Texas School District Will Let Teachers Carry Guns

[hosemonkey]

The permit to carry a weapon differs in most states. You can obtain a firearms permit without knowing how to handle a weapon. You don’t even need to qualify at the line for one. You don’t even need to own a weapon. Now that is nuts.

What you say is true. In my state, you must attend an 8 hour bi-annual class, you must qualify at the range and you must own a weapon. California is a “shall issue” state, but that varies widely from county to county, with some very liberal to nearly impossible. (San Francisco/Los Angeles)

 

[goofyjim]

What’s next? Will they require the teachers to carry a gun? That would be insane and against the Constitution for sure but I’ve heard in the past that there are few odd towns that require all citizens to have a gun. Well, that would be a law meant to be broken.

 

[The_Barbarian]

What’s next? Will they require the teachers to carry a gun? That would be insane and against the Constitution for sure

Don’t know about “insane”, but it wouldn’t be unconstitutional.

 

[melensdad]

What’s next? Will they require the teachers to carry a gun?

Wow what a stretch. I think we need to go back to the original intent of the school district, which is protection.

Not every teacher will be allowed to carry, even if they qualify. And the qualifications are pretty daunting. First you have to pass all the qualifications to get a Texas concealed carry permit, then you have to take and pass additional training that is equivalent to the training police get, then you have to take and pass special conflict resolution training that is above and beyond what the police receive. Even if you pass all that the school district still has to give you permission and they do not intend, based on what they have stated, to allow everyone to be armed. They do intend to allow an unspecified number of faculty and/or administrators, who qualify, to be allowed to carry a gun for the protection of the school, its students and the other faculty. In essence a couple members of the faculty will be volunteer guards for the school system. Its nothing more than that.

 

[melensdad]

I’ve heard in the past that there are few odd towns that require all citizens to have a gun.

Marietta, GA, a suburb of Atlanta is that town to which you refer. It requires one firearm to be in every household. It also has a clause in the law that says if you have a valid personal reason to oppose the law then you don’t have to abide by it.

 

[melensdad]

The permit to carry a weapon differs in most states. In Pennsylvania you are orsered to carry a weapon concealed so as not to alarm citizens. In Texas, it’s the complete opposite, the weapon must be worn outside in plain view of the public.

Joe, not sure where you get your information but Pennsylvania is an “OPEN CARRY” state and you are legally allowed to carry a gun on your hip displayed for all to see.

As for you statement about Texas requiring that your weapon be carried open, that is also absolutely false.

Both states allow for either open or concealed carry. As do many others.

 

[melensdad]

Don’t know about “insane”, but it wouldn’t be unconstitutional.

Yes it would. You cannot be required to carry a gun.

 

[hosemonkey]

Joe, not sure where you get your information but Pennsylvania is an “OPEN CARRY” state and you are legally allowed to carry a gun on your hip displayed for all to see.

As for you statement about Texas requiring that your weapon be carried open, that is also absolutely false.

As you can see, melensdad, there is a vast amount of paranoia and mis-information out there among anti-gun people.

 

[goofyjim]

Marietta, GA, a suburb of Atlanta is that town to which you refer. It requires one firearm to be in every household. It also has a clause in the law that says if you have a valid personal reason to oppose the law then you don’t have to abide by it.

And what, pray tell, constitutes a “valid” reason? Is being against the use of a gun enough?

 

[geezerbob]

It was Kennesaw, not Marietta.

Among those exempt are residents “who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine.” Others exempt include the physically and mentally disabled, paupers and those convicted of a felony.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Don’t know about “insane”, but it wouldn’t be unconstitutional.

Yes it would. You cannot be required to carry a gun.

Show us. There’s nothing in the Constitution about the right to refuse to bear arms. You can’t just make up Constitutional rights.

 

[LRThunder]

Barbarian observes:
Don’t know about “insane”, but it wouldn’t be unconstitutional.

Show us. There’s nothing in the Constitution about the right to refuse to bear arms. You can’t just make up Constitutional rights.

Well, Roe v Wade showed otherwise.

 

[pnewton]

Well, Roe v Wade showed otherwise.

This is the first time I ever found Roe v Wade funny.

 

[goofyjim]

Barbarian observes:
Don’t know about “insane”, but it wouldn’t be unconstitutional.

Show us. There’s nothing in the Constitution about the right to refuse to bear arms. You can’t just make up Constitutional rights.

I have every right on God’s green earth to refuse to bear arms no matter what any Constitution says. No law can force me to carry a gun.

 

[KenEOTE]

I have every right on God’s green earth to refuse to bear arms no matter what any Constitution says. No law can force me to carry a gun.

I think that was the point of Barbarians post there is no law against not bearing arms.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

In Texas, it’s the complete opposite, the weapon must be worn outside in plain view of the public.

In the State of Texas if you carry a sidearm in public in plain view and you are not law enforcement you will be arrested.

That’s how come we have Concealed Handgun License [CHL] and I mean CONCEALED.

I usually carry my gun on my right rear I’m medium so I wear a large shirt to cover my gun. If I’m in a store and I bend over and my gun is reveled guess what I just broke the law and can be arrested and have my CHL taken away.

So if you see people bending at the knees to look at stuff in a store they maybe carrying? Also if you see people wearing butt/hip packs * a lot of people carry a gun in them.*

 

[melensdad]

And what, pray tell, constitutes a “valid” reason? Is being against the use of a gun enough?

YES.

OH, and by the way it is not Marietta, as I previously wrote, it is, in fact Kennesaw, GA as corrected by ‘geezerbob’. Sorry if I caused any confusion, my brain knew the write answer but my fingers typed the name of the city where I often attend business meetings.

Show us. There’s nothing in the Constitution about the right to refuse to bear arms. You can’t just make up Constitutional rights.

There is no need. The Constitution ‘reserves rights to the individual’ so if you have the right to keep and bear arms then you also have the right not to do the same. It affirms you may choose to take the action of keeping and bearing arms, at your whim. Implicit in that affirmation is your right to choose not to do the same.

I have every right on God’s green earth to refuse to bear arms no matter what any Constitution says. No law can force me to carry a gun.

As a civilian you would be correct. The Constitution, as noted above, forbids the state from removing, suspending or denying your rights. Your rights are yours to exercise or not exercise as you wish. Barbarian simply twists things to throw them off topic. I’d add him to my ‘ignore’ list except that he confuses others with is illogical twisted statements and someone has to correct him to keep others from being confused.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I have every right on God’s green earth to refuse to bear arms no matter what any Constitution says. No law can force me to carry a gun.

Maybe so. The Constitution only observes that we have certain rights, and that we might have others unlisted therein. But you have no Constitutional right to refuse to bear arms.

There’s nothing whatever in the Constitution that says you have a right to refuse to bear arms.

The Constitution recognizes freedom of assembly, but there are many laws that require your attendance at various assemblies. And there is nothing in the Constitution to forbid it.

Likewise the Constitution recognizes freedom of speech, but unless you are liable to incriminate yourself (specifically noted in the Constitution), you have no Constitutional right to refuse to talk when legally compelled. Ask a reporter who refuses to divulge sources.

 

[KenEOTE]

Maybe so. The Constitution only observes that we have certain rights, and that we might have others unlisted therein. But you have no Constitutional right to refuse to bear arms.

There’s nothing whatever in the Constitution that says you have a right to refuse to bear arms.

The Constitution recognizes freedom of assembly, but there are many laws that require your attendance at various assemblies. And there is nothing in the Constitution to forbid it.

Likewise the Constitution recognizes freedom of speech, but unless you are liable to incriminate yourself (specifically noted in the Constitution), you have no Constitutional right to refuse to talk when legally compelled. Ask a reporter who refuses to divulge sources.

One other fun little tidbit is that the Constitution does not give you the right to vote. We always say that we have the right to vote, but actually that is not a right given to us in the Constitution.

 

[The_Barbarian]

One other fun little tidbit is that the Constitution does not give you the right to vote. We always say that we have the right to vote, but actually that is not a right given to us in the Constitution.

The Constitution doesn’t give rights. It only recognizes certain rights we have, without ruling out others. Hence, we have a right to vote, but not a constitutional right. Our rights, as indicated in the Declaration, come from God.