but very few people knew about her struggle at home with her son. People say she never really talked about her home life or her son much. She knew when you start talking about mental illness in the family it scares people. They start avoiding you. They don't want their kids hanging out at your hose anymore.

I know this first hand, when someone in your family has brain chemistry issues you just don't talk about it. Also, other people just don't want to deal with it, or you in a lot of cases.

When my step-son was diagnosed bi-polar we got ZERO support from anyone outside of us. We were left on our own to begin the journey of 1000 miles to find out what his issues were and where and how to get treatment.

The entire community up there is as responsible for this atrocity as Adam Lanza and his mother.

All the Best,
D. White

SCmasterblaster
12-30-2012, 13:40
That young man should have never been able to touch a firearm, and his mother knew this quite well.

UtahIrishman
12-30-2012, 14:03
The issue of Gun Free Zones is a moot point here in Utah. But I would agree that they need to be done away with. They don't accomplish anything other than to point out targets for those that want to shoot something or someone up.

The mental issue side is much more complex. For one thing the mental health of any individual can change, either for better or for worse over time. And sometimes those mental health issues are only minor.

I don't believe that someone who is on meds for depression or similar problems is necessarily a risk. In fact if they are on medication they are most likely addressing or have addressed their problems to some degree.

I think the only way to effectively determine serious mental health issues is to profile. The majority of these mass killings have been done by young white males who lack social skills. That would be a starting point.

Another thought that comes to mind is using the theory of Risk Analysis to pinpoint troubles. Risk Analysis is used in Information Technology and Business Cases to determine what the optimum strategy is for a business. It can be applied to social situations as well.

papercidal
12-30-2012, 14:23
The existence of gun free zones seems to be evidence that mental health problems are far more widespread than we would like to admit. If proclaiming something to be makes it so perhaps we should proclaim schools to be "Pedophile free zones" and do nothing to prevent their hiring because everyone knows that the deranged would never disobey a sign.

SARDG
12-30-2012, 15:11
Mental Health: HIPAA will get in the way of just about any sort of reporting, or database.
I always thought of HIPAA as a medical coding system and suppose I never considered the privacy issues incident to HIPAA. But checking it out, it appears there are allowances for disclosure in several cases. It probably needs to be tested in the court system.
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.html

Law Enforcement Purposes. Covered entities may disclose protected health
information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes under
the following six circumstances, and subject to specified conditions: (1) as
required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas)
and administrative requests; (2) to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive,
material witness, or missing person; (3) in response to a law enforcement
official’s request for information about a victim or suspected victim of a
crime; (4) to alert law enforcement of a person’s death, if the covered entity
suspects that criminal activity caused the death; (5) when a covered entity
believes that protected health information is evidence of a crime that
occurred on its premises; and (6) by a covered health care provider in a
medical emergency not occurring on its premises, when necessary to inform
law enforcement about the commission and nature of a crime, the location of
the crime or crime victims, and the perpetrator of the crime.

SCmasterblaster
12-30-2012, 15:19
The existence of gun free zones seems to be evidence that mental health problems are far more widespread than we would like to admit. If proclaiming something to be makes it so perhaps we should proclaim schools to be "Pedophile free zones" and do nothing to prevent their hiring because everyone knows that the deranged would never disobey a sign.

My VA hospital here in White River Junction, VT has signs up at every entrance declaring all weapons to be illegal. But there is nothing else to stop someone from carrying an M16 rifle onto the property.

SARDG
12-30-2012, 16:30
My VA hospital here in White River Junction, VT has signs up at every entrance declaring all weapons to be illegal. But there is nothing else to stop someone from carrying an M16 rifle onto the property.
Well, we know they have armed VA Police.

SCmasterblaster
12-30-2012, 18:36
Well, we know they have armed VA Police.

Yes we have a VA PD here, but they cannot be everywhere and they carry revolvers.

true believer
12-30-2012, 19:09
No doctor is going to certify anyone as sane to carry a firearm for fear that they'll be sued if wrong.

John

agree with u:thumbsup:

SARDG
12-30-2012, 20:33
Yes we have a VA PD here, but they cannot be everywhere and they carry revolvers.
Must be a personal preference thing - dunno. I'm retired from VA and a Navy Vet and I've only seen semi-autos in recent history.

Doesn't matter... when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Resources like police and SROs will always have some limitation in response and response time.

JW1178
12-31-2012, 09:44
If young Adam Lanza had been fighting cancer there would have been an out-pouring of community support for him and his mother that would have been overwhelming.

Apparently Adam's mother was quite the social butterfly in town but very few people knew about her struggle at home with her son. People say she never really talked about her home life or her son much. She knew when you start talking about mental illness in the family it scares people. They start avoiding you. They don't want their kids hanging out at your hose anymore.

I know this first hand, when someone in your family has brain chemistry issues you just don't talk about it. Also, other people just don't want to deal with it, or you in a lot of cases.

When my step-son was diagnosed bi-polar we got ZERO support from anyone outside of us. We were left on our own to begin the journey of 1000 miles to find out what his issues were and where and how to get treatment.

The entire community up there is as responsible for this atrocity as Adam Lanza and his mother.

All the Best,
D. White

This is true. If someone is physically ill, it is totally different. Also, nobody wants to admit they are "crazy". Some of the mental issue is They think everyone else has the problem.

Also, an "illness" is assigned to every behavior now serving as an excuse for bad bahavior or guidance. I know people with bratty kids and they do nothing about the behavior because "he has add/HD".

poodleplumber
12-31-2012, 14:26
There is certainly a stigma associated with even the most treatable mental health issues. And that stigma is intimately related to the issue of patient confidentiality. Perhaps when society accepts the fact that the brain is an organ that can be treated and medicated it will help some, but there will always be a vicious cycle of mental illness making at least some patients oblivious to the fact that they have a mental illness.

I have found it very interesting that the same politicians and media outlets have made mental health the issue when people have shoved victims in front of oncoming trains, but blame the hardware when other people with similar illnesses have used stolen firearms to victimize others.

SARDG
12-31-2012, 15:29
...I have found it very interesting that the same politicians and media outlets have made mental health the issue when people have shoved victims in front of oncoming trains, but blame the hardware when other people with similar illnesses have used stolen firearms to victimize others.
Interesting point Ė an analogy of perpetrated action, and a dichotomy in recognition of cause.

SCmasterblaster
01-01-2013, 11:50
Must be a personal preference thing - dunno. I'm retired from VA and a Navy Vet and I've only seen semi-autos in recent history.

Doesn't matter... when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Resources like police and SROs will always have some limitation in response and response time.

Thank you for your service, sir. I am a USN vet myself (1974-80).

SARDG
01-01-2013, 23:31
Thank you for your service, sir. I am a USN vet myself (1974-80).
Thanks. No one thanked us back in my day - which was a bit before your day. :) Things are a bit better for military and vets now. But to set the record straight, I'm a ma'am. ;) Women served too, and even before me. :patriot:

countrygun
01-02-2013, 00:33
I would opine that, when we talk about the mental health aspect, we walk a line that requires some perspective. How many other rights, in order to be exercised, do we require an inspection of someone's car, their home, their person? Here we are discussing looking in to someone's mind. We are all aware that the freedom of speech has no such prerequisite and it can lead to and instigate horrible acts. We do not require a mental health check to exercise the privilege of hurling a couple of tons of steel down the road, yet we find the risks of the unstable driving a vehicle "acceptable".

I don't think that we gun owners should accept any "mental health" solution that is aimed specifically at Second Amendment rights. There are a lot of ways the dangerously ill can kill and any "MH" solution should look at those just as seriously as guns. It is for this reason I cannot think of supporting just a blanket "mental health check' to buy a gun. Besides the obvious fact that it only covers LEGAL acquisitions will failure keep the applicant from laying hands on diesel fuel an ammonium nitrate fertilizer? Will it force someone in to treatment if they fail? What happens if someone is "failed" and yet are still considered "safe" to be on the streets, and they kill by other means-who gets sued for that?

The law of unintended consequences comes into play when we start proposing simple solutions to a small part of the problem. I don't think the Second Amendment should be the testing ground for dealing with the larger mental health issues of the nation. In fact it allows "society" to escape any responsibility for the cause. after all, "who cares if there is a societal/social factor at all, as long as those afflicted can't get guns we're all safer" :upeyes:

The recent shooting of the firefighters points out that the system cannot even keep a convicted felon from getting a gun. Surely it won't stop the mentally ill. Lets not pretend it will and then have to give up even more when it fails, as it surely will.

ScottieG59
01-02-2013, 01:52
Each state has its own way to verify if a person should or should not be permitted to purchase firearms. The issue of mental health is addressed in Kansas by a law that allows the release of information related to mental health to determine CCL eligibility.

The issue of so-called gun free zones was being addressed in the Kansas Legislature, but I have not followed the progress. The idea was the to be gun-free, certain security measures would have to be in place, such as guards, metal detectors, etc. It would be an expensive requirement and I do not know how far it got.

An additional area to consider is tort reform or, at least, attempts to deal with businesses that establish the hun free areas that are a magnet for those who wish to do harm.

The semiautomatic firearm has been the focus of the Obama administration for a while. The Fast and Furious gun running program run by the ATF places many semiautomatic rifles in the hands of drug gangs. This program was based on an earlier attempt which showed the weapons were too difficult to trace. The results of the federal gun running program were many murders in Mexico as well as several in the United States. When Congress wanted to get details on the program, the president used executive privilege to withhold information from Congress. Some have suggested it was a program to reverse the public perception of semiautomatic firearms by building the association with criminal activities.

The mental health issue is a bit more complex. If a mental health professional believes a patient is a danger to them self or to others, they have a duty to take action. In some cases, people act and in many others, they do not.

Some mental health issues do not make a person dangerous, or, it may not be obvious. Some conditions are not clearly identifiable until early adulthood.

Perhaps there is a need for better background checks. It should not be an issue of privacy since requesting a CCL involves releasing information. My job requires an extensive background check and drug testing. I see no problem requiring something like random drug testing for CCL holders.

Any intelligent and honest person knows bans only disarm those who obey the law. The direction the federal government is pushing things will seriously limit the ability of good citizens to protect themselves and their families. The arbitrary limitations placed on magazine size will only lower the odds of a good person and their family of surviving an attack, especially of the kind commonly seen with multiple attackers.

The federal registration of firearms only has the purpose of establishing the mechanism of confiscation. Adding additional expenses on gun owners is unreasonable and does not make anyone safer from criminals.

I try not to sound angry about this, but I have always lived within the law and have been honorable throughout my life. I teach my children to live within the law and to be honorable. Now, my government is accusing me of being the same as the drug gangs, rapists, muggers and mass killing maniacs. They saw I must be controlled and corralled into the flock, simply because I am gun owner.

I know many Americans are dependent on government programs and feel they must be cared for. This mentality has clouded the good judgement of many when it comes to the good of the United States. You can hear it in the rally cries in the media. Still, even those who depend on government must realize they will share a common fate with their fellow Americans.

steveksux
01-02-2013, 01:56
I would opine that, when we talk about the mental health aspect, we walk a line that requires some perspective. How many other rights, in order to be exercised, do we require an inspection of someone's car, their home, their person? Here we are discussing looking in to someone's mind. We are all aware that the freedom of speech has no such prerequisite and it can lead to and instigate horrible acts. We do not require a mental health check to exercise the privilege of hurling a couple of tons of steel down the road, yet we find the risks of the unstable driving a vehicle "acceptable".

I don't think that we gun owners should accept any "mental health" solution that is aimed specifically at Second Amendment rights. There are a lot of ways the dangerously ill can kill and any "MH" solution should look at those just as seriously as guns. It is for this reason I cannot think of supporting just a blanket "mental health check' to buy a gun. Besides the obvious fact that it only covers LEGAL acquisitions will failure keep the applicant from laying hands on diesel fuel an ammonium nitrate fertilizer? Will it force someone in to treatment if they fail? What happens if someone is "failed" and yet are still considered "safe" to be on the streets, and they kill by other means-who gets sued for that?

The law of unintended consequences comes into play when we start proposing simple solutions to a small part of the problem. I don't think the Second Amendment should be the testing ground for dealing with the larger mental health issues of the nation. In fact it allows "society" to escape any responsibility for the cause. after all, "who cares if there is a societal/social factor at all, as long as those afflicted can't get guns we're all safer" :upeyes:

The recent shooting of the firefighters points out that the system cannot even keep a convicted felon from getting a gun. Surely it won't stop the mentally ill. Lets not pretend it will and then have to give up even more when it fails, as it surely will.Especially since in the Newtown shooting the guy didn't buy the rifle. No laws against mental patients owning weapons can stop him from taking guns from his sane parents who neglect to secure them properly.

But you're going to have a hard time selling a position that can be caricatured as "in favor of crazy people having the right to own assault rifles". Not saying you haven't made good points, you have, just that complicated nuanced arguments don't fare well in the political arena.

The other dicey part is who makes the call what sorts and what degree of mental issues is sufficient to deny ownership. That can be a very slippery slope indeed.

I'm sure there's lots of people suffering from whatever ailed the shooter in Newtown, but they don't end up doing what he did.

Randy

countrygun
01-02-2013, 02:31
Especially since in the Newtown shooting the guy didn't buy the rifle. No laws against mental patients owning weapons can stop him from taking guns from his sane parents who neglect to secure them properly.

But you're going to have a hard time selling a position that can be caricatured as "in favor of crazy people having the right to own assault rifles". Not saying you haven't made good points, you have, just that complicated nuanced arguments don't fare well in the political arena.

The other dicey part is who makes the call what sorts and what degree of mental issues is sufficient to deny ownership. That can be a very slippery slope indeed.

I'm sure there's lots of people suffering from whatever ailed the shooter in Newtown, but they don't end up doing what he did.

Randy

I have a different perspective because, by one turn of fate or another I have been connected to 4 teenage killers. each only killed once before capture but I have been trying to wake people up to the epidemic for ten years. But, in none of the cases I am connected to, did the killer use a gun. Now if it had been one kid that killed four people with a gun it would be all over the news, but 4 individuals killing without guns is, apparently, "acceptable".

I say that, whether it is one killing many or many killing one apiece, we have a problem and guns just bring a small part of the problem into the light and then the light is turned on the guns, not the roots of the problem.

Gallium
01-02-2013, 03:04
I CCW a G17 and 33 rounds of ammo in two mags, and the thought of committing murder is the furthest thought from my mind.


I carry what I carry, and the thought of HOMICIDE is occasionally on my mind - homicide of me. I carry, and I have a well formulated plan to stop (by retreat and up to killing, if necessary) threats I may face.

Gun free zones do not work unless there is a barrier to effectively repel those with guns from crossing that barrier. You can't establish a germ-free zone without having a sound, stout barrier to detect, clean and if possible repel germs. Just saying it's a "gun free zone" is not enough (that is in essence, what passing a law does, it merely states an intent). Even with promise of punishment, a law is still just a bunch of empty words (for those who choose not to obey it). The only way in which that (a, any) law can morph from empty words to meaningful affect is thru real proactive enforcement.

So, if you say some where is a "gun-free" zone, you have to actually MAKE IT gun-free, and continuously verify and authenticate that it is such.

Therein lies the crux of the issue...we are depending on words rather than action. There is not much wrong with a gun free zone. There has never been a shooting within the seated US senate or the NY seated senate in the past 100 years. Nor have there been shootings within the secure areas of US airports in the past 15 years. The problem is not "gun free" zones. The problem is proper enforcement of gun free zones, and that costs A LOT of $$$$.

As for mental health? Slippery slope, but if I was contemplating having my adult child committed, there is no way in heck they would have any access whatsoever to any of my guns. My own fully grown adult child did not have access to my guns at any point in time while living at home. In fact, my now fully grown adult offspring when living at home was NEVER alone in the house without an adult being there.

Jcanoe
03-25-2013, 17:34
In Georgia there is current legislation which would allow local school boards to set policy regarding faculty and staff to carry a concealed weapon (not likely to pass - dang it!). Anyway, here is what is in legislation (Georgia SB 101) and you may want to use this as a draft for your state reps:

Said article is further amended by adding two new Code sections to read as follows:
474
"
16-11-130.1.
475
(a) As used in this Code section, the term:
476
(1) 'Bus or other transportation furnished by a school' means a bus or other transportation
477
furnished by a public or private elementary or secondary school.
478
(2) 'School function' means a school function or related activity that occurs outside of a
479
school safety zone for a public or private elementary or secondary school.
480
(3) 'School safety zone' means in or on a
ny real property or building owned by or leased
481
to any public or private elementary or secondary school or local board of education and
482
used for elementary or secondary education.
483
(4) 'Weapon' shall have the same meaning as set forth in Code Section 16-11-127.1.
484
(b) A local board of education shall approve personnel to possess or carry weapons as
485
provided in paragraph (6) of subsection (c) of Code Section 16-11-127.1 if such board has
486
adopted and implemented a policy which provides for:
487
(1) Sufficient training of approved personnel prior to authorizing such personnel to carry
488
weapons. The training shall at a minimum include training on judgment pistol shooting,
489
marksmanship, and a review of current laws relating to the use of force for the defense
490
of self and others; provided, however, that the local board of education training policy
491
may substitute for certain training requirements the personnel's prior military or law
492
13 SB 101/HCSFA
S. B. 101 (SUB)
- 15 -
enforcement service if the approved personnel has previously served as a certified law
493
enforcement officer or has had military service which involved similar weapons training;
494
(2) An approved list of the types of weapons and ammunition and the quantity of
495
weapons and ammunition authorized to be possessed or carried;
496
(3) The exclusion from approval of any personnel who has had an employment or other
497
history indicating any type of mental or emotional instability as determined by the local
498
board of education; and
499
(4) A mandatory method of securing weapons which shall include at a minimum a
500
requirement that the weapon, if permitted to be carried concealed by personnel, shall be
501
carried in a holster on the person and not in a purse, briefcase, bag, or similar other
502
accessary which is not secured on the body of the person and, if maintained separate from
503
the person, shall be maintained in a secured lock safe or similar lock box that cannot be
504
easily accessed by students.
505
(c) Any personnel selected to possess or carry
weapons within a school safety zone, at a
506
school function, or on a bus or other transportation furnished by a school shall be a license
507
holder, and the local board of education shall be responsible for conducting a criminal
508
history background check of such personnel annually to determine whether such personnel
509
remains qualified to be a license holder.
510
(d) The selection of approved personnel
to possess or carry
a weapon within a school
511
safety zone, at a school function, or on a bus or other transportation furnished by a school
512
shall be done strictly on a voluntary basis. No personnel shall be required to possess or
513
carry a weapon within a school safety zone, at a school function, or on a bus or other
514
transportation furnished by a school and shall not be terminated or otherwise retaliated
515
against for refusing to possess or carry a weapon.
516
(e) The local board of education shall be responsible for any costs associated with
517
approving personnel to carry or possess weapons within a school safety zone, at a school
518
function, or on a bus or other transportation furnished by a school; provided, however, that
519
nothing contained in this Code section shall prohibit any approved personnel from paying
520
for part or all of such costs or using any other funding mechanism available, including
521
donations or grants from private persons or entities.
522
(f) Documents and meetings pertaining to personnel approved to carry or possess weapons
523
within a school safety zone, at a school function, or on a bus or other transportation
524
furnished by a school shall be considered em
ployment and public safety security records
525
and shall be exempt from disclosure under Article 4 of Chapter 18 of Title 50.
526
(g) This Code section shall not be construed to require or otherwise mandate that any local
527
board of education or school administrator adopt or implement a practice or program for
528
the approval of personnel to possess or carry weapons within a school safety zone, at a
529


13 SB 101/HCSFA
S. B. 101 (SUB)
- 16 -
school function, or on a bus or other transportation furnished by a school nor shall this
530
Code section create any liability for adopting or declining to adopt such practice or
531
program. Such decision shall rest with each individual local board of education.

SCmasterblaster
03-27-2013, 06:22
I carry what I carry, and the thought of HOMICIDE is occasionally on my mind - homicide of me. I carry, and I have a well formulated plan to stop (by retreat and up to killing, if necessary) threats I may face.

Gun free zones do not work unless there is a barrier to effectively repel those with guns from crossing that barrier. You can't establish a germ-free zone without having a sound, stout barrier to detect, clean and if possible repel germs. Just saying it's a "gun free zone" is not enough (that is in essence, what passing a law does, it merely states an intent). Even with promise of punishment, a law is still just a bunch of empty words (for those who choose not to obey it). The only way in which that (a, any) law can morph from empty words to meaningful affect is thru real proactive enforcement.

So, if you say some where is a "gun-free" zone, you have to actually MAKE IT gun-free, and continuously verify and authenticate that it is such.

Therein lies the crux of the issue...we are depending on words rather than action. There is not much wrong with a gun free zone. There has never been a shooting within the seated US senate or the NY seated senate in the past 100 years. Nor have there been shootings within the secure areas of US airports in the past 15 years. The problem is not "gun free" zones. The problem is proper enforcement of gun free zones, and that costs A LOT of $$$$.

As for mental health? Slippery slope, but if I was contemplating having my adult child committed, there is no way in heck they would have any access whatsoever to any of my guns. My own fully grown adult child did not have access to my guns at any point in time while living at home. In fact, my now fully grown adult offspring when living at home was NEVER alone in the house without an adult being there.

Well-stated - I agree.