Many people believe that one of the best defenses to an armed attack on any location, including a school, is an immediate armed response. Certainly, the actions already taken this year to put "school resource officers" in public schools with taxpayer funding evidences at least some in government and many in the public see the life saving necessity of an immediate armed response to a potential mass killing or assault.
However, the law is also clear that government law enforcement officials have no "duty" to protect people from harm. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that police have no specific obligation to protect. See,
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. The specific issue - that there is no duty to defend - came up in the
federal court ruling in the case against the law enforcement officer in the Parkland school matter. The
issue came up again following the Uvalde school shooting more recently - again with the conclusion that there is no duty on the government nor on the law enforcement officers to defend anyone - including school children. Thus, while the Covenant shooting shows that some officers are trained to and will immediately respond to a mass shooting event, there is no legal duty to do so and no legal consequence to the government if it fails to do so.
There is but one solution - allowing adults to be armed at all times and in all places, including schools.
During the Special Session Sen. Paul Bailey and Rep. Chris Todd made an effort with
HB7064/SB7020 to expand the life saving opportunity that an immediate armed response provides. In this legislation, they sought to change Tennessee law to provide:
- current and retired military, if not prohibited from possessing or carrying a firearm, would be authorized to carry on pre-K through 12 grade public and private schools;
- current and retired law enforcement, if not prohibited from possessing or carrying a firearm, would be
authorized to carry on pre-K through 12 grade public and private
schools; and
- Tennessee enhanced handgun permit holders (the ones who are required to complete a state training course and qualify on a shooting range) would be
authorized to carry on pre-K through 12 grade public and private
schools.
Obviously, this made the heads of gun control advocates explode, but apparently it did not set well with some Republicans either.
This bill came up for an extended hearing on August 23, 2023, in the House Education Administration committee. Every member of that committee is appointed to that committee by Speaker Cameron Sexton. Speaker Sexton appointed Rep. Mark White (R.) to chair the committee. After an hour of debate, the bill failed on a roll call vote (which still is not on the state's website). That failure is on the shoulders of several Republicans.
The
committee video records the votes verbally shortly after the 4 hour 6 minute mark. These were the votes of committee members (the Republicans voting "No" or who did not answer are marked in bold):
Harold Love Jr. (D) - No
The vote was 9 to 9 with 2 not voting. Significantly, five Republicans voted no and anyone one of those voting yes or just not voting at all would have kept this bill moving forward.
One interesting note is that none of the "no" votes did so based on the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in its decision in
New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen,
in which the Court made clear that any regulation of rights protected
by the Second Amendment must be shown by the government to be a
restriction that existed (or a close analogue) as part of the nation’s
historical tradition as of 1791. At least in this hearing, none of the no votes were openly predicated on the assertion that as of 1791 the nation's historical tradition prohibited possession of firearms in schools by adults.
Certainly, some other reasons were given but were any
constitutional grounds for an intentional government infringement of a right protected by the Second Amendment raised? No.
