South Dakota Signs 'Gun In Every Classroom' Bill

Tyler Durden's picture

South Dakota is the first state, since the Newtown tragedy, to enact a law allowing teachers to carry guns in school. As Fox News reports, Governor Dennis Daugaard signed the bill that allows school districts to arm teachers and other personnel. Unsurprisingly, the measure prompted intense debate as many feared it "could make schools more dangerous, lead to accidental shootings," and potentially put guns into untrained hands, as well as previously dismissed by Education Secretary Arne Duncan as "a marketing opportunity" for the industry to sell more guns. South Dakota, apparently, doesn't stand alone on this issue (Utah has allowed teachers to wear concealed weapons for 12 years) but as Washington pushes forward on its gun control legislation, other states including Georgia, New Hampshire, and Kansas are working on similar measures. Rep. Scott Craig - the bill's main sponsor - has received support from rural districts who do not have the funds for full-time law enforcement. While the Great Depression promised a 'chicken in every pot', our current repression appears to be heading towards a 'gun in every classroom'.

 

Interesting discussion of - Who are the 'Gun Guys'?

 

Via Fox News,

South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard on Friday signed a bill allowing teachers to carry guns in school, making his state the first to enact such a law since the Newtown shooting tragedy.

 

The bill was pushed by gun-rights supporters who say arming teachers could help prevent tragedies ...

 

...

 

But the measure prompted intense debate in the capital, as several representatives of school boards, school administrators and teachers opposed the bill during committee testimony last month. They said the measure could make schools more dangerous, lead to accidental shootings and put guns in the hands of people who are not adequately trained to shoot in emergency situations.

 

...

 

In South Dakota, main bill sponsor Rep. Scott Craig, R-Rapid City, said earlier this week that he has received messages from a growing number of school board members and administrators who back it. Craig said rural districts do not have the money to hire full-time law officers, so they are interested in arming teachers or volunteers.

 

South Dakota doesn't stand alone on this issue. For a dozen years, Utah has allowed teachers and others with concealed carry licenses to wear a gun in a public school.

 

...

 

The measure does not force a district to arm its teachers and would not force teachers to carry a gun.

 

On Monday, the South Dakota House voted 40-19 to accept the Senate version of the bill, which added a requirement that a school district must decide in a public meeting whether to arm teachers and others. Another Senate amendment allowed school district residents to push a school board's decision to a public vote.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
RacerX's picture

Interesting how this author views guns as essentially "a right the government allows us"--ie: a "privelege". Completely misunderstands the founding principals of this country, with respect to the "right to keep, and bear, arms".

".. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

But that really cuts to the heart of the issue--whether ownership is a "right" or a "privelege".

akak's picture

It is only autocrats, of every stripe, who like to divert thoughts and conversation to the concept of "privleges" (granted by them, of course) rather than fundamental rights.

Manthong's picture

If the natural right to carry a firearm had not been so egregiously infringed upon over the last 80 years (go back to NFA), NONE of this crap would be an issue because the crazies and criminals would have been stopped in their tracks and would be copy cats would not want to be similarly stifled in their acting out or crime.

Harlequin001's picture

'But that really cuts to the heart of the issue--whether ownership is a "right" or a "privelege".'

Oh that's easy, its a priviledge for those that can demonstrate the responsibility to own one safely.

It's a bit like not being allowed to 'own' nuclear weapons or dirty bombs.

Society has rules so it can function, not every nut job should have a right to own one.

Overfed's picture

WTF kind of drugs are you on? A firearm, even a belt-fed machinegun, hell, even a BOFORS is a far cry from a nuke. Only an idiot would make that comparison.

Harlequin001's picture

Oh I get it, so you don't think you should have to demonstrate some semblence of responsibility before you are allowed to hold bofors and belt fed machine guns or any other kind of weapon in society then? How about hand grenades then, for the somewhat less steady of hand amongst us?

There's certainly one idiotic statement here, and it isn't mine.

AldousHuxley's picture

so punks can now shoot teachers with their own guns....

 

farmers don't need education.

 

communist russians sent college professors to farms to work.

 

 

dark pools of soros's picture

Was that after they starved the Kulaks to death?

redpill's picture

It does make schools more dangerous........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....for cowardly psychopaths trying to go on a shooting spree.

Supernova Born's picture

How will the media fully cover the dead psycho's manifesto when there is a pesky "hero teacher" competing for airtime?

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Indeed.  Crickets is probably all we will hear.  Poor CNN, it will burn them up to have to cover the "hero teacher".

As a bonus, that might relieve us of the pesky Piers Morgan...

:)

Harlequin001's picture

The chances of my being shot in my school were zero because guns were banned. Period.

The answer is not to arm teachers but to enforce a ban on guns in school.

Overfed's picture

That's comedy gold there!

Harlequin001's picture

You don't seem to have anything of any worth to say...

If you think the answer to kids taking guns to school is to arm teachers then you really are a first class fucking tool...

I don't know about owning guns but people like you shouldn't even be allowed the fucking vote.

Dradzk's picture

Again the question is, do criminals follow gun laws?  No they don't.  Before we go further, are guns in of themselves bad?  Obviously not.  Consider the following; is sex bad because people get raped?  Or because there are child molesters?  Unless your desire is for the extinction of the human race your answer has to be ‘no’.  Certain people take something that is good and use it in a way to harm others.  In order to stop sexual assaults, how about we make a law saying you must get a permit to have sex?  And you can only have it in certain areas.  And ban different people groups from it.  That would take care of all our problems wouldn't it!  Please.  Same principle applies to guns.  The logic should be easy to follow.

northerngirl's picture

I remember not all that long ago, (1970's), when students, (Guys), would bring their shot guns to school so they could go hunting after school.  The guns where in the students lockers or in the Principals office, and nobody had a problem with that.  They did not turn their weapons on fellow students or teachers.

TBT or not TBT's picture

A state bill is required in order to override the stupid federal gun free ( nut case free fire) school zone laws. Not that long ago schools had shooting as a sport and teenagers had their guns, THEIR guns, in their cars/trucks in the parking lot.

spinone's picture

My grandfather brought his shotgun to school, kept it in his locker, and shot a pheasant for dinner on the way home most every fall evening.

Harlequin001's picture

Yeah, but were they his pheasants?

apoorboy's picture

my grandfather went to school sometiems...milked cows, worked in the tobacco, tomato and hay fields, killed chickens and could not read or write for shit. Oh year too poor to afford a gun for school.  Get over it...our grandparents did a lot of shit kids can't do now.

 

AnAnonymous's picture

An 'american' government does not grant the famous 'american' unalienable human rights, but We The People decide whether you are a human being or not.

Not a human being? Not eligible for the 'american' human rights. Simple as that.

akak's picture

A Communist chinese citizenism government does not grant the famous 'american' unalienable human rights to anyone --- least of all its own subjects.  But We The Chinese Communist Ruling Elite decide whether you are a human being or not, or maybe just a 'foreign devil' ripe for invasion, annexation and blobbing-up, like the Tibetans.

Not a human being? Just a 'foreign devil'?  Not eligible for even the lowliest of what passes for chinese human rights. Simple as that.

AnAnonymous's picture

Again the tibetans...

With all the countries 'americans' have invaded.

Actually, at this date, very likely, being a country that has not been invaded by 'americans' makes you belong to a select few.

akak's picture

Hey, if the running-dog imperialist shoe fits .....

But as in all other subjects, ananonymystical inability to self-indict always comes to the fore.

Chineses are resource blobbing-up today beyond all American ability, but you refuse to acknowledge it.  For you, it is only 'Americans' who are to blame for all the ills of the world.  That not only makes you a bigot, it proves that you are retarded.  Too much cadmium and lead in your baby formula?  In toxic, massively polluted China, quite possible.

Teamtc321's picture

Spot on akak. When IEA changes their model on how to keep track on China oil imports, they will shoot to the top quickly. Alot of supply to China is still not tracked properly.

 

China to Become the World’s Largest Oil Importer

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/China-Set-to-Become-the-Worlds-Larg...

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Can Chinese citizenism "citizens" have guns blobbing-up?  Or would that be Party members and the PLA only?

Q.E.D.  Ciao!

***

A corollary: A "citizen" can blob-shit on corner in China without risk of buckshot in butt.  "Freedomism!"

worbsid's picture

How much bigger is the United States after all this invading?

Lordflin's picture

Well AnAnonymous.... given all of the flags down seems that you have been voted out...

Rusty Diggins's picture

Chinese citizenism grants the Chinese citezen-ism-ism the absolute right to one bullet.

 

and a bill to the widow of 0.67 Yuan.... If she did not also have her "right" exercised.

prodigious_idea's picture

Do you think the mentally ill, who are highly correlated to these types of attacks, are deterred by the fact that we are armed when they arrive?

imbrbing's picture

I guess we will find out. Question for you. Do you think the outcome will be different if the metally ill show up to an armed resistance?

disabledvet's picture

i think a better question would be if "teachers aren't qualified to own a handgun who is?" besides the President has been running away from this thing since Day One. http://gothamist.com/2012/12/19/vp_biden_will_lead_white_houses_gun.php
this whole thing REEKS of politics..."enter South Dakota." not the way i would have handled the so called "issue" but hey..."they're the political experts" not me. i've been told "i'm the exact opposite of that" anyways so who cares, right?

Supernova Born's picture

Yes, cowardly man-children who choose to attack first graders and other students will be deterred, and if not deterred, shot.

disabledvet's picture

i fail to see the difference between these attacks and the attacks on 9/11 actually. the only discernible difference...and this would have to proven in court of course...is that the 9/11 attacks were a "surprise" ala "lying in wait." i find it difficult not to stress enough how important it is for ALL the authorities investigate these matters to make sure it fits the "lone gunman theory." i'm no expert here either (thank God) but i challenge anyone to determine what the Governor of South Dakota is doing is not his duty "in the absence of all available evidence" actually. And would this not include every other Governor in the Union save for Utah's as well?

prodigious_idea's picture

You've missed the point regarding mental illness.  Mental illness can always be relied upon to ignore logic and consequence.  But to answer your question, of course the outcome could be different.  Fewer deaths, but at the end of the day we still have mental illness.  The national discussion about guns always fails to separate weapons from mental illness.  Instead, the legislators go for the low hanging fruit by trying to take/restrict guns because they know they can't legislate mental health and trying to otherwise solve the mental illness problem is far too complex.

hoos bin pharteen's picture

Mental illness as defined by whom? Seems to be some correlation between liberalism and mass murder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeTCkoXslsE

ImReady's picture

Possibly not, but hopefully they will be taken out (at least in SD and Utah)  before they can kill dozens of innocent people. 

fonestar's picture

Let's call a spade a spade; the alleged Newton CT massacre

 

When you resort to using your enemies language, logic, inflections and mannerisms the battle becomes a rout.

Room 101's picture

It doesn't much matter if they do, the issue is whether those who are would-be victims are allowed to have the tools necessary to defend themselves. 

Pairadimes's picture

Your comment makes the strongest case for South Dakota's actions. The question becomes, should the shooter be immediately met with armed resistance, or should that occur nine minutes later (national average) when the police arrive?

quid pro quo's picture

In the case of Newtown, unlikely.  Better question to be asking is why didn't a seemingly responsible adult keep her weapons SECURED from her mentally ill son? 

nmewn's picture

A better question would be, what kind of psychiatric drugs did some quack prescribe for him that allowed him to shoot his own mother in the face while she slept?

Then ask the same question of those two little retards at Columbine...then ask again...well, you begin to put two & two together.

FeralSerf's picture

So far I've seen no credible evidence he killed her, just a bunch of MSM and sheepherder bullshit.

I have seen some evidence that strongly suggests he didn't kill her though.

nmewn's picture

Some "credible evidence" or just hearsay?

Please don't tell me its just the jooos again or some murderous half baked plot hatched by the always "honorable progressives" among us to ban some other part or our liberty & freedom ;-)

Bingfa's picture

That's just it....You never really know.

Fact or fiction? The line is very blurred....

Mr. Magniloquent's picture

Allegedly, the Sandy Hook shooter killed himself the moment police arrived. In other words, the moment he was confronted by someone else with a gun. The police didn't even have to do their job. Regardless, a bullet answering a murderer is better served by a private citizen in the first 30 seconds of shooting than 15 minutes and 9 corpses later by the police.

spinone's picture

There's a big difference between having a gun and using it effectively in close quarters, especially in a school.  For example, how will they tell the difference between the shooter and a substitute teacher with a gun?

post turtle saver's picture

by the time those dumbasses show up a few armed teachers will have a ventilated corpse hanging from a lamp post...

"when seconds count, the police are minutes away..."

spinone's picture

Let me make it clear I am FOR this law, but the teachers need to train.

The gun is the tool, the man is the weapon.

nmewn's picture

+1

If I understand this law correctly, they're not FORCING any teacher to carry, they're just saying, if you already have a concealed carry (you've obviously trained) and you're comfortable with bringing it, you can bring it to your place of work...which in this case is a school.

Not much different than running into him/her at the local diner.