Provides that school district may not prohibit active or retired law enforcement officer or registered security officer from carrying firearm in performance of school security duties if authorized under State law to carry.
Summary
Assembly Bill 192 would prohibit a school district that contracts for school security services from barring certain authorized personnel from carrying a firearm while performing those duties on school property. The bill applies to active or retired law enforcement officers, including safe schools resource officers and Class Three special law enforcement officers, as well as security officers registered under the Security Officer Registration Act, so long as they are otherwise authorized under State law to carry a firearm.
The measure is framed as a school safety bill and is intended to ensure that districts cannot impose a no-firearm condition on armed security personnel they have hired. It would take effect immediately and would operate as a direct limitation on local school district policy in this area.
Impact
The bill would supplement Title 18A and override any conflicting school district policy or other law to the extent a district attempts to prohibit an otherwise authorized officer or registered security officer from carrying a firearm while performing school security duties. It would affect public school districts that contract for security services, as well as the covered categories of personnel, by preserving their ability to be armed on school grounds when state law already permits them to carry.
Sentiment
The bill’s stated purpose reflects a pro-security, pro-armed-guard approach to school safety, and the sponsor’s statement suggests support from communities seeking stronger protection after school shootings. No committee transcript or vote record is available here, so there is no documented legislative debate or recorded opposition in the provided materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be presented in a favorable light as a response to public concern about school security.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely whether school districts should retain discretion to prohibit firearms on school grounds even for vetted security personnel, versus whether state law should require armed officers to be allowed to carry if they are otherwise authorized. Supporters emphasize deterrence and community demand for armed protection, while potential opponents may raise concerns about firearms in schools, local control, student safety, and the risk of expanding armed presence in educational settings.
Carry Over
Provides that school district may not prohibit active or retired law enforcement officer or registered security officer from carrying firearm in performance of school security duties if authorized under State law to carry.
Carry Over
Provides that school district may not prohibit active or retired law enforcement officer or registered security officer from carrying firearm in performance of school security duties if authorized under State law to carry.
Same As
Provides that school district may not prohibit active or retired law enforcement officer or registered security officer from carrying firearm in performance of school security duties if authorized under State law to carry.
Relating to the authority of the Wood County Central Hospital District of Wood County, Texas, to provide brain and memory care services to residents of the hospital district through the creation and operation of brain and memory health care services districts.