IBJNews

Indiana governor against school guns mandate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Republican Gov. Mike Pence said Thursday he believed local school officials should make decisions about school security, separating himself from a legislative proposal that would require all public and charter schools have an employee armed with a loaded gun during school hours.

The Republican leader of the state Senate also said that schools shouldn't face such a mandate as state officials look for ways to improve school safety.

Indiana would become the first state in the country to require armed school employees if the bill — approved this week by a state House committee — becomes law. Supporters of the requirement say it would lessen the vulnerability of schools to violent attacks such as the December elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., in which 20 students and six teachers died.

The plan, however, is facing questions over whether people not trained as police officers, such as teachers or principals, should have the responsibility, as well as questions about the potential costs school districts would face to ensure a trained armed person is present during all school hours.

Pence said during a Statehouse news conference that protecting children was among his highest priorities, but he expressed no support for requiring armed school employees.

"I have a strong bias for local control," he said. "I think decisions that are nearest and dearest to our hearts ought to be made by parents and local school officials. I believe that's so in this case."

State law currently allows school districts to authorize people other than police officers to have guns on school property, although several officials have said they don't know of any district that have done it.

The provision's sponsor, Rep. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour, said he knew the proposal would face controversy but worried that most of Indiana's some 1,900 public schools are defenseless against possible attackers without properly trained and armed people present.

"I hate the idea of a mandate, but when the mechanism is in place and no one is taking advantage of what I feel is the best way to protect our children and educators, then sometimes things like this have to be initiated," Lucas said.

The firearms requirement was added to a Senate-based bill that aimed to start a state grant program to help school districts hire police officers who've undergone extra training and buy safety equipment.

The Senate budget proposal released Thursday included $10 million for that program.

Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said he believed the state could authorize arming school employees under training standards developed by the state Department of Homeland Security and other agencies.

"I think it needs to be optional," Long said. "We shouldn't be mandating unless we're providing for all the costs."

Long said it was important for the Legislature to move ahead with such steps, even as the Pence administration works with the Department of Education and law enforcement agencies to craft more detailed school safety proposals.

"Seeing these increasing attacks on the schools and the copycats that are out there, I think it's irresponsible for us not to try to do everything we can to better secure our schools," he said.

Lawmakers in more than 20 states are considering allowing armed school employees, but no states require armed employees in schools, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Rep. Sue Errington, D-Muncie, was among those who voted against the armed personnel provision when it was debated Tuesday in the House Education Committee. She said it was brought forward with no public notice and that she was glad others were seeing faults with it.

Errington said she was concerned about teachers or principals taking on the role of carrying a gun.

"That's just not what they do," she said. "Their job is to teach the kids."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Ignant
    Sincerely stupid, Seymour Rep. Lucas
  • Ignorabce
    Are our state legislators just pretending to be backward and ignorant as rocks or are they sincere in their stupidity?

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. Kent's done a good job of putting together some good guests, intelligence and irreverence without the inane chatter of the other two shows. JMV is unlistenable, mostly because he doesn't do his homework and depends on non-sports stuff to keep HIM interested. Query and Shultz is a bit better, but lack of prep in their show certainly is evident. Sterling obviously workes harder than the other shows. We shall see if there is any way for a third signal with very little successful recent history to make it. I always say you have to give a show two years to grow into what it will become...

    2. Lafayette Square, Washington Square should be turned into office parks with office buildings, conversion, no access to the public at all. They should not be shopping malls and should be under tight security and used for professional offices instead of havens for crime. Their only useage is to do this or tear them down and replace them with high rise office parks with secured parking lots so that the crime in the areas is not allowed in. These are prime properties, but must be reused for other uses, professional office conversions with no loitering and no shopping makes sense, otherwise they have become hangouts long ago for gangs, groups of people who have no intent of spending money, and are only there for trouble and possibly crime, shoplifting, etc. I worked summers at SuperX Drugs in Lafayette Square in the 1970s and even then the shrinkage from shoplifting was 10-15 percent. No sense having shopping malls in these areas, they earn no revenue, attract crime, and are a blight on the city. All malls that are not of use should be repurposed or torn down by the city, condemned. One possibility would be to repourpose them as inside college campuses or as community centers, but then again, if the community is high crime, why bother.

    3. Straight No Chaser

    4. Seems the biggest use of TIF is for pet projects that improve Quality Of Life, allegedly, but they ignore other QOL issues that are of a more important and urgent nature. Keep it transparent and try not to get in ready, fire, Aim! mode. You do realize that business the Mayor said might be interested is probably going to want TIF too?

    5. Gary, I'm in complete agreement. The private entity should be required to pay IPL, and, if City parking meters are involved, the parking meter company. I was just pointing out how the poorly-structured parking meter deal affected the car share deal.

    ADVERTISEMENT