Image 01 Image 03

Texas Sheriff Who Trains Teachers to Carry Guns: “Day of Doing Nothing is Over”

Texas Sheriff Who Trains Teachers to Carry Guns: “Day of Doing Nothing is Over”

“employees must undergo extensive active shooter and firearms training with the state”

After the shooting in Parkland, Florida, many people are saying we have to “do something” but few people know exactly what that is. One school system in Argyle, Texas decided to make changes after Sandy Hook. They dedicated a police force to their schools and began training teachers to carry guns.

Sheriff Paul Cairney of Argyle appeared recently on MSNBC and explained how it works.

Benny Johnson of the Daily Caller has the details:

Texas Sheriff Who Allows Teachers To Carry Firearms Leaves MSNBC’s Jaw On The Floor

While the idea of arming teachers is a controversial one nationally, a school district in Texas has been arming their teachers for over 4 years. The Argyle School Independent School District decided in 2014 to allow highly trained members of staff to carry guns on campus to prevent mass shootings.

On MSNBC this weekend, Sheriff Paul Cairney of Argyle, Texas, described the process by which staff members can carry firearms in the school district. The Sheriff said that the staff at the school who choose to carry a firearm go through an intense round of interviews and training before they are allowed to carry on campus. The MSNBC host was flabbergasted at the practice and asked the Sheriff about concerns for the safety of the students in the school when there are firearms around.

The Sheriff said the practice is heavily restricted, but the “time to do nothing is over” when it comes to combating school shooters…

Cairney described the process teachers go through if they opt to carry:

To become a school marshal, those employees must undergo extensive active shooter and firearms training with the state. They must also undergo a mental health evaluation.

They receive a school marshal designation by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement and must renew their license every two years by undergoing the same training and evaluation.

Watch the video below:

We are going to see more of this approach. A Republican congressman from Colorado named Patrick Neville is a survivor of the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School. He is pushing for more concealed carry in schools.

Valerie Richardson reports at the Washington Times:

Columbine survivor introduces bill to expand concealed-carry in schools

Some students are calling for tougher gun-control laws after escaping last week’s horrific massacre in Parkland, Florida, but another school-shooting survivor is going in a different direction.

Colorado House Minority Leader Patrick Neville, who attended Columbine High School at the time of the 1999 mass shooting, has again introduced legislation to remove limitations on concealed carry in K-12 schools.

Under state law, concealed-carry permit holders may bring firearms onto school property, but must keep them locked inside their vehicles.

Mr. Neville, who has introduced the bill annually since he was elected in 2014, said the current law “creates a so-called gun free zone in every K-12 public school.”

“This act would allow every law-abiding citizens who holds a concealed carry permit, issued from their chief law-enforcement officer, the right to carry concealed in order to defend themselves and most importantly our children from the worst-case scenarios,” Mr. Neville said in a statement.

Featured image via Daily Caller video.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Thats the easy solution but the problema is the left doesnt like the easy solution because that leave people armed abd capable of being independent of the State (and vi default state control!).

And control is what this is all about.

I think the problem will be finding enough male teachers in the schools to undergo this training. Sorry, but many (most) female teachers hate guns. My daughter the teacher won’t even touch one.

The sheriff is right, doing nothing should be over with. If entertainers and polls and banks can be protected by experienced people with guns, why are schools only “protected” by signs?

What has happened over the last few decades in our culture? Until that question is answered…most people know the answer(s) at some level, we will have to deal with the symptoms of this culture rot.

The leftist-feminist war on boys must be called out and stopped. The narrative of “toxic masculinity” must stop. The long simmering ticking time bomb of fatherless boys needs to be understood as a major cause of this culture rot. Young males with no guidance from adult males will not know rules and limits and proper behavior.

What has taken the place of proper guidance is the dominant media/entertainment culture with its worship of death narratives, disrespect for women, disrespect for religion and much more. Until we begin to turn this around in our culture, dealing with symptoms is what we are left with.

Calls for Congress to DO something are useless, Congress too often for too long have been complicit in this half century of cultural rot.

    YellowSnake in reply to Whitewall. | February 20, 2018 at 7:30 pm

    The long simmering ticking time bomb of fatherless boys needs to be understood as a major cause of this culture rot.

    Some might differ on your learned analysis. Well, maybe it isn’t so learned. Just curious if you have done any study in the rest of the 1st world. The cultures are similar, but not the mass shootings. What is different?

    BTW, both his father and mother died. He was bullied. He got little to no counseling. Yep, he was a time bomb and he was handed the bomb without any supervision.

    AmandaFitz in reply to mrtomsr. | February 20, 2018 at 9:13 am

    This report is pretty damning and it’s not limited to Broward County. I suspect most large school districts follow the same policies. If violent or criminal behavior is not reported, how can we protect ourselves?

    Apparently, according to my local newspaper, Russian bots are already jumping on the gun control bandwagon re. the “Children’s Marches.”

    Shane in reply to mrtomsr. | February 20, 2018 at 12:18 pm

    Ok, that’s pretty damning.

My call to exterminate the Marxists is looking more reasonable day by day.

Just saying. Termites. We got em and if the visible damage is any indication, we need to do something before the foundations are destroyed.

Assuming they aren’t already.

Hey, has anyone heard why the shooter wasn’t allowed to wear a backpack to school when he was still attending?
Did you know that? Have you heard or read about it in the news?
Do you know why he wasn’t arrested for bringing live ammunition to school?
Because the school district had been upset about how many minorities were being charged with crimes so, in their Progressive wisdom, they just stopped having kids arrested for that sort of thing! It’s called the “Broward County Solution.”

Think about it – all this yelling about guns and the NRA and Trump – are they hoping people won’t notice the actions of the local players in the school system? If the school had called the police and had him arrested maybe he wouldn’t have been able to legally buy the gun! Not that it would have stopped him but they themselves are harping on background checks and restricting people’s ability to buy guns. (Their own solutions are rendered useless by their devotion to Political Correctness!)

But, oh noooo, it’s all the NRA’s fault! It’s my fault for owning a gun! It’s Trump’s fault! Etc…..
The Progressive lust for Equality of Outcome strikes again!

Constitutional carry for everyone!

You get a constitutional carry! You get a constitutional carry! Everyone gets a constitutional carry!

Oklahoma passed a law several years ago to allow school districts make the decision about staff carrying guns in school. And, the law specified that the staff had to go through specialized training as developed by the state, go through background checks and retraining. So, it is not a sure thing to say that you want to be armed and being allowed to do so.

The school districts in the larger towns probably opted out of doing this since they have larger police forces but it helps the smaller districts.

I have a teacher friend who was full-time military police in the state guard and was retired. He went back to teaching science, coaching track, and would be a perfect candidate to be armed at school.

    murkyv in reply to Liz. | February 20, 2018 at 2:26 pm

    Our local school principal is Military > Asst. football coach > head football coach > Principal.

    I’m 99% sure he carried even before IN passed a 2014 law allowing him to

    tom_swift in reply to Liz. | February 20, 2018 at 3:39 pm

    And, the law specified that the staff had to go through specialized training as developed by the state, go through background checks and retraining.

    Uh-huh, the government simply can’t resist the urge to get its fingers in there. That’s the only way it can be certain to bungle the whole thing, as usual.

    If government control of a situation has failed, the solution is not more government control. I wouldn’t even want government advice on how to fix things. Not if it’s already been shown to be worthless.

      Your lack of knowledge in this area is showing.

      Do we toss a badge to a person and turn them loose to enforce the law? Do we toss an M16 to a person and send them out to defend our nation/ Do we let any Tom, Dick, or Irene climb into the cockpit of an F-15 and send them on a military mission? No, Why not? Becaue all of these things require a person to learn specialized skills in order to perform both effectively and safely. But, people like ou feel that someone who has obtained a CWFL by dint of a four hour class in firearm safety and the law of self defense and fired ONE round from a firearm, or has no training or experience at all is suddenly qualified to effectively and safely protect our children in a high pressure combat situation. Right. These same staff members have to obtain a college degree, with specialized training in teaching, as well as a state license simply to teach the little chil’ren English. But, they require NO specialized instruction in the defensive use of a firearm in a crowded environment.

      The problem, which exists today, is that, in most cases, NO effective security exists in schools today. The threat of a school shooting attack is extremely low, when measured against the nu7mber of schools in this country and the frequency of these attacks. Of course, when they occur, they are the end of the world, at least according to the media and the anti-gun people. People run around wringing their hands and crying that this must never happen again. Then , a few weeks later, everything goes back to the way it was and nothing is done to prevent this type of thing from happening again. School security is not increased to an effective level, either because the schools system does not want to spend the money or because people don’t want the school “to look like a prison”.

      The reaction to these things is all a scam designed for short term political gain. And, almost no one actually cares about the children. Rather than immediately pledge to spend the money to provide adequate security att all the schools in Broward County, the School Board wants to spend an enormous amount of money to tear down Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School, one of the newest schools in that county, and build another building? Huh??? WTF??? See the priorities here? Millions for denial, but not a cent for defense. I am sick of living in a world ruled by the mentally ill. Beam me up, Scotty. There is no intelligent life on this planet.;

        Barry in reply to Mac45. | February 20, 2018 at 7:22 pm

        No, to some of your questions, but they are not pertinent. We have a right to bear arms and there are no qualifiers in the 2nd regarding this.

        We have a right to self defense, no government required training is required.

          Mac45 in reply to Barry. | February 20, 2018 at 7:57 pm

          Two things you might find interesting.

          The first is that the 2nd Amendment allows the government to regulate the USE of firearms and other weapons. You can own a firearm. You can carry it around with you. But, the use of that instrument is constitutionally, heavily regulated by federal, state and local governments. What we are talking about, with teachers using firearms to defend children in a crowded, sensitive environment is USE. And that is not protected.

          The second thing is liability, particularly vicarious liability. As soon as a school, business or other organization allows its employees to possess weapons during their working hours, that entity assume responsibility for the use of the weapon. In the case of a school, if kindly old Mrs. Peterson pulls her hogs leg, i the cafeteria and shoots five rounds at the man shooting students, the school is responsible for ever one of those rounds. If three hit the gunman and two hit and injure or kill two students, then the school is liable for that damage.

          Why do you think that LEAs continually train their personnel in the use of weapons and require periodic performance testing and qualification with those weapons? Liability. Liability is why many school systems opt to use school resource officers provided by local LEAs. The local LEA assumes most of the liability for the actions of their employees, even if those employees are assigned to a school.

          Liability is why schools install metal detectors and employ dedicated security officers, some of whom are armed. It is because the importation of dangerous weapons is costing them more in liability than security does. It is never about the chil’ren with school district administrators. It is always about the Benjamins.

          Mac45 in reply to Barry. | February 20, 2018 at 8:01 pm

          A post script here. Most LEAs do not train their employees, in the use of firearms, to a level which is safe for use in sensitive environments such as schools. It takes a lot of training to develop sufficient skill to operate safely in such an environment and a lot of practice time to maintain it.

          The Packetman in reply to Barry. | February 21, 2018 at 7:35 am

          “The first is that the 2nd Amendment allows the government to regulate the USE of firearms and other weapons.”

          That has to be one of the more ignorant statements I’ve heard on here …

          You can reasonably say that SCOTUS has RULED (in error) that government can do these things, but NOT that the 2nd Amendment allows it.

          Mac45 in reply to Barry. | February 21, 2018 at 11:23 am

          Sorry, P-man. But, the language of the 2nd Amendment deals STRICTLY with the “right” to keep [own] and bear [possess or carry] arms. It does not address the USE of those arms in any way. You really should read the Amendment.

          There are a huge amount of laws on the books, which are totally constitutional, with regard to the use of weapons, including firearms and other deadly weapons. Every state in the union restrict when deadly force, in the form of deadly weapons, can be used in self defense. Many places restrict the discharge of firearms in certain areas or restrict their discharge to certain areas, except in lawful self defense. All are constitutional. Though banned from regulating the ownership and possession of weapons, the federal government was always allowed to regulate the use of those weapons.