To the Editor:

Senate President Dominick Ruggerio (D-Providence) has decided to champion a bill that would prohibit concealed carry permit holders from carrying a gun anywhere near “school property.” The bill is named for former Sen. Harold Metts (D-Providence).

Metts was defeated in the September 2020 primary by progressive Democrat Tiara Mack.

The bill is described as banning guns on school grounds. It does not. It is aimed at people who have been fingerprinted and photographed; passed a background check; provided three character witnesses; demonstrated some proficiency with a handgun; stated a valid reason; and have been given permission to carry a concealed firearm (a “CCW”).

Senate President Ruggerio says “there is no good reason for carrying a firearm on school grounds.” I know a woman who was the victim of a violently abusive husband. After their divorce he continued to ignore a court-issued no-contact order. A victim no more, she obtained a CCW permit and regularly carries and trains with her gun. If the Metts bill becomes law, all her “ex” has to do is follow her when she brings her kids to school knowing she will be unarmed. Sounds like a good reason to me, Sen. Ruggerio.

When this bill was first introduced in the House several years ago by Rep. Edith Aiello (D-Providence), the head at the time of the Rhode Island Chiefs of Police Association testified that the chiefs could not support the bill unless retired police officers were exempt. The Judiciary Committee chairman suggested that Rep. Aiello amend her bill to accommodate the chiefs’ concern.

She did, and so did Sen. Metts. As I have testified several times before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Metts bill exempts all “law enforcement officers,” including, for example, postal inspectors, airport police and game wardens. Does anyone seriously believe that these law enforcement officers receive training in responding to a school shooting?

State Police Col. James Manni opposes civilians possessing a gun on school grounds because, he says, they lack the training to confront a shooter in a school. How this differs from confronting a shooter anywhere else is unclear. Suppose, for example, the civilian is a former Navy SEAL or Army Ranger. Does that change the equation? Is a former police officer who has been retired for five, 10 or 20 years more qualified than a civilian who frequently trains with his or her firearm?

There are many citizens with CCWs who train more regularly and rigorously than postal inspectors or DEM’s environmental police officers or an officer in, say, the Richmond or Scituate or Tiverton police departments. Ask many – I would say most – municipal police departments if they have enough money in their training budget to cover more than the ammunition needed for their officer’s annual firearms qualification.

Providence public safety commissioner and former State Police commander Steven Pare expressed concern about a “friendly fire” incident if a civilian with a CCW is on scene when officers respond to an active shooter call in a school. Is this any different than having a retired or off-duty cop who the responding officers do not recognize on the premises? Law enforcement officers would much rather arrive at an active shooter call anywhere and be able to assume anyone with a gun not in uniform is a bad guy. Does anyone not recall that an off-duty Providence police officer was shot to death by his fellow officers when he rushed out of a store holding his gun that was the scene of a shooting?

The FBI analyzed recent shootouts involving its agents. The study found that less than 10 percent of shots fired by highly trained special agents hit the intended target and only a fraction of those could be described as “incapacitating.” In a highly-publicized move, the Bureau went back to adopting the 9MM caliber for agents’ service weapons because it determined that firing a lot of smaller caliber rounds was more effective than fewer big bullets with more stopping power like the .40 S&W or 10 MM.

The anti-gun crowd will say Rhode Island is an “outlier” because it is one of the few states that allow CCW holders to carry in a school. Rhode Island is an outlier regarding several other gun control laws. For example, we are the only state that requires a seven-day waiting period before a buyer can pick up any firearm – handgun, rifle or shotgun. Should Rhode Island join the vast majority of other states that require a background check only for handgun purchases and reduce the waiting period?

Progressive Democrat and House Majority Leader Christopher Blazejewski (D-Providence), who has advocated for gun control in the past, says he wants to hear from all sides on the issue. We shall see.

The question is: Will someone intent on committing a school shooting be prevented from doing so by a law such as the Metts bill? The common-sense answer is “no.”

Richard J. August

North Kingstown

The writer is a firearms instructor specializing in teaching women to handle firearms and shoot safely. He writes and testifies frequently on Second Amendment legislation.