Oh, Those Pesky Gun Free Zones
Well, the NRA is back at it again advocating eliminating gun free zones. They're doing it from a kind of weird perspective using citations from discredited anti-gun control advocate, Dr. John Lott. Thank goodness, Governor J.B. Pritzker of Illinois was around to counter the NRA idiocy:
Thank you, Governor Pritzker!!!
To me, it's comical and tragic at the same time that the NRA continues going down this road along with so many others, of course, that are so easily countered. But, hey, it's the NRA after all.
So, given the fact gun free zones still appear to be a major issue in the country, I thought I'd take a segment on gun free zones that I wrote about in another blog post awhile back, On Gun 'Control', 'Gun Free Zones', and Arming School Staff (Amended)..., and make it its own post. That's what follows.
On Gun Free Zones:
Maybe we should be looking at eliminating 'gun free zones'. After all, the NRA has had gun free zones in their metaphorical crosshairs forever, right? Well, kinda.
The National Rifle Association advocated for 'gun free zones' immediately following the massacre at Columbine High School. A little more context is necessary according to several fact checking organizations, but you can listen to Mr. LaPierre's speech on Youtube and decide for yourselves whether more context is necessary or not: Wayne LaPierre at an NRA Convention on May 1, 1999 in Colorado.
Context or not, it didn't take the NRA very long to morph their position into 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun' mantra. The NRA, since the Columbine massacre, has consistently advocated for more guns in schools. More guns in schools would, by design, require that 'gun free zones' go bye-bye.
There's been a lot of talk in cyberspace about eliminating 'gun free zones' virtually across the board. President Trump advocated getting rid of 'gun free zones'. One of his campaign promises in the leadup to the 2016 Presidential election was to get rid of 'gun free zones' on day one if he were elected. That didn't happen, but the push to do so is still strong on the pro-gun advocacy side of the issue, and the likelihood that it will happen eventually shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. All it would require is the repeal of a certain law that established 'gun free zones' in the first place. That certain law is the Gun Free School Zones Act. This act is, in fact, a law....a Federal law. There is no gun free zone law or laws other than this one on the Federal level that I am aware of. So, what was this law's original intent? The Gun Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) has gone through several iterations, one of which was to revise it to make it 'constitutional'. It was originally passed in a bi-partisan effort to try and address the increasing risks associated with kids frequently bringing guns into a school environment.
But, and this is a very BIG but, I also believe this law has been misinterpreted and misused by many. In fact, my understanding of implementation of 'gun free zones' under this law is more along the lines of recourse for violations....violations perpetrated by kids bringing guns to school, or violations perpetrated by non-school staff and/or students by bringing guns into a specified area surrounding a school. Both these scenarios require the perpetrator to GET CAUGHT bringing guns into a specified area surrounding a school in order for the 'gun free zone' to be effective. Please note, I said "get caught". I did not say 'prevent'. There's a BIG difference in those two scenarios!
The law is also specific to schools. There is no mention it applies to businesses, public venues, homes, or places of worship. Again, there is no law or laws I'm aware of at the Federal level that apply to businesses, public venues, homes, or places of worship. My understanding is all these places have the option of posting gun free zone signs if they so choose.....at least for now. More on that later.
I've looked pretty hard at the provisions of the Gun Free School Zones Act, and I cannot find anything at all that says a school must be in compliance with the law. I think it's almost universally assumed that the law requires compliance by schools. Perhaps that assumption is incorrect? If someone else can find a provision for same, please show me where it is. I'd really like to get this cleared up somehow.
Carrying that thought one step further, and looking even deeper into the Gun Free School Zones Act, it's pretty clear there were no provisions included under the law for penalties that might be levied on schools choosing non-compliance with the law, itself....at least that I could find. There are quite a few provisions for penalties that apply to those who bring guns into a designated gun free zone, but penalties for non-compliance related to implementation by a school? None that I can find. Again, if someone else can find a provision for same, please show me where it is because I'd really like to get this cleared up somehow.
Why is that important? It's important because schools apparently are not absolutely required to implement this law, this 'gun free zone' law. The actual requirement, if one wishes to call it that, is a matter of funding according to the U.S. Department of Education. So, if they're not actually required of schools anywhere, why the push by NRA, etal, to get rid of them as if they are required? That might just be a rhetorical question, eh? But I digress....
If I'm reading the law correctly, if school districts wish to receive certain kinds of funding from the Department of Education, they must declare their schools as 'Gun Free Zones' under that law. That's it. That's the extent of the law as far as I can tell. The law, itself, apparently does not absolutely require all schools nationally to be a 'gun free zone' in order to comply with the law just because it is the law or just because a school is a school. Compliance with the Federal law is tied to funding. Weird, huh? Individual states are a whole different story, but we're talking about the Federal law in this blog post, and that's where my focus will stay.
That then begs the question why....why the focus on eliminating 'gun free zones' entirely? Should that kind of mandate be codified into law? Should it originate at the Federal level? State level? Local level? Should it apply only to schools since that's what the original law did? Should it apply across the board to include public venues, churches, places of business, homes?
Confusing?
Well, things may be about to get even more confusing.
There are currently many states that already allow guns on their campuses. In fact, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, many states allow guns on K-12 campuses in some capacity as of March 8, 2019.
Then why are so-called 'gun free zones' the big bugaboo so many pro-gun advocates make them out to be? Might it be that pro-gun advocates try to make 'gun free zones' into something they were never intended to be? The logic in that premise is actually pretty solid from where I sit.
For example, and to use the argument put forward by the more pro-gun side in this debate, guns are inanimate objects. Using that very same logic, though, signs are inanimate objects, as well. I hear it all the time from pro-gun advocates that a 'gun free zone' sign won't stop someone from committing mass murder. I agree simply from a perspective that inanimate objects are incapable of anything without human intervention of some sort. That being said, in the very next breath, those very same pro-gun advocates promote the idea that miscreants view a 'gun free zone' sign and consider it a magnet that draws them to a very soft target even though no definitive research has ever, not even once, proven this premise to have any validity whatsoever.
Carrying this logic even one step further, it might be safe to say virtually everyone has seen some version of the pro-gun argument that "guns don't kill people...people kill people" cliche'. That statement assumes the gun is an inanimate object, a 'tool' as some like to label it....and rightfully so. But, in the very next breath, those same folks blow up their own premise more often than not by trying to convince us that "guns save lives". Well, if guns don't kill people because they're inanimate objects, how can guns possibly 'save' people? They're inanimate, right? How can they suddenly be capable of an act to save someone if they're inanimate? A conundrum if ever there was one, and there are some who've had a really, really, really hard time wrapping their heads around that conundrum when confronted with it!
Bottom line? Does anyone realistically believe for one second that a sign imprinted with 'GUN FREE ZONE' was ever intended to physically 'stop' someone intent on doing harm to others? Pretty silly, right? Or, put another way, how is a 'GUN FREE ZONE' any different, really, than a stop sign as far as the intended purpose of said sign might be?
Both signs, Gun Free Zone signs and stop signs, are there to provide notice of consequences to violators for actions taken that violate the intent of the laws those signs were created under. Unfortunately, in so many instances of mass murder, the violator's penalty is a self-inflicted suicide along with what those having little emotional attachment often times call 'collateral damage'. In those instances, the suicide of the perpetrator(s) is the penalty or consequence of their actions while abdicating taking any responsibility for their actions and also preventing society from exacting any penalties or being able to impose any level of responsibility for the tragedy. And that, to me, may be a more subtle, nuanced reason behind pro-gun advocates desire to eliminate 'gun free zones'. Yes, they want to neutralize a mass shooter as quickly as possible to minimize fatalities and injuries. But might there also be a little bit of a vigilante mentality wending its way into the psyche of the hero who takes down the mass shooter? Just some food for thought.
But I digress......
If 'gun free zones' are legislatively eliminated, will it be from a Federal level? State level, perhaps? Will local jurisdictions and/or school districts have a say in whether or not they actually want these 'gun free zones' to go away? Serious question, folks.
If 'gun free zones' are, by law, eliminated no matter the level of government doing so, doesn't that also mean businesses, public venues, churches, and homeowners who'd like to keep those locations free of guns will be forced to allow guns on their premises....against their wishes? Talk about government over-reach!!!!!
There's been a lot of talk in cyberspace about eliminating 'gun free zones' virtually across the board. President Trump advocated getting rid of 'gun free zones'. One of his campaign promises in the leadup to the 2016 Presidential election was to get rid of 'gun free zones' on day one if he were elected. That didn't happen, but the push to do so is still strong on the pro-gun advocacy side of the issue, and the likelihood that it will happen eventually shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. All it would require is the repeal of a certain law that established 'gun free zones' in the first place. That certain law is the Gun Free School Zones Act. This act is, in fact, a law....a Federal law. There is no gun free zone law or laws other than this one on the Federal level that I am aware of. So, what was this law's original intent? The Gun Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) has gone through several iterations, one of which was to revise it to make it 'constitutional'. It was originally passed in a bi-partisan effort to try and address the increasing risks associated with kids frequently bringing guns into a school environment.
But, and this is a very BIG but, I also believe this law has been misinterpreted and misused by many. In fact, my understanding of implementation of 'gun free zones' under this law is more along the lines of recourse for violations....violations perpetrated by kids bringing guns to school, or violations perpetrated by non-school staff and/or students by bringing guns into a specified area surrounding a school. Both these scenarios require the perpetrator to GET CAUGHT bringing guns into a specified area surrounding a school in order for the 'gun free zone' to be effective. Please note, I said "get caught". I did not say 'prevent'. There's a BIG difference in those two scenarios!
The law is also specific to schools. There is no mention it applies to businesses, public venues, homes, or places of worship. Again, there is no law or laws I'm aware of at the Federal level that apply to businesses, public venues, homes, or places of worship. My understanding is all these places have the option of posting gun free zone signs if they so choose.....at least for now. More on that later.
I've looked pretty hard at the provisions of the Gun Free School Zones Act, and I cannot find anything at all that says a school must be in compliance with the law. I think it's almost universally assumed that the law requires compliance by schools. Perhaps that assumption is incorrect? If someone else can find a provision for same, please show me where it is. I'd really like to get this cleared up somehow.
Carrying that thought one step further, and looking even deeper into the Gun Free School Zones Act, it's pretty clear there were no provisions included under the law for penalties that might be levied on schools choosing non-compliance with the law, itself....at least that I could find. There are quite a few provisions for penalties that apply to those who bring guns into a designated gun free zone, but penalties for non-compliance related to implementation by a school? None that I can find. Again, if someone else can find a provision for same, please show me where it is because I'd really like to get this cleared up somehow.
Why is that important? It's important because schools apparently are not absolutely required to implement this law, this 'gun free zone' law. The actual requirement, if one wishes to call it that, is a matter of funding according to the U.S. Department of Education. So, if they're not actually required of schools anywhere, why the push by NRA, etal, to get rid of them as if they are required? That might just be a rhetorical question, eh? But I digress....
If I'm reading the law correctly, if school districts wish to receive certain kinds of funding from the Department of Education, they must declare their schools as 'Gun Free Zones' under that law. That's it. That's the extent of the law as far as I can tell. The law, itself, apparently does not absolutely require all schools nationally to be a 'gun free zone' in order to comply with the law just because it is the law or just because a school is a school. Compliance with the Federal law is tied to funding. Weird, huh? Individual states are a whole different story, but we're talking about the Federal law in this blog post, and that's where my focus will stay.
That then begs the question why....why the focus on eliminating 'gun free zones' entirely? Should that kind of mandate be codified into law? Should it originate at the Federal level? State level? Local level? Should it apply only to schools since that's what the original law did? Should it apply across the board to include public venues, churches, places of business, homes?
Confusing?
Well, things may be about to get even more confusing.
There are currently many states that already allow guns on their campuses. In fact, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, many states allow guns on K-12 campuses in some capacity as of March 8, 2019.
Then why are so-called 'gun free zones' the big bugaboo so many pro-gun advocates make them out to be? Might it be that pro-gun advocates try to make 'gun free zones' into something they were never intended to be? The logic in that premise is actually pretty solid from where I sit.
For example, and to use the argument put forward by the more pro-gun side in this debate, guns are inanimate objects. Using that very same logic, though, signs are inanimate objects, as well. I hear it all the time from pro-gun advocates that a 'gun free zone' sign won't stop someone from committing mass murder. I agree simply from a perspective that inanimate objects are incapable of anything without human intervention of some sort. That being said, in the very next breath, those very same pro-gun advocates promote the idea that miscreants view a 'gun free zone' sign and consider it a magnet that draws them to a very soft target even though no definitive research has ever, not even once, proven this premise to have any validity whatsoever.
Carrying this logic even one step further, it might be safe to say virtually everyone has seen some version of the pro-gun argument that "guns don't kill people...people kill people" cliche'. That statement assumes the gun is an inanimate object, a 'tool' as some like to label it....and rightfully so. But, in the very next breath, those same folks blow up their own premise more often than not by trying to convince us that "guns save lives". Well, if guns don't kill people because they're inanimate objects, how can guns possibly 'save' people? They're inanimate, right? How can they suddenly be capable of an act to save someone if they're inanimate? A conundrum if ever there was one, and there are some who've had a really, really, really hard time wrapping their heads around that conundrum when confronted with it!
Bottom line? Does anyone realistically believe for one second that a sign imprinted with 'GUN FREE ZONE' was ever intended to physically 'stop' someone intent on doing harm to others? Pretty silly, right? Or, put another way, how is a 'GUN FREE ZONE' any different, really, than a stop sign as far as the intended purpose of said sign might be?
Both signs, Gun Free Zone signs and stop signs, are there to provide notice of consequences to violators for actions taken that violate the intent of the laws those signs were created under. Unfortunately, in so many instances of mass murder, the violator's penalty is a self-inflicted suicide along with what those having little emotional attachment often times call 'collateral damage'. In those instances, the suicide of the perpetrator(s) is the penalty or consequence of their actions while abdicating taking any responsibility for their actions and also preventing society from exacting any penalties or being able to impose any level of responsibility for the tragedy. And that, to me, may be a more subtle, nuanced reason behind pro-gun advocates desire to eliminate 'gun free zones'. Yes, they want to neutralize a mass shooter as quickly as possible to minimize fatalities and injuries. But might there also be a little bit of a vigilante mentality wending its way into the psyche of the hero who takes down the mass shooter? Just some food for thought.
But I digress......
If 'gun free zones' are legislatively eliminated, will it be from a Federal level? State level, perhaps? Will local jurisdictions and/or school districts have a say in whether or not they actually want these 'gun free zones' to go away? Serious question, folks.
If 'gun free zones' are, by law, eliminated no matter the level of government doing so, doesn't that also mean businesses, public venues, churches, and homeowners who'd like to keep those locations free of guns will be forced to allow guns on their premises....against their wishes? Talk about government over-reach!!!!!
My two cents!
* Comments on this blog are moderated.
