But isn’t this the real reason for such prohibitions? The proximity to school, the opportunity and the possibility is what worries the administration.
There’s nothing dangerous about carrying an unloaded gun down a crowded school hall. It’s only the potential that scares people.
So you would be OK with the principal marching down to some students house and removing a gun because it might present a danger?
Sorry, if the weapon is NOT on school grounds, and is stored in a legal manner in the vehicle there is no way that law is constitutional.
IF the gun was stored in the car improperly, it is still NOT the schools business, but the business of the police, as they enforce the laws, and expulsion from school is NOT proper. Jail, perhaps, fine probably, confiscation of gun if that is written in the law, yes.
Is it a rule - going by what’s been quoted in this thread so far the principal “believes”, not that it’s an actual rule…
I am not sure if it is a rule, but the title of the thread asks if they can expel this student. If there is a properly enacted rule, the answer is yes.
I do not come from the US
Where I grew up kids often walked to school, biked to school or drove to school.
The school was only responsible for us once we stepped on school property - or onto school organised transport.
Outside of that, how we got to school was our problem. If we wanted to drive, and leave our vehicle outside school property it wasn’t the school’s business.
Going shooting before school, and leaving the gun in the car would be our business - or the relevant law enforcement agencies.
Bolding mine.
Good grief.
Isnt that the whole damn point of contention here ?
Or are you saying if the school board enacted a law saying wearing pink was automatic reason for expulsion and someone wore pink and they were expelled it would all be good because thems the rules?
Just cause some dipshits make up a rule and follow it dont mean diddly IMO (and probably just about everybody else for that matter).
Go to page 76. The last paragraph of 77 gives a good overview.
It’s tiring to see small minded people bend and reinterpret the intent of law.
Yes, intent.
What we need are people that can actually think on their feet. It’s clear that the principal of Willow CA high school can’t. If he/she could, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I meant passed by proper procedures.
The standard courts will hold this rule to is arbitrary and capricious standard. For this rule to be struck down, the student is going to have to show there was no relation between the rule to prevent bringing guns within a 1000 feet (if that is distance the rule states) and school safety. For the “pink rule,” if the reason was safety, the rule would almost certainly be arbitrary and capricious. But are you suggesting there is no relation between bringing a gun near campus and school safety?
THOSE are the same as legal and nonviolent or ill intended or threatening possesion of a gun ?
A stabbing and purposeful wreckless driving involving a school bus are the same as legal and responsible gun possesion ?
REALLY?
please.
I am trying to find an online cite, and the met-analysis on page 77 gives the general state of the law. Courts will approve the discipline if the student’s action threatened the efficient operation of the school.
I guess this is my point of contention. By what authority can school rules and policies extend beyond the physical boundaries of the school and/or a school-sponsored event?
I get that if this was a law the kid violated (guns within 1000 ft. of a school) then he could be criminally charged, but how does a principal and his minion of bureaucratic policies have any effect on a public street outside of school property?
Because the state has given them the power and the courts have approved (provided there is a relation to school).
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/edu/ed370/ABSTRACTS%2001/harris.html
Student disciplined for blogging “jamfest is cancelled due to douchebags in central office” and that readers should contact the superintendent “to piss her off more.”
Upheld by 2nd Circuit.
IANAL, so bear with me, but it seems in that situation the school is right because the threat could be seen as ongoing. The student may have posted that to his website while he was at home, but the sentiment of the message could reasonably and logically continue onto school property.
In this case it is clear that the kid had no intention of bringing the guns onto school property and didn’t intend to commit any kind of violence (except to the birds earlier that morning). The idea that they were “close” to school is pretty silly, and is a never-ending slippery slope. Pass a policy against having guns within 10 miles of school, and when a kid has one 10 miles and 10 feet from school, use that as evidence that he “could” have brought them into the 10 mile zone.
You said that such a policy has to have a “relation to the school”. I fail to see any in this case. The sad part is that the principal seems to know the kid. Said that “Gary should have known better.” It seems silly to turn his life upside down for nothing.
The rule does not have to relate to the school in this particular situation. The rule in general has to have a relation to the efficient operation of the school. Do you deny that a rule about bringing guns within a thousand feet of a school relates to the operation of the school (including student safety)?
And the bringing the gun probably interfered with the efficient operation in this case. Once the dog hit on the gun, the principal and others probably had to deal with the situation.
If you write a rule broadly enough, you can always find a relationship. Write a rule prohibiting guns within a million light years of the school, and sure, that “relates to the operation of the school” but I fail to see any meaningful relationship to how guns outside of school property affect what goes on inside the school.
What policy wouldn’t pass muster under this standard? Mandate that all children be in bed asleep by 9pm as this would assure better learning?
Well, now you are just being facetious. The school decided to go off property and conduct a search. If it interfered with their “efficient operation” it was their fault. I guess if they go to Timbuktu and start looking for stuff it is the fault of the people in Timbuktu for interfering with the school’s efficient operation.
How do you know the school initiated the dog search?
And the school (and state) do not have authority over the people of Timbuktu.
Almost all policies pass muster. A student was punished for a rude blog post. (Approved by the 2nd Circuit)
I don’t know what distance the courts will allow, but 1000 feet is going to be approved.
And the relationship does not have to meaningful.
Are you saying that this expulsion is not constitutional – that if the student sued, he’d clearly win, or are you saying that even though the constitution is interpreted to permit this, it shouldn’t be?
Quoth jtgain:
By the authority that it’s their school. A school can, in fact, make rules about what is and is not acceptable behavior by the students off of school grounds. They don’t have the authority to arrest students for noncompliance with those rules, but the do have the authority to give administrative punishments like detentions, suspensions, and yes, even expulsions.
Were this a private school, and the rule clearly laid out in advance, then there’d be no issue here. Maybe some folks would think that the school chose the wrong response, but the recourse for that is to choose to not send your kids there, and maybe write an angry letter to the newspaper about it. Here, though, the question is, first, whether the school had a clear rule against this in advance, and second, being a public school, whether they have the prerogative to pass rules of this scope. And the recourse for those two questions lies in a courtroom.