School chiefs leery of bill that would permit concealed carry on campuses

A new bill making its way through the Wyoming State Legislature that would create an enhanced concealed carry permit is causing concern among local school administrators.

The bill, Senate File 37, is written and sponsored by state senator Ed Cooper (R-Ten Sleep) and would create an application for new enhanced concealed carry permits, allowing holders to conceal carry on school campuses statewide. 

Currently, concealed carry is not permitted in any of Wyoming’s public school districts or college campuses. However, some school boards have independently adopted policies to allow teachers to conceal carry in their classrooms, which is a right afforded to districts by the current state statutes. 

Cooper’s proposal would change that and go a step beyond the current concealed carry statutes, which include the following requirements: an applicant must be at least 21 years of age; possess no physical infirmity that would prevent their safe handling of a gun; have not been previously convicted of a violent felony; demonstrate familiarity with a firearm with documentation; not be deemed legally incompetent; and have no record of having been committed to a mental institution. 

State File 37, meanwhile, would require an applicant to also provide proof of at least eight hours of firearms training within the last 12 months and demonstrate familiarity with firearms. Applicants would also be required to submit fingerprints for a background check and a copy of their Wyoming driver’s license. Section 1 of the legislation provides permit holders with the right to conceal carry at “any school, college or professional athletic event not related to firearms (…) any elementary or secondary school facility (…) and any college or university facility,” thus overriding the established rule.

Among Big Horn County school administrators, there is consensus that the legislation, though well-intentioned, is overriding local rule in favor of a government mandate.

“My general sentiments are that we’ve got the best of both worlds right now,” said Superintendent Doug Hazen, who oversees Big Horn County School District 2. “From my understanding, every school district has the ability to pass a conceal carry policy. We’re not limited to do that, but this legislation would force us to allow it statewide. In Wyoming, we preach local control, local control, local control — school boards have the ability to do this right now.”

In District 4, Superintendent Jory Thompson agreed. “I think that’s why you elect a school board: to represent a community’s interests in its schools. I think local control is very important to education. To have the legislature force that upon you in a state that’s all about local control is disappointing.”

Mark Fritz, the superintendent for District 3, also concurred.

“I one hundred percent agree, it’s a local issue,” he said. “I understand what they’re trying to do. They’re thinking, ‘If there’s a bad guy with a gun, who’s gonna stop them?’ I get what they’re trying to do, but these people are not going to be there in time.”

Fritz, like Hazen, pointed out the legislature’s oversight in potential issues that might arise from mandating concealed carry on campuses. While Hazen provided worst-case scenario examples about how students might come into possession of a weapon or a well-intentioned gun owner might be injured by police responding to an active school shooting, Fritz recalled his time at the police academy. 

“You have to keep up on that,” he insisted of firearms training. “And I don’t think it’s a good idea to arm teachers. Teachers are for teaching and I would rather send our teachers to be the best math teacher around than to get regular firearms training.”

Meanwhile, Thompson echoed some of Hazen’s fears: “There are concerns where emotions are involved. For example, sporting games — basketball, I’ve seen it happen where someone is watching their kids and things start to go the wrong way.”

Superintendent Matt Davidson, of District 1, also agreed with Hazen, Thompson, and Fritz. “We already have a law in Wyoming,” he said. “Local schools, and local school boards, have the ability to do this. The cell phone bans are another example of this — every district in the state was already regulating their use, but now there’s a bill from the state.

“I’m not favouring one side or the other, but I think it should be a local community who decides this.”

Davidson, Thompson and Fritz all expressed a desire to see the legislature put their energies toward more proactive changes in the budget allocated to Wyoming’s schools.

“We would appreciate the legislature adding funding for School Resource Officers (SROs), instead,” Davidson said. “Currently, there is no funding in the model for us, so we’re reappropriating the money from other things to pay for our SROs.”

Districts 1, 2 and 4 all have at least two SROs, who are hired to ensure the safety of the student body, faculty and staff on campus. In District 1, there are two: one for the north end and one for the south with support from the Big Horn County Sheriff. District 2 currently staffs two SROs, but has worked with upwards of three at a time. In District 4, Thompson detailed the district’s commitment to safety: a committee meets monthly to address concerns, run drills, and subsequently perform reviews and make adjustments to their emergency plans. They also staff three SROs through the Basin Police with Chief McClure.

District 3 is the only school district in the county that does not currently staff an SRO and, Fritz explains, the budget constraints in the current model are why.

“We’re the only district who doesn’t have an SRO, but we would if we had funding for it,” he explained. “For our board — and we’ve discussed this a lot, we’re still doing public surveys — the question is, are we gonna take teacher money for an SRO? Where’s that money going to come from? That’s what we’re struggling with.”

In Fritz’s opinion, every district should be allocated at least one SRO with the option to pay for any additional officers out of its own budget. 

Hazen added that the safety officers in Lovell had access to safes on campuses that contained guns to be used in the event of an emergency.

“It’s not like we’re anti-gun,” he explained. “But we’ve spent a significant amount of money creating safety protocols that fit our community. Our board feels the topic has been there for a number of years and we’ve chosen to instead utilize the SROs, vestibules, etcetera. We feel like this issue is well-addressed on our campus.”

Davidson noted that his SROs also pointed out the risk of having multiple people with weapons on a school campus in the event of a mass shooting: “It could potentially compromise law enforcement trying to respond to a crisis.”

All of the superintendents agreed that while they can see the intention behind the bill, they feel time and money could be better spent elsewhere on school campuses. 

“Mental health services are sometimes neglected and it seems to me that we could prevent school shootings around this country if we provided more mental health resources to children,” Davidson remarked. “To me, that seems more proactive than having to fortify our schools in the event of a disaster.”

“Put mental health and SROs in the model and I think that our kids in Wyoming are better off,” Fritz agreed. “I would rather be proactive than reactive.”

“I’m with Matt and Mark,” said Thompson. “It would be a very welcomed stance for the legislature to support SROs — not everybody is able to afford or has the opportunity to have an SRO.”

Thompson continued by adding that another proactive change the legislature could make is to allow schools and local communities greater control over their curriculums.

“They speak about local control, but we have a ton of regulatory challenges and controls in terms of what we are truly able to offer our students,” he explained. “As a community, we should have opportunities, for example, to develop more career and technical education programs. There are too many regulations and requirements right now, but I think affording that control to the communities would be a huge benefit to students.

“We should be able to show them as many options for what they can do in life as possible. That’s what we’re here for.”

Ultimately, Hazen said, the current statute for concealed carry allows districts to not only self-regulate and change as they see fit, but provides added layers of safety to schools around the state.

“Right now, we can limit someone with severe mental health issues from concealed carrying on campus,” he said. “Changing that not only allows the best people on our campus to protect themselves, but perhaps the people we would not necessarily want to carry weapons on our campuses.

“I’m not sure everyone has thought through all the issues this could pose,” he concluded. “I’m not trying to limit anyone’s Second Amendment rights, but we need to be thoughtful about it and we already have the option available to us.”