BUTLER COUNTY, Ohio – In the armed conflict in Madison schools, the judge has enough evidence to rule in their favor in two weeks.

The parents who sued the school board and the school district itself both asked Judge Charles Pater to issue a summary judgment – thus putting an end to the case because there was no " genuine question of fact "- on their behalf.

The school district claims that parents misinterpreted state laws stipulating that gun-armed teachers must have attended more than 700 hours of peace officer training. Parents say that, while in-depth training is not necessary, "the implications of board interpretations are deeply troubling."

In September, a group of parents sued the Education Council and the Director General, alleging that its April resolution allowing armed school personnel to violate an Ohio law requiring that employees of armed schools be trained and certified as agents of peace. The firearms program was launched after a shooting in a school three years ago when four students were injured by a classmate.

READ MORE:

The Madison Local School Board votes to allow the arming of teachers, staff

Parents seek an injunction prohibiting the district from arming teachers and other staff members without the training required by law (728 hours compared to the 26 hours provided for in school policy), as well as 39, a court order requiring the disclosure of personnel policies and procedures.

School district lawyers told Pater in a motion that the Ohio law punished school employees carrying concealed firearms for the protection of children and did not require lengthy training at the school. Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy. They interpret the law as applying only to those carrying firearms and protecting people such as school resource officers, not teachers, whose job it is to educate.

"The plain language of RC 109.78 (D) is clear: it does not apply to personnel authorized to carry a concealed weapon in a school safety zone," reads the motion. . "Instead, the law requires" that a special police officer, a security guard and another position in which this person has an armed weapon ", in order to undergo basic training approved by the OPOTA or having 20 years of experience as a policeman. "

Parents maintain that if the law – which was written explicitly to govern firearms in schools – does not apply to anyone carrying a firearm, then a school district could create a dangerous situation.

"Without requiring rigorous state-approved training, local school districts can allow people to carry firearms with schoolchildren all day, even if they lack basic training, do not know exactly when lethal force is appropriate, or mind a training approved by the state, "reads the motion.

Pater has already ruled on the second part of the lawsuit, saying he would not issue a court order for some of the requested documents, but that if the parents reduced some of their claims, he could reconsider his decision.

The parents had asked the judge to suspend the firearms program while the trial was underway, but he will hold a hearing later this month on the motions for summary judgment.