Today is National Walkout Day, when students across the country are leaving class to remember the loss of 17 students atย Marjory Stoneman Douglas High. It’s a good time to note that Diane Douglas, ourย Superintendent of Public Instruction, is fine with the idea of teachers carrying guns in schools. More than fine, actually.ย Sheย thinks teachers packing heat is just like having armed guards protecting banks. “Banks have security to keep our money safe,” she said. “I think we should keep our children equally safe.”
Douglas is standing ankle deep in the NRA Tar Pit. It might not be the best place for an educator facing an election to be stuck right now. Theย #NeverAgain andย #VoteThemOut movements could help rid us of education’s gun-crazy dinosaurs come November.
Douglas promoted arming teachers onย the Bill Buckmaster show two weeks ago, but no one picked up on it, myself included, until Monday when the AZ Republic ran a story. After reading the article, I went back to the February 28 Buckmaster Show and listened myself.
Douglas used the bank-school comparison twice; she clearly came to the show prepared with the analogy and liked the way it sounded. And she went further, stating that Arizona law already allows teachers to be armed, citing Arizona Revised Statute 15-341 A23. She really loves ARS 15-341. She made sure to repeatย the statute number three times so no one would miss her point.
The problem is, Douglas’ interpretation of the statute is questionable.
ARSย 15-341ย states governing boards may
“prescribe and enforce policies and procedures that prohibit a person from carrying or possessing a weapon on school grounds unless the person is a peace officer or has obtained specific authorization from the school administrator.”
According to the Republic article,ย Heidi Vega, spokeswoman for the Arizona School Boards Association, believes the language refers to someone like a police officer giving a talk in a classroom.ย I think the ASBA interpretation is correct, based on a close reading of the passage.
The language allows school administrators to grant “specific authorization” even if the governing board expressly prohibits weapons in school.ย That only makes sense if the permission is for an occasional, specific circumstance, like an officer talking to a class, or maybe a guest speaker talking about hunter safety who uses a rifle for the demonstration. If it is interpreted to refer to teachers or other employees having weapons, that would mean a principal could allow teacher carry even if the board has voted against it.
My reading revolves around the word “unless” which divides the passage into two parts. The first part states a governing board can “prescribe and enforce policies and procedures that prohibit a person from carrying or possessing a weapon on school grounds.” That sounds like the board has the overriding authority on district gun policy. Then come the word “unless,” which means what follows is an exception to the district policy. The exception is if “the person is a peace officer or has obtained specific authorization from the school administrator.” (The use of the phrase “the school administrator” rather than “a school administrator,” means it most likely refers just to the principal.)
If the exception refers to an occasional school visitor, that sounds reasonable. But if it means a principal can allow teachers to carry weapons on a regular basis regardless of district policy, that would render the board’s decision little more than a strong recommendation. Even the superintendent wouldn’t have a say in the matter. On a school by school basis, each principal would have the final decision on arming school employees. It’s hard to believe that was the intention of the people crafting the passage.
I expect to hear legislators use Douglas’ loose reading of ARS 15-341 to justify allowing teachers and other school employees carrying weapons. It would save them from putting a bill up for a vote, which could be politically risky, even in Arizona. No one can say for sure where the gun issue will be in November. Besides, a bill could fail, as it did when one was proposed in 2013. Which leads me to wonder, if Arizona law already allows teachers to carry weapons in school, why did they bother trying to pass a law in 2013?
This article appears in Mar 8-14, 2018.
In 2015, 772 drug overdose deaths were reported for the 15- to 19-year-old age group, yet these students have said nothing. After watching them stand around capitol Hill this morning chanting “hands up don’t shoot” I realized they are nothing more than poorly educated pawns of the #BLM movement.
David, If we follow your logic Police should be disarmed and society would be safe. Deep inside you know that can not be true, even though you may not admit it.
It’s just that short of blaming (and holding the shooter accountable) the real perpetrator, they have declared open season on the NRA.
And they continue to look for a way to nullify the USC.
So now instead of the three “Rs” — Reading, (W)riting and (A)rithmetic, we add a fourth “R” — Reloading?
The reasons why these mass shootings continue to happen are as varied as the identified subjects and the victims, but the preferred method — firearms — is simple, whether we like it or not, firearms are relatively easy to obtain, both legally and illegally.
In addition, the perpetrators select locations and circumstances where the likelihood of anyone fighting back is very, very low, which only illustrates that they may be crazy, but they are not stupid.
The powers-to-be are now talking about putting all options on the table, including arming teachers and other school personnel. I submit that for every weapon they put into a school they also assign a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a sociologist and a guidance counselor and see who or what makes the most difference.
They say “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. Well, if that is true then guns don’t help people, people help people.
Good point Pall
Why not post “gun free zone” signs by the schools? It eliminated drug use when they posted drug free zone signs.
Kinda like blaming the car when there is a wreck. It’s about the driver. For guns it is pretty simple …mentally disturbed people and criminals shouldn’t have guns. Period. Virtually all the mass shootings in the US are done by people from those 2 groups. We spend a lot of money on the criminal element ( including illegals). We need to get more serious about the crazies. The psychotropic drugs don’t seem to be working. Institutionalize them. Maybe a start would be require a complete medical record before you can buy a gun. Balance 2nd amendment rights with basic societal rights to not be murdered. There are 300 million guns in this country. Its too late to think regulating them will stop the mentally disturbed or criminals.
what insight she doesn’t have!!! comparing schools to banks. Banks have security guards – whose sole purpose is to protect the money. Schools do not. So she wants to make teachers serve that purpose in schools – which is like eliminating the security guards and arming the low wage bank clerks. in banks BARF.
If the teachers in Arizona have to carry guns in their classrooms will they get extra pay for being security guards as well as teachers putting them on par or higher pay than the rest of the nation. If you present the argument in these terms the Republican conservative NRA advocates will reconsider their stance because Republicans in general are too damn cheap to pay workers for their actual contributions regardless of how valuable they are. And you can quote me on that!
The Dallas mass shooting of police officers was not committed in a gun free zone. The shooter specifically targeted victims who were guaranteed to be armed and yet they were unable to defend themselves with their guns.