Ending ‘Gun-Free School Zones’ Not as Easy as Trump Just Issuing an Order

Murderers know signs like these increase their odds of “success,” defined in this case as the ability to rack up a high body count and get headline media coverage.

Gun owners have expectations for Donald Trump once he assumes the presidency, and how well he steps up to address their concerns will set the tone for their still wary support. It goes without saying that disappointing a politically-active constituency that overlooked his problematic past on guns will set the tone for feelings of betrayal, along with all the resentment and hostility that will follow. Something immediate by the new president will go a long way in determining if the hope is sustainable.

One thing I wouldn’t expect is for Trump to end so-called “gun-free school zones” overnight with a waved of the executive wand. And an Arizona Daily Sun article helps explain why.

The piece starts out interviewing colleague Charles Heller, a one-man dynamo for RKBA advocacy through his Liberty Watch Radio program and as a co-founder of the Arizona Citizens Defense League. These folks, with their energy, dedication and creative lobbying, are a big part of why Arizona has such comparatively fewer infringements than most other states.

“The problem is the Republican Arizona Legislature, which refuses to budge on the problem,” Heller acknowledged.

That’s true in so many areas where real change is possible, but simply not put forth by GOP legislators enjoying the benefits of “A”-ratings from gun groups like NRA. Those grades often reflect how a questionnaire was answered, or what bills were voted for or against.  And aside from now endorsing “good guys with guns” in the form of school resource officers, we really don’t see NRA distancing itself from Wayne LaPierre’s position as stated at the 1999 annual meeting:

“First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America’s schools, period … with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.”

As a result of that “out,” finding lawmakers willing to put forth a radical departure from business as usual, something new, something that turns the status quo in its head, can be like pulling teeth. And that shows how the relative term “conservative” can also be an indication of supposed “leaders” who really prefer things remain just the way they are, infringements and all.

That’s shown in all its mealy-mouthed equivocation by Misty Arthur, executive director for the Arizona Federation of Teachers, who hopes the meaningless noise she makes about respecting the right to keep and bear arms will distract everyone from her huge “but”:

“It’s different when a school resource officer or a police officer has a gun on campus because they’re in uniform and students understand that. But allowing anyone to have a gun? I don’t see that there could be any good. And I’m a Republican, I believe strongly in the Second Amendment. But I believe it would bring more chaos, not protect the children.”

So in other words, she’d also agree with this assertion:

“Metal detectors and more police officers are a great start to the fight against guns in schools. A school is no place for a gun.”

That was Columbine killer Eric Harris, from a class paper on “Guns in Schools.”

If Misty really believed strongly, she’d be promoting “shall not be infringed,” instead of parroting first LaPierre, then Harris, and then the subversive Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence deception that “There is just no evidence to show that repealing those laws or requiring that guns be allowed into schools keeps people safer.”  Sure there is.

When the “school resource officer” exchanged shots with Harris at Columbine, he saved his own life, persuading the killer to retreat inside and take on easier prey. Then there was Vice Principal Joel Myrick stopping a killer at Pearl High School. There were armed students pinning down the University of Texas sniper until authorities could put him down.

That most of the time it takes second responders (the first are the ones doing the running, hiding, screaming and bleeding)  getting to a scene after the damage has been done is on the lying gun-grabbers, who would rather see children butchered than protected.

What Trump can do is urge Congress to get the ball rolling, and be a constant voice not to let them drag their feet and drop it. And it can’t just be a halt to prosecutions or repeal of the Gun Free Schools Act, because states have edicts of their own. [UPDATE: The day after this was posted, Rep. Thomas Massie “introduced H.R. 86, the Safe Students Act, which would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.”]

Withholding federal funds could also come into play (and where fedgov has legitimate authority to disburse such funds in the first place is another matter). Then there would be lawsuits, which would keep things tied up for years, and would depend on filling federal bench and Supreme Court openings with judges who aren’t revisionist turncoats.

Everyone realizes though, all it will take is the next exploitation of a “gun-free school zone” resulting in mass deaths of children. Then the whole blood dance blame game on guns and those who own them will start all over again, stopping any real progress on the issue in its tracks.

It’s bigger than one man. Conversely, all it takes is one man to take advantage of those damnable signs and put the focus back on gun bans.

Categories: 2nd_amendment, All

About Author

David Codrea

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Comments

  1. WGP 4 January, 2017, 21:45

    How about replacing all restrictive gun regulations and laws with the constitutional 2nd Amendment. Duh

    Reply this comment
  2. Cal 5 January, 2017, 07:28

    ““The problem is the Republican Arizona Legislature, which refuses to budge on the problem,” Heller acknowledged.”

    That really does not matter. Why not? Because all who legitimately get into the office of, and then serve as the President of the United States is charged with an Oath to PRESERVE, PROTECT, AND DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION. All Trump really has to do is require, as the US Constitution does, that ALL who serve within our government meet the constitutional requirements of the position they occupy, take and KEEP the Oath required of them or charge them with the crimes they have done. It really is that simple to start the process.

    What is difficult is those who do not want to give up their power/positions starting with the ranking military. Lots of federal “agencies” are not authorized by the US Constitution, those who serve within them will NOT want to give that up. What will be difficult if Trump decides to keep his Oath is keeping him alive from all those whose existence in the way they live now will be threatened.

    Breaking or not taking the Oath, and it matters not who serves within our governments does either action, is a felony and the crime of Perjury. But what most people also forget, or never bothered to learn, is that the powers used by the people who serve within our governments do NOT belong to the person serving whatever the position occupied, but are delegated to the branches and to offices within a branch. Then the person serving – elected, hired, contracted, etc – is ALLOWED to use that authority as long as they follow the contract they are under which requires them to perform certain duties, some in specific ways in certain circumstances ONLY, and all are REQUIRED to take and KEEP an Oath.

    Dr. Vieira says it well here, but most seem to not understand this: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides…

    The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights… The GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it CANNOT VIOLATE ANYONE’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. The reason for that is: THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS THAT SET OF ACTIONS BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION. OUTSIDE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS NO LEGITIMACY. It has NO AUTHORITY; AND, it really even has NO EXISTENCE. IT IS what lawyers call A LEGAL FICTION.” (caps are mine)

    So what does that mean? That means, at the local level, when a SWAT team breaks into a home, the people in the SWAT team have no LAWFUL authority for that action as it is forbidden by the US Constitution. That those people involved are assisting in the destruction of the USA. That those serving within the NSA have no lawful authority, and the crimes they commit against the people by “just following orders” and “just doing their job” is actions against our legitimate government and the American people. Those that follow, uphold, and enforce the Patriot Act, the NDAA, etc are also working against our nation and all of the above can be charged with treason and *terrorism because that is what those actions performed are.

    Those that blindly obey the orders to go to war, when they are required to be Oath bound to the US Constitution are also criminal in their actions and assisting in the destruction of our legitimate government so that the Military Industrial Complex can keep having excuses to continue.

    Those who work in unlawful agencies – be it the agencies actions or its existence – who tel people what to do on their properties, who assist in taking their property of any type (think asset forfeiture, or seizures of whatever by whomever of agency XXX) assist greatly in the destruction of our nation, legitimate government, the American people – all for a paycheck, and to remain ignorant.

    But what happens when America is no more? YOU will be out of a position, not allowed to own anything – not even the clothes you will wear, IF you are allowed to live. Go read what they plan for yourself, it is important to know exactly what YOUR actions can/will cause here in OUR nation. Do not take my word for it, they also have many of their plans for our nation in writing, go research. It is critical that you make informed decisions on what you do as OUR nation, OUR legitimate government is at stake.

    All involved in these, and other actions

    Reply this comment
    • Nick 6 January, 2017, 10:46

      I probably would have gone with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15. Trump needs to ask the states to provide the militia “to execute the Laws of the Union”. Where is it, and don’t tell me its the National Guard because that is a constitutional impossibility without an amendment.
      I think that will take care of itself once the people are well educated as to the duties, and authorities imposed.

      Reply this comment
      • Edwin Vieira 6 January, 2017, 13:13

        I should simply add that Mr. Trump would not have to “ask” the States to act, but could act himself to begin the process of revitalization of the Militia, under 10 U.S.C. secs. 332 and 333.

        Reply this comment
  3. GREYFOX 6 January, 2017, 12:23

    In the comment above by “CAL”, he makes VALID statements, but lost the context of the question::About whether to allow GUNS in schools??””..I am ex–vietnam vet, and believe in an ARMED NATION…Having said that, I also believe in an EDUCATED NATION,,:: at this time in America, we are facing a major illiteracy problem with high school students NATIONWIDE…I challenge anyone who “believes” in removing guns from schools, to get a DAY Pass and visit ANY high school in USA for at least 6-8 hrs..Listen to students in hallways, lunch rooms, outside areas,,,,By afternoon , YOU will realize the “lawlessness” the teachers have to contend with EVEERYDAY..Students have LOST respect for adults, starting with their own parents…RESPECT for Adults and authority is crucial to educating ANY group of people…I am FOR any adult in the school system today, to be allowed to carry a weapon..whether it be pepper spray/mace, a knife or license carrying CCW pistol ,,to be READY for any altercation that breaks out.. Another MAJOR ISSUE to be addressed is Bullying…Because schools need the income from each attending student, they are Extremely slow in suspending or EXPELLING a “known” bully..Once this action gets started, it will be major deterrent to students to STOP bullying in school,,& more importantly is off school grounds..Students engaging in Bullying can also be filmed or witnessed and be expelled or brought up on ASSAULT charges by a minor to a minor..This is mandatory time in Juvenile Hall, and is a wake up call for most bullys as to what direction they are headed into…Most bullies are uneducated and feel left out of student conversations,,They NEED more time spent on their understanding lessons…..So my RANT about GUNS in Schools,,really is about lack of teachers per student, to ensure EVERY student gets an education to the best of their abilities…

    Reply this comment
  4. d 6 January, 2017, 12:32

    REPEAL …ALL Federal Laws, Rules and EO’s made since 1964….AND…REPEAL the FED…as in ABOLISH it…..get back to the CONSTITUTION for gold and silver back currency…as it dictates….That may help this Republic survive ….imho

    Reply this comment
  5. POedOldFeller 6 January, 2017, 13:55

    I agree with d, above. In addition, I recommend the removal of Wayne La Pierre’s testicles, as a punishment for masquerading as someone who is pro-2d Amendment…

    Reply this comment
  6. Talon375 6 January, 2017, 14:58

    After reading the myriad interviews pertaining to the current gun furor since the shootings in Oregon, there are additional considerations that should be added to this discussion to move it from the knee-jerk reaction phase and get it to the proactive and effective realm.

    a) we should not be looking at arming teachers who are involved in the classroom with their students and whose attention is woefully distracted from perceiving potential danger approaching;

    b) developing professional school safety personnel (e.g. armed, trained and PROACTIVE school-system based personnel) who are actively vigilant and constantly alert, on and off campus (as US Supreme Court Case Law has determined that ANY disruptive influence in a radius of a minimum of 1,000-feet of a school boundary affects the learning environment. In some areas, this area can be 1,500-feet of a school boundary.);

    c) making sure those trained, proactive and motivated school safety personnel are properly supported and organizationally slotted to ensure their effectiveness as opposed to the current status quo

    Making these comments comes from experience developing school safety programs in K-12, Community College and University-level schools where school safety is always relegated to the organizational importance just BELOW the night custodians and overseen, as an additional duty, by the same custodial administrative staff. This is done with the belief that the “real police” will come and take care of the problems when they arise. The problems with this rationale are that:

    a) the “real police” are reactionary and only respond to incidents after they occur (hence, the reports and investigations but no real prevention);

    b) if one looks closely at the structure of the agencies involved (school or college districts, universities without police departments) the “real police” are outside their employing jurisdictions and, therefore, have no authority to act if legally pressed for justification;

    c) the “real police” are not trained to operate within the schools in a manner which enhances the educational process where a school safety organization, property placed organizationally and operating according to the proper vision of proactivity, could.

    d) effective school safety programs are systematically “neutralized” by their respective administrations as they do not want to give the public the impression the schools have a crime problem.

    These are just a few points to ponder but, I’d be willing to bring more to the discussion should anyone wish to carry it further.

    Reply this comment
  7. James Jaeger 6 January, 2017, 15:28

    Here is the exact question anchors and pundits in the Mainstream Media should be asking every time there is another mass shooting in a “gun free” zone.

    “Does a private property owner who serves the general public have the right to demand that his customers suspend their Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” while on the premises of their establishment?”

    By “private property owner” I mean a restaurant, nightclub, food market, airport, church, school, college, shopping center, industrial park, etc., whether such is a sole proprietorship, partnership or corporation.

    By “suspend their Second Amendment right” I mean declaring the private property to be a “gun-free zone” or a place where the citizen is not free to carry a weapon, open or concealed.
    The same question must be asked of government entities:

    “Does a government entity have the right to demand that any citizen must suspend his or her Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” while anywhere in the jurisdiction of the United States?”

    If anchors, pundits and government officials aren’t asking this question yet advocating “gun-free zones” on their shows, aren’t these people and entities advocating disobedience to the law? If they are advocating disobedience to the law, and they are members of a news media that is licensed by the FCC, should not the FCC revoke broadcast licenses on the grounds that such anchors and entities are advocating illegal behavior to the public that results in injury and death, i.e., people in “gun-free zones” have no way to defend themselves.

    James Jaeger,
    Producer/Director
    http://www.MainstreamMedia.us

    Reply this comment
  8. Larry B. 7 January, 2017, 23:09

    Leadership is a difficult position. We all make statements we later wish we could revise. I believe, and I hope, Wayne LaP’s 1999 statement recalled here is one of these instances. By far and large NRA, under his leadership, remains a rabbit outta the hat puller of winning strategies. One great example is NRA bringing NRANews.com into the mix after the McCain/Feingold attempt at gagging free speech. After the Sandy Hook murders the media hounded NRA for a statement. That horrible scene from Hell was ‘the one’ Schumer, Feinstein, et al were all waiting for. They thought they had us pinned at last. NRA waited five days then LaPierre came out with the famous “The Only Thing That Stops a Bad Guy With A Gun Is a Good Guy With A Gun.” Since then NRA has advocated CCW permit holders, outside of law enforcement, (teachers, janitors, office workers,…), who work on school grounds, as bulwarks against armed scum who would hurt our children. The media has scantly reported the many school districts which have endorsed, albeit halfway and begrudgingly, that statement by putting armed police in formerly completely “gun free” school grounds. With that said let me express my absolute gratitude for all David Codrea does in the cause of Liberty continued.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*