Below The Radar: S Res 110

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- One thing to keep in mind is when you look at what has been introduced in Congress, not all of the items are legislation. Sometimes, attacks on our rights can come in other ways – even if they don’t actually infringe on our rights, they hold the potential to shift the political landscape against our rights.

One such piece of legislation is S Res 110, introduced by Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT). This is a resolution, which would just be voted on by the United States Senate. As such, it would not have the force of law. So why focus on this one? Because this resolution would make it far easier to attack our rights. This is not a huge stretch of the imagination. This is very real, and you can understand why by reading the text of the resolution.


RESOLUTION

Keeping guns out of classrooms.

Whereas Congress has consistently made clear that it is unlawful for Federal funds to be used for training or arming school personnel with firearms;

Whereas Congress passed the STOP School Violence Act of 2018 (title V of division S of Public Law 115–141) in response to the shooting in Parkland, Florida, and amended part AA of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10551 et seq.) to specify that “No amounts provided as a grant [for school security under such part] may be used for the provision to any person of a firearm or training in the use of a firearm.”;

Whereas section 4102 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7113), as added by section 4101 of the Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114–95; 129 Stat. 1970), defines drug and violence prevention in schools as including the “creation … of a school environment that is free of weapons”;

Whereas existing research demonstrates that training or arming school personnel with firearms will not make schools safer;

Whereas an analysis by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of active shooters between 2000 and 2013 found that trained law enforcement suffered casualties in 21 of the 45 incidents in which officers engaged the shooter to end the threat;

Whereas a survey of gun violence on school campuses showed that out of 225 incidents of gun violence between 1999 and 2018, trained armed personnel or school resource officers failed to disarm an active shooter 223 times;

Whereas proposed and existing programs to train or arm school personnel with firearms require significantly less training than law enforcement officers receive;

Whereas research demonstrates that increased gun access and possession are not associated with protection from violence and a greater prevalence of guns increases the likelihood of gun violence;

Whereas a greater prevalence of guns in schools creates undue risk of students gaining unauthorized access to firearms and the potential for unintentional shootings and school staff using guns in situations that do not warrant lethal force;

Whereas students of color, students with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups would experience a disparate impact of programs that arm school personnel as those students are disproportionately disciplined and arrested;

Whereas heightened policing within public school spaces decreases a student’s sense of safety and the associated anticipation of violence leads to increased anxiety, fear, and depression;

Whereas 73 percent of teachers in the United States do not want to carry guns in school and 58 percent say arming personnel would make schools less safe, according to a Gallup poll from March 2018;

Whereas the majority of parents of school-aged children oppose arming school personnel, according to surveys;

Whereas, as of March 2019, there is no evidence supporting the value of arming school personnel;

Whereas the broad consensus among participants in the listening tour for the final report of the Federal Commission on School Safety released in December 2018 was disagreement with programs that would arm school personnel, according to transcripts; and

Whereas, in that final report, the Department of Education endorsed the use of Federal funds to train personnel to use firearms: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that Federal funds shall not be used to train or arm school personnel with firearms.


Murphy, who has been very active against our Second Amendment rights, is opposed to allowing those teachers (or other school personnel) who wish to have effective tools to defend the students under their care to receive effective training on how to use those tools. He can’t argue against armed security’s potential to stop a potential tragedy after the West Freeway Church of Christ incident.

Armed attendees at that church stopped the potential mass shooting in six seconds. It is generally accepted that it took police about ten minutes to first enter Sandy Hook Elementary School, almost five minutes after the last shot was fired (per the New York Times). Roughly 600 seconds for police to arrive, and roughly 300 for the killer to do his evil (or insane) act.

For years, Murphy and other anti-Second Amendment extremists have used Sandy Hook to beat Second Amendment supporters over the head. It was a horrific event, and any person with a shred of decency or morality wants effective solutions to prevent a recurrence. For Second Amendment supporters, the morally imperative thing to do is also the right strategic move to make.

Murphy, though, has a much easier case to make, usually through the usual emotional manipulation. His argument runs along the lines of, “Teachers are there to teach, to nurture kids. How can someone do that while carrying a gun?”

Any mother who has a CCW permit can refute that nonsense. So could any teacher who has one that they use – of course, not when on school grounds – in the course of their lives. Does it make them any less capable of being a nurturing force? Second Amendment supporters know that the answer is no.

The real problem, though, given the media and political landscape, is convincing the American people that the real answer is ending gun-free zones. That is a long-term effort, and it will involve getting through the propaganda that Murphy and others will spread with the help of the media.

In the meantime, Second Amendment supporters should politely urge their Senators to oppose S Res 110. Instead, urge them to support measures like The School Violence Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2019, which would actually make a difference.