HOUSE BILL: School Defense and Mental Health Reform Act (Debating)

[Lechasseur]

Concerning the original Section 2.5; why was it eliminated? Was it due to privacy concerns or was it because "all students should be armed"?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Concerning the original Section 2.5; why was it eliminated? Was it due to privacy concerns or was it because "all students should be armed"?

The person who composed the amendment to remove such deregistered in June.

[Lechasseur]

Concerning the original Section 2.5; why was it eliminated? Was it due to privacy concerns or was it because "all students should be armed"?

The person who composed the amendment to remove such deregistered in June.

Ok then. I'd like to amend the bill in order to put the original section 2.5 back in it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Concerning the original Section 2.5; why was it eliminated? Was it due to privacy concerns or was it because "all students should be armed"?

The person who composed the amendment to remove such deregistered in June.

Ok then. I'd like to amend the bill in order to put the original section 2.5 back in it.

You see the way that is phrased makes it sounds like you plan to offer such in the future, but not now.

When you offer an amendment say "Amendment offerred/proposed" or "I propose this amendment".  Words like "Like to" aren't declarative if that makes sense.

[Lechasseur]

Concerning the original Section 2.5; why was it eliminated? Was it due to privacy concerns or was it because "all students should be armed"?

The person who composed the amendment to remove such deregistered in June.

Ok then. I'd like to amend the bill in order to put the original section 2.5 back in it.

You see the way that is phrased makes it sounds like you plan to offer such in the future, but not now.

When you offer an amendment say "Amendment offerred/proposed" or "I propose this amendment".  Words like "Like to" aren't declarative if that makes sense.

Understood. I'll restate what I said in a better way.

I propose an amendment to this bill to put the original section 2.5 back into the bill.

[Pericles]

So this is the amendment Representative Lechasseur would like to introduce? So, sponsor feedback, well I'm the sponsor so what do I think of this? It's certainly not ideal to have to have checkpoints in schools, but unfortunately given our gun violence problem they seem to be a necessary safety measure. So I will judge the amendment to be friendly. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Pericles]

Representatives have, you guessed it, 24 hours for objections.

[YE]

Am I the only one not comfortable with gun checkpoints at schools?

[Pericles]

Am I the only one not comfortable with gun checkpoints at schools?

Well I'm not that happy about it but does it make students safer? I'm leaning towards the answer being yes and so making it friendly, but if anyone has evidence and strong arguments to the contrary I'm willing to listen.

[Pericles]

With no objections the amendment is adopted. Does anyone have any further points to add on this bill? For reference, here is the current text of the bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Lechasseur]

I propose an amendment to Section 2.6 in order to allow security personnel to be armed. Of course this means that security personnel need to have a firearms permit and applicants for security positions cannot be hired if they are barred from bearing arms for any reason.

[Pericles]

I propose an amendment to Section 2.6 in order to allow security personnel to be armed. Of course this means that security personnel need to have a firearms permit and cannot be hired if they are barred from bearing arms for any reason.

Can you write out the text of your amendment?

[Lechasseur]

Section 2:
6. a. All schools must have an adequate amount of security personnel, determined by the regional Department of Education.
b. Security personnel are permitted to be armed on school premises.
c. A person who does not have a firearms permit or who is legally or medically barred from owning or bearing arms for any reason is ineligible for employment in security positions in Atlasian schools.

[Pericles]

Section 2:
6. a. All schools must have an adequate amount of security personnel, determined by the regional Department of Education.
b. Security personnel are permitted to be armed on school premises.
c. A person who does not have a firearms permit or who is legally or medically barred from owning or bearing arms for any reason is ineligible for employment in security positions in Atlasian schools.

Ok. 24 hours for objections. As a question; do you think that this would not be allowed in the existing bill, There doesn't seem to be anything about banning them from being armed.

[Lechasseur]

Section 2:
6. a. All schools must have an adequate amount of security personnel, determined by the regional Department of Education.
b. Security personnel are permitted to be armed on school premises.
c. A person who does not have a firearms permit or who is legally or medically barred from owning or bearing arms for any reason is ineligible for employment in security positions in Atlasian schools.

Ok. 24 hours for objections. As a question; do you think that this would not be allowed in the existing bill, There doesn't seem to be anything about banning them from being armed.

Well, common sense would have you think that security personnel's right to be armed is implied but some one else could interpret it differently (especially as I currently live somewhere where security guards can't be armed, with exceptions).

[Pericles]

I won't object to this, Representatives who wish to object have just a few hours left to do so.

[Pericles]

With no objections Representative Lechasseur's amendment is adopted. Here is the current text of the bill-with the amendment included.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[fhtagn]

How is this affected now that the 12th Congress is no longer in session?

[Sestak]

How is this affected now that the 12th Congress is no longer in session?

At the end of the 12th Congress, CAF-12 had no funding going into it and no funding coming out of it (this never advanced, HELIOS and HSR were vetoed).

However, it is worth noting that this bill may violate paygo until HELIOS or some other funding method is passed.

[fhtagn]

Looking into other funding means, since I have a feeling the usual suspect is going to pretend overriding paygo is a reasonable option (which he should keep in mind not only how irresponsible that is, but also the Senate passed paygo, so even if we skip it here there's no guarantees the Senate will be willing to do the same).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will not sign anything that violates paygo.


Do your homework, drink your milk and eat your wheaties, otherwise you have only yourselves to blame for something failing.

[Pericles]

Anyone got suggestions(in the form of amendments ideally) for funding?

[Lechasseur]

Anyone got suggestions(in the form of amendments ideally) for funding?

Unfortunately no, I don't know the tax system and general revenue flows well enough to think of something.

[fhtagn]

since the FAIR Act funding method would end up with a lot extra to it, we could always tack it to this bill too?

[Lechasseur]

since the FAIR Act funding method would end up with a lot extra to it, we could always tack it to this bill too?

That's actually what I was thinking to myself too. Will that extra revenue cover all the costs of this bill?