Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Zero-Tolerance Gone Too Far
Liberty Belles ^ | March 9, 2004 | .Jennifer Freeman

Posted on 03/10/2004 7:49:57 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The "Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994" requires a one-year expulsion of any student who brings a firearm to any elementary or secondary school that receives federal funding. The Act allows "the chief administering officer of such local educational agency to modify such expulsion requirement for a student on a case-by-case basis."

Many public schools have taken the liberty to expand this policy to include toy guns, food items being used as toy guns, and children pointing their fingers like guns. Most would agree that this is ludricious, with the exception of many schoolteachers and policymakers whose melodramatic paranoia of anything gun-like is beyond any semblance of reason.

This reefer-madness mentality about firearms is a major contributing factor to the total lack of education about the Second Amendment in our nation's schools. Plus, it creates a mysterious, forbidden mystique about firearms that generates a natural curiosity among young people. A curiosity that puts some at risk as they may not have had any education about firearms or firearm safety and are certainly not going to get such an education at school.

This hyper-sensitivity to all-things-gun may have just cost a California high school senior his future. The high school senior, Adam Liston, is a responsible, hard working, patriotic, honor student. Always one to follow the rules and never one to get in trouble, Adam was a model student, but he was also a gun owner. A gun owner who committed a crime.

Adam's crime was that of forgetfulness. As is typical of a teenager he forgot. They forget all kinds of things, don't they? But, this one just might ruin his chances at a life that he has barely begun.

The high-schooler purchased a shotgun, legally, for his 18th birthday. Being an avid sportsman, he enjoyed shooting before and after school and during lunch breaks, off campus. But, the young man forgot to remove his unloaded shotgun before returning to school one day. A fellow student, having seen Mr. Liston's shotgun in the gun-rack on the back of his pickup on a previous day, reported Adam to the principal's office.

The principal called Adam into his office and asked for permission to search the truck. Mr. Liston agreed. That's all fine and well. We understand that the principal was merely trying to ensure that Davis High School was in compliance with the "Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994."

What we don't understand is why four police units were also on the scene. After all, Adam Liston was not hostile or disturbed. He was a model citizen and honor student. He cooperated with the principal. No threats or anti-social behavior had been demonstrated by him. And yet, the police were there in full force.

Upon retrieving the unloaded shotgun, Adam Liston, high school honor student, was charged with two felonies. If convicted, he can never own a firearm again and he will always have trouble finding a job. This incident of simple forgetfulness will follow him for the rest of his life thanks to his educators at Davis High School. He was also expelled, of course.

Our nation's educators have taken their gun-phobia to an extreme that has become dangerous to our children. Unable to keep their emotions in check, school officials are now ruining the lives of otherwise good kids.

What will society do as Adam's fate hangs in the balance? Will regular folks step in and demand an end to this rampant discrimination against gun owners? Or will we continue to kowtow to the whining, sniveling, rats who demand that we submit and deny ourselves our rights in order to preserve the status quo?

Davis High School - (530) 757-5400

Davis Joint Unified School District - (530) 757-5300 ext. 142

Yolo County Unified School District - (530) 668-3703

Davis Police Department, Investigations Unit - (530) 747-5430


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; education; expulsion; federalfunding; felonies; guncontrol; guns; police; publicschool; zerotolerance
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 last
Well, I think I've made my point.

G'nite.
61 posted on 03/10/2004 11:32:45 PM PST by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Sure, the 2nd says he should, but the law says he shouldn't.

If he did it delibertly, I applaud him for his courage.

If he forgot he had a SHOtGUN in his truck, he's a dumba$$.
62 posted on 03/10/2004 11:39:19 PM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cali_cptlsm
I agree I was being somewhat hypocritical. I should rather say I PERSONALLY think the law in unconstitutional . But I have no doubt the federal courts will allow it never the less. Should someone disobey a law they think is unconstitutional ? well call me a coward but when your married with 2 kids sometimes you grudgingly toe big brother's line.

Whether or not you should disobey an unconstitutional law is not what we've been discussing.

The issue is your contemptuous attitude toward a citizen who is facing criminal charges for violating a law you believe is unconstitutional.

63 posted on 03/10/2004 11:47:17 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

Comment #64 Removed by Moderator

To: philetus
Sure, the 2nd says he should, but the law says he shouldn't.

Agreed. The point I'm trying to get across to the poster is that the Second Amendment is supposed to be the Supreme Law.

His contempt should be for the unconstitutional GFSA, not for a citizen exercising the RBKA.

If he did it delibertly, I applaud him for his courage.

If he forgot he had a SHOtGUN in his truck, he's a dumba$$.

Possibly so, but the focus belongs on the Second Amendment violation and Commerce Clause abuse, IMO.

65 posted on 03/11/2004 12:17:51 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
"the focus belongs on the Second Amendment violation and Commerce Clause abuse"

I'm inclined to agree with you there since, If the second had not been hijacked, there would be no crime.

66 posted on 03/11/2004 12:23:09 AM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; GunsareOK; George Frm Br00klyn Park; Pippin; Marylander; ...
LOL! Better not do that now! Nancy Grasmick would personally throw you in jail and lose the key!
67 posted on 03/11/2004 5:25:47 AM PST by sauropod (I intend to have Red Kerry choke on his past.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
Great job on this thread! I've enjoyed reading your responses to the bootlicker.
68 posted on 03/11/2004 6:32:17 AM PST by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: dd5339; cavtrooper21
ping
69 posted on 03/11/2004 7:56:26 AM PST by Vic3O3 (Jeremiah 31:16-17 (KJV))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
When I was in the third grade, you could still order a shotgun from Herters by filling out the form in the catalog and signing your check. It (the shotgun) would come in the mail.

We have been trying to stop sliding down the slippery slope since Barry Goldwater lost the presidential election.

70 posted on 03/11/2004 10:39:49 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (As the oldest generation dies, the memory of liberty fades into obscurity, replaced by an impostor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: archy
Just a thought. It dawns on me that everyone (almost) picks up the definition from the USC for "militia", even though the Second Amendment antedates the USC and the adoption of the Constitution.

Perhaps it is in this that the original meaning of the amendment is being lost.

Contemporary dictionary definitions of "Militia" (simply: "the Army") and "regulated" (in a word: "Controlled"), when substituted, yield the basis of the amendment. To wit: A well-controlled Army being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The idea being that the overwhelming numbers of armed citizens, even in the absence of martial training, could keep the Army in check should it no longer be subservient to the Civil power.

The discussion is to be found in the Federalist Papers, where the question of a standing army, and its size (if any)is dealt with.

Unfortunately, relying on a later definition of militia opens the door to the entire militia v.s. National Guard v.s. population in general argument and obfusticates the notion of the RKBA.

Note also that the word 'State' has undergone radical transformation from the pre-ratification era (one of my ancestors swore an oath to the Soverign State of Maryland, prior to the Articles of Confederation)to the post-Civil War era, when 'States' had become mere political subdivisions, and not soverign nations united for the purpose of a common defense, and to promote the general welfare....

71 posted on 03/11/2004 11:06:19 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (As the oldest generation dies, the memory of liberty fades into obscurity, replaced by an impostor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The problem nowadays is that nobody knows what DISCRETION is anymore.

Zerotolerance is the epidomy of the law of unintended consequences. You get hysteria by a few sucker moms scared of gang bangers and you get a law of zero tolerance.

And oftentimes people like Adam are the ones caught.

72 posted on 03/11/2004 11:15:44 PM PST by Dan from Michigan (""....but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America"")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Me, I would've just told Adam to take the firearm home and not bring it back...
73 posted on 03/13/2004 10:35:38 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Hi, I'm Sydney Biddle-Barrows, and this is Whore Stories!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: breakem
My name, of course, refers to the "tolerance" displayed by the banning of Santa Claus in Kensington, as opposed to the common-sense tolerance of minor, unintended infractions.
74 posted on 03/13/2004 10:40:33 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Hi, I'm Sydney Biddle-Barrows, and this is Whore Stories!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Actually, if I remember correctly, the "commerce" version of the law was thrown out by the Supreme Court as well, but some Clintonites simply tacked it on another bill as an amendment, so here we are...
75 posted on 03/13/2004 10:43:10 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Hi, I'm Sydney Biddle-Barrows, and this is Whore Stories!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Cali_cptlsm
Relax. Newbies are exposed all the time. You're no different.
76 posted on 03/13/2004 11:15:56 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Hi, I'm Sydney Biddle-Barrows, and this is Whore Stories!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
you're taking this way too seriously
77 posted on 03/13/2004 4:59:09 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson