Professional Educators of Tennessee, our association is concerned about SB 1325/HB 1202. The legislation allows teachers in public schools to carry firearms under certain conditions. When we consider arming teachers to protect students from school shootings, we are essentially admitting that these incidents are inevitable and will continue to happen.
Rather than finding ways to prevent them, we burden educators to serve as the first line of defense. It's disheartening that we have come to a point where the only solution for school safety is to arm our teachers. The legislative objective should be to provide for the presence of School Resource Officers as they are necessary for the safety and security of schools.
The legislative sponsors have included several notable features to make the accessibility for teachers of staff difficult, if not impossible, to implement in schools. Those in favor acknowledge the limits. Most importantly, it will not actually make a school safer. These conditions include obtaining an enhanced handgun carry permit and completing annual training, including a psychological profile.
Concealed handguns on school premises pose a heightened liability risk. Because of this increased risk, many insurance companies will not protect schools that allow employees to carry concealed firearms. Under this legislation, the teacher bears the entire responsibility and risk.
The state is willing to provide immunity to a local education agency from claims for monetary damages that arise solely from or are related to a faculty or staff member's use of a handgun or failure to use a handgun, provided that the faculty or staff member is authorized to carry the firearm under this legislation. However, this immunity does not extend to the educators responsible for protecting the students and has been approved by them to carry a gun. It is recommended that further discussion and study occur before this legislation is introduced or passed due to its existing limitations.
Here are a few additional concerns we need to consider:
Accidental Injuries: There is a potential danger of teachers accidentally misusing firearms, which could lead to harm to students, fellow staff members, or even the teachers themselves. This could result in legal action against the individual teacher for negligence.
Lack of Proficiency: Most educators are trained to educate students, not to handle firearms in high-stress situations. Public trust is essential for military and law enforcement's responsible use of force for public safety; now, we are considering adding educators to the mix. Approximately 11 percent of deaths caused by lethal force involve unarmed individuals shot by law enforcement. Such errors impact both the victim and the community. Use-of-force issues are complex and multi-faceted, touching on human behavior, psychology, sociology, and law. Even with proper handgun training and experience in the use of firearms, there is a risk of errors or poor judgments, which may cause unintended harm and lead to legal consequences.
Psychological Impact: If educators are responsible for using their discretion and judgment in making split-second decisions to use deadly force in the line of duty, there will be a psychological impact. This legislation should outline this process. What happens after an educator has to decide to fire a weapon? What is the process, protocol, and support outlined in the legislation? It would be crucial to offer flexible access to mental health professionals, respect those involved, and obtain unwavering support from top state and local officials.
Increased Potential for Lawsuits: Arming teachers may result in accidental shootings, improper use of force, violations of due process, and inadequate security measures, leading to legal action against educators. Liability issues can vary, so assessing risks and legal implications is crucial before implementing such a policy in schools.
As a Marine Corps veteran and Second Amendment advocate with a handgun permit, it is not reasonable to expect teachers with minimal training to make life-or-death decisions in a classroom full of children under attack. However, this idea does not originate within most classrooms that prefer a School Resource Officer. Educators and most parents understand before engaging an armed assailant, intense and immersive training is required. This skill is possessed by law enforcement, not educators who spend limited time at a firing range.
We have discussed liability concerns with many lawmakers at the Tennessee General Assembly and the lack of protocols. The Tennessee General Assembly is rushed to complete its work and may have lost sight of the argument during the session. It's crucial to prioritize school safety legislation to protect all students and educators. Debating the issue fully is worth the time.
JC Bowman
Executive Director of Professional Educators of Tennessee
* * *
Mr. Bowman, let me ask you if one student's life is saved by a teacher with a firearm, are all the negatives for teachers to be armed you mentioned irrelevant?
Sure, trained resource officers should be in all schools armed and ready to protect our kids.
However, any teacher who is firearm proficient passes a background check, meets the requirements, and wants to carry a concealed weapon should be able to do so. I'm not saying all teachers need to carry a firearm, and many shouldn't for valid various reasons.
As you and I know, we live in a different world today, we must take the blinders off and see the real world for what it is, we owe it to the kids.
Jim Rosenbloom, NRA Firearms safety instructor
* * *
Regarding Mr. J.C. Bowman's excellent and well-thought piece recommending that school resources officers are the better response to school shootings than armed teachers...Mr. Bowman is quite right. His discussion of the potential dangers and damages that could be caused by arming teachers makes excellent points.
Mr. Rosenbloom in his response, apparently assumes that shootings are inevitable, that there is no reason to prevent unstable people and convicted felons from having weapons, and that the burden for protecting children should be added to the already overburdened teachers. The state legislature apparently refuses to think through the problem, too.
No overworked, underpaid teacher who is already serving as teacher as well as surrogate parent to children whose parents refuse to take responsibility for their own children should be burdened further. I have family members who have served many years in the classroom and I have served as a volunteer in the classroom and observed first-hand the reality of overworked teachers. Besides, a school shooter is typically armed with a rifle that can engage targets at a distance; the teacher would be armed with a pistol which requires shorter range to a target, meaning that he or she would have to be closer to the shooter and thus become an easier target.
As an Army veteran who has fired plenty of weapons, I know that a teacher should not be expected to serve as a security force.
Contrary to NRA-controlled state legislatures and US Congress, more weapons are not the solution. Preventive measures - secure school buildings, trained, credentialed and visible resource officers, and faculty and staff trained in procedures to limit exposure to shooters - are better than reactive ones.
Tim McDonald
* * *
Is it worth arming teachers in school to save one life at the expense of jeopardizing the lives of other children, fellow teachers, staff and volunteers?
Teachers come from that same general population as everyone else. Some come with issues. Serious issues. There's just no amount of passing a psych test, training that will remedy the fact.
I once worked in the system. Anyone who's ever witnessed two teachers getting into a physical cat-fight over both dating the same person, you'll know the dangers and only increase the chances of one pulling out a gun on the other by throwing guns into the mix. The chance for bullets missing its target, going astray and hitting others.
If you ever witnessed a grade schooler being grabbed by his collar, raised by the neck, slammed against a set of lockers, then dragged upwards against those lockers. Why increase the chance for a child having a gun drawn on him/her instead for not turning their homework in on time? Not correctly answering a question? Or, just because?
Allowing teachers to pack the heat in schools aren't going to make students, teachers, volunteers and faculty safer. However, it will increase the chance that one will whip out that gun on some child, a fellow teacher, faculty member whether that gun-totin' teacher becomes unhinged or not. That's human nature. No matter the amount of training or how many psych tests they're able to pass.
Brenda Washington
* * *
Well, once again, the NRA's response to school safety is “…the best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” We saw how well that worked at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and at Robb Elementary. The “Good Guys” with the guns were abject failures.
A recent article in The Atlantic (Jan. 29) outlined just how inadequately trained the SRO was at Stoneman Douglas High School. The people of Uvalde are still dealing with the tragic consequences of the indecisiveness and lack of leadership by law enforcement.
I spent 23 years as an infantry soldier in the U.S. Army and have a very solid understanding of how to train individuals and teams and squads in the use of firearms. I also had the opportunity to serve for 24 years as a high school teacher in the Hamilton County system. With all due consideration, respect and high regard for my colleagues in public education, I never met one – other than my fellow JROTC instructors - who I would trust in a high stress, fluid and chaotic situation involving live ammunition and innocent bystanders.
Teachers are trained to teach. Society and the legislature and the school boards have tasked teachers with duties far beyond their training and now they are asked to undertake the task of going armed. The reality is the legislature and the school boards are too cowardly to admit that denying an armed intruder access to a school building, under current conditions, is impossible. The only way to prevent an armed intruder from coming on school grounds is to harden the perimeter. Oh, but the parents and the community complain that they don’t want their schools to “look like prison.”
Today’s parents and the community don’t want to be inconvenienced by the measures necessary to keep weapons off the campus. They are too entitled and lazy and “special” to follow the policies that might secure the campus. Policies like those are for those “other” schools. If society really wanted to stop school gun violence, they would “harden the perimeter.” It’s that simple.
Paul E. Dean