December 17th, 2012 10:06 PM
You really need to check into the legality of such a "security" service as you have gone from an armed private civilian to an armed security force with all the licensing requirement entailed. Volunteers or not, the state may take issue with that idea.
Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid...
"For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield
December 17th, 2012 10:13 PM
Originally Posted by KBSR
December 17th, 2012 10:37 PM
I'm surprised RETSUP hasn't suggested digging a moat around the school and importing some Hungry Florida gators,once they raise the drawbridge good luck trying to swim across.
Not only that but any kids trying to skip school will be dissuaded from cutting class
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
--Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .
December 17th, 2012 10:56 PM
In WI they only regulate Professional Security
December 18th, 2012 12:01 AM
I am really just trying to do something!! I just can't live with myself if I don't at least make an effort to help get some protection in place.
December 18th, 2012 12:43 AM
To the OP great concept lots of things to work out but good ideas.
I am not an attorney either but I have had some input into things that are similar to the questions raised here.
First an organized Security Force would have to be licensed by the state. I cannot see any jurisdiction allowing a group of armed individuals to perform a security function without them having oversight. The issues of liability even though addressed by state for the individual concealed carrier I am afraid would go out the window in this situation.
The individual carrier is allowed to carry for his personal protection and not those around him he is not assuming liability for anyone but himself. In the event something happened and he chose to act that would be his personal decision and most of the statutes basically say "If you allow this person to carry you are not responsible for his actions" so this only deals with immunity from liability for the owner of the property, not the individual person and sure would not cover a group of armed individuals acting in a security function.
In the situation presented the group has now established a "Duty of Care" and are now charged with the responsibility to respond to an active shooter situation, there is no more strictly voluntary response they are mandated to respond to the incident so this type statute or immunity would not mean much. The question also comes up what if they are three seconds to late or is they injure a third person? Who absorbes the liability, the school district, the leader of the security group?
This brings up another point. Whomever is in charge of the group, makes the schedules, assigns posts and so on is now, under the Law of Vicarious Liability, responsible for all the other members of the security detail and their actions and can be held just as liable if something went wrong. Is someone going to be willing to step up and take that responsibility?
In regards to the comments about "Radical Islamists" attacking a school. Yes I suppose anything could happen but do you think for one moment the sight or interdiction of a person or persons armed would deter such an attack? A true Jihadist's mission is to die for his cause so the sight of or threat of armed resistance is not going to do much against a suicide vest. If one of these attacks wanted to be carried out simply do it at a Friday night football game.
Wow MP5's, flashbangs, M4's who is footing this bill? Who are the MP5's and other NFA registered items going to be registered to? Where are the weapons going to be stored during none school hours? You are talking about equipment that many LE agencies do not have. Yes you can teach a lay person to shoot a subgun in a day, I can also teach an Afghan not to stand on the toilet when he uses it, but should I? It is a lot easier to just keep him out of my bathroom. If this ever got off the ground the minute you even think of longguns, subguns, flashbangs and so on it will be dead before it gets started.
In concept it makes sense but in reality even though it still makes sense don't know if it would ever go over.
"A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013
December 18th, 2012 12:57 AM
That is merely an issue which could be changed by legislation on the state level. The key is getting the state level politicians on board.
Originally Posted by mkh
As far as financial liablilty goes, SIXTO's idea is spot on, and will satisfy the schools insurance policy. Ensure all your school volunteers become "state certified" armed security guards.
Again, they are there only to engage active shooters. They are not there to handle unruly children, pot found in lockers, petty theft issues, fights on the playground, etc.
It's all very doable and worth pursuing, although, there will be hard opposition to overcome.
"The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."
December 18th, 2012 01:40 AM
I guess the least we can do is try to eliminate "gun free" zones at schools. Then the parents who volunteer would at least have the option of being armed. A small start, but a start.
December 21st, 2012 11:36 AM
Looks like great minds think alike the NRA just proposed basically the same thing I said here.
NRA: The National School Shield
Search tags for this page
armed security at jewish school
parents supportive of armed protection in schools
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors