DENVER – A bill that would establish a third exemption to the prohibition on carrying firearms onto school campuses moved forward Friday in the Senate, despite opposition from Democrats.

Senate Bill 5, which “allows a county sheriff to provide a handgun safety training course to any employee of any public elementary, middle, junior high or high school who also possesses a permit to carry a concealed handgun,” passed its second reading after extended debate.

Democrats argued that the bill could introduce more guns into schools and would distract from teachers’ primary responsibility to educate. Concerns about where guns would be stored and the possibility of a student accessing a firearm were also voiced.

Arguments for SB 5 centered around the fact that some school districts are arming personnel, and the extended response times for law enforcement personnel to respond to incidents in rural districts.

“If I could walk the borders of my senate district in a day, I would probably agree with you,” said Sen. Don Coram, R-Montrose.

Some school districts in Southwest Colorado have hired private security guards, who can also be employees who fulfill other roles in the school, he said.

“I would be more comfortable if one of those school districts says, ‘Yes, we don’t want to wait the 30 minutes minimum for the deputy. We have someone who is very well qualified in the handling of a weapon, but let’s make sure they have the proper training to do this,’” Coram said.

He said he has been contacted by constituents in Durango who oppose having guns in schools, but he said he supports SB 5 because it gives local control to rural school districts.

Local control, however, is in the current statute, which allows schools to decide if firearms can be carried on campus.

“This bill is not necessary. We already have in statutes opportunities for school districts to choose personnel that they want to be able to be armed,” said Sen. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora. This distinction calls into question the reasons behind the bill, as it simply asks how much training armed employees should have. It didn’t mandate specific training.

An amendment to the bill lays the groundwork for a baseline minimum on training courses provided by law enforcement, if a school district decides it is necessary.

Either way, some schools in Colorado have armed school employees and resource officers.

“These are realities in our state today,” Holbert said. “If Senate Bill 5 fails, that’s the reality. That doesn’t change. And if it passes, it’s the same.”

One thing the bill would remove is the requirement for school personnel to be designated as private security to carry firearms on campus.

“Could this lead to more people being armed? Yes, that’s a possibility,” Holbert said.

The potential increase in firearms in schools is the primary issue opponents have with the bill, said Ken Toltz, founder of Safe Campus Colorado. “I’ve always said that guns are lost, stolen, misfired, dropped, left, and it happens every day. I think that the idea of ‘let’s have someone else bring a gun to school’ is raising the danger level,” Toltz said.

Sen. Andy Kerr, D-Lakewood, made a motion to delay a vote on the bill until it could be reviewed by the School Safety and Youth in Crisis Committee.

The committee is tasked with studying “issues relating to school safety and the prevention of threats to the safety of students, teachers and others,” according to the Legislature’s website.

Kerr said he would be much more comfortable backing the bill if it went through the committee and was properly vetted, but the motion died on an 18-17 party-line vote.

Friday’s debate showed the divide between the two parties on guns in schools.

“This bill sends a message that more guns in schools will make children safer, and I think that is wrong,” said Sen. Michael Merrifield, D-Manitou Springs.

Toltz said SB 5 is an ideological statement bill from Republicans. Kerr was not so sure.

“I don’t know if they’re trying to make a statement,” he said. “I believe that we’re unified in that we’d all like schools to be safer and our kids to be safer. I agree with the underlying premise that if somebody in a school, who works in a school, is going to have a gun anyways that they should have some minimum training, but I guarantee you that my definition of minimum training is vastly different than many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.”

Lperkins@durangoherald.com