Hunt Talk Radio - Look for it on your favorite Podcast platform

Teacher Concealed Carry Law in Idaho

Unless I read it wrong it says they are allowed to, not required to?
You’re not wrong. I think my beef with it is that this isn’t going to solve the issue. And even if it is voluntary, it assumes the teacher will want to put themselves between the shooter and their target. We can barely get some of these school officers to do that - as we’ve seen in some cases.

So instead we now have a gun in the classroom, which could lead to other unintended consequences
 
You’re not wrong. I think my beef with it is that this isn’t going to solve the issue. And even if it is voluntary, it assumes the teacher will want to put themselves between the shooter and their target. We can barely get some of these school officers to do that - as we’ve seen in some cases.

So instead we now have a gun in the classroom, which could lead to other unintended consequences
Not sure how I feel about it one way or another yet. Maybe the teacher isn't worried about the kids as much as they don't want to be in harms way themselves.
 
I absolutely want to be able to defend my students should there ever be an active shooter event in my school, but I can imagine what the effects on the learning environment in my classroom would be if students knew I had a firearm, and I’m fairly certain it wouldn’t be good. Beyond that, it seems incredibly foolhardy to not require extensive training for any teacher who elects to carry at school in how to react and conduct themselves in an active shooter situation. I’m talking hands-on, real-case-scenario training.

Another troubling aspect of this is that, I believe, many of the teachers who do elect to carry at school are the kinds of people whom I would genuinely worry about having a gun around kids. I’ve worked with several individuals who have shared that they would love to be able to carry while at work whom I would describe as erratic, ill-tempered, and wholly unfit for that responsibility.
 
Beyond that, it seems incredibly foolhardy to not require extensive training for any teacher who elects to carry at school in how to react and conduct themselves in an active shooter situation. I’m talking hands-on, real-case-scenario training.
I would think it would be the same training that is required for them to have a concealed carry in public where there are children present? Serious question btw. But more training could only be a positive.
 
Last edited:
Ok... serious question.

Scenario: You are in your child's school. Shots start ringing out down the hall in your kid's classroom, kids are screaming and dying.

Would you rather:
A. Wait 2-3 minutes for police to arrive.
B. Pull a Glock out of your waistband and run down to the classroom?
 
Last edited:
We don’t even pay teachers enough to teach; now we’re adding this to their plate?
Nothing is added to anyone's plate.

The law, as written, specifically says no one can be required to do this, and no one can be held responsible for carrying but not acting during a school shooting.

And yes, teachers definitely are underpaid. It is pitiful to me we trust our kids to these people and pay them so little.
 
Last edited:
“Idaho Association of School Resource Officers President Morgan Ballis said in a statement, noting that 95% of school shooters are students who could be stopped if they are identified as threats. ‘This legislation is a drastic misprioritization of statewide school safety initiatives with a focus on response over prevention.’ ”

Huh?

Sounds like the loudest arguments against it are the removal of school boards sovereignty in making these decisions for their own schools, and that this bill somehow draws away from preventive social and mental healthcare/practices.
 
Ok... serious question.

Scenario: You are in your child's school. Shots start ringing out down the hall in your kid's classroom, kids are screaming and dying.

Would you rather:
A. Wait 2-3 minutes for police to arrive.
B. Pull a Glock out of your waistband and run down to the classroom?
I think the better question is…is the piece of mind of being able to defend your kids/community worth the other risks inherent in adding guns to these spaces for relatively rare acts.

Every time people claim there will be a bunch of bloodshed when concealed carry is liberalized. But have the results been?
 
I think the better question is…is the piece of mind of being able to defend your kids/community worth the other risks inherent in adding guns to these spaces for relatively rare acts.

Every time people claim there will be a bunch of bloodshed when concealed carry is liberalized. But have the results been?
I like my question better.

I work in my kids' school, so it hits home. I know exactly how long it takes the police to arrive for a threat. They are pretty good, too. But I can be anywhere in about 8-10 seconds. I don't care how rare it is. We just had Idaho's first school shooting a couple years back.

And to answer your question: yes, I believe it is. Same as I believe in concealed carry outside of schools.
 
But on a serious note...I am curious as to how this plays out.

In Idaho, traditionally it's all very conservative. In recent years, the legislature literally outlawed teaching Critical Race Theory in schools and legalized the firing squad when an execution got delayed because of lethal injection drug issues. They jump on topics and laws extremely quickly, love it or hate it.

However, the House tends to be quicker to submit really conservative bills (if you want to call them that) and the Senate takes a little longer to convince and is less, say, extreme leaning.

It will be interesting to see what happens after this passed the House so overwhelmingly. I'm curious as to what senators are thinking regarding constituent accountability. Several house members passed it with reservations based on their belief that the law isn't perfect, but will help protect kids and is what their constituents want.
 
I work in my kids' school, so it hits home.
This just makes it seem like an emotional argument to me.

If we’re talking about the presence of guns in “gun free zones”, and how they make us feel, the only relevant experiences I’ve had are in the hospital with gang members guarding their buddy 24 x 7 after they’ve been shot. And I have to admit I felt better knowing they weren’t a soft target and might deter things from getting out of hand. Even if said guys likely didn’t care whether I/everyone else was in the cross fire or not.
 
This just makes it seem like an emotional argument to me.

If we’re talking about the presence of guns in “gun free zones”, and how they make us feel, the only relevant experiences I’ve had are in the hospital with gang members guarding their buddy 24 x 7 after they’ve been shot. And I have to admit I felt better knowing they weren’t a soft target and might deter things from getting out of hand. Even if said guys likely didn’t care whether I/everyone else was in the cross fire or not.
So, in your scenario the gang members are law abiding citizens who can legally carry firearms?

It isn't emotional. It comes from logic. I have guns and know how to use them. I know how a school functions. I know that straight up crazy kids are in schools.

As timed, I am eight seconds from any classroom in the school I work in.

It is logic coming from real world, practical experience.

We had the same liberal arguments from people when Idaho went to constitutional carry...and those stacks of bodies we were promised if law-abiding citizens could carry without a permit never appeared.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,395
Messages
2,019,613
Members
36,153
Latest member
Selway
Back
Top