After the tragic mass shooting in Florida, many have discussed the problem of so-called “no gun zones,” sites like schools where no guns are allowed. Unfortunately, those sites, like schools, have become a magnet for mass shooters. Some parents, however, have apparently decided to take matters into their own hands and, we were exclusively told earlier this week, have considered filing cease and desist orders to force the hardening of their local schools.
One parent, Denice Freeman, sent us text of one order being considered:
Due to public schools being labeled “No Gun Zones”, we, as parents are unable to protect our children at school, South Carolina enforces this statute. When enforcing this law, it removes the most basic right of all human life- the right to survival, as well as the inherent right to protect ourselves, as well as our children.
Further, where any institution removes the duty of care from an individual; both expressly through legislation, or implied through conduct, it takes the duty of care in the absence of the parents. The duty of care is a legal duty on all individuals and organizations to avoid carelessly causing injury to persons. It requires everything ‘reasonably practicable’ be done to protect the health and safety of our children in public school.
In addition, this breach of duty of care extends to the public school teachers, as well. Whenever a student teacher relationship exists, the teacher has a special duty of care. This is a legal obligation to protect students from injury;
“A teacher is to take such measures as are reasonable in the circumstances to protect a student under the teachers charge from the risks of injury that the teacher could have reasonably foreseen.” (Richards v State of Victoria, 1969)
As part of that duty, teachers are required to supervise students adequately. This requires not only protection from known hazards, but also from those that could arise (those that the teacher could have easily foreseen) and against which preventative measures could have been taken.
• Teachers in breach of duty of care may be liable for injuries inflicted by one student on another, as well as the injuries sustained by the student.
• For a teacher or a school to be held guilty of negligence, it must be proved that the injury was foreseeable result of the action or lack of action. In courts this test is not a demanding one.
• In situations where the teacher should reasonably have foreseen the possibility of injury, the teacher has a duty to take reasonable care.
• The teacher’s duty of care will have a higher expectation as the child’s age is lower.
• Schools are bound by standards which are issued under legislative authority, non compliance with these standards may amount to negligence.
Primary factors to consider in ascertaining whether the person’s conduct lacks reasonable care are the foreseeable likelihood that the person’s conduct will result in harm, the foreseeable severity of any harm that may ensue, and the burden of precautions to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm. See Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical Harm § 3 (P.F.D. No. 1, 2005).
Further, negligent conduct may consist of either an act, or an omission to act when there is a duty to do so. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 282 (1965).
Four elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence:
- the existence of a legal duty that the defendant owed to the plaintiff;
- defendant’s breach of that duty;
- plaintiff’s sufferance of an injury;
- proof that defendant’s breach caused the injury (typically defined through proximate cause)Without regard to the laws of man which protect property, under the law of nature, all people have an inherent right to live, as well as the unalienable right to protect that life.
“Under the law of nature, all men are born free, everyone comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance.”
– Legal argument in the case of Howell vs. Netherland, April 1770; “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 1.
We demand you that you immediately Cease and Desist the enforcement of conceal carry weapons on public school property, as well as the inherent right of parents who, by providing transportation, have an inherent right to defend both their self and their children on public school property.
According to Freeman, orders like this are being considered by parents in about four states including South Carolina. She also informed us that one person has already filed an order and reportedly has video of that.
According to The Hill, President Trump is also in favor of hardening schools to make it more difficult for shooters like Nikolaus Cruz:
Earlier in the meeting, Trump reiterated his support for arming some teachers to prevent future school shootings. He suggested it would be difficult to hire enough security guards to properly protect a school, but allowing some teachers to carry concealed handguns could help solve the problem.
“I want certain highly adept people, people who understand weaponry, guns,” Trump said, suggesting teachers would receive “rigorous training” and could earn bonuses.
“If you harden the sites you’re not going to have this problem,” Trump said.
Those comments were echoed by NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre during remarks at CPAC.
- Florida shooting hero Colton Haab names CNN producer who said he needed to “stick to the script”
- NRA’s LaPierre at CPAC: ‘Country under siege from media carpet bombing’
- Florida Sheriff Calls for Armed School Staff, Removal of Gun Free Zones
- Mass Shooting in New Orleans in Gun Free Zone
- Every Mass Shooting in the US Since the 1950s Except Two Occurred in Gun Free Zones