AR-15s, Breaching Tools Added To All Madison County, NC Schools
Tomás Del Coro, CC BY-SA 2.0
Madison County, North Carolina, schools and sheriff’s office are taking security enhancements at the county’s schools to another level with secured AR-15s, ammo, and breaching tools added to every school for the coming school year.
Madison County Schools and Madison County Sheriff’s Office are collaborating to enhance security in the schools for the upcoming school year after the Uvalde, Texas, tragedy revealed systemic failures and poor decision-making, with responding police disregarding active-shooter trainings, according to a report from the Texas state house.
“Those officers were in that building for so long, and that suspect was able to infiltrate that building and injure and kill so many kids,” Sheriff Buddy Harwood said. “I just want to make sure my deputies are prepared in the event that happens.”
Madison County Schools Superintendent Will Hoffman said MCS administration has been meeting regularly with local law enforcement officials, including Harwood, to discuss the updated safety measures.
On July 26, he met with school officials and the county’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to assure that law enforcement can monitor school camera systems.
On July 28, administration met with the school attorney to get briefed on Title IX – sexual harassment and discrimination – as well as enhanced supervision and other safety procedures.
According to Harwood, the county’s school resource officers have been training with instructors from Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College.
“We were able to put an AR-15 rifle and safe in all of our schools in the county,” Harwood said. “We’ve also got breaching tools to go into those safes. We’ve got extra magazines with ammo in those safes.”
There are six schools in the Madison County system: Brush Creek Elementary, Hot Springs Elementary, Mars Hill Elementary, Madison Middle, Madison High and Madison Early College High.
“The reason we put the breaching tools in the safes is that in the event we have someone barricaded in a door, we won’t have to wait on the fire department to get there,” Harwood said. “We’ll have those tools to be able to breach that door if needed. I do not want to have to run back out to the car to grab an AR, because that’s time lost. Hopefully we’ll never need it, but I want my guys to be as prepared as prepared can be.”
Harwood said he feels while the optics of the SROs potentially handling AR-15s in schools may be discomforting to some, it is a necessary response given the state of the country.
“I’m a firearms instructor. We carry a (9 mm) 135-grain bullet,” Harwood said. “We’ve got the maximum 50 rounds that my SROs are carrying throughout the school to protect that school.
“I hate that we’ve come to a place in our nation where I’ve got to put a safe in our schools, and lock that safe up for my deputies to be able to acquire an AR-15. But, we can shut it off and say it won’t happen in Madison County, but we never know. I want the parents of Madison County to know we’re going to take every measure necessary to ensure our kids are safe in this school system. If my parents, as a whole, want me to stand at that door with that AR strapped around that officer’s neck, then I’m going to do whatever my parents want as a whole to keep our kids safe.”
Police response to mass shootings, and school shootings in particular, have been debated with the failure of a SRO to engage in the Parkland school shooting, and the debate over the law enforcement response in Uvalde to the Robb Elementary School massacre. The video of the long time lapse between police response to Uvalde and actually taking down the shooter, including conflicting accounts of who tried/didn’t try to breech the classroom door, is driving questions about school security that heavily relies on a swift police response.
It is important to note here that the Madison plan is for only Madison Sheriff’s School Resource Officers to have access to the weapons and is different than the call by some for arming teachers and school staff. The school system is also instituting panic buttons in each building, SROs in every school, and increasing social worker and school counselors in each school. They will also be conducting a “high-impact incident scenario” training with both schools and sheriff’s office and fire department that will include teachers but not any students.
The debate over preventing school shootings, and mass shootings in general, will continue to rage and putting heavier weapons in the schools will no doubt be controversial. At the same time, the video of armed and kitted law enforcement doing nothing in Uvalde rightfully brought calls for far better. Madison County schools and law enforcement have gone this route seeking better. The debate as to if it is better is just beginning.
What could go wrong?
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/report/every-incident-of-mishandled-guns-in-schools/Report
Most of these stories include “no shots fired”. A quick review finds 20 shots in non-threatening situations. I’d guess 7 total involve a person getting injured by an approved staffer or officer firing a weapon. In five years.Report
Their definition of “gun violence” includes “seeing the gun”.
And also includes the teacher misbehaving and a gun being in their purse. So it’s never seen or used and is only found by authorities. Oh, locked in their car also counts if they were misbehaving inside.
And also includes the parking lot.
And suicide.
And criminals not legally able to have guns having them on school grounds.
And also includes the police messing up.
…so the only solution is a gun free zone created by signs as you enter the school?Report
So we as a nation have decided to do everything possible to NOT take guns from people?
I do t recall signing that suicide pact.Report
Would you like a bigger “gun free zone” sticker on the front door?Report
As I have said repeatedly, I prefer that certain types of weapons be far less available to the general public, and that we do a far better job on providing services to people so that they urn to guns less ad less often to solve their problems.Report
You have a principal/agent problem.
I don’t think that you should start taking guns from people until you address (maybe even fix?) the principal/agent problem.Report
The Constitution fixed it when the Second Amendment was written. That most guns belong to people who are not part of a well regulated militia being necessary to the defense of a free state means most people don’t get to own guns, no matter what elegant torture Scalia wanted to inflict on the plain meaning of the words before him.Report
Great, but you still haven’t addressed the principal/agent problem.Report
There’s no principal/agent problem if we actually take the Second Amendment to mean what, you know, it means, because the principals don’t have a leg to stand on. Or a foot or a finger. The Second is quite clear on who can own guns and for what purpose. Everything beyond that – my own guns included – is not permitted by the Second.
Now as a practical matter, I am loathe to take guns from people who own them, unless they are in clear mental distress and or have a history of domestic violence. Those folks don’t deserve access to guns.
What I keep hammering on however is proscriptive, going forward changes, which over time get us back to the actual intent of the Second. Which, again, was quite clear on its intent and thus on the relationship between the principal and the agent.Report
Part of the problem is the whole “well regulated militia” seems to include “the police” and it does not include “the moms who wanted to go in and protect their children from the shooter”.
And that, right there, tells me that your problems are not problems that will go away.Report
Yes, that would be the break down. But if we were adhering to the actual wording – and thus the principals – of the Second, and not the made up gun as a talisman approach we now have, then there wouldn’t have been a shooting at Uvalde since that young man wouldn’t have had that gun.
We can’t undo the past – but we can sure choose a different future. And adding safes with AR-15s and breaching tools is not a future I want any part of because it means we have accepted the likelihood of wanton violence. I for one, do not do so.Report
We could take this approach to health care and save a lot of money.
“You shouldn’t have fallen down in the shower in the first place.”
Easy peasy.Report
I wouldn’t consider “militia” as including cops. More like cops are the “sheriff” or local enforcer of the king’s edicts. The militia was conventionally understood as “every able bodied male over within a certain age group, and those individuals were required to practice regularly as well. Given that understanding, women, and indentured servants would not be permitted to own weapons.Report
It’s not who the militia includes, necessarily. We could spend hours hammering down where the line is.
It’s who we know is *NOT* included. Who we know is waaaaaay over there on the other side of the line.
Like women and minorities.Report
Agreed.Report
When we decided that women and minorities were people we extended to them all the rights the Constitution said should go to men.
So women have the right to a gun just like they have the right to speech, assembly, and so on.Report
“militia” in this context is civilians and not professional armed enforcers of the state.
The militia is supposed to created when the army isn’t available (or aren’t enough) and the police clearly aren’t enough.
School shooters are a local issue. Dealing with them is potentially well within the power of the cops.
Now there’s an argument that civilians would like to be armed when faced with criminals and the cops aren’t able (or willing) to step in.Report
A massively unfit police force strikes me as being a poor foundation to build a massive social change that will require, among other things, a fit police force.
I mean, this isn’t even the first time that officers of the law refused to go into a school while children were being shot.
I know that I see any argument about gun control that does not address Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales and Warren v. District of Columbia as being undercooked and, in recent years, one that does not talk about Uvalde and Stoneman Douglas as being fundamentally unserious at worst and merely loudly expressing a sentiment at best.
Hey, it’s a sentiment that I have sympathy for.
butReport
This is nonsense.
The definition of “regulated” back then was “functional” (this well before the regulator state).
The definition of “militia” is…
1) “all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.”
2) “a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.”
Most of the posters on this web site are (potentially) members of “the militia”.
Without a personal right to a gun the militia won’t be functional when the gov needs it created RIGHT NOW to deal with [the emergency].Report
The National Guard would like a word . . .Report
I actually think this is a major weakness in your argument. Congress can’t eliminate a right or, even if we assume the 2nd was never intended as an individual right, otherwise amend the constitution as this would suggest by statute. I can’t think of any other situation where creating a consistency of standards and command integration like with the National Guard would be interpreted this way. The logic of it in itself would result in all kinds of weird outcomes. If anything it would suggest the creation and intrgration of the National Guard is the constitutionally suspect move.Report
The National Guard is a state level well regulated militia that trains regularly and whose resources are readily available quickly to address issues that arise and are beyond the scope of normal government operations. They are, using Dark’s words – “a functional military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.” Their members are not professional soldiers.Report
The people who were sent to the trenches in France (which was the original purpose) were not in effect made professional soldiers? Not while on a mission to serve a US government declaration of war, to say nothing of those who have more recently been sent to places like Iraq?
Yes, they still have peace time responsibilities at the state level but the entire purpose of the law that created them was to send them into action in overseas conflicts. It’s a totally different kind of mission. Which for the record is fine and may well make sense but it doesn’t jive with the constitutional conclusion you’re drawing from it.Report
If the militia is meant to be “all citizens”, and since the Constitution clearly and unambiguously calls for the militia to be “well regulated” doesn’t that mean very strict regulations on who can possess guns and under what circumstances is Constitutional?
For example, what if the entire nation was held to the same regulation of firearms as the actual military?
That is, guns are kept locked and stored until a specific need is determined by the proper authority, and then guns are distributed only to those who the chain of command determines need them?Report
Let’s try replacing the word “regulated” with it’s original meaning.
since the Constitution clearly and unambiguously calls for the militia to be “highly functional” doesn’t that mean very strict regulations on who can possess guns and under what circumstances is Constitutional?
First, the very definition of “militia” spells out “who can possess guns”, i.e. “all legal civilians”.
For example, what if the entire nation was held to the same regulation of firearms as the actual military?
That is, guns are kept locked and stored until a specific need is determined by the proper authority, and then guns are distributed only to those who the chain of command determines need them?
The militia is used when the normal “proper authority” (including the military) has failed.
So for example there’s a slave rebellion where the slaves have taken the gov’s central building (which presumably is where you want to store the guns).
Further everywhere else in the Constitution the phrase ‘the people” means “individuals”. So the people having the right to free speech doesn’t let the gov control who can do this and when.Report
The First Amendment doesn’t call for a highly regulated press does it?
And if, as you suggest, the militia is only activated during riots and insurrection, wouldn’t that add to the idea of strict control of guns?
As gun nuts themselves are quick to point out, there is nothing in the 2nd to suggest any freedom for sporting use of guns or even self defense, but only a regulated militia.Report
You’re using the word “regulated” in a way that didn’t exist before FDR invented the “regulatory” state.
If you sub in the word “functional”, which is what the modern word would be, then it’s meaning is clearer.
How is it possible to instantly have a civilian militia if the militia is unarmed? They’re called the “Minutemen” because that’s the notice they need.
The founders had a war where the militias won against an “oppressive” government. The Red Coats wanted a disarmed militia.
It’s nuts to claim the 2ndAM was an attempt to implement policies the Red Coats would have loved and the militias would have hated.
The 2nd AM is a big middle finger to the Red Coats.Report
How would a “functional” militia require any less regulation and government control than a “regulated” one?
Your comparison to the Minutemen strengthens my case.
The Minutemen were a guerilla force, but like all guerilla forces, were highly controlled.
Not just any yahoo could grab a musket and decide when and where to engage in action. They had rules, regulations, and a chain of command.
What you’re trying to do here is transmogrify “well regulated” into “unregulated”.Report
Yes, and?
Before it’s needed the militia is a group of civilians. It would be nice if they had lots of training. If the emergency is bad enough then we’ll take who we can.
So before it’s needed, yes, it’s pretty unregulated. When it hits the fan we’ll have either the gov call them up and give orders or (if there is no gov or if the gov actually is the problem) we’ll find out that humans self organize very well.Report
Then you’re just arbitrarily erasing the parts of the Constitution that you don’t like.Report
How so? I’m going with the black letter and using the dictionary for definitions.
Words have meaning. The only thing I’m changing is “regulated” which had a different meaning back then.Report
And Chip, remember the times. The militias won. The Red Cloaks were evil. The militias had their guns at home. Slaves, slave rebellions, and Indian attacks were a concern.
More than 90% of the nation lived in rural areas (by their standards, not ours) and farmers use guns to protect livestock.
The 2ndAM was designed to prevent gun control because militias were THAT important and only people who were pro-Red-Cloak favored gun control.
Trying to jump from that to “the 2ndAM enables the gov to enact Red Cloak style gun control” is beyond wishful thinking.Report
You’re arbitrarily redefining the meaning of “regulated” to “unregulated”.
And you can’t call it “black letter” if you follow up with “but what they really meant was…”
Calling it “functional” doesn’t change the meaning. A militia must be controlled, otherwise any rioting mob is a militia.
Even by the standards of the times that you are invoking, guns and their use were highly controlled. That’s why the Amendment says that well regulated militias are essential.
Your interpretation is barely a decade old and is a radical reimagining.Report
Arbitrarily? I’m using it in the same way the founders would have used it. A clock would have been “well regulated” if it told accurate time.
Do you think the founders would have thought the militias should have been controlled by the Red Coats?
First, “regulated” didn’t mean “controlled by the gov”.
The gov at that time was extremely weak by our standards and had always been weak. Failed state territory.
Guns weren’t controlled by our standards. There were local exceptions in urban areas for obvious reasons, but the bulk of the nation lived on farms and would have needed guns as tools. The Red Coats had to deal with most homes having a gun.
The basic concept that the gov was strong enough to control everything wasn’t their reality. Think about “out of control crime” and how it affects the current gun debate.
The bulk of the nation lived within a few days of the border. The bulk of the nation could remember the French/Indian war which went on for years and had just stopped 11 years ago.Report
First, yes, “regulated” does mean “controlled by the government” and has had this same meaning since forever. Otherwise, who is regulating?
Even in your own metaphor of a “well regulated” clock, there is assumed to be a clockmaker who controls it. A militia needs a government like a clock needs a clockmaker.
Second, you’re mixing and matching periods arbitrarily.
First by talking about the revolutionary guerilla army of the Minutemen, then talking about the peacetime government which enacted the Bill of Rights almost a decade after the war ended.
But in both cases, guns were controlled. First by the Continental Army, then by the peacetime governments established under the new constitution.
The flaw with your argument is you are trying to appeal to a military model (invoking militias) yet trying to persuade us that in such a military model, guns are not controlled.
This is absurd; Nowhere are guns more tightly controlled than in a military setting, whether it is the British Army, The Continental Army, or the Viet Cong.
The argument for uncontrolled guns is strongest if you are talking about them as sporting or hobby tools. But, as already noted, the 2nd says nothing about this.Report
Jebus, I can’t tell whether you actually believe that the constitution calls for the current understanding of “regulated” or are just being difficult. Dark hasn’t explained it clearly enough perhaps. “Well regulated” meant, in the 1700s, that people practiced and were proficient in using weapons. Just like in medieval times when the commoners had to regularly practice shooting arrows at a target.Report
Militias are only a “military setting” when they’re activated. Before that we have citizens having guns at home and (ideally) getting skilled with them in case of emergency.
When that emergency happens, the gov is expected to be very weak, there won’t be a standing army, and it’s going to be up to the militias.
By modern standards the gov didn’t exist. What we had was groups of people.
Think about modern outback rural where the cops are an hour away. That’s speed of light by their standards.
Transportation (and spread of information) were very hard. If the guns are locked in a central location 20 miles away and the Indians/Slaves are attacking right now, then those guns effectively didn’t exist.
This is a VERY different society than what we have now.Report
I recall last time we got into one of these conversations there was a Clare Briggs cartoon that day describing a properly regulated breakfast or somesuch.Report
Here’s one:
https://ordinary-times.com/2022/05/27/the-dancer/
It appears to have been one of Brigg’s common taglines.Report
Here’s a line from a novel from 1884:
Report
“The definition of “regulated” back then was “functional”…'”
Do we have a cite for this?Report
Unfortunately no.
However this is predates, by more than a century, the regulatory state and related concepts. If the claim is that the regulatory state existed for guns alone, then we’ve had no links for that either.
What we do have is the founders wanting all free men to be in militias, their living next to boarders and boarder wars, their being farmers, and them needing to worry about slave rebellions.
That’s their culture. After that we have the issue that BoR is a bill of rights, the parts of the Constitution that enabled gov power were in different sections.
Reading the 2ndAM and coming away with the idea that it enables gov power to restrict guns says more about where the reader’s head is at than the founders.Report
See my comment and link above.Report
Yes. It is perfectly clear that the even though they are a minority, the gun rights fanatics have a stranglehold over politics and can only see the solution as more guns.Report
I’m not sure what problem this is supposed to solve.
If we’re talking about how to prevent Uvalde, the cops had time to run back to their cars and get tools (which would be much easer than finding where ever these supposedly closer tools are, much less also figuring out how to unlock the safe).
Of course going back to the cars to get stuff to break down the door isn’t value added since the door was unlocked.
Are they trying to virtue signal by suggesting the cops don’t have the tools they need and fix that problem.Report
Yep.
As ever, guns are a totem, a vice signal.Report
They are virtue signaling by openly stating the cops don’t have the tools they WANT.Report