TX Sheriffs on Firearms Issue

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Survey of such:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf...13557211004621

Criminal justice research often focuses exclusively on municipal police departments. Sheriffs' departments are largely ignored in this research despite this population's reach and role. There are nearly 3,000 sheriffs' offices around the United States and they often serve as the only law enforcement body in rural areas. This study sought to address the scarcity of this research and focused on Texas sheriffs' views regarding firearm regulations and the causes of mass shootings. An 18-question instrument created in consult with the Texas Narcotic Officers Association was sent to each sheriff in the 254 counties of Texas to assess their perceptions regarding solutions to mass shootings, disqualification criteria for gun ownership, and civilian access to certain types of firearms and ammunition. Responding sheriffs, as a whole, were reluctant to limit access to guns and ammunition as a general matter, but strongly agreed that certain discrete populations should have limited or no access to firearms. Policy implications are discussed

Core chart:

[Beast17]

I suspect the sheriffs might be a little less enthusiastic about disenfranchising citizens placed on the fed terror watch list if they really understood how easy it is to get on that list, how few checks there are on being placed on it and how little recourse there is for getting off it. My opinion is based on somewhat dated knowledge of the system, but I doubt there have been significant changes since my retirement.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Here's more:

Armed and considered capable? Law enforcement officers' attitudes about armed teacher policies in the USA

Citation


Martaindale MH, Schildkraut J. Crime Prev. Community Safety 2022; 24(2): 116-131.

Copyright


(Copyright © 2022, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group -- Palgrave-Macmillan)

DOI


10.1057/s41300-022-00142-4

PMID


unavailable

Abstract


Active shooter events, including those in K-12 schools in the USA, continue to occur. In an effort to protect students, faculty, and staff, several states have implemented policies allowing teachers to be armed while on school premises, with more expected to follow suit. While recent research surveys the general public, school administrators, and policing executives (from a single state) regarding their perceptions of armed teacher policies, there is a dearth of literature that examines the issue from the law enforcement community's perspective. The present study utilizes a nationwide survey of law enforcement officers, collected in 2020, that encompass a wide variety of job duties, agency types/sizes, and types of communities served. We find widespread support for armed teacher policies; however, respondents expressed a desire for additional training for teachers to better prepare them to respond to an active shooter event. Additional implications for policymakers and school administrators considering this policy are offered.

Core chart (10 = strongly agree).



Lots of discussion of training and variability in those responses. Overall positive for armed teachers.

[Totem Polar]

Interesting stuff, Glenn, thanks. The mental health opinions were especially elucidating.

[HCM]

I suspect the sheriffs might be a little less enthusiastic about disenfranchising citizens placed on the fed terror watch list if they really understood how easy it is to get on that list, how few checks there are on being placed on it and how little recourse there is for getting off it. My opinion is based on somewhat dated knowledge of the system, but I doubt there have been significant changes since my retirement.

I agree with you in general but not for the latter reason you stated.

The details of how watchlisting works is sensitive information but suffice to say it doesn’t work quite the way you outlined.

More relevant to this discussion, Making people on the watchlist prohibited persons shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the watchlist is intended to do. It is intended as an investigative an intelligence tool not a definitive “bad guy list” If you raised watch listing requirements to be the equivalent of convicted of a felony or adjudicated mentally incompetent you would defeat the actual purpose of the watchlist.

Not to mention that an overt NICS denial would compromise investigations of legitimate threats.

[Beast17]

I agree with you in general but not for the latter reason you stated.

The details of how watchlisting works is sensitive information but suffice to say it doesn’t work quite the way you outlined.

More relevant to this discussion, Making people on the watchlist prohibited persons shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the watchlist is intended to do. It is intended as an investigative an intelligence tool not a definitive “bad guy list” If you raised watch listing requirements to be the equivalent of convicted of a felony or adjudicated mentally incompetent you would defeat the actual purpose of the watchlist.

Not to mention that an overt NICS denial would compromise investigations of legitimate threats.

Watchlisted people got a heads up every time they tried to fly, at least for a decade or so. I agree with "Making people on the watchlist prohibited persons shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the watchlist is intended to do." Much of the problem is based on the fact that transparent public discussions about the watchlist are impossible given the nature of the list. Re the rest, we'll have to agree to disagree because we can't get into a public discussion of the nuances.

[HCM]

Watchlisted people got a heads up every time they tried to fly, at least for a decade or so.

Also a massive fail by stupid people.

[alamo5000]

I suspect the sheriffs might be a little less enthusiastic about disenfranchising citizens placed on the fed terror watch list if they really understood how easy it is to get on that list, how few checks there are on being placed on it and how little recourse there is for getting off it. My opinion is based on somewhat dated knowledge of the system, but I doubt there have been significant changes since my retirement.

The reason why this 'terrorist watch list' thing is even a 'thing' is because of federal investigative powers. In a previous line of work I was front and center on running background checks on lots of people. I was specifically told that we CANNOT and SHOULD NOT in any way alert in any way that someone is on said list, and that furthermore the feds use said list to continuously watch for further plots and so forth.

They said to deny those people a firearm at the point of sale simply because the feds are watching would thwart substantial investigations into further potential crimes and/or terrorist activity. Sort of like if some nimwit is selling dope on the corner, do you bust him immediately, or do you sit back and watch to see who his supplier is?

[Hot Sauce]

Given the response rates, the PTSD they are concerned with seems to be the media stereotype of the emotionally-disturbed veteran who violently lashes out.

What about people whose PTSD doesn't manifest in violence?

What about a woman who is victimized and has PTSD as a result, but is just as vulnerable to a repeat offense and wants to defend herself? One PTSD study I've seen claims ~20% of female victims of rape develop PTSD.

[High Cross]

My grandfather got VA benefits for PTSD from serving with 10th Mountain in ww2. He was a kind and loving man and was a competitive rifle shooter and a Bow and Arrow enthusiast. I never saw anything that would ever make me think he shoukd not have had access to a firearm.