South Carolina School District Approves Armed Staff, but There’s a Catch

If a policy that won preliminary approval in the Lexington-Richland 5 school district this week is implemented, students may be protected by armed school staff in the future.

Then again, they might not, even if the district allows for the practice. That’s because the policies that the district is planning on putting in place are so burdensome that officials might not find any staffers willing to shoulder the responsibility. 

The newly-drafted ordinance requires staff carrying weapons to wear a district Security Department badge visible or “clothing that clearly identifies the employee as a member of the district’s Security Department personnel,” the new rules say. “Any exception to this requirement must be approved by the Superintendent.”

District staff who pass the required firearms courses will be issued a weapon, and the district has agreements with the Lexington and Richland County Sheriff’s departments to provide the training, according to documents submitted to the school board with the policy change.

The agreements require training equivalent to that given to a Class 1 law enforcement officer, including de-escalation techniques, defensive tactics and active shooter scenarios. The district will reimburse the sheriff’s departments.

The SLED training includes six hours of classroom time plus a firearms module that’s more substantial than a concealed carry qualification. It covers everything from drawing from the holster to shooting under stress, movement while shooting, use of cover, one-handed shooting and other practical skills.

The school district wants to notify local police departments of the names of armed staff and have face-to-face meetings between them and local law enforcement, which is a good idea. In fact, if the district is going for a “proprietary security business license”, I think the armed school staff will be required to participate in training and education with local police. 

I don’t have an issue with the training requirement, but I do it’s a mistake to make the staff clearly identify themselves as Security Department personnel. If there ever is an active shooting threat on campus, the odds are pretty good that the threat will come from a current or former student. Why alert them ahead of time about who will be carrying a gun of their own? 

Well, it appears that those serving as armed school staff under a proprietary security business license are required by the state of South Carolina to generally be identifiable as school security, so the district is merely conforming with state law… one that really needs to be changed. 

It’s commendable that officials in the school district are thinking about adding armed school staff as an additional layer of security, but they need to be able do so in a way that will actually encourage staff members to take on that responsibility. That starts with allowing school employees who are serving in those roles to do so without advertising that fact to students and visitors. 

The Lexington-Richland 5 school board still has to give its final approval at its October meeting, and if they do move forward I hope they’ll also send a message to their local legislators encouraging them to amend state statute and provide some anonymity to armed school staff instead of making them advertise their role as armed defenders. 

Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.

Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.