A call for stronger gun control

By Rick Badie

State Rep. Paul Battles, of Cartersville, has proposed legislation that would allow school administrators to undergo annual state peace officer firearms training and be certified to carry weapons on campus. Though he supports HB 35, a guest columnist says state law already allows administrators to possess firearms on campuses. A retired pediatrician suggests addressing gun control in a multifaceted manner.

Existing law allows armed principals

By John Monroe

GeorgiaCarry.Org agrees with the general proposition ensconced in HB 35, that our schools would be safer if responsible citizens could be armed on campus. GeorgiaCarry also agrees that firearms training is a good idea for everyone, even those who do not own or carry firearms. The specifics of HB 35, however, make the bill difficult to incorporate into existing law.

HB 35 would permit school boards to designate certain school administrators to undergo state Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) instruction and then be authorized to carry firearms in schools. The difficulty is that existing law already is more expansive than that. Under O.C.G.A. 16-11-127.1(c)(6), a “duly authorized official of the school” may authorize anyone (not just school administrators) to carry a firearm at a school. Presumably, a school principal is a duly authorized official and may therefore authorize anyone, including himself or herself, to carry a firearm. Existing law has no training requirement.

If enacted, HB 35 would create another avenue by which a school administrator could be armed at school, by permission of the school board. It seems highly unlikely, however, that the provisions of HB 35 ever would be utilized. Given that the school principal already has the power to arm herself, her staff, her teachers and even her students’ parents, going through the more cumbersome steps of seeking school board approval and paying for training in a course that has not yet been developed are not likely to be pursued.

In addition to existing avenues for school officials to authorize anyone to carry firearms at schools, existing law also permits those with weapons carry licenses to carry firearms in schools under certain circumstances, without the knowledge or consent of school officials. Under O.C.G.A. 16-11-127.1(c)(7), a person with a license may carry a firearm in a school “when such person carries or picks up a student.” Licensees also may have firearms in their cars in school parking lots. Many parents take advantage of these provisions today on a regular basis when they take their children to and from school.

Georgia has a vast, untapped resource available to it to help protect its schools. There are some 600,000 Georgians with weapons carry licenses who have undergone criminal and mental health background checks by state and federal law enforcement agencies. Many of them are administrators, staff, teachers and parents who regularly are present on school grounds. Modifying the law so that such people are not prohibited from carrying firearms in school buildings, even when not picking up or dropping off students, would immediately enhance the ability of Georgia schools to protect themselves against aggressive attacks.

John Monroe is vice president of GeorgiaCarry.Org.

Let us make our children safe

By Noel Preston

Georgia has 2,487 public schools. The last fatal school shooting was at Monticello in August 1999. It makes no sense to pay, train, equip and insure 2,487 school principals to patrol schools that have had no fatal shootings for 13 years.

Some of our school campuses are so large, the principal and the invader might be a quarter-mile from each other, and the invader could shoot dozens of children before being shot or captured. The principal might be at an off-campus meeting when the invader arrived. The principal could hardly be expected to maintain firearm proficiency by having only two days a year of shooting practice. Expecting a principal to risk his or her own life without receiving a substantial pay raise and necessary health insurance for hazardous duty seems unfair and unrealistic.

Many factors make it easy for invaders to shoot school children. A sensible approach to reduce school shootings must be multifaceted as well. Some shooters were victims of bullying; reducing bullying at school is an obvious first step. Children are not afraid of metal detectors at airports, and would not be afraid of them at school, either.

Claiming “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is absurd. Too many small children accidentally kill their parents, siblings and other folk while playing with a gun that was supposedly locked up, unloaded and out of reach. Making it harder for anyone to get any firearm is critical. Requiring gun buyers to have criminal background checks and their drivers’ licenses screened for previous road rage or aggressive driving events, and addressing previous mental health concerns by providing prescription records for mind-altering drugs before being allowed to purchase a firearm, are all logical steps to curtail mass shootings. So is closing the loophole that waives the requirement for criminal background checks for purchasers of firearms sold at gun shows.

Gun control advocates claim the Second Amendment was written to protect the rights of farmers to have single-shot squirrel rifles, not to allow crazy people to have assault rifles. When the Second Amendment was written, the “government” didn’t have assault rifles, either.

Any attempt to bring about gun control must not interfere with the right of the citizenry to bear arms. The Second Amendment is one of the reasons America went to war against England in the first place. It’s not going away.

Now, while the images of freckle-faced little children, some of them missing their two front teeth, stare at us from the pages of newspapers and television screens, now, while their faces cry out to us for action, now, while we feel ashamed for failing to protect them, now we must act.

Get rid of the assault rifle. Get rid of armor-piercing bullets and anti-personnel ammunition. Only an outright ban on these machines of murder, these instruments of killing innocent young children who still dream of puppies and tooth fairies and Santa Claus, will do any good.

And let us make our children safe.

Noel Preston is a retired Atlanta pediatrician.

 

31 comments Add your comment

An observer

January 30th, 2013
8:30 pm

So what are we going to do about violent video games and movies?

USC

January 30th, 2013
8:18 pm

Well Regulated means well regulated (second amendment) – if you want to quibble over words. With 330,000,000 guns in the U.S. we clearly do not need more. The paranoid psychosis expressed by the proposed traitors above should make all sane people realize that their proposals have not ever worked and we must try something new. This is a complex, and, for some, confusing, society which will become more complex in the coming decades. Let’s make it peaceful, predictable, and without fear of guns and bullets.

SAWB

January 30th, 2013
7:18 pm

Tim said, “Why do we allow these gun owners to kill our children and wives. These people belong in prison.”

I agree wholehearted we are way too lenient on criminals in this country. Way too many folks that commit crimes with guns or with guns in their possession never see significant jail time. We need to focus on punishing the actual criminals and not law abiding gun owners.

Start by enacting laws banning the use of plea bargains if a gun is involved and mandating the maximum sentences available. If there are not enough jails enact legislation allowing the use of inmate labor to build more prisons.

Also, before you say it I know prisons do no rehabilitate, but the point is to segregate criminals from law abiding citizens.

ClydeFr0g

January 30th, 2013
7:13 pm

tim jordan –

I know LOTS of gun owners and not a one of them has ever killed a person outside of the duty of their military or police duty. How many gun owners do you know? I can guarantee you know more than you think you do, you just don’t know they own guns!

There are estimated to be over 300 million guns in this country (overwhelmingly legally) owned by an estimated 80 million people. The VAST majority of those gun owners don’t slaughter babies as you’d like everyone to believe. Do your own research and you will see that the people committing illegal gun violence in fact represent about 0.01% of gun owners.

So let me get this straight…you think the other 99.99% of gun owners are terrorists and belong in prison? Almost 80,000,000 American citizens should go to jail just for exercising their rights as provided by the Constitution?

Can you REALLY be that stupid?

tim jordan

January 30th, 2013
6:57 pm

Gun owners in America have replaced Al Qaeda. These are Americas modern day enemy. They want to over through America and put in place their own rule by force. They will kill our all of us. We are under attack by the new modern day Al Qaeda. America needs to be taken back by these terrorist who kill innocent woman and children on a daily basis. We can take our country back from these terrorist.

tim jordan

January 30th, 2013
6:51 pm

Why do we allow these gun owners to kill our children and wives. These people belong in prison. They are good for nothing and will kill your child if he looks at them the wrong way. We need to remove these guns from them as they are destroying any safety we have here. Gun owners are the terrorist of the 21st century.

Not Blind

January 30th, 2013
5:57 pm

My original post seems to be under moderation so here is the summary.

In the USA, every year, nearly 200,000 people die from the errors of medical professionals. Where’s the outrage ???

Not Blind

January 30th, 2013
5:52 pm

Hey Mangler, if you had to belong to a militia in order to bear arms why doesn’t the wording read “…the right of THESE people to keep and bear arms….”. It doesn’t say that, it says “the people”. The people is all of them.

ClydeFr0g

January 30th, 2013
5:39 pm

Here MANGLER, I’ll help you out;

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” is exactly what the Second Amendment states. You claim this means that only the military can have weapons.

“A well regulated *educational system*, being necessary to the *intelligence* of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear *books*, shall not be infringed.” Would this mean that only schools have the right to own books?

“A well regulated *transit system*, being necessary to the *mobility* of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear *cars*, shall not be infringed.” Would this mean that only the government and taxi services would have the right to own cars?

You do know who THE PEOPLE are, right? THE PEOPLE is NOT the government, NOT the military, and NOT the National Guard as you anti-freedom, anti-liberty socialists like to read it. THE PEOPLE are citizens like me (and even you if you so choose).

You do know what “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” means, right? It means it’s a protected RIGHT, not a privilege like driving a car, and that the government CANNOT interfere with my ability to exercise this right.

What you will notice is missing from the Second Amendment are the phrases “except semi-automatic weapons” or “but only guns that can fire one round before reloading” or “only muskets” or “only blunderbusses”.

Yes MANGLER, I know what the Second Amendment says. And it is YOU that is misguided about the link between the right it provides. It does not specify a right for the MILITARY to have guns. It does not protect the right of GOVERNMENT to have guns. It clearly states, for anyone with half a brain that can read it, “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

Don't Tread

January 30th, 2013
5:26 pm

“Making it harder for anyone to get any firearm is critical” in the same essay as “Any attempt to bring about gun control must not interfere with the right of the citizenry to bear arms” and “Get rid of the assault rifle. Get rid of armor-piercing bullets and anti-personnel ammunition”. Talk about self-contradiction.

Psssst…Here’s a little secret, Noel: All ammunition is “anti-personnel”. (Grains of sand traveling at 1000 feet per second are “anti-personnel”, for that matter.)

Here’s some more news for you, Noel: There already was an “outright ban” on the “machines of murder” in CT, which didn’t “keep the children safe”. Your notion of “gun-free zones” doesn’t work, because you ignore the fact that criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law, and “gun-free zones” only disarm the good guys. If you don’t feel safe because citizens have 2nd Amendment rights, there are plenty of blue states to move to. I’m sure your move will be offset by those blue-state residents who are tired of their rights being violated and their taxes going through the roof, and are moving here.

John’s analysis is correct (which reminds me I have a renewal for GCO coming up…)