IBJNews

Indiana House turns aside school guns proposal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana House on Thursday pulled a proposal to have the state's public schools consider having employees, including teachers and principals, carry guns during school hours.

House members in a voice vote without dissent approved a Republican amendment that stripped mentions of the armed employees proposal from a bill on school security.

In its place, lawmakers added a proposal for a new state school safety board to review training and other issues surrounding the possibility of arming school staffers. The board would submit a report to the Legislature by Dec. 1.

Republican and Democratic legislators applauded after about three minutes of discussion on the amendment, which diffused an issue that first emerged last week when a House committee advanced a proposal that would have required all public schools, including charter schools, to have armed employees.

Another committee this week removed the mandate after Republican Gov. Mike Pence and other officials said they believed such decisions should be left to local school officials. Several legislators and education groups also raised questions about training standards and the appropriateness of having non-police officers carrying guns in schools.

The revised bill still would have authorized the armed employees and required local school boards to decide each year whether to take that step — until the Republican-controlled House backed away on Thursday.

Rep. Ed Soliday, R-Valparaiso, said he thought the proposal had been "moving very, very rapidly."

"We all want to do what's right and we all want to protect our kids, but we don't want to hurt someone with unintended consequences," Soliday said.

Democratic Rep. Linda Lawson, a retired Hammond police captain, had pleaded with the House Ways and Means Committee this week to reject the armed employee provisions because she was worried that teachers or others would be ineffective in responding to an attack.

Lawson extolled Thursday's move in the House. "We need to look at this bill thoroughly," she said.

Rep. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour, sponsored the armed employee provision in the House Education Committee last week, saying he was worried that most of Indiana's some 1,900 public schools are defenseless against attacks such as the December elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., in which 20 students and six teachers were killed.

Lucas said after Thursday's vote that he was disappointed but would continue to advocate for the proposal.

"The good thing is we have everyone talking about it," he said. "Our goal is to find the best, most-cost effective way to ensure that our children and educators are safe."

The House is expected to vote Monday on the remaining provisions of the bill, which aims to start a state grant program to help school districts buy safety equipment and hire police officers who've undergone extra training on dealing with students to become school resource officers.

The Senate previously backed the grant program, and its budget proposal advanced this week includes $10 million for the program.

House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said the armed employees proposal faced many questions from legislators and the public in the past week.

"It pretty clear after we talked about it that the proper thing to do was to take a breath, take some time, look at the issue before we jumped headlong into the full-blown policy," Bosma said. "It was clear that a lot of education needed to be done before we moved forward."

ADVERTISEMENT

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT