White House school safety plan includes gun training for teachers

hm1996

Moderator
Staff member
Quote:
White House school safety plan includes gun training for teachers


NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Sunday, March 11, 2018, 7:16 PM

President Trump's plan to combat school shootings will include helping states pay for firearms training for teachers and a call to improve the background check system.

But Trump's plan will not include a push to increase the minimum age for purchasing assault weapons or an embrace of more comprehensive background checks, as Trump has at times advocated.

Instead, a new federal commission on school safety will examine the age issue, as well as a long list of others topics, as part of a longer-term look at school safety and violence.

In a call with reporters Sunday evening, administration officials described the plan as a fulfillment of Trump's call for action in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 students and staff dead.

"Today we are announcing meaningful actions, steps that can be taken right away to help protect students," said Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who will chair the commission.

DeVos said that "far too often, the focus" after such tragedies "has been only on the most contentious fights, the things that have divided people and sent them into their entrenched corners." She described the plan as "pragmatic."

As part of that plan, the White House has directed the Justice Department to help states partner with local law enforcement to provide "rigorous firearms training to specifically qualified volunteer school personnel," said Andrew Bremberg, director of the president's Domestic Policy Council.
Save on Hill's Prescription Diet Paid Content by chewy.com
Save on Hill's Prescription Diet

Trump is calling on states to pass temporary, court-issued Risk Protection Orders, which allow law enforcement to confiscate guns from individuals who pose risks to themselves and others, and temporarily prevent them from buying firearms.

The president is also calling for better coordination between mental health care, school officials and law enforcement. And he has called for a full audit and review of the FBI tip line.

In the weeks since the massacre, Trump has held listening sessions with lawmakers, survivors of recent school shootings and the families of victims. He's also met and spoken with the heads of the powerful National Rifle Association. The NRA on Friday sued Florida over a new gun law signed by Republican Gov. Rick Scott that bans the purchase of firearms by anyone under the age of 21.

White House spokesman Raj Shah had said earlier Sunday that "the president has been clear that he does support raising the age to 21."

"I don't want to get ahead of what's going to be announced," Shah said on "This Week" on ABC, "but I will say that will be a component of it, raising the age, as well as mental health."

During those meetings, Trump advocated arming certain teachers and school staffers, arguing that gun-free schools are "like an invitation for these very sick people" to commit murder.

"If you had a teacher who was adept at firearms, they could end the attack very quickly," he has said.

During the often free-wheeling conversations, Trump also seemed to voice support for "universal" background checks, which would apply to private gun sales and those at gun shows, instead of just from licensed dealers. He also raised eyebrows by suggesting that law enforcement officials should be able to confiscate guns from those they deem a safety risk even before a court has weighed in.

"Take the guns first, go through due process second," Trump said.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, later walked back both suggestions, saying "Universal means something different to a lot of people." She said the president wanted to expedite the court process, not circumvent it.

As part of the plan, the White House reiterated its support for improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check through the "Fix NICS" bill, which would penalize federal agencies that don't properly report required records and reward states that comply by providing them with federal grant preferences.

The bill was written in response to a shooting last November by a gunman whose domestic violence conviction the Air Force failed to report to the National Criminal Information Center database. It has already passed the House.

The White House is also calling on Congress to pass a second bill that would create a federal grant program to train students, teachers and school officials how to identify signs of potential violence and intervene early. The Republican-controlled House is expected to vote on the STOP School Violence Act next week.

Trump has also vowed to ban the use of bump stock devices that enable guns to fire like automatic weapons. The Department of Justice has also been moving forward with that effort.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics...ticle-1.3868279

Regards,
hm
 
"Take the guns first, go through due process second," Trump said.

B.S. He's lost my vote next go around. If Cruz runs again he'll get mine, since I don't think Ron Paul ever plans on running again.
 
Originally Posted By: Flesh Eater"Take the guns first, go through due process second," Trump said.

B.S. He's lost my vote next go around. If Cruz runs again he'll get mine, since I don't think Ron Paul ever plans on running again.

i tend to agree with what he said.

if i was making threats such as shooting up a school and other crazy talk, i am crazy. THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH ME. a normal sane person does not do that.

it might just be a dam good idea to take my guns away until i am determined to be sane or not. if that had been done in this last whacko's case, it might of prevented the last school shooting.
 
Originally Posted By: SlickerThanSnotOriginally Posted By: Flesh Eater"Take the guns first, go through due process second," Trump said.

B.S. He's lost my vote next go around. If Cruz runs again he'll get mine, since I don't think Ron Paul ever plans on running again.

i tend to agree with what he said.

if i was making threats such as shooting up a school and other crazy talk, i am crazy. THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH ME. a normal sane person does not do that.

it might just be a dam good idea to take my guns away until i am determined to be sane or not. if that had been done in this last whacko's case, it might of prevented the last school shooting.

So you honestly believe it's okay to strip a person's rights away before a conviction? This is that slippery slope I was talking about. Remember, if there's one thing that's always abused, it's power. Be careful what you ask for.

Also, how do you know it would've stopped anything? You don't think that Florida kid could've acquired another firearm before the shooting, or that he couldn't conjure up another way to go through with his twisted plan?

Either way, giving up freedoms for the false idea of protection is insane.
 
he might say that -which he did- but that does not make it so. he can't all by his ownself make it happen.

I don't see this congress actually passing that either. now if the dems were majority, yeah, they'd pass that last month if they could. but right now it won't.

bottom line is that there's very little he can do by EO and just as with any president the real danger is what congress might pass so that's where the real fight is to prevent bad things from becoming law.

I don't have to trust trump or any prez if I can keep legislation from passing & making it to his desk for a signature.
 
also consider that no matter what trump suggests regarding gun control, for the dems it's never enough. it's just a starting point.

join the nra, join goa, keep the pressure & heat on your congress critters. if they think it might cost them their next election they aren't going to support it. well, mostly. the dems often don't seem to care what it costs them, so long as they get it before getting kicked out. but even some of them do, when they're not from safe districts.
 
Quote:Take the guns first, go through due process second," Trump said.

This was said off the top of his head during the first brainstorming session. Read what the man said in the news release above.

Quote:Trump is calling on states to pass temporary, court-issued Risk Protection Orders, which allow law enforcement to confiscate guns from individuals who pose risks to themselves and others, and temporarily prevent them from buying firearms.

At least in Texas, and I assume most states, LEO has the right to temporarily disarm a person whom they deem to be a threat to the officer's, his own or others safety, and rightly so, IMHO. Of course the firearms must be returned if "suspect" is not arrested.

I fail to see how obtaining court-issued Risk Protection Orders bypasses due process. What am I missing?

It appears to me that the president is asking congress to consider "his plan", not considering executive action on these items.

Quote:In a call with reporters Sunday evening, administration officials described the plan as a fulfillment of Trump's call for action

Of course, Chuckie is already hollering for assault rifle bans and the whole grocery list of other liberal garbage. He is hopeful to get something passed that president Trump will not go for and veto the bill so he can scream to the tree tops how the Republicans blocked "school safety" as a political talking point at the mid-terms.

I doubt the Dems can get enough support to pass gas, let alone Chuckie's wish list. We'll see.

Regards,
hm
 
Originally Posted By: SlickerThanSnotOriginally Posted By: Flesh Eater"Take the guns first, go through due process second," Trump said.

B.S. He's lost my vote next go around. If Cruz runs again he'll get mine, since I don't think Ron Paul ever plans on running again.

i tend to agree with what he said.

if i was making threats such as shooting up a school and other crazy talk, i am crazy. THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH ME. a normal sane person does not do that.

it might just be a dam good idea to take my guns away until i am determined to be sane or not. if that had been done in this last whacko's case, it might of prevented the last school shooting.

Just wait until one of your neighbors, an ex, or someone pissed off at you calls the cops and says you threatened them with a gun, or dive bombed their house in your airplane, or some other completely fabricated story, they take away your rights PENDING the court date. The court date is often over a month away, you lose your rights PENDING review. You also have to submit all your ammunition. In a state that prohibits face to face transfers, you have only ONE completely legal option, that is to hand over all your stuff to the cops. The cops who will write down every serial number, have an inventory of every gun you own. Then we it is shown that the complaint was fabricated and you are allowed your property back, you can fight to have it returned to you.

I know, because I have been there. A person whom I had never met claimed I was stalking and threatening her. I had never met her, did not know what she looked like, and did not know she lived a few houses down. I knew nothing of her, but she was successful in costing me $6000 in legal fees and loss of my gun rights in their entirety for 3 weeks until I got before the judge. In front of the judge, she dropped everything. No proof was ever provided. It was nothing more than her word to a judge that I was a bad guy. She was put up to it by neighbors that do not like that I shoot (legally) on my property and want nothing to do with them, it was all based on 3rd party lies.

So, the idea that you are going to take away someone's 2nd amendment rights based on accusations is particularly offensive to me. But, it already happens.

IF someone can be SHOWN to have made threats, then they have committed a crime. Until there is a conviction, there should be no loss of rights!!!
 
Originally Posted By: hm1996Quote:Take the guns first, go through due process second," Trump said.

This was said off the top of his head during the first brainstorming session. Read what the man said in the news release above.

Quote:Trump is calling on states to pass temporary, court-issued Risk Protection Orders, which allow law enforcement to confiscate guns from individuals who pose risks to themselves and others, and temporarily prevent them from buying firearms.

At least in Texas, and I assume most states, LEO has the right to temporarily disarm a person whom they deem to be a threat to the officer's, his own or others safety, and rightly so, IMHO. Of course the firearms must be returned if "suspect" is not arrested.

I fail to see how obtaining court-issued Risk Protection Orders bypasses due process. What am I missing?

It appears to me that the president is asking congress to consider "his plan", not considering executive action on these items.

Quote:In a call with reporters Sunday evening, administration officials described the plan as a fulfillment of Trump's call for action

Of course, Chuckie is already hollering for assault rifle bans and the whole grocery list of other liberal garbage. He is hopeful to get something passed that president Trump will not go for and veto the bill so he can scream to the tree tops how the Republicans blocked "school safety" as a political talking point at the mid-terms.

I doubt the Dems can get enough support to pass gas, let alone Chuckie's wish list. We'll see.

Regards,
hm

It bypasses due process because the accused is NOT given the opportunity to plead their side of the case. Someone under the restriction of a temporary protection or does NOT get due process until the court date to evaluate if the order should be made permanent. It, around here, requires ZERO proof from the complainant. ZERO!!!!!!!!!
AND, the person complaining has ZERO downside, they can say whatever they want with no facts to back it up and once the judge signs the order, the complainant has been given credibility.
Believe me, I know. I was in that situation AND talked with several different attorneys trying to find a way to go after the person that lied about me to take my gun rights away during hunting season for 3 weeks. They get to walk away with only having had to pay the filing and service fees.
If it ever happens to you, you will feel like someone has taken your life away and it is up to you to spend what money you have to then prove your innocence. IT IS GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT!
 
be very leery on the specifics of any such legislation. yes, I think there can be ways to do this but I also think that if great care isn't taken it can open the doors to incredible abuses.
 
Originally Posted By: Stu Farishbe very leery on the specifics of any such legislation. yes, I think there can be ways to do this but I also think that if great care isn't taken it can open the doors to incredible abuses.


Lots of laws fall into that category even when they start out with good intentions.

Domestics did. It was set so the state is the victim, keeps true victims from recanting because odd intimidation etc. It slowly morphed into an officer not begin able to use any discretion. Once a complaint is made if had to be treated as true.

A while later women who desperately needed a punch in the face were being aggressors, knowing the guy had no recourse.

More than once i had to deal with what should have been a simple argument until the guy tried to leave and she blocked the doorway so he is trapped in the room. He tries to get past and in doing so touches her, she calls the police and she is quite proud that she wins!

Then officer me handcuffs both of them. He goes in for misdemeanor domestic because i have no choice. She goes in for felony unlawful restraint, a subset of kidnapping.

Then i go to coffee. I play lawyer ball with the best of them.
 
Originally Posted By: NdIndyOriginally Posted By: Stu Farishbe very leery on the specifics of any such legislation. yes, I think there can be ways to do this but I also think that if great care isn't taken it can open the doors to incredible abuses.


Lots of laws fall into that category even when they start out with good intentions.

Domestics did. It was set so the state is the victim, keeps true victims from recanting because odd intimidation etc. It slowly morphed into an officer not begin able to use any discretion. Once a complaint is made if had to be treated as true.

A while later women who desperately needed a punch in the face were being aggressors, knowing the guy had no recourse.

More than once i had to deal with what should have been a simple argument until the guy tried to leave and she blocked the doorway so he is trapped in the room. He tries to get past and in doing so touches her, she calls the police and she is quite proud that she wins!

Then officer me handcuffs both of them. He goes in for misdemeanor domestic because i have no choice. She goes in for felony unlawful restraint, a subset of kidnapping.

Then i go to coffee. I play lawyer ball with the best of them.

A lot of truth in that there statement. A lot of truth in 6724 statements as well. Pretty easy for folks to pass laws when they are not the folks seizing the weapons.

Why do people incorrectly assume people are 'crazy' or need a mental evaluation if they make a dumb statement or do something deemed 'crazy'? I think cliff jumping is dumb, crazy, and a danger to the participant. Would this be a qualifying factor to seize that persons parachute?

Perhaps we should step back and see how many of these killings would have been prevented had all these restrictions been in place at the time. BEFORE creating more laws.
 
Last edited:
I do have serious concerns over the fix nics bill. I think it could pass but largely due to the perception that it sufficiently addresses due process concerns.

I'm not convinced that it does.
 
This exact thing happened to one of my family members. In a nut shell, the family member stated in front of several witnesses that her owning a gun was for protection as well as to carry out a murder/ suicide "death pact" with a terminally ill person that was living with her. The witnesses called the police (rightly so) and the police responded to the residence, confiscated her weapons, and admitted her to a psychiatric facility temporarily for evaluation. The police and reporting witnesses were correct in ALL of their actions. Their actions could have very well prevented murder/ suicide of two of my family members. She has since been released from the facility, but has not had her weapons returned to her. The weapons were turned over to a competent family member. She is now suing to try to get her weapons back. IMO, she does not need to own firearms and I sincerely hope she looses in court....
 
Quote:Why do people incorrectly assume people are 'crazy' or need a mental evaluation if they make a dumb statement or do something deemed 'crazy'? I think cliff jumping is dumb, crazy, and a danger to the participant. Would this be a qualifying factor to seize that persons parachute?


Hardly even a remote comparison to someone going in and shooting up a school/ public place. Dude jumps, chute fails or doesn't pull in time, they die, EMS gets called in to clean up the mess. That person died (and only them) to their own mistakes and/ or mitigated risk taking. No innocent people were sucked into that rabbit hole. Mass shooting....well..that's just a whole other animal that has an impact on quite a bit of folks.
 


I wish people would take personal responsibility for the ones they bring into this world at least.
Turning to the state for answers is not a good thing if we want to be a free society.
 
Back
Top