New Jersey School Suspends Students For Going to Range with Parents.

I hope they get a nice big settlement out of it. Something sufficiently large to make the school wince.
 
KONG-D'SNT-TAP said:
I told you before when I quoted you that you were lying. Not too quick are you
Click to expand...

Yawn. I posted several states right above what you quoted, but I know Wyoming is hard to sound out when you breathe through your mouth.
 
Scrody said:
Yawn. I posted several states right above what you quoted, but I know Wyoming is hard to sound out when you breathe through your mouth.
Click to expand...


So You’re saying on average the places with the most guns and the loosest laws have the least gun related problems?

Cause that’s where you’re lying
 
Kong is tapping. Tap....dancing.
 
alanb said:
I don't think we are disagreeing on the holding of the case. Just whether the regulation is in fact over broad or not. I think that the fact this governs weapons handling with parental supervision will be found to be overly broad and or has a nexus with school activity. I think that this exception would swallow the rule which is there must be some conduct that is outside of the schools purvey and if so intimate time with family would be included.

You don't. It sounds like we are about to find out one way or another soon.

Same as to the 1a claim. If we plead the it is done for expressive purposes then I just don't see how range time with family could be a substantial disruption to school activities.

Although I am on the fence about taking this case. Today the local attorneys started talking about taking the case and I have plenty of work here. If someone else wants to sue I may let them because working in New Jersey is a real hassle for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...

You're right I don't think it's overly broad on the face, except as regards to the breadth of the weapons definition.

I don't see how an expressive purposes argument changes anything.

Let me know if you or anyone takes it, I'm curious about how the school district defends it and if they prevail.
 
panamaican said:
You're right I don't think it's overly broad on the face, except as regards to the breadth of the weapons definition.

I don't see how an expressive purposes argument changes anything.

Let me know if you or anyone takes it, I'm curious about how the school district defends it and if they prevail.
Click to expand...
If it falls under Tinker i.e. is expressive it has to be a substantial disruption to school activities. How could it be that going to a firing range with your parents be disruptive to school activities. Or before you get there, where is the nexus to school if you go with your parents hunting on winter break?

.
I will. Its definitely getting taken. The only reason I don't take is if the local talent really want it. Sometime its better in public policy work to not go into another person's backyard and eat his bbq. But I really like the case so we will see.
 
alanb said:
If it falls under Tinker i.e. is expressive it has to be a substantial disruption to school activities. How could it be that going to a firing range with your parents be disruptive to school activities. Or before you get there, where is the nexus to school if you go with your parents hunting on winter break?

.
I will. Its definitely getting taken. The only reason I don't take is if the local talent really want it. Sometime its better in public policy work to not go into another person's backyard and eat his bbq. But I really like the case so we will see.
Click to expand...

That's why the Safe Schools Initiative is there in the language. To provide the nexus.
 
Yes it stinks for the students. Yet its clear the school district is following their suspension guidelines.

Policies such as zero tolerance leave no wiggle room. For the fear is that something will be misinterpreted and or favoritism will be displayed.
 
panamaican said:
That's why the Safe Schools Initiative is there in the language. To provide the nexus.
Click to expand...

You can't use statutory language in order to create a nexus within a constitutional law setting. That would be empowering the legislature to bypass constitutional safeguards.
 
alanb said:
You can't use statutory language in order to create a nexus within a constitutional law setting. That would be empowering the legislature to bypass constitutional safeguards.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the nexus to the school is that protection of other students justifies this type of response regarding weapons. When that justification is questioned, they will point to the SSI to support the argument that even seemingly benign weapons use has been connected to later acts of violence. They will also point to the zero tolerance policy as support for the scale of the punishment.
 
American Heritage dictionary definition:
weap·on
(wĕp′ən)
n.
1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
2. Zoology A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
3. A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.


Shooting a gun at the range does NOT qualify the item as a "weapon" which is what the school's code calls for.

Don't know if anyone else posted this defense, but it's the 1st thing I thought of to fight this bullshit ruling.
 
panamaican said:
And all I said is that they aren't banning it. I'm unaware of a constitutional right to hunt whatever you want, whenever you want. Hunting seasons themselves are already regulated. There's no legal basis that a school age student can bring that entitles them to hunt as they so choose. Even the very act of legally hunting requires them to obtain a license first. So it's a restriction on students but there's nothing unlawful about it.
Click to expand...

New Jersey has a law pending so that would be the thing to pass that.

Lots of states due have the right to hunt and fish.
Heres-a-Map-That-Shows-You-Which-States-Have-a-Constitutional-Right-to-Hunt-and-Fish-featured.jpg
 
BudKing8806 said:
{<hhh]
Click to expand...


Well it's true that the states with the loosest gun laws and the most guns have the most gun related death.

We don't want that here in New Jersey. That's why I said take it some place like Mississippi or Alabama. We don't want that shit in Jersey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,982
Messages
55,459,226
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top