Typically, expulsions are not undertaken lightly. I can’t speak for every state, but in the ones where I taught the district must still provide an education for the expelled student. There are state laws requiring kids be in school and districts cannot violate state laws through their local policies and actions. IME, an expulsion must be approved by the school board and is not done unilaterally by a principal. There are several levels of appeal before taking the district to court.
Based on what I have seen happen in cases of principals overstepping their boundaries, the kid will quietly be readmitted to school with an agreement that neither side will discuss any part of the proceedings with the press.
There are certainly limits though and those limits are violated all of the time. For example, in general, students in public schools have the right to wear clothing of their choice unless the administrator can provide evidence that this clothing will cause a disruption. The administrator can’t just have a hunch that it will be disruptive.
The 1,000 ft. law is bad law. It is unenforceable and leaves unanswered to many questions. Certainly the school administrator should act responsibly in letting the students know about the law and there should be a matching school rule as long as there is a law. But the punishment should be far different from actually having a gun on school grounds.
In the first case, if the student is under eighteen, his parents should be fined a steep amount and the student should have to do supervised community service. If the student brings a weapon onto school grounds, the student should be suspended for the remainder of the year. If the weapon is inside the school, the student should be suspended permanently.
At our school, when a student rigged explosives above a teacher’s piano for the school play, he was given three days in in-school suspension. (They were found before they could explode.) The teachers protested and he was suspended from school for ten days. That school believed in tolerating just about everything.
When a teacher was robbed early one morning at gun point, it was repported only to our school policeman. That way our school didn’t have a “bad report.” It didn’t make the evening news either.
As far as I can tell the Principal pulled the 1,000 foot rule out of his ass which means a lawsuit will relocate it back to it’s starting point. There is no way the Principal can establish control over students who transport themselves to/from school. That won’t pass any kind of logic test.
There is never a Constitutional right to own meth, nor to molest children, so neither of your scenarios is even remotely plausible.
Not exactly. The whole thing is wrong because [list=A][li]The ban on guns within 1000 feet of a school is ineffectual because people who are not deterred from shooting people by rules against shooting people are not likely to be deterred from bringing guns to school to shoot people by rules against bringing guns to school, and [/li]
[li]Principals do not have the right to prohibit students from engaging in legal behavior off school property. The school could not forbid, for instance, the student from proselytizing on behalf of a religion or Barack Obama off school grounds either.[/list][/li]Regards,
Shodan
I’ll reprint the Link I provided . The principal is (it appears) relying in this statute for his authority.
Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995
Since this law is central to the argument and the text of the law is public information I will post it here. If a mod feels it needs to be removed please do so.
Legal Resources | Penal Code | PC 626.9, 00626.009
Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995
Previous Next
(a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.
(b) Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), unless it is with the written permission of the school district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent school authority, shall be punished as specified in subdivision (f).
(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Within a place of residence or place of business or on private property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the firearm is otherwise lawful.
(2) When the firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle.
This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in accordance with state law.
(3) When the person possessing the firearm reasonably believes that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order issued by a court against another person or persons who has or have been found to pose a threat to his or her life or safety. This subdivision may not apply when the circumstances involve a mutual restraining order issued pursuant to Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200) of the Family Code absent a factual finding of a specific threat to the person’s life or safety. Upon a trial for violating subdivision (b), the trier of determine whether the defendant was acting out of a reasonable belief that he or she was in grave danger.
(4) When the person is exempt from the prohibition against carrying a concealed firearm pursuant to subdivision (b), (d), (e), or (h) of Section 12027.
(d) Except as provided in subdivision (b), it shall be unlawful for any person, with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge, or attempt to discharge, a firearm in a school zone, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (e).
The prohibition contained in this subdivision does not apply to the discharge of a firearm to the extent that the conditions of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) are satisfied.
(e) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “School zone” means an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school.
(2) “Firearm” has the same meaning as that term is given in Section 12001.
(3) “Locked container” has the same meaning as that term is given in subdivision (c) of Section 12026.1.
(4) “Concealed firearm” has the same meaning as that term is given in Sections 12025 and 12026.1.
(f) (1) Any person who violates subdivision (b) by possessing a firearm in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or five years.
(2) Any person who violates subdivision (b) by possessing a firearm within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, shall be punished as follows:
(A) By imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or five years, if any of the following circumstances apply:
(i) If the person previously has been convicted of any felony, or of any crime made punishable by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 12000) of Title 2 of Part 4.
(ii) If the person is within a class of persons prohibited from possessing or acquiring a firearm pursuant to Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(iii) If the firearm is any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person and the offense is punished as a felony pursuant to Section 12025.
(B) By imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or five years, in all cases other than those specified in subparagraph (A).
(3) Any person who violates subdivision (d) shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, five, or seven years.
(g) (1) Every person convicted under this section for a misdemeanor violation of subdivision (b) who has been convicted previously of a misdemeanor offense enumerated in Section 12001.6 shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than three months, or if probation is granted or if the execution or imposition of sentence is suspended, it shall be a condition thereof that he or she be imprisoned in a county jail for not less than three months.
(2) Every person convicted under this section of a felony violation of subdivision (b) or (d) who has been convicted previously of a misdemeanor offense enumerated in Section 12001.6, if probation is granted or if the execution of sentence is suspended, it shall be a condition thereof that he or she be imprisoned in a county jail for not less than three months.
(3) Every person convicted under this section for a felony violation of subdivision (b) or (d) who has been convicted previously of any felony, or of any crime made punishable by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 12000) of Title 2 of Part 4, if probation is granted or if the execution or imposition of sentence is suspended, it shall be a condition thereof that he or she be imprisoned in a county jail for not less than three months.
(4) The court shall apply the three-month minimum sentence specified in this subdivision, except in unusual cases where the interests of justice would best be served by granting probation or suspending the execution or imposition of sentence without the minimum imprisonment required in this subdivision or by granting probation or suspending the execution or imposition of sentence with conditions other than those set forth in this subdivision, in which case the court shall specify on the record and shall enter on the minutes the circumstances indicating that the interests of justice would best be served by this disposition.
(h) Notwithstanding Section 12026, any person who brings or possesses a loaded firearm upon the grounds of a campus of, or buildings owned or operated for student housing, teaching, research, or administration by, a public or private university or college, that are contiguous or are clearly marked university property, unless it is with the written permission of the university or college president, his or her designee, or equivalent university or college authority, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years. Notwithstanding subdivision (k), a university or college shall post a prominent notice at primary entrances on noncontiguous property stating that firearms are prohibited on that property pursuant to this subdivision.
(i) Notwithstanding Section 12026, any person who brings or possesses a firearm upon the grounds of a campus of, or buildings owned or operated for student housing, teaching, research, or administration by, a public or private university or college, that are contiguous or are clearly marked university property, unless it is with the written permission of the university or college president, his or her designee, or equivalent university or college authority, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for one, two, or three years. Notwithstanding subdivision (k), a university or college shall post a prominent notice at primary entrances on noncontiguous property stating that firearms are prohibited on that property pursuant to this subdivision.
(j) For purposes of this section, a firearm shall be deemed to be loaded when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell, consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm. A muzzle-loader firearm shall be deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.
(k) This section does not require that notice be posted regarding the proscribed conduct.
(l) This section does not apply to a duly appointed peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal government who is carrying out official duties while in California, any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is actually engaged in assisting the officer, a member of the military forces of this state or of the United States who is engaged in the performance of his or her duties, a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4, or an armored vehicle guard, engaged in the performance of his or her duties, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 7521 of the Business and Professions Code.
(m) This section does not apply to a security guard authorized to carry a loaded firearm pursuant to Section 12031.
(n) This section does not apply to an existing shooting range at a public or private school or university or college campus.
(o) This section does not apply to an honorably retired peace officer authorized to carry a concealed or loaded firearm pursuant to subdivision (a) or (i) of Section 12027 or paragraph (1) or (8) of subdivision (b) of Section 12031.
(Amended by Stats. 1999, Ch. 83, Sec. 146.)
In trying to parse out the law above it appears I might be in violation of the law if I park my pick up truck on a public side street in front of my home, with a shotgun in an unlocked shotgun rack, within 1000 feet of a school.
Courts have held that they do.
Bong Hits for Jesus.
The aforementioned “Doucheblog” case.
Our courts have pretty much decided that students don’t get much in the way of rights.
It’s stupid, and it sucks, but that seems to be the way that things have gone down.
The first cite involves a school function and the second one was vague in that the level of punishment was considered in the court decision which means in a gray area court battle it would probably lose.
Your cites do not seem very much on point. The first one concerns student behavior at a school-supervised event, and which involved illegal behavior.
The second one mentions
The case under discussion has nothing to do with the school at all, did not occur at a school supervised event, was not illegal behavior, and did not involve encouraging anyone to do anything at school at all.
The Tinker decision famously found that students do not forfeit their rights at the school house door. I would hope very much that they would not forfeit their rights 1000 feet away from the school house door as well.
Regards,
Shodan
Doesn’t seem to me that the kid would be in violation of the law.
The key part of the law says that it “shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that… affects interstate or foreign commerce… [in] a school zone.” It’s hard to see how the kid’s actions could be found in violation even under the most liberal reading of the commerce clause. But even if it were, B.iii specifically states that that the law does not apply to unloaded weapons locked in vehicles.
But, as noted in the thread, the important thing is really whether he violated school policy. The principal stated that “the Education Code requires the school pursue expulsion”. Thanks to the link from astro, I poked around and found the relevant part of the Code, which would appear to be:
If the facts in the article are correct, I don’t think he was in violation of school policy either. I’m also curious as to if he would have been off the hook if he had just refused to open his trunk since the possession had to be verified by a school district official.
I’m curious about the meaning of this last paragraph. We’re talking about shotguns, which I’d certainly regard as not concealable on one’s person. But MHO is irrelevant on this point; does the law regard them that way?
And probably more key here, do non-concealable guns in a parked car fall under the legal rubric of “otherwise lawful transportation”?
Another question I have is that of the principal’s jurisdiction. The GFSZA clearly grants the school superintendent or designee the authority to grant exceptions in writing. But the part that astro has excerpted does not, in and of itself, give the principal any other authority extending off school grounds; he’d have to be acting under authority granted by state, county, or municipal law.
Or maybe such law provides that parking on nearby streets on the way to school is “a school activity off school grounds” and thereby within the principal’s authority under the cite provided by cckerberos. (That’s one of the things the principal ‘believed’ was true, according to the article.)
here is a link to the school and the area he parked. He parked just north of the tennis courts on W. Willow street. I am not sure the extent of the school grounds but I would guess that extnds to W. Willow street.
I am not saying the school is right, but I think there is something to be said about parking on a street that is basically the border of the school. It’s not like he parked several blocks away. I could see an argument that while technically not the school grounds, the street bordering the school is “close enough”. I am not trying to couch this in any legal terms,nor am I making that conclusion, I am just saying I can kind of see where the shcools argument would come from.
I think it’s on point not because of factual similarities, but because in Morse, the Supreme court demonstrates that it has a very broad definition of “school-supervised,” and that it has very little regard for civil rights of students. That’s why I think the current Supreme court wouldn’t rule against the school.
In Morse, this is what the court considers to be the realm of the school.
As for showing little regard for the civil rights of students, Justice Stevens says it more clearly than I could.
Since the court shows so little regard for the First Amendment rights of students, I don’t anticipate they will regard the Second Amendment any higher.
Morse shows us how little the court cares for the rights of students. I suspect they will treat Mr Tudesko’s rights with equally little regard.
Forgive me if this has been addressed already- I read about 3/4 of the way through the thread and saw nothin’.
How did the school know to search his car? I mean, if the kid was parked off campus and things were all tucked away, what would compel the school to search some random car? Scent sniffing dogs? Ok.
Both my high school that I attended (public) and the one I teach at (private)** have drug dogs. I don’t know if these drug dogs also sniff out guns or whatever, but my understanding is that while the dogs can search anything on campus, they can’t search teacher’s cars and they can’t search anything on the public street (unless there’s probable cause yadda yadda).
So, how would anyone have known this was a student’s car and not a teacher’s or neighbor’s? Was this kid yammering to his friends about how his car had guns, someone got nervous and reported it to the admin, and THEN they sent out the dogs?
**Random drug dog story: one morning, they brought the dogs in to do a random sweep of my class. So, the kids and I have to go outside, they leave their bags behind. While we’re outside, kid and I have this exchange:
For what it’s worth, I live across from an elementary school. Every winter, kids get suspended for throwing snowballs at each other after school. It doesn’t seem to matter how far away they are, if they’re in the neighborhood, it counts. The rule is that kids walking home or riding the bus home are still subject to school policies.
The tricky part is when Johnny gets home first because his house is closer, dumps his book bag inside and goes back out to throw snowballs at the kids still walking home. Every year there’s a case like this and a big kerfuffle about it, but the suspension still stands.
Quoth Zoe:
Which I addressed in the next paragraph. Even if the school had a clear policy against this in advance, it’s still for the courts to decide whether the school was acting within its limits.
Incidentally, I’d also want to see more details on this case to know whether the student was actually officially expelled. I’ve been kicked out of two schools in my life, and neither went on the books as an official expulsion: In the first case (a public school), I (and my mom) was informed that if I returned to the school the next year, I would be immediately expelled, and in the second case (private), I was officially invited not to return. Apparently that makes the paperwork easier for the school.
Damn hippy!!
shakes fist in air
So how does the school feel about kids throwing rubber and cork objects wrapped in yarn and covered in cow hide?
Kids are suspended for snowball fights?!
Holy cow, that’s dumb.
But where does “close enough” stop? What if he was on the next street over? Well, then he was right next to being right next to the school, so is that “close enough”?