@Danny4 makes a good point. The school system isn’t suspending him for going to the range. They took a kid out of school that showed a video of guns on his social media account with the title, “Going to be a good time.” The school doesn’t have the same ability to make quick decisions about a situation like the PD did, so the kid has to go through the process the school has set up for situations like this.
Is it a pain for the kid and family? Yeah, but actions have consequences, he’s finding that out. If he posted the video and said, “I had a great time at the range today with mom” it might have had a different outcome. He didn’t get his guns confiscated so, as two different 2A lawyers in the article stated, no one has violated his rights. He’s also finding out that while everyone has free speech, there are limitations on it concerning public safety. For all the kids at his school knew, “Going to be a good time,” could be the same as running into a theater and yelling fire.
I’m sure this isn’t going to be a popular post, but as Beth Alcazar pointed out in her post today, gun owners have to go the extra mile to be better citizens, “We don’t need to give them any “ammunition” to use against us so they can claim that we would jump at the chance to use our guns or that we have the desire to hurt other people.”
I’m on board @@Danny4 Mom and Dad should be acutely aware of what kids are doing especially online or buy software to combat this. But parents can’t be everywhere and see everything 100% of the time in her defense. Hopefully many many people and parents are/will learn from this occurrence.
In sure my school district would. If I had kids, they are not attending any school in my area. The education system is flawed. So, I don’t think they would side with an armed parent teach their kids common sense safety in a shady area. I govern my life and home. The teachers where I live are mostly from “the other side”, so . …
I’m not saying it’s right, I’m saying that’s the way it is. When we put our business out in the street like that, we need to expect that people out there will make judgments and act accordingly on those judgements (right or wrong).
Just another cautionary tale of over-sharing (or sharing with people who really aren’t your friends despite their FB affiliation with you).
Again, not saying it’s right…but that’s the way it is.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this one, @JamesR. The way it is doesn’t mean it’s right. No one ever said life was fair. (I sound like my mother.) I don’t agree with what the school did due to a video about shooting at the range.
Should the boy have used better judgement? Yes.
Should the school have at least given him his homework so he could keep up while they investigated? Yes.
Ok, I just responded to another thread in the Community and it spurred a “paranoid thought” based on social media engagement comments on this thread.
Are our responses to these threads captured anywhere and accessible at a later date should they be needed? And what if that later date “need” is by a government attempting to figure out who has what kind of firearms and how many for whatever nefarious reason?
I trust USCCA as a “fail safe” to blow all the servers with C4 in protection of their membership should that day ever occur?
Anything posted on the internet is pretty much accessible to anyone who has enough technical knowledge. The most technologically sound organizations (banks, governments, etc.) have been hacked.
Watch for an upcoming topic (tomorrow at 2) about what you say online.
My personal philosophy and advice: Don’t assume anything is safe online. Only post what I’m willing to have the whole world see (including my grandmother if she was still alive.) When my kids got their Facebook accounts I was their first friend and their grandmother was one of the first 10. Why? Because they wouldn’t post anything they didn’t want their grandmother to see. And then Instagram and Snapchat came out…
Well, a couple blocks, some det cord, a couple blast caps and an initiating device and I can show you what I learned during AF EOD (although that was a couple decades ago so I may be a bit rusty), lol.
In light of that, I’m definitely not purchasing any more weapons, so any weapons I’ve currently admitted to owning online are the only ones I have and in fact, I don’t know that I’ll be keeping those much longer, I’m thinking about getting rid of everything except for my 12ga and .22 rifle…….for the record.
Well I talk to my preacher about guns all the time, in fact he comes out shooting with us sometimes. I’m not worried about telling him about weapons I own…but other eyes/ears…maybe not so much (as I adjust my foil hat).
After reading through this thread again there appears to me to be a significant point that is being missed.
The school didn’t suspend the student because he posted pictures of guns on social media. They suspended him because they received a “Safe2Tell” report. Basically the schools equivalent of an ERPO. He was suspended before any investigation was done. In the schools eyes, the police report was irrelevant.
The good news is that after a significant outcry from both the public and local/state government officials the school expedited the hearing and quickly reinstated the student. The principal suggested that the student no longer made those types of social media posts. The student’s mother objected telling the principal that he was on a slippery slope trying to restrict first amendment rights.
Now the question is, is there going to be any investigation into the individual who placed the call? I doubt it, for two reasons. One, I think the school just wants this behind them and two, if I’m not mistaken this was an anonymous report and they most likely don’t want to create a situation where students won’t make legitimate reports. Can’t say I blame them for that. I have no problem with the anonymous reports but they need to be investigated BEFORE action is taken.
I disagree with the schools decision. He, the student, was with a parent. I’m sure he was also being instructed by his parent the safe ways to handle a weapon, etc. If this was my child I would most certainly retain some legal counsel and pursue what ever legal recourse I would have as the parent.
Nonsense like this is why the two grandchildren living here in Texas were home schooled. My grandson tried public school for one semester. He started getting into some trouble because he was bored stiff. The public school system was over one complete year behind what his mother was teaching under state guidelines set for home schooling. Our public education system has run completely off the rails. I feel that much of this is due to parents not properly teaching their children the essential skills needed for life. Therefore the school systems are having to take up this roll which causes problems for the rest of the students by having to reduce standards to meet the goals of percentage of students passing from grade to grade. It’s just a revolving door education system that’s broken.
@Richard_Anthony,
Let me use other words: It was not wise to post that video.
I’m not discussing school decision here. However showing guns after recent shooting wasn’t a bright idea…
My kids graduated from High School few years ago and I knew how social media could change their education. Teachers were monitoring internet activities all the time.
And I understand where you are coming from. I served the people of the United States and I support every lawful activity. This kid was punished for a lawful act which is something I do not condone. The school officials are playing mommy/daddy. They should not punish a kid for something that does not have anything to do with the school.
Respectfully Submitted
Sgt Stewart, Richard Anthony
I am going to have to disagree, nothing in [quote=“Shepherd, post:21, topic:10031”]
“Going to be a good time.”
[/quote] indicates a threat against the school or and individual. The school chose to interpret it that way and that is why they need to take that school to court. Once the PD cleared the kid the school should have realized that they were wrong. Instead they are doubling down claiming a policy requires them to do this (yet not making any suggestion about reviewing that policy).
