Anti gunners want an injuction to stop armed staff in school

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Anti gunners want an injuction to stop armed staff in school

Post by M-Quigley »

https://www.whio.com/news/madison-schoo ... yBbiGvhWM/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The video has an excellent point by a gentleman for arming staff, followed by someone opposed to it. Among the groups opposed to arming staff she cites the school resource officers association I've read their opinion once. Their recommendation is surprisingly, hire more school resource officers. :roll:
BUTLER COUNTY — The parents who sued Madison Local Schools over arming teachers and staff want the judge to order a preliminary injunction so the district’s gun program will pause while the lawsuit is pending.

A group of parents sued the Board of Education and superintendent in September, alleging the board’s April resolution authorizing armed staff in schools violates an Ohio law requiring that armed school employees be trained and certified as peace officers.

The parents are seeking an injunction blocking the district from arming teachers and other staff without the training required by law — 728 hours versus the 26 hours the school has in its policy — and a court order requiring disclosure of policies and procedures for arming staff.

The parents’ attorney Rachael Bloomekatz said she asked for the immediate injunction because they fear someone could get hurt if staff are carrying firearms without proper training.

“Because the district’s program does not abide by the state’s minimum training requirements, insufficiently trained armed school staff could be soon roaming the hallways of Madison schools, if they’re not already,” Bloomekatz told the Journal-News. “That’s not just illegal, it puts Madison’s kids at undue risk for tragic accidents. So we’re asking the court to pause the district’s program while it assesses this critical question.”
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: Anti gunners want an injuction to stop armed staff in sc

Post by JediSkipdogg »

I've followed this lawsuit as it's semi-close to where I live and still can't figure out what logic they are using. They claim that you have to be a full PO to carry in a school and simply ignore the fact that the school has the authority to authorize anyone they want. Not sure what law school the attorney that took this case on went to, but it's not even tricky wording, it's plain english.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
willbird
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 11446
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:19 am
Location: Exit 13 on the ohio Turnpike :-)

Re: Anti gunners want an injuction to stop armed staff in sc

Post by willbird »

One way around it is for the county Sheriff to just deputize whoever the school chooses. They then become a Deputy with full powers and have 1 year to do the required education and training to remain a Deputy. The law is pretty simple as far as that goes, and the last time I went through it I did not see that there was a "1 time" provision. IE the sheriff could do it so that the 1 year elapsed July 1, then do it AGAIN for the next year.
311.04 Deputy sheriffs.
(A) As used in this section, "felony" has the same meaning as in section 109.511 of the Revised Code.

(B)

(1) Subject to division (C) of this section, the sheriff may appoint, in writing, one or more deputies. At the time of the appointment, the sheriff shall file the writing upon which the appointment is made with the clerk of the court of common pleas, and the clerk of the court shall enter it upon the journal of the court. The sheriff shall pay the clerk's fees for the filing and journal entry of the writing. In cases of emergency, the sheriff may request of the sheriff of another county the aid of qualified deputies serving in those other counties of the state, and, if the consent of the sheriff of that other county is received, the deputies while so assigned shall be considered to be the deputies of the sheriff of the county requesting aid. No judge of a county court or mayor shall be appointed a deputy]
Have a great day today unless you have made other plans :-).
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: Anti gunners want an injuction to stop armed staff in sc

Post by djthomas »

JediSkipdogg wrote:I've followed this lawsuit as it's semi-close to where I live and still can't figure out what logic they are using. They claim that you have to be a full PO to carry in a school and simply ignore the fact that the school has the authority to authorize anyone they want. Not sure what law school the attorney that took this case on went to, but it's not even tricky wording, it's plain english.
It's the ambiguous language of ORC 109.78 (D) which states "No public or private educational institution, ... shall employ a person as a special police officer, security guard, or other position in which such person goes armed while on duty, who has not received a certificate of having satisfactorily completed an approved basic peace officer training program, unless the person has completed twenty years of active duty as a peace officer."

While it's true that 2923.122 permits a school board to authorize someone to carry a firearm in a school safety zone, 109.78 limits who they may employ to do so. I suspect that the parents are hanging their argument on the "or other position in which such person goes armed while on duty" language. This argument was raised before and Jonathan Fulkerson of the AG's office was quoted saying that this law concerns the employment of security personnel. If a person is employed by the district is some other capacity, such as a teacher, and does not receive any additional pay for carrying a firearm then they are not employed in a position in which they go armed on duty. It's a subtle but critical distinction.

The parents are probably arguing it's a distinction without a difference but it's logically absurd to say that a school board couldn't authorize a teacher to carry a firearm but could authorize all the thousands of Ohioans with a CHL (except their own employees) to do so.
JEaton
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:51 am
Location: SW Ohio
Contact:

Re: Anti gunners want an injuction to stop armed staff in sc

Post by JEaton »

Listening to Bloomberg's attorney on this matter, they simply want to keep the media covering this with hopes of other schools thinking it is too hot of a topic to consider. (Going on the number of schools talking to FASTER Saves Lives at the OSBA conference yesterday it is not working). She basically said that even though the law says schools can do this and even though AG DeWine has issued an opinion on this exact matter she doesn't care and wants a court to tell her the same thing.

JLE

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/atty-ge ... ttorney-re

I do not believe that R.C. 109.78(D) applies to non-security personnel. Put simply, it is unlikely that the General Assembly intended this language to reach every school employee. Had they intended to do so, they would have simply said that no school may employ "any person who goes armed." Instead, the General Assembly's use of "special police officer, security guard, or other position" suggests that "other positions" applies to security personnel. Thus, a board of education or governing body of a school may give non-security personnel written authorization to carry a weapon onto the premises. R.C. 2923.122(D)(1)(a). That person, however, is still subject to the carry and conveyance restrictions under Ohio's Concealed Carry Laws. R.C. 2923.12.
willbird
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 11446
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:19 am
Location: Exit 13 on the ohio Turnpike :-)

Re: Anti gunners want an injuction to stop armed staff in sc

Post by willbird »

djthomas wrote:
JediSkipdogg wrote:I've followed this lawsuit as it's semi-close to where I live and still can't figure out what logic they are using. They claim that you have to be a full PO to carry in a school and simply ignore the fact that the school has the authority to authorize anyone they want. Not sure what law school the attorney that took this case on went to, but it's not even tricky wording, it's plain english.
It's the ambiguous language of ORC 109.78 (D) which states "No public or private educational institution, ... shall employ a person as a special police officer, security guard, or other position in which such person goes armed while on duty, who has not received a certificate of having satisfactorily completed an approved basic peace officer training program, unless the person has completed twenty years of active duty as a peace officer."

While it's true that 2923.122 permits a school board to authorize someone to carry a firearm in a school safety zone, 109.78 limits who they may employ to do so. I suspect that the parents are hanging their argument on the "or other position in which such person goes armed while on duty" language. This argument was raised before and Jonathan Fulkerson of the AG's office was quoted saying that this law concerns the employment of security personnel. If a person is employed by the district is some other capacity, such as a teacher, and does not receive any additional pay for carrying a firearm then they are not employed in a position in which they go armed on duty. It's a subtle but critical distinction.

The parents are probably arguing it's a distinction without a difference but it's logically absurd to say that a school board couldn't authorize a teacher to carry a firearm but could authorize all the thousands of Ohioans with a CHL (except their own employees) to do so.
School local to me armed the Janitors, but they are retired Sheriff Deputy IMHO.

Bill
Have a great day today unless you have made other plans :-).
Post Reply