Arkansas School District Defiant Of AG Opinion That Teachers Can’t Carry Concealed

0 Shares

An Arkansas school district that decided late last month to arm some faculty members at its schools is forging ahead with the plan, despite receiving an advisory opinion from the State Attorney General that it should give up on the idea.

The school board in Clarksville, Arkansas had authorized more than 20 teachers and administrators – all volunteers – to undergo firearms training so that they could anonymously carry concealed weapons at the start of the 2013-2014 school year as a deterring and protective measure against would-be mass shooters on campus.

But Attorney General Dustin McDaniel issued an advisory opinion ordering the school district to reverse course and abandon the plan. After consulting with board attorneys, Clarksville Superintendent David Hopkins came to the conclusion that the AG’s opinion is incorrect and unenforceable.

There’s the possibility that the State police could intervene to end the program, although Hopkins warned that the school district would take legal action if that happens. About one-third of the faculty haven’t yet gone through their firearms training, nor been deputized, and Hopkins said the State has no legal right to deny their concealed carry permits as part of a strategy to derail the school board’s decision.

Hopkins has publicly rejected the gun-free approach to school safety, saying that hiding and hoping for the best when an active shooter is rampant is “not a plan.”

Each concealed carry employee must pass a 53-hour training course, whereupon he or she will be awarded a $1,100 stipend to buy a handgun and holster. The district is also paying a total of $50,000 for ammunition and training.

H/T: The Daily Caller

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • ron44

    how really arrogant of the progressives who are entitled to their own armed defenses.

    • gail2011

      They are the COMMUNIST PARTY. We need to call them what they are.

  • jim

    Way to go!!! The only way to stop a crazy person with a gun is a good guy or lady with a gun. It is our right and responsibility to protect ourselves and the children.

    • Jerry Morris

      This was one of the primary purposes of the 2nd Amendment, so We the People can protect ourselves from those that would do us harm. And that includes harm from our own government.

      • Vis Fac

        The primary reason is to stop a tyrannical government like we have today the rest is a benefit of being armed
        Libertas inaestimabilis res est
        Semper-Fi

        • Paul of Alexandria

          Actually, the primary reason, as stated in the Constitution, is so that the military (volunteer force) has new soldiers that are already familiar with firearms. Self-protection, hunting, and resisting tyranny are all secondary purposes – not stated in the Constitution, but well attested to in the Federalist Papers and other documents from the founders.

          • Vis Fac

            Show me where hunting and self protection are mentioned in the second amendment. The very reason for the second amendment is to fight tyranny form the government. The framers had just endured tyranny from King George and wanted to make sure that never happened again. They left it up to future generations to carry on and sadly the generation of today has punted.

            You had better bone up on OUR bill of tights because before too long we won’t have them.

            A democracy can best be described as two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch with a well armed sheep contesting the vote!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

            Semper-Fi

          • Average_Joe56

            “They left it up to future generations to carry on and sadly the generation of today has punted. ”
            Actually, they’ve dropped the ball and fumbled on their own 5 yard line…..

          • Vis Fac

            I stand corrected. You are correct! I was trying to be diplomatic. Apparently Diplomacy is not my strong suit!

            A democracy can best be described as two wolves
            and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch with a well armed sheep contesting the vote!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

            Semper-Fi

          • Paul of Alexandria

            You obviously can’t read.

          • Average_Joe56

            Paul, I can’t attest to your reading abilities, but your comprehension skills seem to be sadly lacking. You may want to work on that……

          • Vis Fac

            This is the entire text of OUR Second Amendment Show me where hunting and self protection are mentioned.

            Amendment II

            A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

            Now who can’t read? Do you read things that aren’t there?
            You have been relying on Wikipedia as providing facts and the whole truth however you should be aware that Wikipedia accepts and publishes contributions form many un-verified sources it’s up to the user to discern the truth. You shouldn’t (and I don’t) rely on everything you/I read on the internet. I rely on what I have in my library and what I find at public libraries. I definitely pay no attention to the media.
            Perhaps you are referring to the English Bill of rights that does mention hunting and self protection OUR Bill of Rights is different for a reason

            A democracy can best be described as two wolves
            and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch with a well armed sheep contesting the vote!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

            Semper-Fi

          • Paul of Alexandria

            I was referring to my post. Try reading it carefully. I wasn’t taking the position that you seem to think I was taking. I was merely pointing out what the Constitution actually says, as opposed to what most people think it says.

            Also, go read Mark Levin’s writing on the subject. He is an expert on Constitutional law.

          • Vis Fac

            Your post saying I obviously can’t read? Oh I read that and I re read your earlier post and doing so missed the separation point which I usually stat in a new paragraph, so my error.

            Since English is my third language I often miss subtle nuances in grammar I try and use the diction and grammar I was taught in High School and due to this often miss someone’s point/intent or take them wrong. I did so with The Original Dave’s postings and received a well deserved chewing out.

            As for your intent; yes you are correct the training of new militia when boys come of age and the need for them to be armed is the principal purpose of the Second Amendment

            Many people argue over what kind of weapons are covered by the second amendment and argue that muskets are the only arms addressed. The framers knew technology would advance but could not foresee the weapons of today. They did intend parity with the government to resist tyranny.

            I get livid when liberals try and argue hunting and protection are the principal purposes of the second amendment and no one needs automatic weapons and or “assault” rifles. When we live in a police state as we now do; more than ever is it necessary to have parity to resist tyranny.

            The framers had a difficult time placing the Bill of Rights in order of importance at the time. Should circumstances had been then as they are today the Second amendment would top the list.

            Above all the second amendment is the cement that binds all others for without means to resist everything else is moot.

            The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing–Edmund Burke

            A republic is defined as a state in which supreme
            power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president…Our republic no longer exists…A democracy can best be described as two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch with a well armed sheep contesting the vote!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

            Semper-Fi

          • Paul of Alexandria

            Who said anything about Wikipedia?

          • John Woodbury

            And you, obviously, let your political beliefs get in the way of reading with understanding.

          • Paul of Alexandria

            I’m curious. What do you think that those political beliefs are, based on my post?

          • Average_Joe56

            Having a basic grasp of English grammer tends to help….

            As passed by the Congress:

            A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

            The statement: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state,”
            is often misunderstood to mean that you need to be in a militia in order to own firearms. Well, point in-fact, every male of draft age who is of sound body and mind is considered a member of the “unorganized militia” according to the law, but that’s irrelevant, because the second statement:
            “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
            is the important part. This statement is the crux of the amendment and ensures that the individual right to bear arms is not infringed upon. Now, the way this sentence is constructed (in total), the right of the people allows for the well-regulated militia. The militia is a byproduct of the right to bear arms, not a prerequisite. Here is the grammatical break down from the prof:
            [ Copperud:] The words “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ” militia,” which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject “the right,” verb “shall”). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
            In reply to your numbered questions:
            [Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]
            [ Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
            [Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]
            [ Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
            [Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]
            [ Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
            [Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
            [ Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
            [Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase " well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]
            [ Copperud:] (5) The phrase means “subject to regulations of a superior authority”; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
            [Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]
            [ Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.”
            [Schulman:] As a “scientific control” on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
            “A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”
            My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
            (1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and
            (2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict “the right of the people to keep and read Books” only to “a well-educated electorate” – for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
            [ Copperud:] (1) Your “scientific control” sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
            (2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
            Got it? Good.

            Roy Herman Copperud, a professor of journalism and an authority on the use of the English language.

            A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

            In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
            ——————————

            In 1911,

            Turkey established gun control. >From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
            ——————————

            Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
            ——————————

            China established gun control in 1935. >From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
            ——————————

            Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
            —- ————- ————-

            Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
            ——————————

            Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
            —————————–

            Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

            ——————————

            You won’t see this data on the

            US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

            Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

            Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!

            The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

            With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.

            During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade

            America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

            If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun-control message to all of your friends.

            The purpose of fighting is to win.
            There is no possible victory in defense.
            The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either.
            The final weapon is the brain.

            All else is supplemental.

            “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters”
            ― Daniel Webster

            “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
            Robert A. Heinlein

  • Chris ! ! !

    Really, Who is going to stop them ? Are the Feds going to force their way into each school & have a shoot out with the teachers to disarm them ? Who’s side will the Police be on ?

    • Vis Fac

      They are planning just that when they come to disarm the American people. They will swarm in masse against one person to intimidate them into surrendering (that’s how cowards operate) They are going to have a huge surprise when people start shooting at them then they will most likely pee themselves and make a fast exit and call in air support.

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est
      Semper-Fi

  • Jerry Morris

    I thought Arkansas was dumping its requirement to have a permit to carry a sidearm (concealed or openly) this month.

    • independent thinker

      Unfortunately no they are not. That idea probably comes from a law passed that loosens restrictions on carrying in your vehicle.

  • gail2011

    They need to get rid of the AG liberal leftist COMMUNIST. NO they want GUN FREE ZONES so if obama needs another crisis with more dead kids & teachers obama can’t have them fighting back showing how effective the conservative idea to actually PROTECT OUR CHILDREN & TEACHERS.

    These liberal leftist COMMUNIST are more then disgusting.

    A VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT ID A VOTE FOR COMMMUNISM!

    THEY ALL NEED TO BE VOTED OUT EVERY LAST DISGUSTING DEGENERATE LIBERAL LEFTIST DEMOCRAT/COMMUNIST.

    • Valor

      Don’t forget their RINO enablers.

    • Elton Robb

      A vote for dictatorship, a vote for King George the Third.

  • Valor

    This what they do in Israel, and it works fine there. Difference is: the school teachers and administrators don’t carry concealed. Very likely have a M-16 slung over a shoulder.

  • Dave

    Three cheers for the school board who decided to pursue this route to safety for the children under the care, custody and control of the teachers!
    Now they need to remove the gun free zone signs if they have not done so already. Maybe more districts will wake up to the reality that they need some kind of protection on property.
    Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

  • klsparrow

    I live in Arkansas and McDaniel is an idiot. He was going to run for governor but McDaniel, who has been married to his current wife, Bobbi, since 2009,
    admitted in November to having had “inappropriate” interactions with
    Davis in 2011. He made the admission after he was mentioned in court
    filings in a custody dispute between Davis and her ex-husband, Fred Day.

    Davis has represented clients in several cases in which the attorney general’s office was opposing counsel. All of this came out during Davis divorce. By the way McDaniel is a Democrat.

    The school district should tell this loser to stick it. Why in the hell anyone would believe this man knows anything about the law is beyond me. Since he did not think there was a problem with AG McDaniel screwing the opposing counsel Davis in court cases. No conflict there.

    • independent thinker

      You got that right McDaniel is definitely an idiot.

    • John Woodbury

      Kisparrow, thanks for the conformation that the AG is a Democrap, but I knew this from the AP story on Huffenpuff, since the writer there did not say what camp the fool belonged to. (Had he been Republican it would have been the first word of every sentence)

  • Jerry Morris

    Some one needs to show the Arkansas AG the 2nd Amendment and point out to him that there are no qualifiers or exceptions regarding “Keeping and BEARING Arms”. He also needs to be reminded that the 2nd Amendment, being PART OF the US CONSTITUTION, is the “supreme Law of the Land” (Article VI, paragraph 2 – “Supremacy Clause”) and supersedes all State and local Laws.
    The 2nd Amendment also doesn’t have anything in it concerning requirement of a carry permit to “bear Arms” , either.

  • lazycs

    Far better than arming the IRS, HUD and SS

  • charliep

    This policy has been in place for some time now in Israel, and has been very effective. The problem in Israel was terrorist activity in schools, while in the U.S. up to this time has been a loose psycho case or some nit-wit kids on meds that has been the problem. As the Islam population increases in the United States don’t be surprised when Terrorism attacks at schools start taking place. Armed teachers in Schools in Israel quickly eliminated terrorist attacks in schools there.

  • ChiefBoring

    Does the Arkansas AG think the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to teachers? Good for the school board for showing some True Grit!

    • Average_Joe56

      According to the article:

      “Each concealed carry employee must pass a 53-hour training course, whereupon he or she will be awarded a $1,100 stipend to buy a handgun and holster. The district is also paying a total of $50,000 for ammunition and training.’
      Since they will be carrying handguns, I can only hope that the ammo bought…is steel core ammo….something that will penetrate all body armor with the exception of steel plate ( that stuff is just too heavy for the average criminal to wear… and cost prohibitive).
      …Let the games begin!

      This reply was supposed to be for Richard above…but the site has been acting up all morning…..

      • ChiefBoring

        Average, there is too much chance of a through and through with AP ammo, with a real possibility of collateral damage. Hollow points and head shots are better.

        • Average_Joe56

          While head shots with hollow points is preferred, the opportunity does not always avail itself. If the shooter happens to be wearing body armor and you can’t get a head shot off, hitting a vital area becomes a difficult thing to do. An armor piercing round solves the issue quite nicely.
          As for collateral damage, one should never be shooting at a target with someone else behind that target…Even without AP ammo…there is always a chance of missing the intended target or the bullet passing through the target and wounding or killing someone else…. as always…….Safety First!
          As for going straight through….a hole in the heart or lungs….will take the fight out of any animal…four legged or two legged…. real fast ( trust me on this).
          AP ammo….practice, practice, practice!!
          Gun control means ….being able to hit your target….consistently !!!
          ;)

          • ChiefBoring

            Actually, Average, we are both pretty much on target. As to my collateral damage concern, I was thinking of the school setting, when frightened children may not stay out of the way. My service was back in the day, when body armor was a flak jacket.

          • Average_Joe56

            My service was also back in the day 73-77. However, after watching the direction of this nation over the last 30 years, I have decided to stay current on weapons and defense technologies. Currently, I am enrolled at Penn Foster, in their gunsmith course…When the SHTF, I want to be a valuable commodity…rather than cannon fodder.
            I have noticed more and more , that these mass shooters are wearing standard soft body armor…which a pistol will not penetrate. Typically, an AP pistol round will go through one layer of the body armor…but not the second layer on the back (not enough powder).
            In this type of situation, the point isn’t so much to kill the perp (s)…as it is to keep them pinned down and doing the least damage possible until more help arrives.
            Immobilize the threat and wait for backup. If the perp(s) insists on dying… save the taxpayers some money…..oblige them….with good old fashioned steel core ammo….an old cure for modern technology.

          • ChiefBoring

            Sounds good to me, Average. I enlisted in ’56, and qualified with the M1! Before the M14, even…And in Cuba in the late 50’s, while on the Base Police we carried ’97 Winchester shotguns. I still like that visible hammer.

          • Average_Joe56

            ’56 was a good year… that was the year I was born…
            I am guessing that you may have a year or two on me…lol.
            Thank you for your service…keep your powder dry!

          • ChiefBoring

            Amen, Brother! Back at you!

  • Richard

    Good job teachers I hope they are are trained and caring AR15s

  • Richard

    Good job teachers I hope they are are trained and caring AR15s

    • Paul of Alexandria

      Nope. Didn’t you read “concealed carry”? The idea is that the bad guys won’t know who’s carrying and who’s not!

  • Wellarmed

    It looks like a good start, but I believe they left out the janitors, plumbers, groundskeepers, and electricians. There is a whole host of staff that should be armed but appear to be excluded for some reason.

    I take issue with the stipend though. Just because something is a natural born right does not mean that the public should have to pony up for that right to be implemented. The training should be provided by the local Sheriffs department Pro Bono or be billed accordingly to the school district.

    If a Stipend were to be issued, it should only be for reimbursement of expenses related to training, ammunition, wear and tear, and fuel expenses,etc…

    • Paul of Alexandria

      The teachers are the ones that are constantly with the students.

  • Sarah Conner

    You gotta break some eggs,if you’re gonna make an omelet…

  • Progressive Republican

    More and more insurance companies are refusing to cover school districts that allow guns on school grounds. Makes this kind of a no-brainer, eh?

    • Paul of Alexandria

      I think that the free market will solve that one.

      • Progressive Republican

        Like I said…

  • Robbie

    Problem is that once it becomes well known that schools have armed staff would be mass murderers will simply move on down the street to the day care centre. So we’d then have to arm THEM which would move the shooters over to the mall or theatre and on and on it would go.Perhaps someone should suggest universal background checks to try and nip would be shooters in the bud. It wouldn’t solve the problem entirely, of course, but it would help.