Thanks to Spartanburg's Shane Martin, there will be more loaded guns on school grounds here in South Carolina than ever before.
Yesterday, S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford signed Martin’s gun bill into law. (In a wee sidebar attached to the news that Sanford isn’t willing to amend the state’s payday loan laws.) Basically, this means that anyone with a concealed weapons permit can have a car filled with loaded shotguns, rifles, handguns … whatever floats their boat … and park it right on the grounds of an elementary school. For, you know, “protection.”
But don’t worry. It’s not as crazy as it sounds. I mean, you can’t just have the guns sitting on the seats or anything. They have to be in a “closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle.” If you can’t see them, they obviously can’t hurt anyone, right?
As I’ve pointed out before, I’m not anti-gun. But this whole bill … excuse me, law … strikes me as more than a little reactionary. Are there whole legions of elementary school teachers demanding that they be able to bring their Desert Eagle with them so they can feel more secure as they prep for the days arithmetic lessons? High school teachers who are so afraid of their students that they need a gat in their trunk to feel safe?
In his article, Chris pointed out that this really seems like pandering to small, extremely loud group of gun-obsessed right-wing voters who don’t like the idea of being able to go to a PTA meeting without knowing their argument-ender was nearby. I think it’s worth looking at that.
I mean, is this the kind of state we actually want to live in? Where, if a parent-teacher conference goes really badly, there are potentially two loaded firearms out in the parking lot, ready to bring this dispute to the next level? Or even where we have to think about this sort of thing. Are we really the kind of culture that actively wants to introduce — and frankly, condone — a wealth of loaded firearms into places of higher learning?
Evidently the state’s lawmakers think we are. Shane Martin does. Gov. Sanford does, even if he’s completely unwilling to protect people with their backs against the financial wall from predatory payday loans, he’s more than willing to fight for your right to keep a .357 in a glove box when you go to your kid’s soccer match.
Not to mention that this is actually bothering the S.C. Department of Education. Here’s what spokesman Jim Foster told online womens’ magazine Skirt! Columbia earlier this year.
“We understand the convenience issue, but we have concerns about the bill. For years the rule has been no guns on school property, period. It’s hard to see how relaxing that rule will make kids safer.”
Sure, if you simply must take a hand-cannon with you everywhere “for protection,” I guess it is probably convenient to not have to take it home before you pick your kid up from school. Heaven forbid any NRA member be slightly inconvenienced. Never mind that inconvenience is a fact of life for the rest of us, that you probably don’t actually need a concealed handgun on you all the time, that the state has pressing budgetary issues to even keep functioning and this law wasted valuable time, that there’s no clear need for this bill at all, that guns are generally kept off school grounds for a reason (hence the laws about it), or that there’s absolutely no demand for it outside of the special interest groups. Never mind all that.
So, thanks for this Shane Martin and Mark Sanford. Thanks for actively encouraging more guns on school grounds with no additional oversight or enforcement. Thanks for not listening to the educators and parents who opposed this bill. Thanks for making South Carolina a slightly less safe place for all parents, kids, teachers and school staff than it was on Tuesday. Thanks for doing everything you do, all so some people with a powerful special-interest lobby won’t have be slightly inconvenienced.
Now we know, without a doubt, where your loyalties lie.
Steve Shanafelt
…because before this bill, no one brought guns to school.
They did, obviously. But they weren’t encouraged to by state law; they were discouraged. This law’s clearly stated aim is to put more guns on school property. That bothers me.
Everyone seems to be against guns so bad but no one has done anything to the kids and young adults that are in school and bringing weapons to school everyday. Guns aren’t the only weapons out there. What should a unarmed security officer do after his duty on school grounds and has kids with not just guns, but all sorts of weapons ready and waiting to retaliate for whatever reason. How can a teacher teach class when they know if they try to enforce the rules and regulations, when they may possibly faced a life threating retaliation from the students. You think students don’t know the law as well as we do? If they didn’t, then they wouldn’t bother hiding what they have. Employees of the school systems in every city of every state my not need self protection on the way home from work. But think about the ones’ that do. Everyones’ crying about the teachers pay wages, but no one is protecting teachers or giving them some sense of protection while they teach. What kind of environment are you continuing to force teachers to work through at wages that may be even less than what a Soldier or a Marine makes. I think there should be laws installed that gives personnel of the school systems the right to protect themselfs when the threat is high enough and the schools cannot provide protection for their employees that are on their way home.
And how does that relate this this law? It doesn’t allow guns in schools, just on school grounds. And teachers already have the ability to defend themselves if the threat is high enough, although there’s a series of processes in place to evaluate that after the fact to make sure that the teacher acted rationally and wasn’t abusing their power.
Are you suggesting that teachers be allowed to bring guns into the classroom to defend themselves from their students?
Just remember… Everyone’s favorite liberal poster child Michael Moore is a member of the NRA. Remember that before you complain about teachers defending theirselves.
My question to you is in your opinion what good are guns for?
Do you believe they are only for hunting?
Should they not be used as protection?
You say you are not against guns but you spend a lot of time bashing them and not only in reference to them being
brought on campus.
Michael Moore is a lifetime member of the NRA because he was trying to start a movement to take over the voting from within and dismantle its lobbying through sheer member support. His plan was to get a bunch of gun-control people to join, and then force changes to the group’s bylaws that would keep the NRA out of politics entirely. He talked about it in “Bowling for Columbine,” I think.
I’m not anti-gun. I’m anti-concealed guns on school property for no clear reason other than to satisfy the agenda of some people who basically are too lazy to take their guns out of the glove compartment before a PTA meeting. But by all means show me the petitions where education professionals demanded that this law be passed, rather than the gun lobby pushing for it, and I’ll happily reconsider my stance.
Steve you are missing the entire point. Even if you are opposed to gun on school grounds, what about a person’s right to carry when they AREN’T on school grounds but they are stopping there, or working there. Do you think that nothing EVER happens to people while they are headed to, or coming back from a school?
By limiting the ability of people to have the gun locked in a vehicle while on school property you are also limiting people’s ability to defend themselves at any time they must go to a school property.
What about a teacher who works all day, coaches a sport or other after school activity, then heads home after dark? What if they are attacked while heading home? You think that never happens? Read about the assaults and robberies at Georgia Tech. They aren’t alone either. The most UNsafe areas are so called “gun-free zones” because criminals KNOW that the law abiding won’t or can’t have one.
Get real.
“My question to you is in your opinion what good are guns for?”
Killing. Guns exist solely for killing. Bringing guns into a school setting means introducing the tools of killing into a place where children are. All so a handful of people aren’t slightly inconvenienced and can feel more comfortable. Again, I’m unaware of any teacher, parent or school-worker petition demanding the need for more firearms on school grounds. There’s plenty of demand for more security in the form of professional security guards, however. But that would be a sensible use of tax-payer money and wouldn’t earn Martin any brownie points with the hard-line right.
“This law’s clearly stated aim is to put more guns on school property.”
Steve: I think this statement by you misses the point and blows this issue out of proportion. I read the bill and no where does it state that the desire or aim of the legislation is to increase the number of guns on school property. This may be your opinion of what it will do, and it may be in fact the effect of the new law being enacted, but that is far from being the purpose of the bill.
Here is what Shane Martin said in an interview on Feb 2 with Channel 7′s Robert Kittle that probably best explains the purpose of the bill:
“Sen. Shane Martin, R-Spartanburg, introduced the bill Thursday because, as a concealed weapons permit holder, he’s run into a problem. “If my wife calls and says, ‘Shane, our daughter’s sick. I need you to come by school and pick her up,‘ well, what do I do? I’ve got my concealed weapon with me. I would have to come home or go somewhere. I wouldn’t be able to come on school grounds and pick up my child. And I just think that’s an inconvenience that law-abiding citizens don’t need.“ He says the current law prohibiting that is rarely enforced, but he’d rather make this change to keep it from being a problem.”
Let’s not pretend that people don’t already drive onto school grounds with a concealed weapon in their car to pick up their kids. This bill pretty much amounts to a housekeeping measure to say that this is not illegal.
“If my wife calls and says, ‘Shane, our daughter’s sick. I need you to come by school and pick her up,‘ well, what do I do? I’ve got my concealed weapon with me. I would have to come home or go somewhere. I wouldn’t be able to come on school grounds and pick up my child.”
Oh noes, someone with a concealed gun might be inconvenienced. That might just be the saddest thing I’ve ever read.
“Let’s not pretend that people don’t already drive onto school grounds with a concealed weapon in their car to pick up their kids. This bill pretty much amounts to a housekeeping measure to say that this is not illegal.”
Then why not introduce legislation that contains a common-sense clause for specific cases of someone who has a concealed weapon being able to apply for special permission to enter school grounds with such a weapon. It could be as simple as getting another easily obtained permit, or an additional endorsement on the existing permit. There’d be an additional level of accountability for everyone should something go wrong, and it would be no additional hassle for concealed weapon carriers.
Instead, we have a law that now lets anyone with a concealed weapon permit take a gun onto school grounds for any reason they feel like. And no one knows about it. There is less accountability at every step along the way, and far, far more room for abuse. All to appease a small, vocal group of people who just don’t feel right unless they’re packing heat.
But, what’s more, why SHOULD this law exist? Why SHOULD anyone be able to carry a gun onto school property? If you accept Martin’s explanation, it basically boils down to being too lazy to bother taking the gun home first. I’m not deeply compelled by that explanation, frankly.
“If my wife calls and says, ‘Shane, our daughter’s sick. I need you to come by school and pick her up,‘ well, what do I do? I’ve got my concealed weapon with me. I would have to come home or go somewhere. I wouldn’t be able to come on school grounds and pick up my child. And I just think that’s an inconvenience that law-abiding citizens don’t need.“
If I were in his position, I’d change laws to better suit my own needs too!
Yeah, if that’s the “best explanation’ of the bill it is sad. I’ve had some insider put it pretty simply…this guy doesn’t know what in the hell he is doing. Shame that district gave up Ritchie for this.
Do people with concealed weapons permits really carry a gun with them everywhere? My husband used to have a concealed weapons permit (I assume he still has it, I don’t know because he doesn’t own any guns now), but he wasn’t packing heat every time he left the house. It just seems like such a random law.
Suppose one of these law abiding, gun toting citizens had to leave their gun home to pick up their child from school, then afterwords they stopped by McDonalds to get some fries and a shake and terrorists were there playing up the hamburgler gig, bashing up the milkshake machine and running off with all the happy meal toys?
Wouldn’t it be an injustice if they got away without a right good ol’ shoot out in the parking lot? A fully armed citizen could probably shoot their get-away chopper in the gas tank and make one of those big blockbuster movie effect-like explosions, sending the chopper blades soaring through the air into the gas pumps across the street, causing further explosions, resulting in the happy meal toys being returned to those cheerful little cardboard boxes where they put the so called food in there for the tots.
Just an effortless scenario I’m putting forth to prove once and for all that guns make kids happy. (yeah, stoned)
So if I’m a law-abiding citizen who is properly trained and would never think of using my gun unless absolutely necessary, I am supposed to leave it at home while I go to pick up my kid from school. But a crazy gunman who wants to go and shoot up a schoolyard–he could care less what the law says about him having a gun on school grounds. But I bet he’s pretty happy that all those law-abiding fools won’t have guns in their cars to stop him when he decides to wreak some havoc.
Yes, typical crazy gunman across the state will now analyze more thoroughly who may or may not have a gun on the campus before he goes in to shoot up the campus. This law just might put a stop to the rampant problem we have in SC.
Dude, there is nothing you can say to not make this stupid.
I grew up in the great little town of Spartanburg, SC; and much of my family is there, even today. I married and moved away, but have always had such affection for the area and the people…
What on Earth is going on? Concealed firearms on school grounds?… Parents feeling inconvenienced by having to secure their concealed firearms in a legitimate place before going onto school property to pick up their children?… Justification for this law based on the anticipated need for vigilante law?
All that any school needs to assure a tragic outcome from some real or imagined lunacy is a bunch of panicked citizens packin’ heat at the school, ready to shoot anything that moves!
I do believe I moved away just in the nick of time. And Lord, am I glad my children are grown!!
Aside from the McD’s scenario, all I can see this statute doing is keeping some innocent, legally armed citizen from being hassled in a scenario where they do have to pick up their kid from school, and that’s what the purpose of it is. I don’t see where the hoopla comes in.
Like Matt said, criminals don’t care about where guns are, or are not, allowed. This bill seems like common sense to me in the context it is being presented. Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Wow, in the time it took me to wake up from a nap, everyone responded to this.
Seriously, I have to agree Matt on this one. The whole “they want guns in school!” argument seems reactionary (at best). People who follow the law are continually inconvenienced. However, criminals never break the law, which is why I’m so confused that this law has you up in arms. You would rather be completely defenseless all the time, while others break the law and endanger your life?
Even if this law is only “a matter of convenience,” how is that a big deal to you?
I mean, seriously. I own a handgun AND I’m inconvenienced by heterosexuals day in, day out. However, I have yet to go out and shoot up everyone I see.
Or how about this: I know for a fact that my dad had a concealed weapon in his truck when he used to pick me up from school.
You can’t pass a law and expect crime to diminish, only the reporting of crime.
“So if I’m a law-abiding citizen who is properly trained and would never think of using my gun unless absolutely necessary, I am supposed to leave it at home while I go to pick up my kid from school.”
Yes. Why would you INSIST on being able to take it onto school grounds? What reasonable, ration reason is there for you to have one there? And why should ANYONE be allowed to do it, just because YOU have a good excuse.
Again, I’d have been fine with some kind of additional endorsement for parents who have a job that requires they be armed and who also need to be able to pick up their kids. That’s perfectly reasonable. I’m sure police officers already had something of the kind, for instance. But why should ANYBODY, including people completely unconnected with a school in any way, also have the RIGHT to take a loaded firearm onto school property?
“Yes, typical crazy gunman across the state will now analyze more thoroughly who may or may not have a gun on the campus before he goes in to shoot up the campus. This law just might put a stop to the rampant problem we have in SC.”
Of course they will Tammy. Now that they know know people may be armed, crazy gunmen won’t even think about stepping onto school property, just like the don’t go into other places where people may be armed.
I mean seriously, when’s the last time you heard of someone robbing a liquor store or a gas station. These crazy gunmen know better than to go into a place like that where the people may be armed. What do you think they are, crazy?
“Even if this law is only ‘a matter of convenience,’ how is that a big deal to you?”
Because it’s potentially — and needlessly — introducing a lot of guns into a situation where there’s no need for guns. No one is claiming that there’s an actual need for this law for anything OTHER than convenience. That’s a really dumb, selfish and dangerous reason to introduce guns into any setting.
“I mean, seriously. I own a handgun AND I’m inconvenienced by heterosexuals day in, day out. However, I have yet to go out and shoot up everyone I see.”
I’m not following your metaphor here. Look at it like this: Say you want a gun with you at all times because you have an arguably founded fear that a gay-bashing heterosexual will try to cause you bodily harm, which — for the sake of argument — has happened before. Fine. Let’s also say that you’re taking night classes at a local college, and that you ride the bus because you’re also a dedicated environmentalist. It’s inconvenient for you to take the bus home, drop off the gun, and then take the bus back out to the college. YOU might have a very good argument for having a special endorsement to allow you to carry a gun with you on a bus, and even into a classroom, that’s NOT a good reason to allow anyone who wants to to carry a concealed weapon with them into every college classroom in the state of South Carolina.
It’s a bit of a stretch, admittedly but the logic is essentially the same. Thanks to Rep. Martin, people who have no good reason whatsoever can bring as many concealed weapons onto any school grounds they feel like. Entire arsenals are now able to be brought to contentious sporting events where tempers run high, and until those guns are actually used to commit a crime, no one has a legal right to do anything about this.
And that’s not even the point. The point is that there’s no real reason to change the law at all. It doesn’t appear to have been a problem for most people not to bring firearms onto school grounds. Show me the petitions where people demanded this situation be changed — the marches, the demonstrations — anything. We have REAL problems that need addressing IMMEDIATELY in this state, and yet those were put on the back-burner to pass a law that accomplishes nothing except to ingratiate Martin to a small, very vocal group with tends to donate heavily to political campaigns.
Steve, I noticed you only responded to the first part of my last comment. The next part was:
“But a crazy gunman who wants to go and shoot up a schoolyard–he could care less what the law says about him having a gun on school grounds.”
So the question to you might be why wouldn’t you want a responsible parent who is trained in firearms safety to be able to have access to his or her weapon in case some gunman decides to start shooting up the pick-up line of cars after school? It has happened before.
Tammy–are you actually suggesting that this absense of this law would be more a deterrent to criminals who want to shoot up a school campaus? Wow.
“But a crazy gunman who wants to go and shoot up a schoolyard–he could care less what the law says about him having a gun on school grounds.â€
This law does nothing to prevent anyone from doing that. Speaking broadly, it actually makes it easier for this to happen, since it makes it that much more likely someone with a loaded gun will be on school grounds to begin with.
Chang, don’t be ridiculous. Those terrorists surely wouldn’t be bashing any milkshakes machines because we all know they’re crazy for the milkshakes. The rest of your post however is a very likely scenario and one that frankly makes me hesitant about going to McDonald’s.
I can see both sides of the issue. However, as a gun owner I don’t think guns solely exist to kill. I love going outside in the fresh air and taking to some much stress-relieving target practicing. I also feel a little safer knowing there is a gun in the house in case I have to repel invaders like in the 1980′s camp classic Flash Gordon when Ming’s men had to fight off those flying dudes that were trying to get into their airship.
“This law does nothing to prevent anyone from doing that.”
Well we agree on that. By the same token, the absense of this law does nothing to prevent anyone from doing that (crazy gunman shooting up a school) either
“Speaking broadly, it actually makes it easier for this to happen, since it makes it that much more likely someone with a loaded gun will be on school grounds to begin with.”
Here’s where I disagree in theory. If someone was thinking about opening fire on school grounds and wanted to walk away with his own life, he might be less persuaded to do this if he reasonably believed that other people on school grounds (parents, teachers, administrators) had guns themselves. This bill makes it more likely that law-abiding and trained citizens will have guns on campus for protection.
Matt, are you planed and prepared for the earth to bust open and swallow you up?
Seriously though, these “what if” senarious only go so far. Where is the line? How prepared do you need to be? Some of us just havent crossed that line and you, for some reason, are belittling us for that. I wont live in fear thinking someone is just waiting to do me harm. There is no quality of life that way.
Today’s joke. By Steve S.
“…allow loaded, ready-to-rock firearms on school property.”
“…anyone with a concealed weapons permit can have a car filled with loaded shotguns, rifles, handguns … whatever floats their boat … and park it right on the grounds of an elementary school. For, you know, “protection.†”
“…If you can’t see them, they obviously can’t hurt anyone, right?”
“…High school teachers who are so afraid of their students that they need a gat in their trunk to feel safe?”
“…Sure, if you simply must take a hand-cannon with you everywhere “for protection,†”
And here comes the punch line folks,
“As I’ve pointed out before, I’m not anti-gun.”
Nice work Steve.
It seems to me that all your arguments are splitting hairs over minutia and ignoring one very obvious fact. Statistically, the likelihood of a well trained parent thwarting a terrorist or other bad guy through the use of a concealed firearm on school property is far, far less than:
1. the probability of an innocent child being accidentally shot by a well intentioned would-be hero, using a concealed firearm on school property in the attempt to thwart some real or imagined emergency. Knowing how to aim and fire a gun is not the same as knowing the proper steps to use in response to a dangerous situation.
2. the likelihood of some hot-headed student (or parent)at some contentious athletic event shooting a student(or parent)from an opposing team in the heat of the moment.
I am not anti-gun but I am opposed to the concept of concealed weapons being permitted on school property, where they can serve absolutely no legitimate purpose.
“2. the likelihood of some hot-headed student (or parent)at some contentious athletic event shooting a student(or parent)from an opposing team in the heat of the moment.”
This is the most likely scenario. Anyone who’s ever been to a high school football game around here should know how stupid it is to allow guns to legally be brought onto school grounds.
Camelmike: I try.
Seriously, I’m not anti-gun. There are times and places where guns are perfectly appropriate tools. If someone wanted to have a gun with them at all times because they lived in the deep woods and there were bears and wolves to worry about, I wouldn’t say anything about it. I’m also not against the idea of guns for home defense, and there are clearly some jobs and situations where having a gun — even a concealed one — is a reasonable precaution.
But there’s no good reason for this law, and plenty of good reason against it.