U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- The Attorney General of New York, recently elected and rabidly anti-Second Amendment, Letitia James, is attempting to intimidate
online sellers of the materials and tools used to make firearms into not selling them to New York residents. She claims
the companies are promoting law breaking. From the ag.ny.gov:
NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today announced that she has directed the operators of 16 websites
that manufacture and/or sell firearms or firearms components to “cease and desist” selling nearly complete assault weapons into New York State. The possession, manufacture, and sale of assault weapons is illegal in New York, but these companies have been providing
the means to violate the state’s assault weapons ban, and often specifically advertise their products as a way to evade
law enforcement with phrases like, “If they don’t know you have it, they can’t take it.”
“There is only one purpose for the products that these companies are selling — to manufacture illegal and deadly
assault weapons,” said Attorney General Letitia James. “The proliferation of these types of weapons has not only
caused indescribable suffering across the country, but gravely endanger every New Yorker. We must make sure that these illegal
and untraceable guns are not built in New York.”
There are serious problems with AG Letitia's claims. She is the one who is breaking the law, not the sellers of metal and
tools. The law banning the possession of semi-automatic rifles in New York is flagrantly unconstitutional. Such rifles
are in common use, are used in self-defense and defense of the home, and are shown to be far less commonly used in crime than
semi-automatic pistols. She has a duty to uphold the Constitution and the Second Amendment. A court case challenging the law
worked its way to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
Unfortunately, the Courts have supported this flagrant infringement on the Second Amendment. Because of the death of Justice
Antonin Scalia, the
club decided not to pursue the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has yet to hear the issue.
AG Letitia James is wrong in her assertion that these products only have one purpose, and that purpose is an illegal one,
based on the flagrantly unconstitutional New York law.
New York banned the sale of many semi-automatic firearms, including the ubiquitous and popular AR-15 type of rifles, based
on a number of cosmetic features. Here are the cosmetic features: N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(22)
22. “Assault weapon” means
(a) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following
(i)a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a thumbhole stock;
(iv)a second hand grip or a protruding grip that can beheld by then on-trigger hand;
(v)a bayonet mount;
(vi)a flash suppressor,muzzle break, muzzle compensator, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor,
muzzle break, or muzzle compensator;
(vii) a grenade launcher;
Anyone who is making a rifle from the partly machined aluminum paper weights can make legal rifles by making sure they
do not have the features forbidden by the law. Such paper weights can be used to make rifles that are not semi-automatic.
Rifles that meet these requirements are not required to be registered in New York. People who move to New York can bring
their rifles, which meet these requirements, into New York, without problems.
Any person can “make” an existing semi-automatic rifle into an “assault weapon” under New York
law, simply by changing the grip, or stock or threading the muzzle. Such actions are much easier than doing the machining
necessary to turn the paperweight into a functioning firearm.
There are several other ways the lower receiver of an AR-15 type rifle can be made by people in their homes.
The ability to make firearms is clearly part of the Second Amendment. Individuals have been legally making their own firearms
for at least 500 years, which includes the entire existence of the United States.
There were no laws infringing on the making of firearms when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.
A new infringement on the Second Amendment, such as a ban on making your own firearm, is clearly unconstitutional.
Once you try to ban the making of firearms, it becomes apparent, to have much effect, you need to make the knowledge to
make firearms illegal. New York is in the process of attempting to do that. To do so, you must violate the First Amendment.
“This has turned into a classic First Amendment case,” Gottlieb
said. “Only because this case involves technical information on production of firearm components on a 3-D printer have
these anti-rights officials acted to squelch it. We cannot allow this to happen.”
Then, people trying to ban the making of firearms ban the sale of firearm parts.
Then they ban the sale of tools useful in making firearms, without special licenses.
These are things the New York State government is in the process of doing.
They are blatant violations of the First Amendment and the Second Amendment.
New York has always been an incubator for infringements on the Second Amendment.
They are one of only six states without a protection for the right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution.
They were the source of the infamous Sullivan law, where organized crime boss “Big Tim” Sullivan lobbied and had passed the handgun licensing law to protect his
organized crime enforcers.
In 2016, New York was the scene of another scandal where gun permits were obtained through bribes.
The New York violations of the First and Second Amendments are wending their slow, arduous way through the courts. The Supreme Court has decided to hear one New York City case. There will be a hearing on 1 October.
Elections have consequences. President Trump's appointments to the Supreme Court could make the difference in the Court
deciding to do their job, and enforce the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
This individual never stops
Although he’s out of office, former President Barack Obama has not stopped
voicing his political opinions.
With gun control constantly being one of the most polarizing issues in America,
it makes sense that Obama would offer his two cents on the matter, even while out of office.
Recently, Obama did just that, taking advantage of a trip to Brazil to lament to his audience about the horrors of American gun control laws.
At the VTEX Day digital conference hosted in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the former
president recounted the emotional distress he felt after the Sandy Hook massacre. Obama expressed his sorrow:
“The most difficult day that I’ve had, was the day where there
was a shooting at a school. Uh, where, 20 small children were shot, as well as some teachers.”
He added, “I had to go and comfort the parents.” However, this speech was not just filled with sorrow.
Obama went on to score anti-gun talking points. The 44th president claimed
that anyone can purchase a gun without having to go through much regulation. Plus, he stated that machine guns can be purchased
Obama told his Brazilian audience:
“Some of you may be aware our gun laws in the United States don’t
make much sense. Anybody can buy any weapon any time — without much if any regulation, they can buy it over the Internet,
they can buy machine guns.”
Obama’s assertions throughout this speech are not only misleading, but
some are flat out wrong.
For starters, every gun owner in America must go through a federal background check in order to acquire a firearm. Further, machine guns have been subject to stringent
federal regulations since the National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934, as the federal government didn’t stop regulating machine guns from there.
From 1986 and onward, civilians could only acquire machine guns that were “lawfully
registered and possessed before May 19, 1986,” according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The Hughes Amendment of the Firearm Owners Protection Act included this provision and has made the
possession of machine guns overwhelmingly cost prohibitive for the average gun owner.
Obama’s talk in Brazil is rather ironic given the South American country’s
high crime rates and draconian gun control laws. Brazil had a homicide rate of 30.8 homicides per 100,000 people in 2017 and ranks among the most violent
countries in the world. Gun ownership is not a right in Brazil and the average resident must jump through a complex maze of regulatory hoops
such as registration and extensive background checks. As a result of such restrictions, only 3.5 percent of Brazilians owned
firearms before 2004.
If anything, Brazilians should be lectured on the benefits having looser gun control policies.
The good news is that the recent election of President Jair Bolsonaro has seen
Brazil’s gun policy shift towards a more pro-gun direction with Bolsonaro signing an executive order that would loosen restrictions on gun ownership.
Gun policy might be a touchy subject, but policymakers and commentators would
be wise to discard loaded soundbites and instead do more thorough research on the matter. A proper firearms policy of freedom
would be a life-saver for many individuals.
American Civilians Estimated To Own 400 Million Firearms
Gun Store Wall (Photo by Michael Saechang)
In a new study published by the Small Arms Survey estimates that American civilians own owning just under 400 million guns. Worldwide it’s estimated that civilians own nearly 1 billion firearms, with India a very, very distant second
to the US.
American Civilians Estimated To Own 400 Million Firearms
The report published by the Swiss-based research centre in June estimates that the number of firearms owned globally by
civilians, military and law enforcement totals around 1.1 billion. With American civilians owning 393 million of those or
40% of the world’s firearms. That’s more than those held by civilians in the other top 20 countries combined.
It is difficult to quantify exactly how many firearms are privately owned in the US. There many numbers suggested by numerous
sources with estimates ranging between 250 million to as high as 600 million. The Small Arms Survey’s estimations are
based upon official firearms registration databases, expert estimates, surveys and comparisons to similar countries on page
8 of their report the Small Arms Survey go into detail on how they computed their estimates.
The report makes use of a number of tables and diagrams to break down the data and perhaps the most interesting is he first
pie chart, seen below. It shows how over 1 billion firearms around the world are distributed with civilian ownership, at an
estimated 857 million, by far the largest group.
Small Arms Survey global firearms ownership estimates for 2017 (Small Arms Survey)
HOW DO THE NUMBERS BREAKDOWN BY COUNTRY?
Here’s Small Arms Survey’s table showing the estimated total civilian-held legal and illicit firearms in the
25 top ranked countries and territories, 2017:
United States 393,300,000
Russian Federation 17,600,000
South Africa 5,400,000
Just over 10 years ago, in 2007, the Small Arms Survey published a similar report that estimated that 650 million guns were owned world wide. The report also believed that 270 million of these
were owned by US civilians. This clear increase shows that the US civilian market is the foremost driver behind the increase
in firearms ownership in the world. The latest report suggests that 120 firearms are owned per 100 people in the US. By this
metric the next country to hold a substantial number of guns per 100 people is Yemen, with 53 guns per 100 people. Japan and
Indonesia have the lowest number of guns per 100 people, both with an average of just just 0.3 guns per 100 people.
The report’s author, Aaron Karp, said that “with acquisition averaging around 14 million guns annually during
the last five years, growth of civilian holdings in the United States contributes disproportionately to the increase
of the global firearms stockpile.”
Small Arms Survey have also created a dedicated interactive map that shows the distribution of firearms globally and by
civilian, military and law enforcement ownership. Check it out here.
Sources: 1 2
"I'll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands."
The slogan popularized by National Rifle Association (NRA) bumper stickers has been a rallying cry for gun owners over the
last several decades. It reflects the sentiment that too many politicians don't respect the individual right to gun ownership
ensconced in the Constitution. The challenge for most of gun owners is that amending gun policies isn't usually a give-and-take
issue. It's often a take-and-take scenario facing even those of us willing to discuss policy reforms in good faith.
Most gun owners aren't really Second Amendment absolutists. We
don't want violent felons carrying firearms. We're comfortable restricting gun ownership for people who have adjudicated
mental incapacities. We also support reasonable age restrictions for purchase. Even as some politicians suggest we allow teachers
to arm themselves in the classroom, I haven't heard anyone call for minor students to carry guns in school.
But even those reasonable restraints are concessions of individual
gun rights. As best I can tell, gun control advocates aren't credibly offering to liberalize any gun laws in exchange for
reforms in other areas. Otherwise, we could have already addressed glaring problems with the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System (NICS) through the FIX NICS Act that passed the House in December of 2017. Democrats balked at the idea of requiring
reciprocity for concealed-carry permits across state lines.
As such, it's truly amazing that ideas like raising the age for
certain firearm purchases, Texas's mental crisis gun seizure law, and playing hardball with states who shirk NICS reporting
are viable. Even in an environment with no additional policy consideration put on the table for gun owners, modest reforms
aren't definitively out of reach.
If all this back and forth were really about improving gun laws,
we'd have Republicans and Democrats seizing that common ground on politically achievable ideas and making progress. I haven't
been shy about my personal willingness to engage, but my phone hasn't been ringing with calls from Democratic policy makers.
Modest achievable compromises won't be praised by the NRA or
sufficient for anti-gun activists in the headlines. More specifically, reasonable policy consensus isn't the way to raise
Take the recently formed NoRA Initiative for example. According
to reporting by Time, Parkland shooting survivor and political activist David Hogg, Alyssa Milano, Jimmy Kimmel, Alec Baldwin and
others have joined forces to "expose public servants who have been stymying gun control legislation after taking money from
I'm not sure how they plan to "expose" information that is extremely
well documented, public and campaigned upon. In most heavily Republican districts, NRA support is a critical advantage for
candidates. They're not hiding from it; they prize it. In toss-up districts, candidates are generally smart enough to know
whether the NRA affiliation is an advantage or disadvantage, and they act accordingly.
Progressives will love and applaud NoRA's "coalition" of liberals
and liberals. Conservatives will largely ignore it. The NRA will point to the entity as an attack on gun rights by the leftist
elite, raise more money, and increase membership. NoRA literally stands for "NoRifle Association." Gun owners like me don't
see that as simply an anti-NRA stance; it's an attack on people who share similar views about the government's further encroachment
on Second Amendment rights. It isn't a call for reasoned discussion.
On a similar note, the NRA's bellicose recent ads "coming for"
the New York Times and warlike rhetoric toward political opponents are equally unhelpful. A "clenched fist of truth" sounds
downright authoritarian. As much as I'm a fan of the Second Amendment, the first one is equally important. In fact, protecting
the First Amendment is a primary reason I support the Second.
I don't want another civil war, but I am adamant about defending
the Constitution that's served our nation well. At times, I'm going to agree with the ACLU on issues like free speech. On
other occasions, it's the NRA on gun rights. Sometimes it's even stranger. I recently discovered that I agree with Kanye West
on the importance of individual political expression.
We're spending too much time conflating gun policy reforms with
political objectives. If NoRA wants to be the anti-NRA and a political fundraising machine for progressives, so be it. We're
free to do that in America. But such efforts aren't about making policy headway any more than the NRA's fight ads.
Either we trade equal opposing political blows or genuinely seek
common ground. It's incredibly difficult to do both. The latter is far less emotionally gratifying, but it's also more prudent.
Gun owners give some ground, and the gun control crowd doesn't get everything it wants. Votes aren't there for a federal ban
on AR-15 style guns. Aggressive federal licensure requirements are probably dead on arrival as well. Such compromise might
make everyone a little unhappy, but good public policies usually do that.
I won't be joining the likes of Hogg and Milano at the NoRA Initiative,
but I'm happy to discuss achievable policy reforms. While many gun owners are similarly open to improving gun policies, we're
not interested in political surrender. The take and take tenor needs to find a little more give to law-abiding gun owners.
That's understandably a tall order for gun control advocates, but it's much easier than trying to pry the guns out of our
cold dead hands.
By Cameron Smith Take on Take
New York Gun Bill
The passage of New York’s so-called SAFE Act (“Secure
Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013”) drastically changed the landscape for lawful gun owners in the Empire
State. Besides new restrictions on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles the state calls “assault weapons,” bans
on magazines, and limits on the number of rounds that could be loaded into a gun, the Act imposed a requirement that handgun
license holders be “recertified” every five years, with all licensees completing the initial recertification by
January 31, 2018. The recertification form requires that the licensee disclose his or her “name, date of birth, gender, race, residential address, social
security number, [and] firearms possessed by such license holder,” along with the listed identifying details (make,
model, caliber, and serial number). (“Firearm” under the applicable New York law means a handgun or other gun
of a size which may be concealed upon the person.)
A failure to recertify operates as an automatic revocation of the license. Possession of a “firearm”
without a valid license is a criminal offense, and the revocation makes the person ineligible to apply for or renew a license.
Once a license is revoked, state law mandates that every gun owned or possessed by the licensee be “surrendered”
to a law enforcement agency. A New York State Police field guide on the SAFE Act, prepared by attorneys for the Division of State Police, unequivocally instructs officers that when
“a licensee becomes ineligible to hold a pistol permit, the Safe Act requires the person to surrender all
firearms to police, including all rifles and shotguns for which no license or registration is required.” (Emphasis in
Should the person fail to comply by turning in every gun, the SAFE Act (codified as NY Penal Law § 400.00(11)(c))
not only authorizes but requires that police officers confiscate such property: the guns “shall be removed and declared
a nuisance and any police officer or peace officer acting pursuant to his or her special duties is authorized to remove any
and all such weapons.”
Once the gun is deemed a “nuisance,” the owner loses the ability to reclaim or legally transfer
it. State law directs that nuisance guns be destroyed without the need for a court order or other judicial proceedings, and
courts have confirmed that a person has no “legitimate possessory interest” in firearms for which he or she has
The policy of recertification is clear: licensees who fail to comply – by inadvertently missing
the deadline, for example – face having all guns, and not just the firearms covered by the license, permanently confiscated
by law enforcement officers. Far from being overblown hyperbole, describing the recertification law as “the camel’s
nose in the tent of gun confiscation” is not only accurate but arguably, an unduly benign portrayal of a grossly disproportionate
regime to enforce recertification through mandatory surrender, police seizure, and destruction of otherwise legal property.
Even assuming that license recertification is “a step for safety,” as the NYAGV member claims,
it’s not clear how much less secure or safe residents would be if the recertification process included, instead, a grace
period for late compliance or imposed a penalty fee for licensees who miss the deadlines but are eligible to recertify. Felons
and other criminals are notoriously unlikely to obey gun licensing rules, and state law already makes any weapon that is used
in the commission of a crime or that is unlawfully possessed a “nuisance” weapon. Judging from statistics from
the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (Nov. 2017) on “firearm activity” (based on reports from police agencies across the state), New York residents aren’t
significantly more safe since the 2013 gun control legislation was imposed. The total figures for 2016 for “shooting
incidents involving injury” and “shooting victims (persons hit)” exceed the totals listed in each of the
previous seven years; the 2016 figure for “individuals killed by gun violence” shows a just under ten percent
increase as compared to the five-year average prior to 2016.
In the same way that anti-gun advocates consistently seek to disguise restrictive gun control measures
under the veneer of “common sense,” “gun safety,” or “gun law reform,” they aim to influence
public opinion towards “strengthening” gun laws by dismissing opposition to such laws by ordinary, informed Americans
as the “mindless” nattering of a handful of extremists.
As for New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, the group’s own website proclaims that “NYAGV was
instrumental in the passage of the NY SAFE Act in 2013.” That being the case, we may be excused for dismissing the article
as no more than a stakeholder’s spin, aimed at securing public buy-in for a gun control law that extinguishes rights
in the name of “public safety.”
In August, Seattle’s
city council unanimously passed the “gun violence tax” that would charge an extra $25 for every gun purchase,
and five cents for every bullet.
Reuters reports that several pro-Second Amendment groups filed an injunction, alleging the tax violated Washington
state’s “law that bars municipalities from creating their own gun regulations.”
But Judge Palmer Robinson
ruled against the injunction on Tuesday, saying the “gun violence tax” was a “lawful exercise of Seattle’s
According to The Blaze, Tim Burgess, Seattle city council president, said:
saw through the NRA’s distorted efforts to put gun industry profits ahead of public safety.”
Aaron Gottlieb of the
Second Amendment Foundation countered:
“We are going
to fight this vigorously in defense of a state preemption law that has served Washington citizens well for more than three
Speaking about the tax
on Fox News, Editor-in-Chief of The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson, made a salient comparison:
“Even from an
epidemiological standpoint, it doesn’t make sense. Consider car accidents, which kill about three times more people
than gun murders do. Would it make sense to increase the tax on car sales?… of course not. You look at the populations
that are most likely to cause car accidents.”
Carlson then pointedly
said what he believes this is all about:
“This is not actually
an answer to gun violence. It’s a way of disarming law-abiding citizens.”
In April 2012,
Cook County, Illinois, which contains the city of Chicago, enacted a similar tax on firearms.
According to City-Data, between 2009 – 2012, homicides in Chicago averaged 455 annually. In 2013, when the tax
went into effect, there were 414 homicides in Chicago, a relatively significant decrease.
In 2014 and 2015, however,
there were 435 and 465 murders respectively, averaging 450, according to The Chicago Tribune.
As of the end of 2015,
Cook County’s gun violence tax seems to have had little effect on violence prevention.
Let’s put aside
that the “gun violence tax” may be unconstitutional, since, as famously argued by Justice Marshall, “the
power to tax is the power to destroy.”
An NRO chart makes one thing clear: While the gun homicide rate is down 49% since 1993, the number of
guns in private hands has increased by 62%.
Perhaps if a citizen
gets shot in a “gun-free zone,” the city of Seattle should be sued for false advertising
A law in Georgia is allowing for hundreds of people who were barred from
buying firearms to slip around background checks, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports. According to Georgia law, people who are involuntarily committed for mental
health treatment are required to have their records of commitment erased from the National Instant Background Check System
after five years. This includes patients who were committed for inpatient treatment, found incompetent to handle their own
affairs, or found guilty of a crime but mentally ill; under federal law, however, such people are technically not supposed
to possess firearms.
"We're pulling them back after five years," said GBI Director Vernon Keenan,
whose agency provides the commitment records to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. "That's a legal
dilemma [because] that person is still prohibited from possession or buying firearms."
The names come off the national list without any review by a doctor or a
court. Although these are federal records, participation in the program by each state is voluntary and subject to conditions
the state may impose. [The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]
Georgia is the only state that automatically deletes involuntary commitment
However, others see the five-year expiration date as appropriate. “It's
a tenuous position for someone to have had a mental illness. Your mental health when you're 25 years old is different from
when you're 55 years old," State Sen. Renee Unterman said. "Why should you carry the baggage and stigma of mental illness?"
For the fifth time since 2010, California took the top spot of all 50 U.S. states for enacting the
strongest gun laws in a year, according to the most recent annual scorecard released by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
The center, which tracks
every state’s gun legislation, published its scorecard Wednesday, near the end of a violent year that has seen
more mass shootings than the number of days on its calendar. Among the more high-profile mass shootings this year were the
massacres at a social services center in San Bernardino, California; a community college in Roseburg, Oregon; a movie theater
in Lafayette, Louisiana; and a historic church in Charleston, South Carolina.
On the digital scorecard,
the organization ranks all 50 states based on 30 policy approaches regulating guns and ammunition, including strengthening background
checks, limiting the purchase of multiple firearms per month and reporting lost or stolen firearms. States receive points
for executing effective laws in each policy area. Universal background checks, for example, take priority because laws that
prohibit who can possess and purchase firearms can’t be enforced without them, says Laura Cutilletta, senior staff attorney
at the center.
Each year, the center’s
scorecard continues to show a strong correlation between gun laws and fewer gun deaths. States with the weakest laws, such
as 48th-ranking Wyoming and 49th-ranking Mississippi, have the fifth and third highest gun death rates nationwide, respectively.
States with strong laws, such as California and fifth-ranking Massachusetts, have the 42nd and 49th lowest gun death rates.
California has previously
enacted some unique laws, including the Gun Violence Restraining Order law, which allows authorities to suspend temporarily
individuals’ access to guns if they are viewed as posing a significant threat to public safety. This year, the state
passed a measure requiring residents with concealed carry licenses to obtain written permission from school officials before
carrying firearms or ammunition onto the grounds of K-12 schools or university campuses.
Kansas, which has fallen
nine points since 2014 and now ranks dead last, this year repealed its requirement for residents to have a license to carry a concealed firearm
The center named the
biggest legislative success this year as the new universal background check law in Oregon, enacted in May. Federal law requires
background checks only on purchases at licensed firearms dealers, not at gun shows and on the Internet. But seven other states—California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Rhode Island and Washington—also have laws requiring universal background
RELATED: Oregon Becomes Eighth State to Expand Background Checks on All Gun Sales
In 2015, nine states
passed laws preventing domestic abusers from accessing firearms.
The worst trends of
2015, according to the center, were the law passed in Kansas to allow people to carry a loaded, hidden gun in public without
a permit—which also was enacted in Maine—and Mississippi’s measure allowing concealed firearms in a purse,
bag or case without a permit.
“Our hope is that
legislators and activists will look at their grades in their states and look at the data we’ve provided about what they
can do to raise their grade,” Cutilletta tells Newsweek. “Every state has more that it can do.”
On Monday, Americans
marked the three-year anniversary of the fatal shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, where 26 people
died in December 2012. Since the massacre, 41 states and Washington, D.C., have passed 125 stronger gun laws, according to
California has taken
the No. 1 slot every year since the center first published its rankings in 2010. The group skipped 2011 because it didn’t
anticipate publishing a scorecard each year. However, since the center’s legal experts analyze and collect information
about gun measures throughout the year, they have proceeded to publish a scorecard each year since 2012.
The center was established
in 1993 in the wake of a fatal shooting at a San Francisco law firm in July of that year. It aims to provide ideas and
different approaches to activists dealing with the issue of gun violence in each state.
“We want people
to understand the correlation between gun deaths in their state and the strengths of their gun laws to take action and improve
their grade,” Cutilletta says.
A small Texas school district voted Wednesday night to allow
some teachers to carry guns in the classroom.
School board members in the Keene Independent School District approved
the policy, according to KDFW. The Keene district, located in Johnson County south of Fort Worth, has four campuses.
The station reported that the teachers who carry guns would be selected
by the district and would only carry a firearm if they wanted to. The weapons would be provided by the district. Other Texas
school districts have approved similar measures.
Keene ISD Superintendent Ricky Stephens initially opposed teachers
carrying firearms in the classroom when he was hired three years ago. Stephens now said the world has changed, and so has
Stephens told KDFW that the fear a student might overpower a teacher
and get a gun will not be an issue. Teachers who are involved with kids in higher level grades will not be selected to carry
“It could still turn into a gun fight no matter who has the
gun, or children could get the gun,” Tanya Manuel, a parent of a child in the Keene ISD, told KDFW. “I mean, it
doesn’t matter. It just scares me still.”
The policy will go into effect at some point next year, possibly as
early as February or March.
Click for more from Fox4News.com.