Leaving aside all the Day One snark of the last few months, it may be helpful to clarify the desired outcome and the goal regarding "Gun Free Zones".Trump just reiterated that schools being "gun-free" zones leaves them vulnerable to mass shooters - who wouldn't dare to attack a place if they knew people with guns were there.
If schools are mandated to be gun free zones, violence and danger are given an open invitation to enter. Almost all school shootings are in gun free zones. Cowards will only go where there is no deterrent!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 12, 2018
To get straight to the point, "Gun Free Zones" are places where a law abiding citizen, exercising his Negative Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self-defense is not turned into a felon.
The High School in Parkland, for instance, was such a place, although there were State actors on the campus who were allowed, permitted, duty-bound, etc to carry firearms. While it's not a strictly gun free campus, because someone is carrying a weapon and not being charged with a felony, we pro-RKBA folk should continue use "Gun Free Zone" where the common citizen is forbidden from RKBA.
If there are people who are given a special dispensation of grace from the felony charge (i.e. police officers, former military, trained teachers, local heroes) and the potential felony charge lingers for the common citizen, it's a "Gun Free Zone". (There will be some confusion regarding the stat Gun Owners of America throws out that 98% of mass shootings happen in GFZs. )
Setting aside the definition of GFZ and focusing on an actual solution/deterrent to the threat, we've established that the State (be it the school administrators, the local cops, the county cops, or the feds) will not take legal responsibility for the physical safety of the students or staff that populate these buildings daily. The events in Parkland demonstrate that a wily criminal can enter and carry out his crimes even with armed guards on campus (DId ya'all hear about the Central Michigan University shooting where the kid takes the dad/cops gun out of the car to slay them on campus?) . The element of surprise is key to the battle. The criminal has it, and the defense team should not surrender it.
If teachers unions or school boards come out against arming teachers, everybody knows that janitorial staff, administrators and the lunch lady are the only ones left. The only sure fire way to grant the element of surprise to the defense team is to throw open the doors and allow carry on a "must issue" basis, that those who desire to carry may and all others are welcome. The school boards may ask to generate a list of people who desire to carry, a registration, if you will, but this will have political ramifications that cannot be understated. It's an unworkable solution. There could be some code word or some training that interested parties could be encouraged to take, but again, politics of registration will prevent many.
Massie's bill to repeal the 1990 law that created GFZs is healthy and should be a no-brainer, easy winner. The felony threat needs to be removed on the federal level, but we need to get it out of the local area, also.
GFZ is where RKBA is a felony for the common citizen. The role of the civil government is to uphold and protect the rights of the citizenry. Civil Government creating a felony zone where RKBA is off limits is exceeding it's mandate (to put it gently).
Why have this discussion when it seems there is some movement towards arming society? Clarifying concepts and goals is preferred to those who hate gunsplaining and precise language in this discussion. Exhibit A is a cat video (language warning). -- Perhaps we pro RKBA people can do better in our communications with interested parties. You hit what you aim at. Let's make sure we're aiming at appropriate goals.