1. My personal thoughts of having the educators carry firearms on campus. The students may take the weapon from the teacher and use it on the teacher or other students. I don’t think any firearms any where on or near any schools is a proper thought and for anyone in government is really a very STUPID idea.

   Comment by B.A. Choquette — December 14, 2006 @ 2:09 am

2. I believe that it is time for a person trained with a firearm to be on campus. Emphasis on trained. Training has a broad definition whis is to enclude weapon retention. No student has to know whom has the firearm. A student will bring a firearm if he wants to bring one anyway. Your comment “I don’t think any firearms any where on or near any schools is a proper thought” is a pipe dream. of COURSE it would be nice if no one had one near or at a school. You need to remember that criminals with a dedicated intent don’t pay attention to the laws, hence why they are criminals. I would feel much better knowing my children would be protected by a capable person ready to defend them from a Columbine situation.

   Comment by P. Porter — December 14, 2006 @ 11:04 am

3. With so many retired police officer in this great country, why don’t we employ them with in the schools (and also as Federal Air Marshalls)?

   A wealth of experience going to waste.

   Being a Retired LEO (Law Enforcement Officer), I know of many officers who no longer want to work the “streets” but would be interested in employment within the schools and/or as air marshalls.

   Since congress implemented HR 218 (A National CCW Permit, [Carring Concealed Weapons] for Active and Retired LEOs) with the thought that an Officer could respond to critical situations on behalf of citizens, it make logical sense to the retired officers to guard schools and our airlines.

   Comment by C. Norris — December 15, 2006 @ 8:58 am

4. Several wrong turns have been taken in the relm of public education. One was to turn it, essentially, into a state-sponsored monopoly. Another has been to turn the schools into gun-free killing zones for the convenience of any loser with a grudge but no conscience. We need to make “More guns,Less Crime” ,by John R. Lott, Jr. required reading in all high school and college statistics classes. Firearms in schools is a topic that government should never have tried to infringe it’s will upon in the first place, according to the 2nd amendment of the US constitution. It is not too late to admit and correct our error. Welcome to reality.

   Comment by Walter Schwenk — December 15, 2006 @ 11:19 am

5. I have been open carrying a firearm for over a year now. I have had no problems what so ever. I understand that it makes some people nervous to see a holstered weapon being openly carried by a regular citizen. However, I doubt they would feel that way if their safety was threatened and I was able to stop the situation with my training. As far as our schools go, I think that allowing educators to carry concealed (on their person) would be a great way to reduce incidents. They are already doing this in UT and haven’t had a problem. Like Albert Einstein said, “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those that do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”

   Comment by Derek — December 17, 2006 @ 10:29 am

6. I’m a big fan of Front Sight, and I do hope that some up-to-date coverage of this issue will continue. Front Sight is (as of this writing, Dec/22/2006) offering memberships for sale, and I have been tempted a number of times to plunk down for it, so I would like to know when this lawsuit is finally *off* the radar.

   Comment by Hortense Weinblatt — December 22, 2006 @ 9:04 am

7. In the last two weeks I have been blitzed with advertising by Piazza with a series of offers for Front Sight memberships. I’m guessing that he is not following the judge’s orders and he continues to lie to potential customers. Shameless.

   Comment by D. Mumper — January 1, 2007 @ 9:37 am

8. Front Sight IS permitted to continue selling memberships that do not entail acquisition of property on the Front Sight range. You kind-of have to read the legal documentation in order to figure that out as the media in not an all-inclusive source.

   Comment by NEL — January 8, 2007 @ 3:18 pm

9. Don’t expect anything regarding Front Sight to go away anytime soon. Piazza is engaged in duplicitous sales practices, promising all kinds of unnamed “exchanges in abundance” if you buy into his latest membership offering. Think Ponzi scheme.

   Take the money, tear it up, and deposit it into your toilet instead. It’ll do you as much good as giving it to Piazza.

   Comment by Olivia Calandra — January 12, 2007 @ 10:48 am

10. I think it is a very good law why should secondhand smoke kill people that don’t smoke, I am sorry that the Judge ruined the new law by making it a civil penalty but as he will soon find out the people on Nevada have spoken. I beleive the bar’s that uphold the ban will do more bussines then the ones that do not comply. I refuse to patronize a bar that does not uphold the ban.

    Comment by Steve W — July 16, 2007 @ 11:27 pm

11. So much for the “information age” I log in to see the latest news on the Front Sight settlement issue and what I see is postings from almost one year ago. I thought people would be posting on a daily basis on the topic. Oh well, guess I should give it another six months to check on what happened last month?

    Comment by William Rios — August 29, 2007 @ 4:58 am

12. very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
    Idetrorce

    Comment by Idetrorce — December 15, 2007 @ 5:49 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment