CWP holders in schools


nca_mm

nca_mm

New member
Got the following email from Rep. Lowe of Florence this a.m. He's the man that has the guts to proposed a bill that would allow CWP holders to carry in schools. Email obviously got to me late, as the subcommittee mtg. is now in progress.



Dear Second Amendment Advocate

I am writing to ask you to contact these representatives regarding my bill allowing school employees to carry firearms in schools. It will be heard in sub-committee Thursday morning at 9:00 AM.

I have added requirements for additional training if the school board requires.

The three members are:

Chairman Derham Cole Email [email protected]

Rep Dan Hamilton Email [email protected]

Rep Joe McEachern Email [email protected]



Your timely input will help move this bill forward. Thank you.
 

It only allows employees? What about me? I'm a student! I don't want to depend on a teacher who may or may not be carrying...
 
You are talking about H 3160. It's limited to school employees. We don't need any more special groups of people.

Details here --> Link Removed
 
jhodge83 said:
it doesnt have anything to do w/ teacher cwp vs regular cwp...it has everything to do with liabilities on school grounds.
Click to expand...
Really? So what you want us to believe is that if a teacher negligently or intentionally shoots someone on school grounds that the school will somehow be less liable than if a student or visitor does?
.
Really?
.
I suggest you reconsider you excuse to create another special class of people...
 
Yep...it's like I said in my email to Sheheen, I shouldn't have to choose between a college education or the right to self defense! And if I use my gun at a school it's because they've already got a pretty bad situation going on so I don't think I'm going to increase their liabilities anymore than they already are.
 
hp-hobo said:
Really? So what you want us to believe is that if a teacher negligently or intentionally shoots someone on school grounds that the school will somehow be less liable than if a student or visitor does?
.
Really?
.
I suggest you reconsider you excuse to create another special class of people...
Click to expand...

not less liable, but they would be covered. anything a teacher does while on school grounds (good and bad) puts them under the scope of the district/county/state.

as for your assumptions of creating another class of people, WTF are you talking about? getting teachers able to carry is a step forward to getting everyone able to legally carry on school grounds. it's a step forward over no one being able to carry at all, except for the SROs. get off your crazy high horse and see it as a small win in getting schools more secure if it passes.
 
AndeyHall said:
It only allows employees? What about me? I'm a student! I don't want to depend on a teacher who may or may not be carrying...
Click to expand...

Is that what the language says? Might should call your legislator & ask. College students should be allowed to carry on campus if they have a CWP & they're not drinking.
 
jhodge83 said:
as for your assumptions of creating another class of people, WTF are you talking about? getting teachers able to carry is a step forward to getting everyone able to legally carry on school grounds. it's a step forward over no one being able to carry at all, except for the SROs. get off your crazy high horse and see it as a small win in getting schools more secure if it passes.
Click to expand...

Perfectly stated! Well done.
 
nca_mm said:
AndeyHall said:
It only allows employees? What about me? I'm a student! I don't want to depend on a teacher who may or may not be carrying...
Click to expand...

Is that what the language says? Might should call your legislator & ask. College students should be allowed to carry on campus if they have a CWP & they're not drinking.
Click to expand...
It depends what bill the email is referring to. The email says employees only, but if he's referring to S242 that applies to all CWP holders.
 
jhodge83 said:
not less liable, but they would be covered. anything a teacher does while on school grounds (good and bad) puts them under the scope of the district/county/state.

as for your assumptions of creating another class of people, WTF are you talking about? getting teachers able to carry is a step forward to getting everyone able to legally carry on school grounds. it's a step forward over no one being able to carry at all, except for the SROs. get off your crazy high horse and see it as a small win in getting schools more secure if it passes.
Click to expand...
No assumptions there Twinkletoes. It is a fact that if certain people (teachers) are allowed to do something (carry in a school) that someone else (non-teachers) cannot do because they are one of those slected people (again, teachers) then there is assuredly a special or seperate class of people.
.
Tell us something. If there was a bill in front of the legislature that would allow CWP holders in Sumter County carry in schools and resturants that serve, but specifically prohibited the same activity for CWP holders in Berkeley County, would you still say it's a good thing because it's a small step in the right direction?
.
I don't expect you to answer because you'll have to contradict yourself.
 
hp-hobo said:
No assumptions there Twinkletoes. It is a fact that if certain people (teachers) are allowed to do something (carry in a school) that someone else (non-teachers) cannot do because they are one of those slected people (again, teachers) then there is assuredly a special or seperate class of people.
.
Tell us something. If there was a bill in front of the legislature that would allow CWP holders in Sumter County carry in schools and resturants that serve, but specifically prohibited the same activity for CWP holders in Berkeley County, would you still say it's a good thing because it's a small step in the right direction?
.
I don't expect you to answer because you'll have to contradict yourself.
Click to expand...

since it's already prohibited everywhere in the state...if Scumter County was to pass such a measure, i might actually me more inclined to go back to that **** hole.
 
jhodge83 said:
hp-hobo said:
No assumptions there Twinkletoes. It is a fact that if certain people (teachers) are allowed to do something (carry in a school) that someone else (non-teachers) cannot do because they are one of those slected people (again, teachers) then there is assuredly a special or seperate class of people.
.
Tell us something. If there was a bill in front of the legislature that would allow CWP holders in Sumter County carry in schools and resturants that serve, but specifically prohibited the same activity for CWP holders in Berkeley County, would you still say it's a good thing because it's a small step in the right direction?
.
I don't expect you to answer because you'll have to contradict yourself.
Click to expand...

since it's already prohibited everywhere in the state...if Scumter County was to pass such a measure, i might actually me more inclined to go back to that **** hole.
Click to expand...
That was more a smartass quip against Sumter County to avoid answering the question...
 
AndeyHall said:
That was more a smartass quip against Sumter County to avoid answering the question...
Click to expand...

no. since it cannot be done anywhere in the state, if a county did enact that for itself, more power to them. hopefully at that point, the rest would follow suit and grant it elsewhere.
 
Every time a special group is granted special privileges, they are less inclined to partake in the fight to restore rights to the rest of us.

S 242 is a far better option. Lets support that.
 
jhodge83 said:
since it's already prohibited everywhere in the state...if Scumter County was to pass such a measure, i might actually me more inclined to go back to that **** hole.
Click to expand...
Nice attempt at a redirect. Avoid the question and hope nobody notices. I think Alinsky might have written about that. How does it feel to be part of the problem instead of part of the solution?
.
P.S. You're not really welcome back in Sumter county anyway...
 
John Canuck said:
Every time a special group is granted special privileges, they are less inclined to partake in the fight to restore rights to the rest of us.

S 242 is a far better option. Lets support that.
Click to expand...
S242 is the amendment that's got my support anyways. It will allow me to carry to class.
 
hp-hobo said:
Nice attempt at a redirect. Avoid the question and hope nobody notices. I think Alinsky might have written about that. How does it feel to be part of the problem instead of part of the solution?
.
P.S. You're not really welcome back in Sumter county anyway...
Click to expand...

look below. also, the only thing keeping that ******** afloat is the base. if not for that, Scumter would be another Scummerton or Manning. i spent almost 2/3rds of my life there and cant say that i'm disappointed to see it in my rearview. if you also got over this all or nothing/no compromise ********, maybe you'd see that things could actually get done. if they want to try and take away in pieces, we need to add in pieces as well. i hope it passes as a whole but if not, take things in steps.

jhodge83 said:
no. since it cannot be done anywhere in the state, if a county did enact that for itself, more power to them. hopefully at that point, the rest would follow suit and grant it elsewhere.
Click to expand...
 
jhodge83 said:
look below. also, the only thing keeping that ******** afloat is the base. if not for that, Scumter would be another Scummerton or Manning. i spent almost 2/3rds of my life there and cant say that i'm disappointed to see it in my rearview.
Click to expand...
Contrary to what you may think, denial is not just a river in Africa. You have been called out on your compromising and statist statement and then asked a hypothetical question. Because to honestly answer said question you would have to directly contradict yourself, you go for the redirect. And now you're trying to entirely change the subject. This is not a thread about whether or not you like Sumter county. Try staying on topic.
.
So, here are three direct questions to which I (we?) expect a direct answer. If a law was passed in South Carolina that relaxed firearm regulations for all CWP holders except those in Berkeley County, would that be a fair and just law? Would you feel that those who benefitted from the new law were a special class of citizen or that you were being discriminated against? Would you still have the cavalier attitude that it's a step forward by giving certain people additional priveleges and not others?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 311 (members: 0, guests: 311)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,258
Members
74,964
Latest member
sigsag1

Share this page

Back
Top