A modest proposal

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

A Modest Proposal
Earlier this week, there was a law suit filed and then withdrawn over the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre.

I read this article, in the Examiner, that predicts future law suits.

I read MN state Rep. Tony Cornish's piece in the STrib advocating for a hearing to put armed guards in schools and applauding armed teachers too. Cornish submitted the MN shoot first law, that appears to have actually been drafted by NRA board member and Minnesota law professor Joe Olsen. It is a recipe for liability litigation disaster and a dangerous situation setting up significant potential risk.

I was appalled that he claims there are already armed teachers in schools - there should not be. They can legally do so under this statute:

MN statute 609.66, subdivision 1d, section 8. "This subdivision does not apply to (8) possession of dangerous weapons, BB guns, or replica firearms with written permission of the principal or other person having general control and supervision of the school or the director of a child care center; "

A suggestion that I think makes sense in the larger context of Newtown, CT, and the lawsuits that are already being filed or are anticipated against that school district:

Amended that statute, that section, to state that all such permission:

1. MUST be in writing, with copies kept on file by the person giving permission, (protection for both school admin and teacher) AND

2. that such permission must be covered by the school's liability insurance, AND

3. that the insurer must be notified that such person has been given that permission in writing, AND

4. that the person given the permission must show a current concealed carry permit.

I really don't see a lot of schools willing to pop for the additional cost of paying for armed guards or paying for the liability insurance that should go hand in hand with the risks that are posed by armed teachers. But if we have made it legal, let's make it financially responsible too.

Meanwhile, in Arizona, gun nut right wing crazy Sheriff Joe Arpaio is organizing armed citizens with firearms to surround and patrol their schools. There are few if any requirements to carry a gun in Arizona, nor does Arizona cooperate with the submission of prohibited people's names to the NICS data base -- which means that the FFL checks before someone buys a gun from a licensed dealer are checking a largely empty data base, not that there are few prohibited people buying guns in Arizona. Arizona is also one of the border states where straw purchasers frequently make large purchases of assault style weapons, and then turn them over to drug cartels and narco-terrorists while the authorities blow it off as legal citizen purchases. Are THESE the people you want to trust with guns around ANYONE, much less a school?
[link:http://onesearch4-2.newsvine.com/_news/2012/12/29/16225670-sheriff-joe-arpaio-sends-armed-volunteers-to-schools-with-no-mental-health-checks|
As Newsvine noted about these volunteers]:

It should be noted, of course, that while some sort of background check is being done on these volunteers, no mental health tests are being done and, therefore, we won’t know if we may be sending a crazy person with a gun to a school full of trusting kids. And even though a background check may show some discrepancy, it is not known what level of acceptance the Sheriff is allowing for those with misdemeanors, those who are wife beaters, those with anger management issues; those who have problems with alcohol and substance abuse or even some alleged but unproven pedophilia issues. These are not the people to be sending into schools with guns.

Why does this matter?
Anyone here remember T.J. Ready?

If we are arming people in direct response to a threat, real or perceived or imaginary, then it makes sense to have everyone's ducks in a row, to do so in a financially responsible manner, and in the safest possible way. We should not be taking less care with who we arm than we do with who we allow to drive our school buses.

[gejohnston]

1. reply

[div class="excerpt"]nor does Arizona cooperate with the submission of prohibited people's names to the NICS data base -- which means that the FFL checks before someone buys a gun from a licensed dealer are checking a largely empty data base, not that there are few prohibited people buying guns in Arizona. Arizona is also one of the border states where straw purchasers frequently make large purchases of assault style weapons, and then turn them over to drug cartels and narco-terrorists while the authorities blow it off as legal citizen purchases. Are THESE the people you want to trust with guns around ANYONE, much less a school? Do you have any evidence of this? I have seen the claim but no evidence from ATF or FBI provided.

Or evidence of that either? That was a failure of ATF and the US attorney after the FFLs reported the suspected straw sales. Of course it didn't help that the ATF targets were FBI informants.
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2012/04/clues-put-fbi-informant-apex-fast-and-furious-scandal

If we are arming people in direct response to a threat, real or perceived or imaginary, then it makes sense to have everyone's ducks in a row, to do so in a financially responsible manner, and in the safest possible way. We should not be taking less care with who we arm than we do with who we allow to drive our school buses.

If you are going to make an argument against it, they should be experts in security and firearms training making informed and cogent arguments. So far all I have seen have been pundits, who have no knowledge in much of anything let alone those fields, screaming "you are a stupid man" while sending their kids to private schools with armed guards.

It should be noted, of course, that while some sort of background check is being done on these volunteers, no mental health tests are being done and, therefore, we won’t know if we may be sending a crazy person with a gun to a school full of trusting kids. And even though a background check may show some discrepancy, it is not known what level of acceptance the Sheriff is allowing for those with misdemeanors, those who are wife beaters, those with anger management issues; those who have problems with alcohol and substance abuse or even some alleged but unproven pedophilia issues. These are not the people to be sending into schools with guns.

Florida only requires a GED to be a substitute teacher.

Quick lesson in current federal gun laws, it is a felony for convicted wife beaters to possess a gun.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

2. In the case of Arizona / NICS data base

At the time Jared Loughner shot Gabby Giffords, the number of names supplied to the NICS data base was in the 400s for people who were adjudicated dangerously mentally ill, and not much better for the other categories.

Since then, there have been repeated attempts to get the data base up to speed, and it had improved slightly from what I read about the data base at the time Loughner was sentenced - but not by much. I have kept an eye on the AZ legislature, and they have shot down every attempt to increase the name submission, including but not limited to funding. That appears to be what the pundits are tracking as well.

I have tried tracking the submission of names as well for my own state, which had as of 2010 submitted zero names under the category of dangerously mentally ill, which was on a par with the states surrounding MN. I believe WI at that point had submitted the most, with roughly 300.

Our bureau of criminal apprehension has claimed they have improved this post 2009 when the VA tech shooting took place, and there was legislation passed to fund it..........but it appeared to have then been defunded again. I have spent hours trying to track our number of names, being transferred from pillar to post, without success - and without anyone returning a phone call who has promised to do so. This doesn't fill me with an abundance of confidence that we have done better, given that the most I have gotten for an answer was 'we've given the FBI more names, but no, not all the names we are supposed to give them.

Possibly it is a current federal prohibition - but if AZ doesn't report it, it doesn't turn up on an AZ check, does it, unless they go looking for it --- and Arpaio has made it clear he's not looking.

We have a lot of problems, and we need to standardize who can do what, and how they are checked, and one of the means to have ducks in a row -- and to separate the bad eggs from the good gun owners -- is liability insurance, and mandatory GOOD background checks. I would argue further that we should erring on the side of caution, not leniency.

Just think for a moment how many incidents you can think of where teachers were behaving as pedophiles, for example? We just had three teachers turn out to be predatory pedophiles at a very prestigious prep school/boarding school here in MN, Shattuck. It was like our own mini-Penn state scandal. Then look at the boy scouts with their failed files.

We need better standards, and some ways to have checks and balances on people with guns in schools.

As to the straw purchases - there are videos of them, in the southwestern border states. That seems pretty good prima facie evidence to me.

[gejohnston]

3. yes there is a federal prohibtion

Possibly it is a current federal prohibition - but if AZ doesn't report it, it doesn't turn up on an AZ check, does it, unless they go looking for it --- and Arpaio has made it clear he's not looking.

It is current federal law, and has been for almost 20 years. That includes military and cops. It isn't Arpaio's job to enforce federal law. The courts report it to the FBI. The problems are partly state medical privacy laws and laziness at the courthouse. If it is their state privacy laws, then that is something that has to be fixed at the state level. Not defending a carpet bagging POS from New Jersey who gives westerners a bad name, our system leave federal law to the feds. That includes immigration and guns. Why people there keep electing this asshole escapes me.

As to the straw purchases - there are videos of them, in the southwestern border states. That seems pretty good prima facie evidence to me.

That was one of the complaints that the FF whistleblower, the one that Fortune smeared, made to Grassley and Cummings. The ATF had the evidence, but the FBI and DEA nixed them because the traffickers worked for their informants. To make matters worse, the US Attorney was a Bush appointee that was more interested in finding "voter fraud" and unicorns than dealing with real crimes. IMHO,
sentencing guidelines for straw purchasers should be increased, if one of their customers commit a crime with one of those guns the locals should charge the purchaser as a co conspirator or accomplice.
I also think that ATF agents in charge that let the guns go across the border, like Special Agent Voth, should be extradited to Mexico.