Ohio Supreme Court: no armed teachers w/o extensive training

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

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
BB62
Posts: 2601
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Ohio Supreme Court: no armed teachers w/o extensive training

Post by BB62 »

In a ruling which would score an 11 in the Olympic sport of "How to twist things around and around to suit your fancy", the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that school districts can't arm teachers unless they're extensively trained: to peace officer standards.

One should consult the ORC to see things **in context** since the linked article doesn't give the full context. I'd start by checking out OCR 109.78, for example.

Ruling: https://www.scribd.com/document/5128260 ... from_embed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ORC: https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Article:

https://local12.com/news/local/ohio-sup ... r-training" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ohio Supreme Court rules school district can't arm teachers without extensive training

MADISON TOWNSHIP, Ohio (WKRC) - The Ohio Supreme Court struck down a school resolution to allow some employees to be armed without participating in police-level training first.

The Madison Local Schools board passed the resolution in the years following a school shooting at the high school that left four students hurt in 2016.

The resolution allowed up to ten employees to be armed as long as they had a concealed carry permit and participated in 24 hours of training.

A group of five parents sued the district saying any teachers who would be armed should have the training a law enforcement officer would have, which is a minimum of 728 hours.

A Butler County judge dismissed the lawsuit saying that amount of training wouldn't be needed because the school employees are not law enforcement officers.

The 12th District Court of Appeals disagreed and ruled that extensive training would be required.

The district appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court which affirmed the appeals court ruling.

The Ohio Supreme Court said it mostly comes down to this Ohio statute:

No public or private educational institution or superintendent of the state highway patrol 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.
The court ruled that teachers would be in that "other position" category and therefore, would require the full training.
Yes, I do believe in open carry. An openly armed man is clear in his intentions. Concealed carriers are sneaks and skulkers and elitist, boot licking, political contribution making, running dog lackies of The Man. <wink> (thx grumpycoconut - OpenCarry.org)

Got Freedom?

Accountant, Computer & Management Consultant
Scuba Diver, NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor
Brian D.
Posts: 16226
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Ohio Supreme Court: no armed teachers w/o extensive trai

Post by Brian D. »

Torches and pitchforks time? Uh, I meant, open carry walk in front of the Ohio Supreme Court? Or, in the neighborhood of a certain turncoat Republican OSC Justice's home? She hasn't been much of a friend to gun owners or the US Constitution, in my opinion.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
Javelin Man
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 7480
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Sandusky County

Re: Ohio Supreme Court: no armed teachers w/o extensive trai

Post by Javelin Man »

Using their logic, police officers or resource officers shouldn't be allowed in a school unless they have gone through training and education to become a teacher. That'll make their 728 hours look like a weekend.
Famous last words: "I just drank What?!-Socrates

bruh bruh is slang for "complete and total moron" -sodbuster95

The following is a list of children's books that didn't quite make it to the printing press...
1. What Is That Dog Doing to That Other Dog?
2. Daddy Drinks Because You Cry
3. You Were An Accident
4. Bi-Curious George
M-Quigley
Posts: 4768
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Ohio Supreme Court: no armed teachers w/o extensive trai

Post by M-Quigley »

I guess the only viable option now is for the legislature to do it's job and change the law in a way so that this kind of nonsense with the court is less likely to occur. :(

The statue says "shall employ",, does that mean that schools could technically allow volunteers to carry armed as long as they're not paid? I don't mean someone acting as a police or security officer, merely someone who happens to be on the scene if a mass shooting occurs and has the ability to defend themselves and others in a non paid capacity? After all, who needs to be paid to defend themselves? :roll:
Aesinsp
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1279
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:27 am
Location: Central Ohio

Re: Ohio Supreme Court: no armed teachers w/o extensive trai

Post by Aesinsp »

M-Quigley wrote:I guess the only viable option now is for the legislature to do it's job and change the law in a way so that this kind of nonsense with the court is less likely to occur. :(

The statue says "shall employ",, does that mean that schools could technically allow volunteers to carry armed as long as they're not paid? I don't mean someone acting as a police or security officer, merely someone who happens to be on the scene if a mass shooting occurs and has the ability to defend themselves and others in a non paid capacity? After all, who needs to be paid to defend themselves? :roll:
That's some great thinkn outside of the box. Brainstorming is a legit way to the solution of many problems.
"If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism."
Thomas Sowell, Knowledge And Decisions

Never forget and Never again, Molon labe
3FULLMAGS+1
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: S.W. corner of stark. co.

Re: Ohio Supreme Court: no armed teachers w/o extensive trai

Post by 3FULLMAGS+1 »

M-Quigley wrote:I guess the only viable option now is for the legislature to do it's job and change the law in a way so that this kind of nonsense with the court is less likely to occur. :(

The statue says "shall employ",, does that mean that schools could technically allow volunteers to carry armed as long as they're not paid? I don't mean someone acting as a police or security officer, merely someone who happens to be on the scene if a mass shooting occurs and has the ability to defend themselves and others in a non paid capacity? After all, who needs to be paid to defend themselves? :roll:
I'm in agreement with you.
Legislation needs to be rewritten.....CLEAN and CLEAR legislation, especially since, the courts ignorant ruling was based on the wording of the current law.
Darrel
They say the best "Home Remedy" for "tyranny" is....."LEAD POISONING".
Brian D.
Posts: 16226
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Ohio Supreme Court: no armed teachers w/o extensive trai

Post by Brian D. »

3FULLMAGS+1 wrote:
M-Quigley wrote:I guess the only viable option now is for the legislature to do it's job and change the law in a way so that this kind of nonsense with the court is less likely to occur. :(

The statue says "shall employ",, does that mean that schools could technically allow volunteers to carry armed as long as they're not paid? I don't mean someone acting as a police or security officer, merely someone who happens to be on the scene if a mass shooting occurs and has the ability to defend themselves and others in a non paid capacity? After all, who needs to be paid to defend themselves? :roll:
I'm in agreement with you.
Legislation needs to be rewritten.....CLEAN and CLEAR legislation, especially since, the courts ignorant ruling was based on the wording of the current law.
Darrel, I don't think it was ignorance about the laws now. They have staffers that can keep them steered straight. Justice O'Connor torpedoed our side, is how I see it.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4768
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Ohio Supreme Court: no armed teachers w/o extensive trai

Post by M-Quigley »

Brian D. wrote:
3FULLMAGS+1 wrote:
M-Quigley wrote:I guess the only viable option now is for the legislature to do it's job and change the law in a way so that this kind of nonsense with the court is less likely to occur. :(

The statue says "shall employ",, does that mean that schools could technically allow volunteers to carry armed as long as they're not paid? I don't mean someone acting as a police or security officer, merely someone who happens to be on the scene if a mass shooting occurs and has the ability to defend themselves and others in a non paid capacity? After all, who needs to be paid to defend themselves? :roll:
I'm in agreement with you.
Legislation needs to be rewritten.....CLEAN and CLEAR legislation, especially since, the courts ignorant ruling was based on the wording of the current law.
Darrel, I don't think it was ignorance about the laws now. They have staffers that can keep them steered straight. Justice O'Connor torpedoed our side, is how I see it.
Regardless of the intent of the Justices, new legislation with clear and specific wording would make it harder for them to rule against it the next time. That is, if the legislature has the guts to quickly do something about it.

I'm not a lawyer but IMO I guess that the best language (or rather the best language that should easily pass) would be that the individual school system has the authority to set their own standards for who can carry on school property, period.
WhyNot
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: Ohio Supreme Court: no armed teachers w/o extensive trai

Post by WhyNot »

...that the best language (or rather the best language that should easily pass) would be that the individual school system has the authority to set their own standards for who can carry on school property, period.
A gr8t idea on it's surface but wouldn't that run afoul of preemption?

Would it be wise to advocate any law that allows one school district to apply/interpret any firearms related law differently then any other district. Mass lawsuits would happen, 'if my district was like theirs' etc.

With 98.100% of the OGA being lawyers I don't thing that would get past the pre-commitee phase. Then there would be the 'but FEAR gripped me heart, and shook me liver' phase LoL .
Acquisitions thus far:

-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)

Yeah, I'm that good
JonasM
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Cuyahoga Co, OH

Re: Ohio Supreme Court: no armed teachers w/o extensive trai

Post by JonasM »

Just change it to the followong:

"No public or private educational institution or superintendent of the state highway patrol shall employ a person as a special police officer, security guard, or other position in which such person goes armed while on duty where their primary employment role is security".

I'm sure there's better wording, but you get the idea...
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4752
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: Ohio Supreme Court: no armed teachers w/o extensive trai

Post by Chuck »

JonasM wrote:Just change it to the followong:

"No public or private educational institution or superintendent of the state highway patrol shall employ a person as a special police officer, security guard, or other position in which such person goes armed while on duty where their primary employment role is security".

I'm sure there's better wording, but you get the idea...
My contribution:

"No public or private educational institution or superintendent of the state highway patrol shall employ a person as a special police officer, security guard, or other position which requires such person to go goes armed while on duty"

Teachers aren't required t carry, they're permitted to, are they not?
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
JonasM
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Cuyahoga Co, OH

Re: Ohio Supreme Court: no armed teachers w/o extensive trai

Post by JonasM »

I like that even better.
Post Reply