H.R. 34: The Safe Students Act

It's not very often that, as time goes on and politicians hold office for longer and longer, that I find myself liking any of them more than when they took office. Even more rare is when it's my own congressman.

Enter Congressman Thomas Massie, Republican (although mostly libertarian) Representative from Kentucky's 4th District.

Following a long string of good ideas from him comes his newly sponsored bill, H.R. 34: The Safe Students Act. In this bill, he and his five cosponsors are proposing the repeal of the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 (and any associated amendments), which is what made willful and known possession of firearms on school grounds a federal offense. On top of that, states have made the prohibitions found in the appropriate federal statutes even stricter in many cases.

To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Safe Students Act”.

SEC. 2. Repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act.

(a) In general.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (q).

(b) Related amendments.—

(1) Section 921(a) of such title is amended by striking paragraphs (25) through (27) and redesignating paragraphs (28), (29), and (32) through (35) as paragraphs (25) through (30), respectively.


(2) Section 924(a) of such title is amended—


(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking “(k), or (q)” and inserting “or (k)”; and

(B) by striking paragraph (4) and redesignating paragraphs (5) through (7) as paragraphs (4) through (6), respectively.

(3) The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (18 U.S.C. 921 note, 922 note; section 1702 of Public Law 101–647; 104 Stat. 4844–4845) is repealed.

Pertinent links (please read them):

18 U.S. Code § 922(q)
18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(25-27)
18 U.S. Code § 924(a)(4)

I find this to be a great move for multiple reasons, but the main one being that there is no way that the federal government can protect our schools by threatening those of us who are law-abiding citizens and choose to legally carry firearms with imprisonment and fines if we practice our right on campus. This also gives the power to the state to choose if they want to ban firearms themselves if they so choose, and allow those who prefer to have civilians legally carrying firearms to do so if they so choose.

I know that this is a heated debate, and I know that emotions run high in the days following, but one thing is blatantly obvious: Laws do not stop these insane individuals from coming on campus and destroying as many lives as possible before administrators and students have to rely on law enforcement to show up--law enforcement that is often times precious minutes away.

These are minutes that these children do not generally have in these situations. I'm not saying that civilians who are legally carrying firearms will obviously save the day every time, or even ever, but I don't understand the mentality of people who claim that it's absolutely the best idea to only rely on government authority to come save the day.

According to ArmedCampuses.org, there are currently (from me pointing and counting at their interactive map):

- 7 states that allow concealed carry on campuses by law
- 5 states that allow concealed carry, but schools can limit who and where they can carry
- 10 state that prohibit concealed carry by law
- 20 states that allow the school districts to decide their weapons policy
- 8 states that allow concealed gun only in locked, parked cars

Yes, I know that this adds up to 51, and I counted twice...but that's unimportant.

Florida, the most recent school shooting, falls in the category where concealed firearms are allowed, but only locked up in parked cars. There is no way to tell for certain, but I wonder if they were the 8th state to allow concealed carry by law if the number of dead and wounded wouldn't be less, or, in the best case scenario, zero. But again, that will never be answered.

Regardless, I applaud Rep. Massie for sponsoring this bill, and while I don't see it necessarily passing, I have hopes that it will.

Please, if you are going to comment, read the links and actually use the information that I provided to help form an educated comment. I really don't want a bunch of appeals to emotion and ad hominems inundating this thread. Thank you for your cooperation.

I don't disagree with the bill in theory, I believe guns are great for self defense and defending others, but what happens when these guns are then used for even more shootings? If there is an uptick in school shootings will anyone agree that it was a bad idea? It just seems like it's going to give these psychos even easier access to their weapons of choice. Not saying that's true, just a thought I'm having.

Like I said, the bill sounds good on paper but there's always downsides to almost everything.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I don't think anybody is going to say "well I wanted to shoot up my school but it used to be illegal for me to carry a gun there to commit mass murder so I didn't but now that I can carry a gun there without catching a gun-in-a-school-zone charge, I'm totally gonna do it now!" That's assuming it's a person who's legally allowed to have a firearm in their possession to begin with, of course.

Possible, but seems a wee bit unlikely to me.

a reply to: Shamrock6

You may be right. Like I said, it sounds great on paper but I'm willing to bet that someone who decides to shoot up a school isn't very concerned with their own life to begin with so guns wouldn't deter them. I may be wrong and it's always good to have an extra line of defense though.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

My thought on this would be that its designed to allow what many are now discussing as a critical need in the schools. Armed guards and entrance way checkpoints and searches. Its quite obviously way to easy for anyone to just walk into these schools to do their damage.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Like Shamrock6 notes, criminals--and especially mentally deranged criminals--will not give two massive turds about whether or not a law exists or has yet been repealed.

There are always downsides to everything, but as far as this conversation goes, I think that the biggest downside to the Gun-Free School Zone laws is that it leaves our children and teachers and administrators without an effective means of protection.

The reason that I linked to the Armed Campuses site was so that people could realize how many places actually allow (at the state level, anyhow) concealed carry without outright legislating against it. Of course, most schools, when allowed by the state, opt to deny weapons on school grounds, but the point is that just because some places have laws allowing this, it does not correlate to more school shootings.

And no, I won't agree that just because school shootings might increase after this bill that the bill is the cause of it--that's a logical fallacy to do so, and a hypothetical that would be nearly impossible to prove.

In the same sense, I wouldn't say that the only reason if school shootings decrease was because of the law, either. The goal for me is to allow there to be force met nearly immediately with equal force if anyone in the school is willing to take on such a responsibility. Making these people in these schools rely on the wait time of law enforcement because of misplaced ideology by legislators is not an appropriate answer.

a reply to: TonyS

Possibly, but I have spoken with Mr. Massie personally, and I know how big of an advocate of concealed carry is for the average citizen. I'm quite certain that, in his mind, he's assuming that this would allow civilians to be armed as well, not just security or administrators and teachers.

In any case, I would almost guarantee that even in states where it is prohibited, there are allowances for police officers and hired security.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'm willing to bet that someone who decides to shoot up a school isn't very concerned with their own life to begin with so guns wouldn't deter them.

That I would agree with. I don't have any hard numbers at hand, but I'd imagine that they would generally either be in it to suicide themselves, or be in it until LE gets there and does it for them. I may be entirely wrong, but that's my gut feeling.

Like the Secret Service often says: nothing can stop a determined person on a mission, but we can make it as difficult for them to succeed as humanly possible.

Would this bill do anything to stop somebody? Maybe, maybe not. But that whole "you can't have a gun here" hasn't seemed to do much either.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I don't disagree with the bill in theory, I believe guns are great for self defense and defending others, but what happens when these guns are then used for even more shootings? If there is an uptick in school shootings will anyone agree that it was a bad idea? It just seems like it's going to give these psychos even easier access to their weapons of choice. Not saying that's true, just a thought I'm having.

Like I said, the bill sounds good on paper but there's always downsides to almost everything.

I could be wrong, but i do not think there has ever been a shooting where the shooter was licensed to carry their firearm.

When I got my license, i was told by the local sheriff that presenting my license when detained essentially flags me as one of "the good guys" to the cops, because the background check I had to go through to get it to begin with.

a reply to: TonyS

Its quite obviously way to easy for anyone to just walk into these schools to do their damage

This is what I don't understand.

My kids' school is locked from open to close. The main entrance is locked, and to gain access you have to be buzzed in. There's a camera over door that is piped in to the school office so they know who's buzzing. Side doors are not left open, nor unlocked. If a door is opened to take students outside, a teacher is assigned to that door to ensure nobody enters who isn't supposed to be there, and then the door is resecured once the students return inside.

Why are schools still open to the point that people can wander around? Why are schools still open to the point that a person expelled the year before can return and stroll inside?

It's mind boggling that even the most basic protective measures aren't taken.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
Makes sense to me. Schools in my county have been protected properly for years, and now that my kids are in them I am thankful even more so.

Your congressman has a lot of sense, I hope you continue to vote him in.

I'm sure the police LOVE this legislation. Definitely makes their job easier.

I know they LOVED it when the passed Campus Carry in my state.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I would bet that in poor states, open corridor schools are still present. I know in West Texas you can still find some with at least partially open corridors.

In fact, the high school in the town I just moved from has no doors locked. Kids come and go all day on a closed campus because some moron set up a program with the local Junior College, but didn't plan to make it fit within policy. Sothey ignore policy.

About once a year a local thug goes into the school and beats up another thug that owes him money or something.

The old junior high that is used for the alternative school has open corridors, too. Before they built 3 new elementaries about 3 years ago, there were 3 open corridor elementary schools, too.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I would bet that in poor states, open corridor schools are still present.

Of course, as usual it always comes down to money.

In no way am I wishing for it, but one can only wonder if attitudes would change if something like this happened "close to home" or if it would stay business as usual.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

a reply to: Shamrock6

I agree about the lack of concern for their life, too (although this jackass in Florida negates that thought), and one of my first comments when I saw it happening live on the news was that they were probably either going to find the guy dead of a self-inflicted gunshot or it was going to end in a purposeful suicide-by-cop situation.

Honestly, I'm glad that he was found alive, but I'm not cool with the reality that he will be tied up in the legal system with mandatory appeals and whatnot. Honestly, I'd rather pay for one bullet than many years of incarceration and judicial hearings for this punk.

Regardless, I was surprised to see that he was caught alive.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I know that this is a heated debate, and I know that emotions run high in the days following, but one thing is blatantly obvious: Laws do not stop these insane individuals from coming on campus and destroying as many lives as possible before administrators and students have to rely on law enforcement to show up--law enforcement that is often times precious minutes away.

One thing that is blatantly obvious that you failed to acknowledge, is the AR-15 is the weapon of choice for many of these mass shootings. Laws can stop the mentally ill and young people under the age of 21 from "legally" purchasing a gun, period. A thorough background check including Facebook and Twitter posts of the individual would clearly help identify and sound alarms about these people from purchasing guns. Getting feedback from their physicians would also go a long way. Today doctors can prevent the elderly from driving cars if they feel their reaction time is dangerous for them and other people on the road!

The AR-15 is not a hunting gun and it's basic design was for use in the military. Should we also allow "bump stocks" and silencers to be legal? Hunters surely don't use these guns when they hunt. So do we also allow people to posses flame throwers?

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Being fluent in sarcasm, it's hard to tell if you're being serious, or sarcastic.

Damn internet...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

In this bill, he and his five cosponsors are proposing the repeal of the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 (and any associated amendments), which is what made willful and known possession of firearms on school grounds a federal offense.

Kudos to these Reps

From a purely practical perspective, when folks have seconds to spare and cops are just minutes away, the gun-free schools law makes absolutely no sense. Obviously, someone willing to commit mass murder is not going to let a gun ban get in their way... exactly the opposite. They will exploit and take advantage of their victims' disadvantage for maximum carnage and death.

From a Constitutional and organic law perspective -- yup! Here I go again -- it is perhaps the grossest and most sadistic violation of our absolute inalienable right to life... and the attendant rights to protect and defend and nurture that life. And that includes proportional force. Govt has no good reason to deny us those rights. But when we all KNOW that no law will keep guns out of the hands of bad guys, and govt willfully and deliberately denies us the opportunity for equal and proportional force, we are become fish in a barrel. And they know it.

To be honest, I do not think repealing the gun-free schools law will stop anyone from shooting up a school again. What I do think is that allowing responsible carrying by responsible citizens will level the playing field, and at least provide an opportunity for anyone present to stop the shooter with equal and proportionate force. We cannot save all lives, but we can and must do what we can to minimize lives lost.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I don't have any hard numbers at hand, but I'd imagine that they would generally either be in it to suicide themselves, or be in it until LE gets there and does it for them. I may be entirely wrong, but that's my gut feeling.

For what it's worth, that's my gut feeling too. Folks who do not value life for its own sake cannot and therefore do not value their own life either. They know going in that their life is over one way or another. And may very well prefer death on the spot to capital punishment or life in prison.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: SlapMonkey

One thing that is blatantly obvious that you failed to acknowledge, is the AR-15 is the weapon of choice for many of these mass shootings. Laws can stop the mentally ill and young people under the age of 21 from "legally" purchasing a gun, period.

This person in Florida (choosing not to use his name) brought a firearm onto school grounds and murdered people. Laws don't stop the criminally insane from doing that which is their goal.

A thorough background check including Facebook and Twitter posts of the individual would clearly help identify and sound alarms about these people from purchasing guns.

No, because honestly, free speech is not grounds to deny someone their second-amendment rights. If what he wrote was so criminal, why did the FBI not arrest him by then?

Facebook and other social media platforms are easily hacked and easily used by people other than the actual person, as well as users don't always post as who they actually are. So, no, social media should not be used as a metric to deny someone a constitutionally protected right.

Getting feedback from their physicians would also go a long way. Today doctors can prevent the elderly from driving cars if they feel their reaction time is dangerous for them and other people on the road!

Do you not understand that medical records are protected by law, even from other government agencies without a warrant? What you are advocating is absolute overreach, plain and simple. Most of us are not willing to give up our rights to privacy for a false sense of security, which is all that would come from what you are citing.

The AR-15 is not a hunting gun and it's basic design was for use in the military. Should we also allow "bump stocks" and silencers to be legal? Hunters surely don't use these guns when they hunt. So do we also allow people to posses flame throwers?

Don't openly display your ignorance for all to see. AR15s are absolutely great hunting rifles, and in my state of Kentucky (well, commonwealth), the .223/.556 round is approved for dear hunting, although the AR10 platform, shooting .308 would be a better choice, as it's more likely to put the target down better. I know more than a few people who hunt with both the AR platform and what you would consider standard hunting rifles. Most like the AR better, but generally the weather dictates which one they will use.

So, some hunters surely do use these guns when they hunt--let's not generalize groups of people out of ignorance.

11 Best ARs for Deer Hunting in 2014