# data[].attributes.body
As a new principal, I feel it is important to be aware of the various ways we as administrators can help keep a school safe. All stakeholders should be involved in any site based decision that will impact daily lives. I chose to discuss the topic of campus carry due to the fact that it is forefront in the news and is affecting and effecting our day to day routines and safety while at what should be one of the safest places in our lives, our schools.

# data[].attributes.body
Many schools, especially rural communities, are considering becoming a Guardian School, where specific and well trained staff conceal carry on campus. This issued has become an important topic in education in recent years due to the rise of mass school shootings.
I interviewed two school members to determine if I would get contradictory statements and beliefs. I first interviewed our school's Superintendent, Dwin Nanny, who said he believed in the Guardian program and feels strongly that our school should be one. He states his reasoning for supporting the program is because we are over 20 miles to the closest town. He said that if we were to have an active shooter, it could be a minimum of 20 minutes before help arrived. He did stress the fact that staff that would carry would go through intensive training. I also interviewed Justin Moore, our welding instructor and who is retired military. He mentioned that while he believed the Guardian Program has its perks, he is not sure if it is the best program for public schools. He spoke about what it would be like for a staff member to have to point a gun at a student (or other community member) that they know and be able to pull the trigger. He's biggest concern was if a program was put in place for staff to get counseling if a situation like this occurred.
Best Practices presented by both parties above:
1. Never disclose your weapon.
2. Understand the law.
3. Seek proper training.
4. Practice realistic situations.

# data[].attributes.body
I read a blog reviewing the Texas Public School "Guardian" Program. According to Chadwick (2018), he went through the training and rated each section based on the detailed instruction and practice participants received. This blog provided me with a quick synopsis of what the requirements are to become a Guardian and what the training entailed.

Chadwick, C. (2018, September 04). Chuck Chadwick gets "Schooled" in Public School Security: A review of Texas public school "Guardian" program. NOCSSM. https://nocssm.org/blog/review-of-school-guardian-program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A review of Texas Public School "Guardian" Program
In Texas, the most popular Public school security program is the "Guardian" program. Sometimes also called the "Defender" program. This is similar to the "School Marshall Program".

Although I have not personally been through the "School Marshall" program, I understand, from one of the "Guardian" trainees, who was a school principal, that the reason most schools go with the Guardian program over the Marshall program is that the Guardian program allows Guardians to carry the handgun "on their person", whereas under the Marshall program the Marshall must have the handgun in a locked box "at their desk" and cannot carry among the students.

The other major reason for preference of the Guardian program is that it only takes 2 days as apposed to 10 days for the Marshall program.
Liability concerns - "The BIGGY for me"
So, a person would naturally think "This being a state program and all, once these people are trained, there is no liability or at least some liability reduction ($$$$) from the insurance companies.

Now that is hilarious! No, Johnny, there is no Santa Claus.... If fact, the principle told me that "they could find no insurance company that would issue a liability insurance policy to them for armed employees. The answer from the school district was that the school district was going without insurance coverage and simply Self-Insuring." After all state school districts have millions of dollars in spare cash. (?????)

I don't think that will fly with our private Christian schools.
The Process:
Basically, a school decides they want armed staff, teachers, principals, administrators, etc. Candidates go to a 2-day class (mine lasted 10.5 hours total time) and have a valid Texas LTC - License To Carry (a handgun).

I decided to look into the popular "Guardian" program and take the course myself ($350).
The Training:
Day One - A combination of a 30 question LTC written test, handgun qualification and lecture.

1st Written Test - The first test was simple and about LTC laws for the general public.

I gave this segment a average score of "C".

Handgun Qualification - In the handgun qualification you had to score at least a 225 out of 250. The usual passing score for civilians is only 175 in Texas. The score of 225 is passing for the instructor level.

I gave this segment a good score of "A".

Lecture - The lecture was assorted collection of topics. Laws on self-defense, active shooter case files, effects of stress on the human body, and the main methodology of Avoid, Deny, Defend.

Avoid, Deny, Defend - This replaced the "RUN, HIDE, FIGHT" methodology.

Avoid - Get out if you can.

Deny - Stack chairs, desk, etc. in front of door.

Defend - OK, this is where I got "Schooled" about the program. I thought and, I think, most people think, that this program is to teach the "Guardians" to "GO take out the active shooter", Right? Wrong!

The fallacy is in the "GO" word. There is no "GO" to the shooter. The Defend part is Defending the classroom you are in.

I gave this segment a good score of "C"

Day Two - Live fire, written test, live scenarios

Live fire - On the second day we fired 150 rounds at a hostage target at various distances from 3 - 15 yards and 10 rounds at a Torso target at 50 yards. The drills involved what the instructor was calling "Under Stress" fire.

We basically loaded five rounds in the gun, placed it on the table pointing down range, turned around to face the instructor; on the command, turn, pick up the gun and fire at the target. You have 4 seconds, etc. There was no exact scoring, only that a majority of the 3-15 yard rounds needed to hit the bad guy anywhere. I passed, but my training had me almost struggling to resist the muscle memory of going for my holster (which we couldn't wear). Picking up a loaded firearm from a table was counter-intuitive to me and almost dangerous as usually all my loaded handguns are in a holster preventing me from inadvertently placing my finger on the trigger.

I gave this training a grade of B. Good, because although having little training value, it did make the candidates show their accuracy skills.

Here's an interesting part - The instructor said that he once had a candidate that missed 64 out of the approximately 140 rounds fired at the 3-15 yard line. He had to fail the person. It is very interesting that the person had to pass the LTC course of fire with a 225 the first day, yet failed when put under the slightest time pressure.

Written test - Another 30-question short test about the lecture material.

I gave this segment a good score of "C".

Legal representation sales pitch - After lunch a representative from a legal representation company (LRC, fictious acronym), who's name will not be mentioned, came in to solicit membership. He immediately began that the two major competitors no longer exist as they lost their insurance underwriter. We tried to confirm this information but could not. Looks to us like both are in business as of today. We have contacted LRC to confirm this information and have not heard back from them as of this writing.

The most disturbing part - I asked the LRC rep if I would be covered if I were a volunteer on a church security team performing coordinated security duties at the church.

His answer - "We advise our people not to call themselves a "Security Team" or any type of coordinated effort. Just say you are just LTC people in the congregation." Really? I mean Really? We have contacted LRC for comment on this information and have not heard back from them as of this writing.

Live scenarios with paintball (UTM) - Each of the students went through 2 drills where we were placed in a room, door closed, and then defended the room from an active shooter coming through the door.

I gave this section a "C" for average. Average because there was little tactical training. The instructor said the program really wasn't made to make SWAT entry teams in 2 days, but to just put you under stress, period. We spent about an hour on this training.

Conclusion - The grade average comes out to a "C+" on this one. Not something I would recommend as a total solution. But a good start. The best part was the demand of the 225 score on the handgun qualification which at least made sure the students had basic handgun skills.

Very narrow bandwidth for a narrow response - The program is better than nothing and I believe it will surely save the lives of those inside the classrooms of the Guardians that are there.

Trying to compare professional security officers and personal protection officer training is like the old apples and oranges. There is really no comparing this program to the Gatekeepers program training? No empty hand defensive tactics, no intermediate weapons, no handcuffing, etc. Nothing but shoot the person with the gun.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
a review of texas public school “guardian” program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A review of Texas Public School "Guardian" Program In Texas, the most popular Public school security program is the "Guardian" program. Sometimes also called the "Defender" program. This is similar to the "School Marshall Program".

# data[].attributes.body
After reading the article by Kate McGee in the Texas Tribune (2022), I have learned that there are many mixed feelings about how to keep our schools safe.

There are two different campus carry programs available in Texas: the marshal program and the Guardian program.

The marshal program consists of 80 hours of training and a psychological exam. This program follows federal laws as to when a firearm is allowed in a school zone.

Many districts claim that teachers feel that marshal program requires too much time to complete and maintain on top of their already demanding job.

In 2007 the Guardian program became to gain popularity among rural school districts.

The Guardian program requires less training than the marshal program and is determined by local school boards.

As of 2020, 280 school districts have implemented the Guardian program. Many stating the reason was the distance and time that help would arrive in a crisis situation.

The Texas School Safety Center does advise school districts to consider all possible outcomes and risks that comes with arming school staff.

McGee, K. (2022, June 7). Texas Republicans want to arm more school employees, but few districts are opting in. The Texas Tribune. Retrieved July 21, 2022, from https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/07/texas-school-marshal-program/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
Nearly a decade ago, Texas lawmakers created the school marshal program, a way for educators to carry weapons inside schools. It was the state's rapid-fire legislative response to an unthinkable national horror 2,000 miles away when 20 first graders and six adults were shot and killed in a Sandy Hook, Connecticut, classroom just before Christmas 2012.

"Whoever is serving as the school marshal acts immediately," state Rep. Jason Villalba, R-Dallas, said at the time, explaining how his bill would protect Texans in active shooter situations. "The whole point of this is to reduce response times from minutes down to seconds."

The legislation empowers school districts to identify employees with a license to carry a firearm to volunteer as school protectors. Those individuals would undergo an 80-hour training and psychological exam, granting them access to a gun on campus. It is otherwise against federal law to have a firearm in a school zone.

But since the bill's passage into law in 2013, just 84 school districts have opted into the program, a sliver of the more than 1,200 school districts across the state. Of those districts, only 361 people have ever become a licensed school marshal across a state that has 9,000 campuses and more than 369,000 public school teachers.

Now, as Texas grapples with the Uvalde school shooting in which 19 children and two teachers were killed by an 18-year-old gunman wielding two assault rifles, state leaders are again pointing to the school marshal program as a way to improve school security.

Last week, Gov. Greg Abbott sent a letter to Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath urging him to find ways to encourage more school districts to increase the number of school marshals and other law enforcement officers on school grounds.

"In the wake of this devastating crime, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that our schools provide a safe and secure environment for the children of Texas," Abbott wrote.

Since the shooting in Uvalde, the Bosque County sheriff has requested school districts in his county just northwest of Waco adopt the program. Meanwhile, the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, also known as TCOLE, which oversees the program, has seen an uptick in the number of requests for information about it since the shooting, a spokesperson for the licensing agency said Friday.

Yet education advocates argue that the fact that the voluntary school marshal program has had so few takers over the years signals that school districts and teachers are not interested in leaning on educators to deter mass shooting events.

"If we have a school marshal program already and districts are not taking advantage of it, maybe it makes more sense to figure out why districts don't want to do that rather than push another opportunity," said Jayne Serna, a veteran Austin-area secondary school teacher who now teaches at Austin Community College.

Pre-kindergarten teacher Michelle Cardenas says safety is one reason she is not interested.

"I don't want a gun around my students," she said. "We already have to pay for our own professional development and our own school supplies. There's no money, but yet they're going to find money to train and arm teachers?"

But Villalba, who is no longer in the Legislature, blamed the low participation on the state's decision not to allocate funding for the marshal program to help districts purchase the firearms or provide stipends to marshals. He also said the state did not properly educate districts that the option was available.

"I'm heartsick that we haven't implemented this plan in a more robust fashion," he told The Texas Tribune. "Unfortunately, it takes a catalyst like Uvalde and Santa Fe before action is taken. Hopefully this will be a moment when the state decides to mandate a program and provide necessary funding to pay for it."

School marshals by the numbers

TCOLE, the agency that both oversees the school marshal program and provides training for it, is legally prohibited from releasing the names of the districts that have school marshals. Only a parent can make a written request to their child's school to find out if there is a marshal on campus.

Instead, the agency releases the number of school districts that have a marshal. When the program began, schools could have one marshal for every 200 students. Between 2013 and 2017, the state expanded the program to allow public junior colleges and private schools to utilize school marshals.

Yet at the start of the 2017 school year, only 21 school districts were employing a total of 32 marshals.

A few months later, 26 people were killed in a church in Sutherland Springs. Six months after that, eight students and two teachers were shot and killed in a high school in Santa Fe.

By the start of the 2018 school year, the number of school districts with at least one school marshal inched up slightly to 39.

As lawmakers convened in Austin in 2019, Abbott included increasing the number of marshals among his recommendations to improve school security.

That same year, state lawmakers eliminated the cap on the number of marshals a school district could appoint at a single school.

By fall 2020, the number of districts had risen slightly to 58, yet the number of individual marshals had jumped 73% from 138 marshals to 239.

Zeph Capo, president of the Texas chapter of the American Federation of Teachers, said the incremental increases make it clear that it has very limited appeal.

"Nothing has changed," he said. "As a matter of fact, it continues to become a solid position that educators don't want to take responsibility for being police officers or take on responsibility to deal with the other 364 days that they have loaded weapons in a classroom with 30 children."

Kathy Martinez-Prather, director of the Texas School Safety Center, said she often hears from districts that the 80-hour training and other required steps can be arduous for teachers to maintain on top of the myriad other responsibilities they have in and out of the classroom. School marshals must renew their license every two years.

The governor's office did not respond to questions about either the school marshal program's historic low participation rate or whether changes to it were in the works following the Uvalde shooting. But Texas Senate and House leaders have organized committees at Abbott's request to consider ways to address firearm safety, school safety, mental health, social media and police training.

Guardian plan

In 2020, the Texas School Safety Center, which provides research and best practices on school safety to school districts, conducted an audit of district's emergency operations plans and found more school districts are turning to a program that requires fewer hours of training, outside of the state's regulatory purview.

This "guardian plan" allows anyone designated by a local school board to carry firearms on campus, including staff. But instead of going through TCOLE and taking 80 hours of specialized firearms training, "guardians" training is determined by local school boards.

This plan was born in the wake of two other mass shootings: the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007, where 32 people were killed, and the 2006 shooting at an Amish school that killed five students.

In 2007, Harrold Independent School District Superintendent David Thweatt convinced his school board near Wichita Falls to first approve a policy that allows him to start arming staff in his rural schools as a way to protect campuses in areas where law enforcement might be 15 to 20 minutes away.

Since then, the program has spread to 280 school districts across the state as of 2020, according to a Texas School Safety Center audit of 1,022 public school districts. Fayetteville Independent School District, a rural district halfway between Austin and Houston, implemented the guardian program in 2018.

In Fayetteville ISD, Superintendent Jeff Harvey said the district added the guardian program instead of the more heavily regulated marshal program because it allowed the district to designate a variety of people outside of school staff to be guardians. He requires monthly target training and a psychological exam.

While the district has not had to use the guardians, Harvey said a few years ago it received a tip that a suspicious individual was approaching a campus. They initiated a shelter-in-place order and deployed guardians across the campus.

"It turns out no one came toward the school, but we were prepared and ready," Harvey said. "It felt really good having the program in place at that time and how well it performed in terms of readiness for that specific encounter."

In a state as large and diverse as Texas, he said it's impossible to find a "one size fits all" program for all school districts. But he feels local leaders should decide what works best for their students.

"We're independent school districts for a reason. Because we know what's best for our individual districts and I think it's imperative we have that ability," he said.

While the Texas School Safety Center doesn't provide guidelines to districts about how to implement the school marshal or the guardian program, Martinez-Prather with the center told the Tribune that it does advise school districts that they should consider possible risks that can come with arming staff on a campus.

"When an officer shows up to the school and there's a shooting, and you have a firearm, they're not going to ask you if you're a guardian," Martinez-Prather said she tells school districts. "They're there to neutralize the threat."

Harvey, the Fayetteville ISD superintendent, said it's established a way for law enforcement to identify guardians on campus but declined to provide details.

Aaron Phillips teaches first grade in the Amarillo Independent School District in the Texas Panhandle, which he called a more "firearm-friendly" area of Texas. It's unclear if Amarillo ISD has a school marshal or guardian program, but board policy does allow teachers and staff to keep a firearm in their vehicles.

He said he thinks people's positive opinions about programs like arming teachers are based on "feelings" rather than reality.

"I think it makes people feel like, 'Oh, we're safe because there's a gun on campus,' without any accounting of the fact that this actually happens," he said. "If we're going to be next, then there's zero reaction time and the absolutely worst happens so quickly that you have no time to go unlock your gun and stop the number of lives from being lost."

In 2019, New Mexico State University public health professor Jagdish Khubchandani and James Price at the University of Toledo took a look at school security practices and their effectiveness.

They found no evidence that more armed teachers reduced gun violence in schools.

"Armed school personnel would have needed to be in the exact same spot in the school as the shooter to significantly reduce this level of trauma," the researchers wrote. "Ten seconds is too fast to stop a school shooter with a semiautomatic firearm when the armed school guard is in another place in the school."

For Phillips, the broad calls from Texas Republicans to increase school security in the wake of the Uvalde shooting is a "cop out."

"It allows politicians to say, 'we're doing something even though they're really not doing anything and ignore all the real solutions in favor of just lip service," he said.
Join us Sept. 22-24 in person in downtown Austin for The Texas Tribune Festival and experience 100+ conversation events featuring big names you know and others you should from the worlds of politics, public policy, the media and tech - all curated by The Texas Tribune's award-winning journalists. Buy tickets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Texas Republicans want to arm more school employees, but few districts are opting in

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since Texas launched the school marshal program in 2013, just 84 school districts out of more than 1,200 have armed school staff. Educators say the program's lack of popularity shows that teachers don't want to be the ones to defend schools from mass shootings.

# data[].attributes.body
As there are mixed feelings among the public about the issue of campus carry, so is there within government officials. Many are in disagreement with the recent Supreme Court ruling. According to Walsh (2022):

Thursday, June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to carry a weapon for self-defense outside the home.

The court has coined the term "sensitive places," but did not define where these places might be.

Many gun control groups believe that the courts decision will only bring more harm to our students.

Alito defended the Supreme Courts decision by stating that the courts did not determine who may possess a weapon on campuses, nor the type of weapon to be possessed.

Walsh, M. (2022, June 24). School groups worry as Supreme Court recognizes right to carry handguns in public. Education Week. Retrieved July 21, 2022, from https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/school-groups-worry-as-supreme-court-recognizes-right-to-carry-handguns-in-public/2022/06

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School Groups Worry as Supreme Court Recognizes Right to Carry Handguns in Public

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a 6-3 decision over a New York state law, the court says little about schools as ‘sensitive places’ where guns can be prohibited.

# data[].attributes.body
The United States Constitution's Second Amendment states:

the people have the right to keep arms

the people have the right to bear arms

these rights should not be violated

U.S. Const. amend II

# data[].attributes.body
The Texas Constitution states:

"Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state"

"Legislature has the power to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime" (Tex. Const. art. 1 §23).

Tex. Const. art. 1 §23

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION



ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS



That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:


Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 3. EQUAL RIGHTS. All freemen†, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


† The language of this provision is identical to the language of the official legislative measure that originally proposed the provision. A digital image of the original text of the official enrolled measure can be found here.


Sec. 3a. EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. This amendment is self-operative.


(Added Nov. 7, 1972.)


Sec. 4. RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 5. WITNESSES NOT DISQUALIFIED BY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS; OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS. No person shall be disqualified to give evidence in any of the Courts of this State on account of his religious opinions, or for the want of any religious belief, but all oaths or affirmations shall be administered in the mode most binding upon the conscience, and shall be taken subject to the pains and penalties of perjury.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 6. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 6-a. RELIGIOUS SERVICE PROTECTIONS. This state or a political subdivision of this state may not enact, adopt, or issue a statute, order, proclamation, decision, or rule that prohibits or limits religious services, including religious services conducted in churches, congregations, and places of worship, in this state by a religious organization established to support and serve the propagation of a sincerely held religious belief.


(Added Nov. 2, 2021.)


Sec. 7. APPROPRIATIONS FOR SECTARIAN PURPOSES. No money shall be appropriated, or drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any sect, or religious society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the State be appropriated for any such purposes.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 8. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS; LIBEL. Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press. In prosecutions for the publication of papers, investigating the conduct of officers, or men in public capacity, or when the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence. And in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the Court, as in other cases.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 9. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 10. RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall hav† a speedy public trial by an impartial jury. He shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof. He shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself† and shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel, or both, shall be confronted by the witnesses against him and shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, except that when the witness resides out of the State and the offense charged is a violation of any of the anti-trust laws of this State, the defendant and the State shall have the right to produce and have the evidence admitted by deposition, under such rules and laws as the Legislature may hereafter provide; and no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense.† unless on an indictment of a grand jury, except in cases in which the punishment is by fine or imprisonment, otherwise than in the penetentiary†, in cases of impeachment, and in cases arising in the army or navy, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.


(Feb. 15, 1876. Amended Nov. 5, 1918.)


† The language of this provision is identical to the language of the official legislative measure that originally proposed the provision. A digital image of the original text of the official enrolled measure can be found here.


Sec. 11. BAIL. All prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offences†, when the proof is evident; but this provision shall not be so construed as to prevent bail after indictment found upon examination of the evidence, in such manner as may be prescribed by law.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


† The language of this provision is identical to the language of the official legislative measure that originally proposed the provision. A digital image of the original text of the official enrolled measure can be found here.


Sec. 11a. DENIAL OF BAIL AFTER MULTIPLE FELONIES. (a) Any person (1) accused of a felony less than capital in this State, who has been theretofore twice convicted of a felony, the second conviction being subsequent to the first, both in point of time of commission of the offense and conviction therefor, (2) accused of a felony less than capital in this State, committed while on bail for a prior felony for which he has been indicted, (3) accused of a felony less than capital in this State involving the use of a deadly weapon after being convicted of a prior felony, or (4) accused of a violent or sexual offense committed while under the supervision of a criminal justice agency of the State or a political subdivision of the State for a prior felony, after a hearing, and upon evidence substantially showing the guilt of the accused of the offense in (1) or (3) above, of the offense committed while on bail in (2) above, or of the offense in (4) above committed while under the supervision of a criminal justice agency of the State or a political subdivision of the State for a prior felony, may be denied bail pending trial, by a district judge in this State, if said order denying bail pending trial is issued within seven calendar days subsequent to the time of incarceration of the accused; provided, however, that if the accused is not accorded a trial upon the accusation under (1) or (3) above, the accusation and indictment used under (2) above, or the accusation or indictment used under (4) above within sixty (60) days from the time of his incarceration upon the accusation, the order denying bail shall be automatically set aside, unless a continuance is obtained upon the motion or request of the accused; provided, further, that the right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals of this State is expressly accorded the accused for a review of any judgment or order made hereunder, and said appeal shall be given preference by the Court of Criminal Appeals.


(b) In this section:


(1) "Violent offense" means:


(A) murder;


(B) aggravated assault, if the accused used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault;


(C) aggravated kidnapping; or


(D) aggravated robbery.


(2) "Sexual offense" means:


(A) aggravated sexual assault;


(B) sexual assault; or


(C) indecency with a child.


(Added Nov. 6, 1956; amended Nov. 8, 1977; Subsec. (a) amended and (b) added Nov. 2, 1993.)


Sec. 11b. DENIAL OF BAIL FOR VIOLATION OF CONDITION OF RELEASE. Any person who is accused in this state of a felony or an offense involving family violence, who is released on bail pending trial, and whose bail is subsequently revoked or forfeited for a violation of a condition of release may be denied bail pending trial if a judge or magistrate in this state determines by a preponderance of the evidence at a subsequent hearing that the person violated a condition of release related to the safety of a victim of the alleged offense or to the safety of the community.


(Added Nov. 8, 2005; amended Nov. 6, 2007.)


Sec. 11c. DENIAL OF BAIL FOR VIOLATION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER INVOLVING FAMILY VIOLENCE. The legislature by general law may provide that any person who violates an order for emergency protection issued by a judge or magistrate after an arrest for an offense involving family violence or who violates an active protective order rendered by a court in a family violence case, including a temporary ex parte order that has been served on the person, or who engages in conduct that constitutes an offense involving the violation of an order described by this section may be taken into custody and, pending trial or other court proceedings, denied release on bail if following a hearing a judge or magistrate in this state determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the person violated the order or engaged in the conduct constituting the offense.


(Added Nov. 6, 2007.)


Sec. 12. HABEAS CORPUS. The writ of Habeas Corpus is a writ of right, and shall never be suspended. The Legislature shall enact laws to render the remedy speedy and effectual.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 13. EXCESSIVE BAIL OR FINES; CRUEL OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT; OPEN COURTS; REMEDY BY DUE COURSE OF LAW. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted. All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 14. DOUBLE JEOPARDY. No person, for the same offence†, shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty,† nor shall a person be again put upon trial for the same offence,† after a verdict of not guilty in a court of competent jurisdiction.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


† The language of this provision is identical to the language of the official legislative measure that originally proposed the provision. A digital image of the original text of the official enrolled measure can be found here and here.


Sec. 15. RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. The Legislature shall pass such laws as may be needed to regulate the same, and to maintain its purity and efficiency. Provided, that the Legislature may provide for the temporary commitment, for observation and/or treatment, of mentally ill persons not charged with a criminal offense, for a period of time not to exceed ninety (90) days, by order of the County Court without the necessity of a trial by jury.


(Feb. 15, 1876. Amended Aug. 24, 1935.)


Sec. 15-a. COMMITMENT OF PERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND. No person shall be committed as a person of unsound mind except on competent medical or psychiatric testimony. The Legislature may enact all laws necessary to provide for the trial, adjudication of insanity and commitment of persons of unsound mind and to provide for a method of appeal from judgments rendered in such cases. Such laws may provide for a waiver of trial by jury, in cases where the person under inquiry has not been charged with the commission of a criminal offense, by the concurrence of the person under inquiry, or his next of kin, and an attorney ad litem appointed by a judge of either the County or Probate Court of the county where the trial is being held, and shall provide for a method of service of notice of such trial upon the person under inquiry and of his right to demand a trial by jury.


(Added Nov. 6, 1956.)


Sec. 16. BILLS OF ATTAINDER; EX POST FACTO OR RETROACTIVE LAWS; IMPAIRING OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 17. TAKING PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE; SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES; CONTROL OF PRIVILEGES AND FRANCHISES. (a) No person's property shall be taken, damaged, or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person, and only if the taking, damage, or destruction is for:


(1) the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property, notwithstanding an incidental use, by:


(A) the State, a political subdivision of the State, or the public at large; or


(B) an entity granted the power of eminent domain under law; or


(2) the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property.


(b) In this section, "public use" does not include the taking of property under Subsection (a) of this section for transfer to a private entity for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.


(c) On or after January 1, 2010, the legislature may enact a general, local, or special law granting the power of eminent domain to an entity only on a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house.


(d) When a person's property is taken under Subsection (a) of this section, except for the use of the State, compensation as described by Subsection (a) shall be first made, or secured by a deposit of money; and no irrevocable or uncontrollable grant of special privileges or immunities shall be made; but all privileges and franchises granted by the Legislature, or created under its authority, shall be subject to the control thereof.


(Feb. 15, 1876. Amended Nov. 3, 2009.)


Sec. 18. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 19. DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, ETC. BY DUE COURSE OF LAW. No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 20. OUTLAWRY OR TRANSPORTATION OUT OF STATE FOR OFFENSE. No citizen shall be outlawed. No person shall be transported out of the State for any offense committed within the same. This section does not prohibit an agreement with another state providing for the confinement of inmates of this State in the penal or correctional facilities of that state.


(Feb. 15, 1876. Amended Nov. 5, 1985.)


Sec. 21. CORRUPTION OF BLOOD; FORFEITURE OF ESTATE; SUICIDES. No conviction shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture of estate, and the estates of those who destroy their own lives shall descend or vest as in case of natural death.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 22. TREASON AGAINST STATE. Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it, or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; and no person shall be convicted of treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence† of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


† The language of this provision is identical to the language of the official legislative measure that originally proposed the provision. A digital image of the original text of the official enrolled measure can be found here.


Sec. 24. MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY. The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 25. QUARTERING SOLDIERS IN HOUSES. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in the house of any citizen without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner prescribed by law.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 26. PERPETUITIES AND MONOPOLIES; PRIMOGENITURE OR ENTAILMENTS. Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government, and shall never be allowed, nor shall the law of primogeniture or entailments ever be in force in this State.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 27. RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY; PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. The citizens shall have the right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble together for their common good; and apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 28. SUSPENSION OF LAWS. No power of suspending laws in this State shall be exercised except by the Legislature.


 (Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 29. BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT AND INVIOLATE. To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that every thing in this "Bill of Rights" is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.


(Feb. 15, 1876.)


Sec. 30. RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS. (a) A crime victim has the following rights:


(1) the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process; and


(2) the right to be reasonably protected from the accused throughout the criminal justice process.


(b) On the request of a crime victim, the crime victim has the following rights:


(1) the right to notification of court proceedings;


(2) the right to be present at all public court proceedings related to the offense, unless the victim is to testify and the court determines that the victim's testimony would be materially affected if the victim hears other testimony at the trial;


(3) the right to confer with a representative of the prosecutor's office;


(4) the right to restitution; and


(5) the right to information about the conviction, sentence, imprisonment, and release of the accused.


(c) The legislature may enact laws to define the term "victim" and to enforce these and other rights of crime victims.


(d) The state, through its prosecuting attorney, has the right to enforce the rights of crime victims.


(e) The legislature may enact laws to provide that a judge, attorney for the state, peace officer, or law enforcement agency is not liable for a failure or inability to provide a right enumerated in this section. The failure or inability of any person to provide a right or service enumerated in this section may not be used by a defendant in a criminal case as a ground for appeal or post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. A victim or guardian or legal representative of a victim has standing to enforce the rights enumerated in this section but does not have standing to participate as a party in a criminal proceeding or to contest the disposition of any charge.


(Added Nov. 7, 1989.)


Sec. 31. FUNDS FOR COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF CRIME. (a) The compensation to victims of crime fund created by general law and the compensation to victims of crime auxiliary fund created by general law are each a separate dedicated account in the general revenue fund.


(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c) of this section and subject to legislative appropriation, money deposited to the credit of the compensation to victims of crime fund or the compensation to victims of crime auxiliary fund from any source may be expended as provided by law only for delivering or funding victim-related compensation, services, or assistance.


(c) The legislature may provide by law that money in the compensation to victims of crime fund or in the compensation to victims of crime auxiliary fund may be expended for the purpose of assisting victims of episodes of mass violence if other money appropriated for emergency assistance is depleted.


(Added Nov. 4, 1997.)


Sec. 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.


(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.


(Added Nov. 8, 2005.)


Sec. 33. PUBLIC ACCESS TO AND USE OF PUBLIC BEACHES. (a) In this section, "public beach" means a state-owned beach bordering on the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico, extending from mean low tide to the landward boundary of state-owned submerged land, and any larger area extending from the line of mean low tide to the line of vegetation bordering on the Gulf of Mexico to which the public has acquired a right of use or easement to or over the area by prescription or dedication or has established and retained a right by virtue of continuous right in the public under Texas common law.


(b) The public, individually and collectively, has an unrestricted right to use and a right of ingress to and egress from a public beach. The right granted by this subsection is dedicated as a permanent easement in favor of the public.


(c) The legislature may enact laws to protect the right of the public to access and use a public beach and to protect the public beach easement from interference and encroachments.


(d) This section does not create a private right of enforcement.


(Added Nov. 3, 2009.)


Sec. 34. RIGHT TO HUNT, FISH, AND HARVEST WILDLIFE. (a) The people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, subject to laws or regulations to conserve and manage wildlife and preserve the future of hunting and fishing.


(b) Hunting and fishing are preferred methods of managing and controlling wildlife.


(c) This section does not affect any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or eminent domain.


(d) This section does not affect the power of the legislature to authorize a municipality to regulate the discharge of a weapon in a populated area in the interest of public safety.


(Added Nov. 3, 2015.)


Sec. 35. RIGHT OF CERTAIN FACILITY RESIDENTS TO DESIGNATE ESSENTIAL CAREGIVER. (a) A resident of a nursing facility, assisted living facility, intermediate care facility for individuals with an intellectual disability, residence providing home and community-based services, or state supported living center, as those terms are defined by general law, has the right to designate an essential caregiver with whom the facility, residence, or center may not prohibit in-person visitation.


(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a) of this section, the legislature by general law may provide guidelines for a facility, residence, or center described by Subsection (a) of this section to follow in establishing essential caregiver visitation policies and procedures.


(Added Nov. 2, 2021.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

# data[].attributes.body
Any state that denies an individual the right to carry a weapon for self-defense is in violation of those rights, according to the Supreme Courts decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). New York's permit law stated that a citizen must have "proper cause" to apply for a handgun and that citizens must show proof of that they are in need of protection (need must be above the average person's need for protection). The Supreme Court ruled that New York's law was in violation of a citizens Second Amendment right.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al (2020)

# data[].attributes.body
According to the Texas Penal Code, Chapter 46:
A person commits an offense of unlawfully carrying when:

"is not on his own property,

is not on property under the person's control

is not on private property with the consent of the owner of the property" (TX Penal Code §46.02).

TX Penal Code §46.02 (2021)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun;

(2) at the time of the offense:

(A) is younger than 21 years of age; or

(B) has been convicted of an offense under Section 22.01(a)(1), 22.05, 22.07, or 42.01(a)(7) or (8) committed in the five-year period preceding the date the instant offense was committed; and

(A) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or

(B) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:

(1) the handgun is in plain view, unless the person is 21 years of age or older or is licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and the handgun is carried in a holster; or

(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or boating; or

(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm.

(a-2) For purposes of this section, "premises" includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, "recreational vehicle" means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.

(a-3) For purposes of this section, "watercraft" means any boat, motorboat, vessel, or personal watercraft, other than a seaplane on water, used or capable of being used for transportation on water.

(a-4) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a location-restricted knife;

(2) is younger than 18 years of age at the time of the offense; and

(A) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control;

(B) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control; or

(C) under the direct supervision of a parent or legal guardian of the person.

(a-5) A person commits an offense if the person carries a handgun and intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place. It is an exception to the application of this subsection that the handgun was partially or wholly visible but was carried in a holster.

(a-6) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) carries a handgun while the person is intoxicated; and

(A) on the person's own property or property under the person's control or on private property with the consent of the owner of the property; or

(B) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft:

(i) that is owned by the person or under the person's control; or

(ii) with the consent of the owner or operator of the vehicle or watercraft.

(a-7) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun;

(A) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or

(B) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control; and

(3) at the time of the offense, was prohibited from possessing a firearm under Section 46.04(a), (b), or (c).

(a-8) If conduct constituting an offense under Subsection (a-7) constitutes an offense under another provision of law, the actor may be prosecuted under Subsection (a-7) or under both provisions.

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (d) or (e), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) Repealed by Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 809 (H.B. 1927), Sec. 26(8), eff. September 1, 2021.

(d) An offense under Subsection (a-4) is a Class C misdemeanor.

(e) An offense under Subsection (a-7) is:

(1) a felony of the second degree with a minimum term of imprisonment of five years, if the actor was prohibited from possessing a firearm under Section 46.04(a); or

(2) a felony of the third degree, if the actor was prohibited from possessing a firearm under Section 46.04(b) or (c).

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 109, ch. 49, Sec. 1, eff. April 15, 1975; Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 918, ch. 342, Sec. 14, eff. Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 1330, ch. 494, Sec. 2, eff. June 19, 1975; Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 1879, ch. 746, Sec. 26, eff. Aug. 29, 1977; Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 2273, ch. 552, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 31, 1981; Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5113, ch. 931, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 29, 1983; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 262, Sec. 21, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 873, Sec. 25, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 168, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991. Redesignated from Penal Code Sec. 46.02, 46.03 and amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 229, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, Sec. 16, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 754, Sec. 15, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 790, Sec. 16, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 998, Sec. 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 10.02, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1221, Sec. 1, eff. June 20, 1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1261, Sec. 24, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 693 (H.B. 1815), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007.

Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 679 (H.B. 25), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2011.

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 437 (H.B. 910), Sec. 45, eff. January 1, 2016.

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1049 (H.B. 1935), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2017.

Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 216 (H.B. 446), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2019.

Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 481 (H.B. 2112), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2021.

Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 518 (S.B. 550), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2021.

Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 809 (H.B. 1927), Sec. 22, eff. September 1, 2021.

Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 809 (H.B. 1927), Sec. 26(8), eff. September 1, 2021.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2021 Texas Statutes :: Penal Code :: Title 10 - Offenses Against Public Health, Safety, and Morals :: Chapter 46 - Weapons :: Section 46.02. Unlawful Carrying Weapons

# data[].attributes.body
Texas has a minimum requirement for any citizen carrying a handgun. According to the Texas Administrative Code(37 TAC §218.9), each agency that employs at least one peace officer shall meet the annual firearms proficiency standard:

"handguns - a minimum of 50 rounds, fired at ranges from point-blank to at least 15 yards with at least 20 rounds at or beyond seven yards, including at least one timed reload..."

"the minimum passing percentage shall be 70 for each firearm."

These requirements are allowing trainees for the marshal or Guardian programs to be at least knowledgeable of owning and handling a handgun before entering their rigorous trainings.

Continuing Firearms Proficiency Requirements, 37. Tex. Admin. Code § 218.9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(a) Each agency or entity that employs at least one peace officer or at least one firearms certified jailer shall: (1) require each peace officer or firearm certified jailer that it employs to successfully complete the current firearms proficiency requirements at least once each calendar year for each type of firearm carried; (2) designate a firearms proficiency officer to be responsible for the documentation of annual firearms proficiency. The documentation for each officer shall include: (A) date of qualification; (B) identification of peace officer or jailer; (C) firearm manufacturer, model; (D) results of qualifying; and (E) course(s) of fire; (3) keep on file and in a format readily accessible to the commission a copy of all records of this proficiency. (b) The annual firearms proficiency requirements shall include: (1) an external inspection by the proficiency officer, range officer, firearms instructor, or gunsmith to determine the safety and functioning of the weapon(s); (2) a proficiency demonstration in the care and cleaning of the weapon(s) used; and (3) a course of fire that meets or exceeds the minimum standards. (c) The minimum standards for the annual firearms proficiency course of fire shall be: (1) handguns - a minimum of 50 rounds, fired at ranges from point-blank to at least 15 yards with at least 20 rounds at or beyond seven yards, including at least one timed reload; (2) shotguns - a minimum of five rounds of ammunition fired at a range of at least 15 yards; (3) precision rifles - a minimum of 20 rounds of ammunition fired at a range of at least 100 yards; however, an agency may, in its discretion, allow a range of less than 100 yards but not less than 50 yards if the minimum passing percentage is raised to 90; (4) patrol rifles - a minimum of 30 rounds of ammunition fired at a range of at least 50 yards, including at least one timed reload; however, an agency may, in its discretion, allow a range of less than 50 yards but not less than 10 yards if the minimum passing percentage is raised to 90; (5) fully automatic weapons - a minimum of 30 rounds of ammunition fired at ranges from seven to at least 10 yards, including at least one timed reload, with at least 25 rounds fired in full automatic (short bursts of two or three rounds), and at least five rounds fired semi-automatic, if possible with the weapon. (d) The minimum passing percentage shall be 70 for each firearm. (e) The executive director may, upon written agency request, waive a peace officer's demonstration of weapons proficiency based on a determination that the requirement causes a hardship. (f) The effective date of this section is February 1, 2020.

Source Note: The provisions of this §218.9 adopted to be effective February 1, 2014, 38 TexReg 9616; amended to be effective February 1, 2016, 41 TexReg 274; amended to be effective February 5, 2020, 45 TexReg 770

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(a) Each agency or entity that employs at least one peace officer or at least one firearms certified jailer shall: (1) require each peace officer or firearm certified jailer that it employs to successfully complete the current firearms proficiency requirements at least once each calendar year for each type of firearm carried; (2) designate a firearms proficiency officer to be responsible for the documentation of annual firearms proficiency.

# data[].attributes.body
I selected the Superintendent's letter from Forsan to his stakeholders because I admired how he was direct and to the point with the reasoning behind the decision to create a Guardian program. He also gave the strategic steps that volunteers would be taking in order to be highly-trained for this extremely important role.

Forsan Board Policy. (2019, November 11). Safety Program/Risk Management Emergency Plans. https://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/687?filename=CKC(LOCAL).pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Schools across the country are being forced to prepare for the unthinkable - the potential of a mass school shooting. The news is full of incidents like Columbine, Newtown, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and so on. In fact, according to a USA Today article, there have been more than 200 mass shootings in the US since 2006. Schools, as "Gun Free Zones," have been seen as "free fire zones" by troubled individuals. They knew that they would have no one firing back at them while they completed their goal of killing innocent and helpless students and staff.

The Forsan ISD school board has been watching the devastation and has been considering appropriate policies for over two years. Last spring, they changed local policy and created a group that we will call "Guardians." They will have the right to carry a concealed handgun on school grounds.

The Guardians will be staff members who have passed each of the following requirements (and more):

The people who make it through the training and gain final approval are volunteers. In order to protect them from becoming targets of an intruder, their names are confidential and are not to be released. I ask that names not be guessed at nor rumors passed in an attempt to protect these individuals.

Signs will be posted on our campuses which say, "Attention: Please be aware that the staff of Forsan ISD may be armed and will use whatever force is necessary to protect our students." These signs are important, not as a macho, chest bumping brag but as a warning that shooters should pick some other target. These campuses will no longer be "free fire zones" where bad actors can play out horrible video games in real life without being challenged.

So, may you carry a concealed handgun or even open carry (after January 1)? No. No students, parents nor most staff will be allowed to carry. Only those who have gone through the extensive training and met all requirements will be allowed to carry. Please continue to be aware that any gun rumored to be on campus or seen on campus should be reported immediately.

The decision to move forward with this policy came only after much School Board consideration, consultation with our sheriff, surveying staff members, involvement of a committee of parents/staff, and consultation with attorneys and other school districts. Since the decision, additional committees have been asked for input on the program including the District Improvement Committee (which includes 6 community members) and a nine member committee made up of high school student council officers.

Signs will go up and the program will be in full force this month. We wish everyone the very best as we enter the holiday season.

Respectfully,

Randy Johnson
Superintendent
Forsan ISD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Schools across the country are being forced to prepare for the unthinkable - the potential of a mass school shooting. The news is full of incidents like Columbine, Newtown, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and so on. In fact, according to a USA Today article, there have been more than 200 mass shootings in the US since 2006.

# data[].attributes.body
According to the Texas Educator's Code of Ethics, "the educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly treat a student or minor in a manner that adversely affects or endangers the learning, physical health, mental health, or safety of the student or minor" (19 TAC § 247.2).
As the rise of mass school shootings has been on the rise, many Texas school districts, especially rural districts, have adopted the Guardian Program, which allows intensely trained staff members to conceal carry on campus. This can cause an ethical dilemma if a student was to come into the school with the intent to shoot and kill only to be confronted by an armed staff member who they have a personal connection with. As educators, we are programmed to know and love all of our students, I cannot say with certainty that a staff member would be able to fulfill their duty as a Guardian if they came face to face with a student they knew, and at the same time, it is their duty to protect the other students. I personally struggle with this scenario.

Educator's Code of Ethics, 19 Tex. Admin. Code § 247

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Enforceable Standards.
(1) Professional Ethical Conduct, Practices and Performance. (A) Standard 1.1. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in deceptive practices regarding official policies of the school district, educational institution, educator preparation program, the Texas Education Agency, or the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) and its certification process. (B) Standard 1.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misappropriate, divert, or use monies, personnel, property, or equipment committed to his or her charge for personal gain or advantage. (C) Standard 1.3. The educator shall not submit fraudulent requests for reimbursement, expenses, or pay. (D) Standard 1.4. The educator shall not use institutional or professional privileges for personal or partisan advantage. (E) Standard 1.5. The educator shall neither accept nor offer gratuities, gifts, or favors that impair professional judgment or that are used to obtain special advantage. This standard shall not restrict the acceptance of gifts or tokens offered and accepted openly from students, parents of students, or other persons or organizations in recognition or appreciation of service. (F) Standard 1.6. The educator shall not falsify records, or direct or coerce others to do so. (G) Standard 1.7. The educator shall comply with state regulations, written local school board policies, and other state and federal laws. (H) Standard 1.8. The educator shall apply for, accept, offer, or assign a position or a responsibility on the basis of professional qualifications. (I) Standard 1.9. The educator shall not make threats of violence against school district employees, school board members, students, or parents of students. (J) Standard 1.10. The educator shall be of good moral character and be worthy to instruct or supervise the youth of this state. (K) Standard 1.11. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent his or her employment history, criminal history, and/or disciplinary record when applying for subsequent employment. (L) Standard 1.12. The educator shall refrain from the illegal use, abuse, or distribution of controlled substances, prescription drugs, and toxic inhalants. (M) Standard 1.13. The educator shall not be under the influence of alcohol or consume alcoholic beverages on school property or during school activities when students are present. (2) Ethical Conduct Toward Professional Colleagues. (A) Standard 2.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential health or personnel information concerning colleagues unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 2.2. The educator shall not harm others by knowingly making false statements about a colleague or the school system. (C) Standard 2.3. The educator shall adhere to written local school board policies and state and federal laws regarding the hiring, evaluation, and dismissal of personnel. (D) Standard 2.4. The educator shall not interfere with a colleague's exercise of political, professional, or citizenship rights and responsibilities. (E) Standard 2.5. The educator shall not discriminate against or coerce a colleague on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, disability, family status, or sexual orientation. (F) Standard 2.6. The educator shall not use coercive means or promise of special treatment in order to influence professional decisions or colleagues. (G) Standard 2.7. The educator shall not retaliate against any individual who has filed a complaint with the SBEC or who provides information for a disciplinary investigation or proceeding under this chapter. (H) Standard 2.8. The educator shall not intentionally or knowingly subject a colleague to sexual harassment. (3) Ethical Conduct Toward Students. (A) Standard 3.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential information concerning students unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 3.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly treat a student or minor in a manner that adversely affects or endangers the learning, physical health, mental health, or safety of the student or minor. (C) Standard 3.3. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent facts regarding a student. (D) Standard 3.4. The educator shall not exclude a student from participation in a program, deny benefits to a student, or grant an advantage to a student on the basis of race, color, gender, disability, national origin, religion, family status, or sexual orientation. (E) Standard 3.5. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in physical mistreatment, neglect, or abuse of a student or minor. (F) Standard 3.6. The educator shall not solicit or engage in sexual conduct or a romantic relationship with a student or minor. (G) Standard 3.7. The educator shall not furnish alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs to any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child or knowingly allow any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child to consume alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs in the presence of the educator. (H) Standard 3.8. The educator shall maintain appropriate professional educator-student relationships and boundaries based on a reasonably prudent educator standard. (I) Standard 3.9. The educator shall refrain from inappropriate communication with a student or minor, including, but not limited to, electronic communication such as cell phone, text messaging, email, instant messaging, blogging, or other social network communication. Factors that may be considered in assessing whether the communication is inappropriate include, but are not limited to: (i) the nature, purpose, timing, and amount of the communication; (ii) the subject matter of the communication; (iii) whether the communication was made openly, or the educator attempted to conceal the communication; (iv) whether the communication could be reasonably interpreted as soliciting sexual contact or a romantic relationship; (v) whether the communication was sexually explicit; and (vi) whether the communication involved discussion(s) of the physical or sexual attractiveness or the sexual history, activities, preferences, or fantasies of either the educator or the student.

# data[].attributes.headline
13. Personal Connection to the Legal and Ethical Standards

# data[].attributes.subject
13. Personal Connection to the Legal and Ethical Standards

# data[].attributes.body
As I delved into the topic of campus carry, a broken pictured emerged, due to internal conflict. On one hand, I understand rural school districts wanting to adopt the Guardian Program because they are so far away from local authorities, and the amount of time it would take for authorities to arrive would be detrimental to the situation. On the other hand, I understand and agree that your average "Joe" does not have the proper training to respond and react in a highly stressful situation as a school shooting. I take into account our military personnel and the extensive and rigorous training that they must complete to be combat ready. Essentially this is what we are asking of our staff members, only without the extensive training. If I had to choose, I personally would choose the Marshal Program over the Guardian Program, simply due to it's training hours requirement.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Pre-requisite to enroll in the Guardian Program, one must possess his/her Concealed Handgun License (CHL).

2. Guardians must complete 16 hours of initial training.

3. Guardians will complete, at a minimum, annual firearm trainings, biannually is recommended.

4. Guardians will complete, at minimum, scenario based trainings, biannually is recommended.

5. Guardians are required to attend and participate in monthly shooting range visits.

6. All local law enforcement should be made of aware of the individuals who make up the Guardian Program.

# data[].attributes.body
Chadwick, C. (2018, September 04). Chuck Chadwick gets "Schooled" in Public School Security: A review of Texas public school "Guardian" program. NOCSSM. https://nocssm.org/blog/review-of-school-guardian-program/

Continuing Firearms Proficiency Requirements, 37. Tex. Admin. Code § 218.9

Educator's Code of Ethics, 19 Tex. Admin. Code § 247.2

Forsan Board Policy. (2019, November 11). Safety Program/Risk Management Emergency Plans. https://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/687?filename=CKC(LOCAL).pdf

McGee, K. (2022, June 7). Texas Republicans want to arm more school employees, but few districts are opting in. The Texas Tribune. Retrieved July 21, 2022, from https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/07/texas-school-marshal-program/

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al (2020)

Tex. Const. art. 1 §23

TX Penal Code §46.02 (2021)

U.S. Const. amend II

Walsh, M. (2022, June 24). School groups worry as Supreme Court recognizes right to carry handguns in public. Education Week. Retrieved July 21, 2022, from https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/school-groups-worry-as-supreme-court-recognizes-right-to-carry-handguns-in-public/2022/06