A new reader checks in on the discussion of HB 1087, the school gunslinger bill, and asks whether teachers and other protectors of our children could carry non-lethal weapons, like pepper spray and tasers, at school instead of firearms.
As much as I enjoy dressing up like Bo and Luke Duke, I leave my Swiss Army knife at home when I go to work, so as not to run afoul of my local school district's weapons policy. But under federal and state laws governing weapons in South Dakota schools, local school districts appear to have the authority to authorize teachers to carry Swiss Army knives, pepper spray, and tasers. Consider:
- The federal Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 requires the expulsion of students bringing firearms to school. It doesn't apply to any non-lethal weapons. It does not apply to hunting rifles safely locked in student vehicles and intended for use only before or after school. Interestingly, it does not appear to apply to adults carrying guns on school grounds. The GFSA would even let your school arm the kids if the school could show that such action would "increase the quality of instruction for students or will improve the academic performance of students."
- South Dakota statute 13-32-7 expands the GFSA to apply to everyone but law enforcement officers, but it only prohibits firearms and air guns at school. State law does not appear to prohibit tasers, pepper spray, or your Leatherman on school grounds; that restriction is a local policy decision.
- Our criminal statutes talk about "dangerous weapons" as those inflicting death or "serious bodily harm." So if there are any other rules prohibiting "dangerous weapons" from schools, one could argue that tasers and pepper spray don't count, since they inflict only temporary, not serious, harm.
So as I look with dread at today's Senate State Affairs committee hearing on the school gunslinger bill, it occurs to me that federal law isn't as oppressive of the Second Amendment on school grounds as some shouters would have us believe. South Dakota law leaves school staff plenty of defense options other than guns. Before we pass an unnecessary and unwise law to authorize gun devotees to play John McClane, let's work within our existing federal and state rules to keep our schools safe.
(And while we're at it, let's first audit all of our existing school security policies and expenditures to see if we're using what we have appropriately.)
"let's work within our existing federal and state rules to keep our schools safe"
Let us work within the two Constitutiions instead, instead of teaching kids that it is OK to undermine them.
It is my duty to teach students that there are legal limits to every constitutional right.
Mr. H, if your school boards in Spearfish or Madison do allow sentinals and you choose not to be one that would be ok. And if your school boards choose not to allow sentinals then that is ok too. If you want the legislatures to decide for your school boards then you should let the legislatures decide your raises and which teachers are good enough for bonuses and which teachers should be canned post hastey and which slackard administrators should have parking spots or not. I'm just sayin...
Grudz, it's not o.k. that any school board make a decision that harms education. It's not o.k. that our legislators exert this much energy over authorizing the use of scarce resources for firearms in school while rejecting darn near every bill and amendment thus far aimed at increasing funds for real educational efforts.
As I understand it in my limited drooling way, they are trying to authorize your bosses to make decisions. You want the legislatures to make your decisions for your bosses and get them off the hook but only if they decide your way.
It is ok that the legislatures let elected school board members make tough decisions. It is. They could even raise the pay of good teachers if they wanted to.
Clearly a liberal piece of trash not worthy of calling journalism - school gunslinger bill.... lost any credibility of real news at the start.
Sounds to me like there may be viable options available that do not require new laws. If current school district employees become sentinels, will they get additional pay due to change in responsibilities? If not, this sounds like trying to get more without paying for it. (What would be wages for a school gunslinger? What's insurance costs?)
Those legal limits to the US Constitution. Since the Constitution is open to interpretation, how do you decide what to teach or is it your right to teach your political beliefs as fact to your French students?
Al, thanks for getting me thinking about the options available. The Legislature refuses to address any of the real world impacts of this plan for school districts, like the cost of insurance and training.
Joseph, I frame discussions of constitutional rights in terms of the text of the constitution and court precedent. I focus on what the law is, not what I think the law ought to be. When I tell students that no right is absolute, I give practical examples applied by the courts, the state, the school, etc., not a personal wish list.
Grudz, wipe the drool off your chin, and quit aping Russ Olson. Why authorize school boards to make patently bad decisions, for the efficacy of which no evidence has been presented, and which every education expert testifying in Pierre has said is a waste of time and resources, as well as a risk to our children?