Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vendor demonstrates portable weapons detector for school entrances
Summary
A vendor called Open Gate demonstrated a portable weapons-detection system to the Watertown City School District board, describing setup, detection capabilities, battery life and use cases; board members asked about sensitivity, battery runtime and data on effectiveness.
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representatives from a vendor described a portable weapons-detection system to the Watertown City School District Board of Education during the board's public meeting, saying the units are designed to detect firearm components and other hardened-steel threats without requiring students to divest items as they pass through.
The vendor said the system uses two freestanding towers placed about 34 inches apart, each weighing about 25 pounds, and that setup takes “less than 2 minutes.” The representative said the system monitors more than 300 detection zones from the top of the towers to floor level, and distinguishes hardened steel components (for example, a firearm slide or rifle barrel) from common nonthreat metals so fewer routine items trigger alarms. “This is not a metal detector. This is looking for weapons,” the presenter said.
The district heard specifics about battery life and versatility: the presenter said each tower uses off-the-shelf Milwaukee batteries, the units will run up to about 14 hours on battery power with a failover arrangement between cells, and the system can be used indoors or outdoors, including at extracurricular events. The presenter described an optional power-adapter configuration that, with one tower plugged in and batteries in the other, could yield multiple days of continuous operation. He said the product has been deployed in more than 800 school districts and other venues.
Board members asked for operational details and evidence of the system’s effectiveness. One board member asked whether the vendor had “data on the success of these weapon detectors.” The presenter replied that districts report finds in many settings but that reporting varies by district and sensitivity setting; he described a recent example in which a school used the system, secondary screening found contraband (marijuana) and the vendor characterized the technology as both a detection and deterrence tool. The vendor emphasized tradeoffs: raising sensitivity can detect smaller metal objects (razor blades, small pocket knives, vape pens) but will also increase nuisance alarms.
Board members also asked about charger/charge time and runtime. The presenter said a rapid charger can fully recharge two batteries in roughly 130 minutes and that some districts buy multi-bay chargers to turn batteries quickly between uses.
The vendor discussed options districts use for secondary screening and for minimizing throughput delays — including fold-up tables for placing phones or laptops during screenings and randomized high-sensitivity checks rather than schoolwide, high-sensitivity settings. The presenter said districts often customize fabric wraps for the towers to reduce the units’ visual impact at entrances.
No formal action was taken. Board members thanked the presenter and said they would direct follow-up questions through district staff.

