Great Post. I live in the deep south, where kids hunt before and after school. They are not allowed to have their shotgun or rifles even in the trunk of their cars. It would take one bad argument for another teenager to die, and the person who killed him put in prison, and for what? He could get his hands of a weapon fast!

Post-Columbine, the NRA is completely out of line here, and I bet a survey of its members would show tepid support at best for this foolish challenge to the 1,000 foot rule.

I don't think the NRA will be happy until at least everyone in the country has been shot at least once.

Hi scanner! Yes, that seems to be the one thing that no one is taking into account here, technically the guns were not on school property, but for all practical purposes they were as accessible to the kids as if they were. I have a 16 year old and a 19 year old, I know kids that age are hot heads, to have a gun just a few feet away is just asking for trouble. And, of course, the first thing people say when a shooting happens is, “I never thought it would happen here.”

Hi Steve, the principal who expelled the kid is a gun loving, hunting member of the NRA, so at least one member of the NRA knows that this whole thing is BS.

John, your comment made me LOL for real. They never learn, do they?

Dang, the conversation was just getting going good when OS decided to go on the fritz!

BUMP

Ok, so what exactly is the violation here? The vehicle is parked on a city street, not on school property. The guns are unloaded, with the shells stored separately from the guns, which is how things should be when firearms are being transported.

One of the exceptions in the California law is for firearms being legally transported in a vehicle. In other words, imagine that the kid had been pulled over by a police officer for a traffic violation within, say, 300 feet of the school, and noticed the shotguns. As far as I know there would be no crime. Otherwise, if someone lived within 1000 feet of a school he literally couldn't take his guns out of his house -- or even buy a new gun and take it home.

If you look at the California guidelines for expulsion they clearly are intended for serious violations -- brandishing a knife at another person, selling drugs, sexual assault or battery, robbery or extortion, causing serious physical injury, and so on.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/expulsionrecomm.asp

In the article it said that the kid was afraid he would be late for school: "Fearing he'd be late for school, Tudesko drove directly to campus instead of stopping at home to drop off his shotgun and his friend's gun. He said he knew he couldn't bring the weapons on campus, so he parked his Chevrolet pickup on a city street right next to the school."

Obviously this was not the most prudent thing to do, but I don't see that there is either a violation of law or school policy here. Apparently the kid thought he was doing the right thing.

Many of the other facts listed in the post are irrelevant. That the principal is an NRA member is irrelevant. That the police chief supported the expulsion is irrelevant.

And I don't think the kid is a "bad kid" either. The original article says that he gets high marks in shop class and is involved in Future Farmers of America. If we had a rational educational system this kid would be in vocational classes learning how to make a living -- which he's actually interested in -- rather than putting him in classes that he's not interested in. But in our "one size fits all" system, we stick these kids in classes in which they have no interest, and then we're shocked, shocked, that they act up. instead of silently conforming.

But I digress. Public officials have to act within the scope of the law. They cannot make up laws or have their own private interpretations of them. This whole situation could easily have been solved by the principal telling the kid "go ahead and drive your guns home and then come back." Viola! Problem solved.

That the principal is an NRA member is irrelevant. That the police chief supported the expulsion is irrelevant.

Mishima, I do think that fact that the principal is himself a gun loving duck hunting NRA member is quite relevant. One of the arguments being presented in the kid’s defense is the fact that there is “gun culture” around Willows, but the person who made the decision to expel him is himself a member of that very culture. The police chief supports the expulsion because he felt the law was breached, and the action taken was within the scope of the law.

The exception for the transport of weapons allows you drive by the school while having a gun in your car, it does not allow you to park and go in.

If we had a rational educational system this kid would be in vocational classes learning how to make a living -- which he's actually interested in -- rather than putting him in classes that he's not interested in. But in our "one size fits all" system, we stick these kids in classes in which they have no interest, and then we're shocked, shocked, that they act up. instead of silently conforming.

I actually agree with you here, I have long felt the there is a over-emphasis on college preparedness when clearly not everyone goes to college.

However, the kid’s behavior should be excused, he didn’t just act up, He has a long history of using racial slurs, disrespecting his teachers and disrupting class. He is most defiantly not a “good kid”. I suspect that the school was quite happy to get rid of him, and I don’t blame them. 25 violations in and 2 suspensions when you are 2 months into your junior year is high school is an awful lot.

Dragonfly writes: "Mishima, I do think that fact that the principal is himself a gun loving duck hunting NRA member is quite relevant. One of the arguments being presented in the kid’s defense is the fact that there is “gun culture” around Willows, but the person who made the decision to expel him is himself a member of that very culture."

Culture is interesting, but ultimately what matters are laws and rules.

Dragonfly: "The police chief supports the expulsion because he felt the law was breached, and the action taken was within the scope of the law."

But what law was breached? More on this below.

Dragonfly: "The exception for the transport of weapons allows you drive by the school while having a gun in your car, it does not allow you to park and go in."

Ok, this is a relevant point. When you say "it does not allow you to park," is that your personal opinion, or did you get that from the law? Because when I read the law, I didn't see anything like that. If you did see it I'd like to see chapter and verse. Remember, the law is what it is, not what we might like it to be.

By the way, here's another article, more detailed:
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?id=4832232

Read that and reflect on whether this kid is a threat to the public order, deserving of expulsion. I would guess that there are several million high school kids around the country who are far more dangerous than he is.

Culture is interesting, but ultimately what matters are laws and rules.

And the law is no guns within 1000 feet of the school. Guns are not to be available to students during the day, this gun was readily available not just to the student in question but to the entire school population. Student actually walk right by that spot on their between classes, the school is on an oddly shaped lot and one cannot walk from one end of the school to the other with walkig right by the spot where the truck was parked with unsecured guns in plain view.

Read that and reflect on whether this kid is a threat to the public order, deserving of expulsion. I would guess that there are several million high school kids around the country who are far more dangerous than he is.

I actually read before I made this post, it does nothing to convince me any differently. Yes, he is deserving of expulsion. He has been a discipline problem from the day he first foot on that campus. He has cussed at teachers, disrupted class, flung racial epithets around and been an all-round prick.

Is he a danger? I don’t know, but the signs are not promising. Anyone who uses the N word and carries a gun bears careful watching in my book. He has certainly had a detrimental affect on the classroom environment for the other students in the school and for that alone he needs a serious slap down.