http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/sc-bill-takes-aim-to-arm-public-school-employees-with-guns/ December 21, 2012 by Tim Brown SC Bill Takes Aim To Arm PublicMessage 1 of 1 , Dec 23 8:21 AMView Source
SC Bill Takes Aim To Arm Public School Employees With GunsYears ago Texas began arming its teachers. Now more states are seeing it as a viable, and I might add, rational and logical option to letting kids and teachers simply be herded up and made victims of in a place where there is supposed to be learning. Now, my home State of South Carolina is following that lead with a new bill that was introduced in the South Carolina House of Representatives which takes aim at arming public school employees on campuses throughout the state.
Rep. Phillip D. Lowe (SC District 60), a father of three and member of the National Rifle Association, wants to amend South Carolina’s code by adding a section “to provide a public school employee who has a concealed weapons permit may possess a firearm on the premises of his employer.”
According to the bill, Article 5, Chapter 1, Title 59 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding the following:
(1) keeps the firearm on his person at all times while on the premises;
(2) keeps the weapon concealed when not in use;
(3) uses only frangible bullets in an effort to avoid ricochets;
(4) provides written notification of his intent to carry the firearm to the principal of the school where the weapon will be carried;
(5) successfully completes and biennially renews certification as a precision marksman by SLED; and
(6) has no history of violence or unmanaged anger documented by his employer.
(B) A school board may only deny an employee of his ability to carry a firearm on school property under this section upon a finding of just cause.
(C) An employee who violates a provision of this section may not be permitted to carry any firearm on public school property for five years from the date of the violation, and SLED shall revoke his concealed weapons permit and may not terminate this revocation or issue a new permit to him for a period of five years following the date of revocation.
(D) For the purposes of this section:
(1) ‘Frangible bullet’ means a bullet designed to disintegrate into tiny particles upon impact to minimize their penetration for reasons of range safety to limit environmental impact, or to limit the danger behind the intended target.
(2) ‘Public school employee’ means a person employed by a school district, as defined in Section 59-1-160, or a public institution of higher learning, as defined in Section 59-103-5.”
Additionally Section 16-23-420(a) of the 1976 Code is to be amended to read:
“(A) It is unlawful for a person to possess a firearm of any kind on any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, other post-secondary institution, or in any publicly owned building, without the express permission of the authorities in charge of the premises or property except as provided in Section 59-1-490 for public school employees or as otherwise provided in this section. The provisions of this subsection related to any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, or other post-secondary institution, do not apply to a person who is authorized to carry a concealed weapon pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23 when the weapon remains inside an attended or locked motor vehicle and is secured in a closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle.”
While this is not a full riddance of the “Gun Free Zone” policies, notice, as far as more big government is concerned, it is completely unnecessary except to remove restraining laws. People are already getting concealed weapons permits, which frankly I don’t think are necessary according to the Second Amendment, but at least this bill is a step in the right direction. Additionally, I think it will be in the best interest of the teachers, students and schools to have this in place.
On a personal note, I would rather parents simply bring their children home and teach them there and let the state sponsored public schools wither away.