An effort to expand the armed “school guardian” program to colleges and universities, following a deadly on-campus shooting near the Capitol last year, took another step forward in the House Tuesday.
Calling for select post-secondary employees to be trained and armed, the Education & Employment Committee unanimously backed the proposal (HB 757) that builds on changes made in the public-school system after the 2018 mass shooting at Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
Rep. Michelle Salzman, R-Pensacola, said input for her proposal came from students, parents, faculty and staff members of state colleges and universities.
“This bill creates a prevention and a response mechanism unlike any other,” Salzman said. “This will be the beacon for the nation.”
The bill comes after a shooting during the 2025 legislative session, where a student killed two people and wounded five others at Florida State University. At the time, Salzman was taking classes in FSU’s Applied American Politics and Policy master’s degree program.
“I was in group text with a lot of my classmates, and we were getting live videos, you know, texted and pictures texted of where the shooter was, where they were,” Salzman said. “It was a very hard moment for a lot of us. We felt very helpless sitting here in the Capitol. And those that were on campus felt helpless where they were.”
Arguing against the proposal, Emily Stewart, an assistant professor of geology at Florida State University, recounted the confusion in the hours after last year’s shooting where at one point she emerged from her classroom to several armed law enforcement officers.
“They were pointing guns at me because they, too, still believed that there might be a second shooter hiding somewhere on campus,” Stewart told the committee. “What if I had stepped into the hallway holding a weapon because I wanted to protect my students? I’m a nerdy looking woman. What if I were a young man who worked for the university, who stepped into the hallway holding a weapon with three weeks of training?”
“During the shooting, law enforcement knew for a fact that the only people on campus with firearms should be other law enforcement or the active shooter. How will mixing in armed, somewhat trained civilians, affect their response?” Stewart continued.
In supporting the measure, Rep. Alex Rizo, R-Hialeah, said he thinks about missed opportunities from school safety bills that haven’t advanced in the past.
“School safety is an ongoing moving target,” Rizo said. “It’s something that we always strive to perfect, get better, and unfortunately, we learn from our mistakes and we have to keep going.”
Under Salzman’s proposal, presidents of each college or university could designate employees and faculty who would be trained and able to receive a concealed-weapons license to carry guns on campus.
The bill also:
— Requires postsecondary schools to promote the use of the mobile suspicious activity reporting tool FortifyFL.
— Requires specified records related to a student’s behavior, including threat assessment reports, and student psychological evaluations to be transferred when the individual moves from K-12 school to a state college or university.
— Makes it a second-degree felony for people who shoot guns within 1,000 feet of a school during school hours or activities, unless the action was in lawful defense of themselves or others.
— Requires schools to adopt an active assailant response plan, train faculty and staff to detect and respond to mental health issues, connect students with mental health services, and establish threat management teams and to establish post-incident reunification plans.
Salzman’s proposal must still go before the Budget Committee before reaching the House floor.
A similar effort in the Senate (SB 896) has yet to appear before a committee.
–Jim Turner, News Service of Florida
Richard Fay says
Alex Pretti.
Deborah Coffey says
More “ICE-like Republican guns” near our students. What could possibly go wrong? Aren’t enough Americans being killed and wounded on our streets across the country by our Republican government? Enough!!!!
Sherry says
Thank you Deborah! Excellent comment!
Me says
If the Republicans get their way everyone in American will be carrying a gun. This does not solve the gun violence it only makes it worse.
Why isn’t there ever a logical solution just a negative one?
Laurel says
Well here’s the thing: When I was in school, no one had guns on site. No one got shot. Why is that? Why is no one curious? The first school shooting, that I recall, was the shooting of four students at Kent State. The whole country was paralyzed with shock! Now it’s ho-hum. Now it’s common place. Why? Why isn’t the government asking for real resolution?
“Four unarmed college students were killed and nine wounded by the Ohio National Guard on the Kent State University campus in Kent, Ohio, United States, on May 4, 1970. The shootings took place during a rally opposing the expanding involvement of the Vietnam War into Cambodia by United States military forces, as well as protesting the National Guard presence on campus and the draft. Twenty-eight National Guard soldiers fired about 67 rounds over 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom sustained permanent paralysis. Students Allison Krause, 19, Jeffrey Miller, 20, and Sandra Lee Scheuer, 20, died on the scene, while William Schroeder, 19, was pronounced dead at Robinson Memorial Hospital in nearby Ravenna shortly afterward.”
– Wikipedia (reference numbers removed)
These students were exercising their Constitutional rights to protest and the freedom of speech.
So, now, the cure for guns is more guns. Instead of our leaders working at finding out why this violence is happening, they prefer to escalate the violence. You have to stop and wonder why. I don’t, for one instant, believe this is about safety. I believe it’s an opportunity for oppression. Armed soldiers in the streets. Armed soldiers in the schools. Armed soldiers everywhere. Government analyzing your behavior. Government stealing voter information. Government stopping you in the streets over “suspicion.” Always predominately a Republican response.
No new programs for mental illness. No new studies on why people bully. Just more guns. There seems to be a lack of interest in solving the problem without the use of guns. So like most things these days it just keeps heading towards oppression of the masses, unusually aimed at the young.
How much will you accept?
Me says
I agree with you totally. The Republican Party never seems to solve any problems they just add to the problem.
Same with undocumented immigrants, they can’t seem to come up with a solution of a humane way to solve the problem they just want to build prison camps all over the country and charge taxpayers for everyone they throw in them.
As long as their making money to feed their greedy pockets that is ok.
Tony Mack says
The Reagan administration’s asylum program aimed to provide refuge for individuals fleeing persecution, particularly focusing on those from Central America and Indochina. This included increasing refugee admissions and implementing policies to protect vulnerable populations during his presidency.
Overview of Reagan’s Asylum Program
During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the U.S. implemented significant changes to its asylum and refugee policies. His administration aimed to maintain America’s tradition of welcoming those fleeing persecution.
Key Features of the Asylum Program
Refugee Admissions: In FY 1982, Reagan set the refugee admissions ceiling at 140,000, focusing on Indochinese refugees escaping violence.
Family Fairness Actions: From 1987 to 1990, Reagan and George H.W. Bush used executive actions to protect spouses and children of individuals legalizing under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) from deportation.
Legalization Provisions: The IRCA allowed undocumented immigrants who entered the U.S. before January 1, 1982, to apply for legal status, which indirectly supported asylum seekers by providing a pathway to legal residency.
Impact of the Asylum Program
Increased Refugee Population: The foreign-born population in the U.S. grew significantly during Reagan’s presidency, reflecting the success of his asylum policies.
Legislative Support: The administration’s approach to asylum and refugee admissions was supported by various advocacy groups, emphasizing the need for humanitarian assistance.
Reagan’s policies laid the groundwork for future immigration and asylum discussions, balancing national security concerns with humanitarian obligations. Even their sainted Ronnie saw the light from time to time…
Sherry says
@ Me. . . agree completely!
Speaking strictly from an “economic” point of view. . .the very same people that complain about the cost of refugees receiving any kind of government assistance, seem to have zero problem with spending big bucks housing and feeding them in prison camps!
The “MORAL COSTS” to our worldwide humanity is much much greater!!!
Richard Fay says
In support of your argument:
“Recent increases in immigration have rekindled concerns about their effects on government budgets. This paper updates a model of these effects first developed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to shed light on how immigrants, both legal and illegal, and their children affect government budgets. This analysis is the first to estimate the cumulative fiscal effect of immigrants on federal, state, and local budgets over 30 years.
The government first began gathering detailed information on benefits use by citizenship status in 1994. The data show:
• For each year from 1994 to 2023, the US immigrant population generated more in taxes than they received in benefits from all levels of government.
• Over that period, immigrants created a cumulative fiscal surplus of $14.5 trillion in real 2024 US dollars, including $3.9 trillion in savings on interest on the debt.
• Without immigrants, US government public debt at all levels would be at least 205 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—nearly twice its 2023 level.
These results, which do not account for any of immigration’s indirect, tax-revenue-boosting effects on economic growth, represent the lower bound of the positive fiscal effects. Even by this conservative analysis, immigrants may have already prevented a fiscal crisis.” ( Bier et al 2023 p 1)
Bier, David J., Michael Howard, and Julián Salazar. “Immigrants’ Recent Effects on Government Budgets: 1994–2023,” White Paper, Cato Institute, Washington, DC, February 3, 2026.
Sherry says
Thank you Richard Fay and Deborah Coffey,
That’s what I’ve read as well. Ray W. has pointed those analyses out on several occasions as well.
Hopefully these credentialled facts will eventually help those who voted for trump understand the many benefits of allowing hard working refugees into our country and assisting them in leading productive lives.
Deborah Coffey says
To prove your point, Sherry…
CATO Institute: “The fiscal surplus from all immigrants from 1994 to 2023 was $14.5 trillion, compared with a deficit of $48 trillion without immigrants. That means that immigrants cut deficits by nearly a third in real terms over the last three decades.”
And, AI says the $14.5 trillion surplus is the number after all immigrant government benefits have been subtracted.
Sherry says
Thank you yet again Laurel! Right On!