A few days, ago I wondered whether it was really a good idea for the tiny country school in Harrold (Texas) to allow their teachers and other staff to carry firearms while school is in session. Now it looks like the Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence agrees that it's a bad idea. In fact, they believe it may actually be illegal.The Harrold School Board believes it is not only legal, but a good idea. They say they researched the idea for about a year before instituting it. They point to Texas law which prohibits guns on campus "unless pursuant to the written regulations or written authorization of the institution." They point out the fact that the Board has given the written authorization.
But the Brady Center cites a section of the education code that they believe makes it illegal. It says, "If a board of trustees authorizes a person employed as security personnel to carry a weapon, the person must be a commissioned peace officer."
An attorney for the Board counters that this section refers only to security guards hired by the district. They may technically be right. The section does specifically refer to security guards. But doesn't this violate the spirit of that section of the law?
How much sense does it make to require a security guard to be a commissioned peace officer to carry a gun, but apply a much less strict standard to teachers, cooks, janitors , maintenance, etc.? Shouldn't the same rule apply to anyone who wishes to carry a firearm? It seems obvious that when the law was written, the writers did not conceive of anyone but a security guard being allowed to carry a weapon.
When Texas instituted its concealed carry law, it was recognized that it was neither appropriate nor legal to carry a weapon into certain places. It is illegal for anyone to carry a weapon into a government building, a courtroom, an airport or even a bar. I think most people expected schools to also be on that list. How much sense does it make to ban a gun in a bar where only adults are allowed, but to allow them in schools where we must send our children?
It now looks like this may be headed to court, and that's probably a good thing. In fact, this issue should be addressed and clarified by the legislature. Do we really want minimally trained and psychologically unvetted people carrying guns around our children?
This is just a really bad idea, and it should be stopped.
Check out all the commentary for this story, and tons of other crazy school headlines at http://detentionslip.org.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't a comment on the weapons. It' s just me saying "Thanks for linking to my blog."
ReplyDeleteI think you're absolutely right that what happened is that it never occurred to the folks who wrote the law that anyone other than security personnel would be carrying weapons.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that over the years I've come to have greater respect for those contract lawyers who strive to cross every T and dot every I and J to try to make sure every possible variation is considered so that there is only one possible interpretation of each term of the agreement. That can lead to very convoluted language, but it can avoid cases like this one.
(It also would have avoided the notorious case where the Reagan administration insisted that Congress had not banned aid to the contras in Nicaragua - even though Congress thought it had. No, the White House insisted, you only banned it being funneled through certain agencies. So we can do it though any other agency - the Agriculture Department was specifically mentioned - and it's legal.)