Categories
Uncategorized

This gun case was a waste of time

This gun case was a win for the gun owner, but a waste of time. A teacher in Florida was told that he could not have a gun in his car because the school district forbade it through a rule that had been adopted by the school board. Someone had anonymously informed the school on several occasions that he had a gun on campus, the school had searched him and his vehicle several times without finding a gun.

State law generally prevents people from carrying guns on school grounds. But the law has exceptions, including allowing people to have guns in cars if the firearms are secured. However, school districts can approve policies that prevent guns in campus parking lots, as long as that policy is in accordance with state law. The teacher argued that the rule as adopted by the board was not in compliance with the law, and filed a lawsuit. He specifically said that the rule, which stated that:

“No person except law enforcement and security officers may have in his/her possession any weapon, illegal substance, or dangerous substance.”

Was vague and did not specifically prohibit firearms.

The trial court agreed that the rule was not in compliance with the law, but also ruled that the teacher was not entitled to damages or relief because he had not suffered any damages, since he hadn’t been fired, suspended, or otherwise disciplined.

The state’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled that the “courts generally have not required individuals to subject themselves to penalties to establish an adverse effect” in order to be able to challenge a law. The court went on to say that “[the teacher] was an employee of the high school and subject to the challenged policy. Furthermore, [the teacher] actively sought to keep a firearm in his vehicle. However, [the teacher] refrained from doing so because his employer informed him that the policy was enforced and a violation of the policy would subject him to discipline, up to and including termination. Under these facts, [that teacher] was affected by [the rule against firearms in a vehicle], and adversely so.

So now the school board has been told that the rule in place that prohibits, expect them to rewrite it to specifically include firearms. I don’t really understand what this win accomplished. It seems like it was a complete waste of everyone’s time and resources. It’s almost like the lawsuit was filed by an SJW who wanted to make sure the rule against guns was improved.

3 replies on “This gun case was a waste of time”

How does this not run afoul of state preemption in FL? The local school board is a political entity so they shouldn’t have the authority to expand make new gun restrictions.

Or is there an exception for school boards?

The state law says:

(2)(a) A person shall not possess any firearm, electric weapon or device, destructive device, or other weapon as defined in s. 790.001(13), including a razor blade or box cutter, except as authorized in support of school-sanctioned activities, at a school-sponsored event or on the property of any school, school bus, or school bus stop; however, a person may carry a firearm:
1. In a case to a firearms program, class or function which has been approved in advance by the principal or chief administrative officer of the school as a program or class to which firearms could be carried;
2. In a case to a career center having a firearms training range; or
3. In a vehicle pursuant to s. 790.25(5); except that school districts may adopt written and published policies that waive the exception in this subparagraph for purposes of student and campus parking privileges.

Comments are closed.