« 5th Circuit Frees Two Texas Districts From Desegregation Order | Main | Milwaukee Teachers May Display Bargaining Signs in Class, Court Rules »

The Second Amendment and Guns Near Schools


With the U.S. Supreme Court ruling 5-4 today that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a gun unconnected to a militia, I thought I'd point out the lengthy decision's few references to schools.

In his opinion for the 5-4 majority in District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia has a passage stressing that the ruling "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

In his dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer questioned why Scalia believed those exceptions were consistent with the Second Amendment.

"Given the purposes for which the Framers enacted the Second Amendment, how should it be applied to modern-day circumstances that they could not have anticipated?" Justice Breyer asked. "Assume, for argument’s sake, that the Framers did intend the Amendment to offer a degree of self-defense protection. Does that mean that the Framers also intended to guarantee a right to possess a loaded gun near swimming pools, parks, and playgrounds? That they would not have cared about the children who might pick up a loaded gun on their parents’ bedside table?"

The Chicago Board of Education had filed this brief on the side of the District of Columbia, which cited a rash of violence against school-aged youths in arguing in support of letting local communities restrict guns.


Guns don't kill people. Children of neglectful parents kill people. Before anybody talks about more restrictions on handguns, we need to start a discussion about how to hold parents responsible; parents who let their kids run amok in schools and neighborhoods without any supervision.

The fallout from a case like this is dangerous. How the courts can simply ignore crime issue is amazing.

Justice Stevens' dissent is severely flawed and it is scary to think that one more dissenter would have effectively repealed the second amendment. Stevens' premise is that the 2nd states that the 'right' extends to only bone fide miltia members to store the weapons of war within their homes to to engage in armed conflict on behalf of the state/federal government in defense of what those governments dictate. The absurdity of a 'right not to be infringed' declared in the Constitution to apply to service in a bone fide military organization is hard to comprehend. Why would the Framers need to guarantee the right of someone in a combat miltia the 'right' to be in a combat militia fighting? Does that then mean that you have a right to be in a militia if you so want that cannot be infringed? First let's ask who was the militia? At the time it was ordinary, able citizens who voluntarily formed defensive units. They provided their own weapons. Yet Stevens equates them to State National Guards under the direction of the governor. Would this then mean that Guardsmen can 'keep' their weapons of war at their homes? Would this then include mortars, TOWs, Bradleys & M60-A2's? Or, if it truly only applies to militias, then folks in the Michigan and other militias should have the right to keep & bear all manner of offensive & defensive weapons including Stingers, Tomahawks & MRVs. If only Guardsmen have the 'right not to be infringed' to store war weaponry at their homes and to fight in active combat for their country, what about the NAVY, ARMY, AF & Marines? What would these guardsman be allowed to fight for......perhaps only things that Justice Stevens sanctioned......perhaps a women's right to choose (abortion on demand)? The militias could shoot abortion protesters. Maybe the 'rights' of the enemy combatants to go before a US judge? How about forced school busing? Or better yet, enforce the elimination of 'hate speech' and the implementation of the 'fairness doctrine'. But Stevens does not have to worry about being patently ridiculous, he's a Supreme Court Justice appointed for life so he can be as dumb as a box of hammers and we can't do anything about it.

I agree with DaveTeacher. They need to track down the legal parent/gaurdian of the child who commited the crime and convict them as well. And take away any governmental assistance they may have.

Comments are now closed for this post.

Follow This Blog


Most Viewed on Education Week



Recent Comments