[–] [deleted] ago
[–] totes_magotes [S] ago
People are opposed to the provision that puts guns in the hands of school teachers to protect students. They want NO guns (except in the hands of police), MORE police in schools.
[–] slwsnowman40 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
And that red pill is nice and jagged with sharp corners.
[–] eongoat 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
First of all the new law is not signed by the governor yet, He's not a bright bulb so I don't have hopes it will be vetoed as I think it should be.
basically it is this:
the Governor doesn't like the "arming teacher's" part, so maybe it gets vetoed. Like I said, not a bright bulb. Currently states it's being reviewed line by line.
If I had money/lawyers, I would immediately challenge it as unconstitutional due to the 18-21 ban part if it passes. Old enough to die for the country, old enough to own a rifle.
Mostly it's just another "ban" law that criminals will ignore
edit: Here it is
[–] slickleg64 ago
If a teacher wanted to shoot up a school. he would of already. training and arming teachers will only reduce deaths
[–] totes_magotes [S] ago
No one said it was passed yet. Title says "passing" which means it's in the process and heading towards the governor.
As per point 3, the local sheriff's department also needs to be willing to be a part of that program.
All said, however, none of that changes the fact that it's a red pill against "gun free zones."
[–] Halstan 3 points -3 points 0 points (+0|-3) ago
Read the whole article. I'm curious what you goats think about this law. Thanks for posting dude!
[–] totes_magotes [S] ago
What article? This is a text post. Everything that is needed to be said is said in the title.
[–] spookybm 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
... What article?