NRA not joking about schools with armed guards
By Dan Freedman, Hearst Newspapers
WASHINGTON — The head of the NRA’s controversial bid to place armed guards in schools nationwide said the effort is serious and not simply window dressing in the wake of the Newtown school shootings.
Responding to criticism that the National Rifle Association was “tone deaf” in proposing deployment of qualified volunteers in schools, former Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., said he is solely interested in preventing repetitions of Newtown, in which a rifle-wielding gunman killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
“I don’t have to participate in the political debate,” said Hutchinson, a former administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration and high-ranking Department of Homeland Security official, in an interview Friday. “My focus is on the safety side of the issue. The political discussion can happen at a different level.”
Asked why even modest gun-control proposals were not part of the NRA’s proposal, Hutchinson said: “You can pass all the laws you want, but you won’t make schools safer. What will make a difference is better security and people there to protect children.”
After the Newtown shootings Dec. 14, the 4-million-member NRA went dark for a week, declining to comment while rage over weakened firearms laws and outcries for greater gun control were cresting. When the NRA finally convened a news conference Dec. 21, it was to announce that Hutchinson would head the organization’s new National School Shield Program, the centerpiece of which was recruitment of a corps of trained former police officers and military personnel to serve as an armed presence in schools.
The announcement drew wide ridicule from the White House and Democrats on Capitol Hill, with President Obama telling NBC, “I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools.”
In the interview, Hutchinson insisted armed volunteers in schools is one of a laundry list of ideas that he and his team will consider as it prepares a set of recommendations on best security practices for schools to consider.
“What’s important to me is that we don’t start into this study with a closed mind,” Hutchinson said.
Another option, Hutchinson said, is arming school personnel — teachers and administrators — who are interested in firearms training.
The idea of armed volunteers and teachers has evoked much caustic criticism from gun control proponents.
“Given the number of times the most highly trained law enforcement officers hit the wrong target, it’s scary to think of what a volunteer or teacher might do in a situation they’ve never experienced before,” said Jonathan Lowy, director of the legal action project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Yet another option, Hutchinson said, is the expansion of school resource officers, on-duty armed police who perform a wide range of tasks in schools that include interacting with students, teachers and administrators and helping implement security measures.
Hutchinson estimated the cost of putting a resource officer in every school at $2 billion to $3 billion a year, which he acknowledged would be hard to fund in lean budgetary times.
In the 2009-10 school year, 23,200 armed security personnel were in schools nationwide, 28 percent of all schools, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
Mo Canady, executive director of the National Association of School Resource Officers, based in Hoover, Ala., estimated there were about 10,000 resource officers working in schools.
Interviewed on Thursday, Canady said he had not received a call from the NRA about his organization’s 23 years of experience in helping train police officers to work in schools.
“We’d feel more comfortable if we had a clearer picture of (the NRA’s) intentions,” said Canady, himself a retired police officer. “Working in school is a unique assignment for police officers. You have to have the proper temperament and you have to be properly trained. It’s not the right job for every police officer.”
After an inquiry to the NRA by Hearst Newspapers, Hutchinson called Canady on Friday.
“I look forward to sharing with anyone — not just the NRA — who wants to know what we’ve done the last 23 years,” Canady said after the call. “We’re not perfect, but I feel like we’ve done things that were very successful.” Legal experts say there’s a wide gap between having on-duty police officers at schools and recruiting a corps of volunteers whose training and ability levels might vary.
“A lot of good comes of having school resource officers in schools,” said Francisco Negron, general counsel for the National School Boards Association. “Our comfort decreases as training for individuals with weapons decreases.”
With school districts facing increased liability exposure, the NRA should consult “local school districts, school board members, PTAs and superintendents,” Negron said. “One size fits all rarely is a good idea.” An officer or volunteer who fired a weapon in school might prompt a lawsuit, for instance, if they accidentally hit an innocent person.
“The police officer would be able to assert entitlement to qualified immunity from civil rights claims,” said Thomas Brandt, a Dallas lawyer who represents local governments and school boards in Texas.
But a volunteer, much like a “bouncer in a bar,” might not have that protection in the eyes of the law, he said. The NRA’s proposal “may work itself out to be a good idea ultimately, but there’s a lot of distance between here and there.”
Hutchinson said liability would be part of his team’s research. “The liability concern is always there,” he said. “The key is you have to make available to school districts the best national strategies for safety and training.”
Hutchinson declined to attach a pricetag to the NRA effort. “I’ve been told by the NRA, ‘you give us a budget and we’ll back you up.’ “
Let see. Freedman says 28% of all schools have armed safety people. Then why would he think the NRA is not joking?
J. Goebbels would be proud of this bias newstorial piece.
What if the security guards are killed first,how will they help the kids?
Sidwell Friends School, where many DC politicians including the President, send their kids, has 11 armed guards. And they may be hiring more.
Why are politicians’ kids’ lives more important than yours?
Dog, do you really think my child has as much chance of being targeted for harm or kidnapping as do the children of the POTUS? Your argument is apples and oranges!
What a joke. How about placing responsible parents in each home instead?
Dogula, you did not seriously ask that question did you. Well let see, maybe because the presidents kids (and some other politicians) are at the greatest risk of being kidnapped or targeted by terrorist and our kids are not even close.
All shootings on college campuses occurred regardless of armed campus police and the Fort Hood shooting occurred on a military base. Other mass shootings have occurred in the presence of guns. There are about 125,000 schools in the U.S. A more effective means of dealing with mass shootings is restricting or banning completely the sale and possession of assault weapons, large capacity clips, buy back programs of assault weapons and large capacity clips, much better screening to obtain a weapon, one that can screen out more folks who are mentally unstable, etc. Ask Australia how effective approaches like this have been. After 8 mass shootings over a 13 yr period of time, they banned assault type weapons, spent $500 million to buy back said weapons and the 14 yrs since have had no mass shootings. Does that mean they will never have another, no, but the frequency has been greatly reduced. Police chiefs, McChrystal (former General who led war in Afgan), and many other responsible gun owners note, assault weapons should be restricted to soldiers and police.
In Israel, military weapons are carried by active military personnel, active reserves, or security guards (who are licensed). Only 20% of citizens requesting a permit for a gun is granted one. This is in a country that is dealing with a very real daily threat of terrorism.
As even Scalia (conservative Supreme Court justice) in 2008 noted, 2nd amendment rights are not unlimited and laws can be passed that restrict access and still remain consistent with the 2nd amendment.
Rick
“The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental , nor do they result from from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink”
“How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.”
“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”
“In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four.”
Yes, Rick, I seriously DID ask that question. And I will continue to ask it.
If they are worth security, why are other people’s children NOT??
And FYI, the Fort Hood shooting occurred in a weapon free zone of the base. NOBODY in that building was armed. And hassan knew that very well.
No, armed guards at the gates can’t protect everyone. But why should the federal government say you can’t, when they do??
Sorry, Dogula, you frankly do not get it. The president has incredible security because of the very real daily threats against his life. Same goes for his kids. Our kids have almost zero threat. The probability that a given child in a middle-class to upper middle class neighborhood has for gun violence is near zero. Therefore, expending huge sums of money to place an armed guard at 125,000 plus schools in this country is simply makes no sense what so ever.
Schools with presidents kids have very real threats. My daughters private all-girl high school in downtown San Jose has extremely low threats and placing an armed guard there would be a waste of resources.
The federal gov does not prohibit a school from placing a security guard at a school. School boards and administrators make those decisions, and only in cases (inner city schools in poor neighborhoods for example; or schools with high profile students that are at real risk of kidnapping) where the risk are real should a board decide to spend precious education dollars on a security guard, which is no guarantee that violence will be intercepted.
Fort Hood is a great example. A building with no guns but lots of guns close buy. You obviously are not familiar with many school campus that can be quite large with numerous buildings and ball-fields (some high schools have 2000 to 3000 students). So unless we start building schools like forts, with multiple armed guards, it is an enormous waste of money.
For more effective to engage in better screening and ban certain weaponry and large capacity clips (which no private citizen has a need to own).
As my uncle once said who was an avid hunter, if he needed to wander the woods with more than a half dozen bullets he should give up hunting. Rick
“For more effective to engage in better screening and ban certain weaponry and large capacity clips (which no private citizen has a need to own).”
And who are YOU to determine what I need or may own?
You probably own stuff I wouldn’t think YOU need, either. But that’s not my call, is it?
The Constitution does not specify what kind of weapon I may have. On purpose.
But this argument has already been going on in another thread.
@Rick: Points well made in your posts. Thank you.
I think it is important to remember that the wording of the second amendment specifies “well regulated”; so the second amendment, as it is written, does not give license for any person to have any gun at any time. When our forefathers wrote the constitution they saw the logic and need for regulation, and this was at a time when the guns and gun supplies we have today could not have even been imagined (assault rifles, large capacity clips, etc). Why would anyone, other than perhaps law enforcement, need weapons that can kill many people (or, for you hunters out there, animals) at a time? I am not opposed to individuals having guns to protect their home and loved ones (with proper screening, training, and licensing requirements). But assault rifles? Large capacity clips? For personal protection? Really?????
Dogula:
As the conservative supreme court justice Scalia noted, the 2nd amendment is not limitless. The fed gov can pass laws to limit access to guns, to require more strenuous background checks (apparently some states have almost none) to keep felons from acquiring guns through legal stores or mentally unstable individuals and as Scalia pointed out these may well be considered constitutional. Theoretically it is quite simple, in practice it will take us coming together collectively to find some reasonable solutions. Other democratic societies have solved the problem and have low gun violence and I would like to believe we are equally creative and smart. Rick
@Janice: nor could the Forefathers have imagined the internet.
Does that mean that the 1st Amendment only applies to soap box oratory and Gutenberg printing press pamphlets?
Please.
Rick, where did you get that some states dont have background checks? Every dealer is required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and in order to sell guns must submit a background check to the FBI database.
It is up to the states to update the database. But that is rote. The problem is getting private health records recorded. Then there are conflicting federal statutes, privacy versus crazy people getting guns.
Janice, if the purpose of the regulation is to limit access then it is unnecessary to the managment of guns and a defacto prohibition. Same with abortion. That is why so many southern states run afowl of Rowe.
Look, I love my guns. I am an avid hunter and shooting is a lifestyle for me. I dont want felons or crazy people to have access to guns. My buddies and I are also willing to see the big magazines and such go away. It makes sense.
But, here is the problem. I know I am involved in an unpopular pastime. Hunting. And people want to limit my access to firearms because that also ends hunting. It has nothing to do with firearms safety. So I get my back up against the wall and a check gets mailed to the NRA.
When the conversation on the anti-side becomes reasonable, and only about safety, then there can be a conversation about this.
Dog, the first and second amendment are not analogous in this case. Freedom of speech is a concept, speech was very broadly defined as an idea and many tangible actions were associated with it, assemble, press, etc.
The second amendment talks about physical objects and possessing them.
To summarize, 1st amendment: concept, 2nd amendment: object. Analogies between the two are very difficult to establish.
I don’t support gun control at all, but I can’t stand behind some of the logic I hear despite my agreement in the big picture.
John I slightly misspoke, but only slightly.
See: The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, established by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, works if the individual states submit all of the data into the system. Otherwise, people considered too dangerous to own handguns can buy them with few problems.
In the aftermath of the April 16, 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech, the deadliest shooting spree in U.S. History, it was discovered that Cho Seung-Hui had been determined to be mentally ill and a danger to himself and others. In spite of that court ruling and an order to undergo a psychological evaluation, Cho was able to purchase the handguns he used to shoot 32 people and himself from a licensed gun dealer.
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is designed to stop someone like Cho from purchasing handguns. NICS interfaces with the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and the Interstate Identification Index (III) to determination a person’s eligibility to possess firearms or explosives in accordance with the federal law.
Also see:
What is a gun show?
Gun shows are temporary markets for guns and ammunition, usually held at meeting halls or fairgrounds. Unlike gun stores, both federally licensed dealers and unlicensed sellers can sell guns.
In 1998, over 4,400 gun shows were conducted around the country. 478 were held in Texas alone.1 The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) estimates on average 2,500 – 5,000 gun shows are held annually. In general, between 25% to 50% of sellers are not licensed dealers.2 The access to anonymous sales and the availability of large numbers of secondhand guns makes gun shows attractive to criminals and other prohibited purchasers. A federal study found that 10% of guns used in crime by juveniles were sold either at a gun show or a flea market, and in 1999, gun shows were associated with approximately 26,000 firearms used in crime.3, 4
BUSHMASTER_FOR_SALE_AT_GUN_SHOWWhat is the difference between a licensed dealer and an unlicensed seller?
Federal Firearm Licensees (FFL’s) are individuals “engaged in the business” of selling guns and are required to register with and be licensed by the US government. They are also required to conduct instant criminal background checks on all gun buyers -and are prohibited from selling guns to convicted felons, domestic abusers, and juveniles.
Unlicensed sellers are people who may sell a small or large amount of guns but do not (or are not supposed to) earn their livelihood from firearm sales. These sellers do not have to conduct criminal background checks on gun sales. Unlicensed sellers may sell guns at gun shows, out of their homes, or even over the Internet.
What is the “gun show loophole”?
The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires anyone engaged in the business of selling guns to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and keep a record of their sales. However, this law does not cover all gun sellers. If a supplier is selling from his or her private collection and the principal objective is not to make a profit, the seller is not “engaged in the business” and is not required to have a license. Because they are unlicensed, these sellers are not required to keep records of sales and are not required to perform background checks on potential buyers, even those prohibited from purchasing guns by the Gun Control Act. The gun show loophole refers to the fact that prohibited purchasers can avoid required background checks by seeking out these unlicensed sellers at gun shows.
Rick
John:
Reasonable restrictions to some guns make sense and you seem to support that. While the more extreme elements may want to ban all guns, they are a minority and I do not know any politician that is arguing for that type of solution. As my uncle (who was much like you – an avid hunter and skeet shooter), use to say, he believed in gun rights, but only he should be able to own guns. He had a gun safe and kept all of his weapons dutifully locked up when not in use.
Own a gun for hunting, target shooting, are part of your work (law enforcement) and I am good with that. It is when gun manufactures market weapons and large capacity clips that folks like General McChrystal so apply noted should only be carried by a soldier or law enforcement, I draw the line.
We also need to do a much better job of denying gun ownership to individuals that are mentally unstable – I will openly admit I not sure how that is best accomplished, but I am convinced those most familiar with these issues can come up with a better system to filter out folks who should never have access to guns. Rick
Columbine had armed personel so did the military base that got shot up last year. NRA needs to do better or shut up and prevent looking even more dumb and ignorant.
Simple solution: New gun law, you are responsible for your gun. If your gun is used in a murder you stand trial for murder. Lock your guns up.
Assault weapons are crutches for weak men, low self esteem, low intelligence, small penis.
DJ, I was agreeing with you till your last sentence.
And I STILL do not think that legislators’ children are more valuable than ours.
But here. Read this about another reason NOT to criminalize the posession of semiautomatic weapons.
My friend Syd was deployed to LA during the riots of ’92 and he speaks of the difference between the neighborhoods of armed property owners compared to unarmed. It was stunning.
http://townhall.com/columnists/katiepavlich/2013/01/10/the-need-for-semiautomatic-assault-weapons-n1485999/page/full/
The school where the president’s daughters go to school does not have armed guards. They are, though, protected by Secret Service. Check out this story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/01/18/no-sidwell-friends-school-has-no-armed-guards/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost
Kathryn Reed, LTN publisher