In 1866, Gideon Tucker,
If you think this is hyperbole, we invite you to consult HB 1749. As staff writer Tim Camerato detailed last week, this bill would, among other idiocies, amend existing law to explicitly prohibit school districts from banning firearms and knives in their buildings, on school property and at school-sponsored activities. It would also levy harsh penalties on officials individually for imposing or enforcing a school weapons ban.
The legislation specifically targets Lebanon, which last fall clarified its longstanding firearms prohibition. But several Upper Valley districts have similar bans on the books, including Dresden, Claremont and the Mascoma Valley Regional School District. That’s hardly surprising, given that such policies mirror the provisions of the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act, enacted nearly 30 years ago. However, New Hampshire — unlike Vermont — has made no statutory allowance for such a prohibition at the state level, and the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office has said that local and state police have no authority to enforce the federal law. Their role is apparently limited to removing from school property someone who has been asked to leave for any reason. This murky situation has left the way open for zealots such as Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Dunbarton, the bill’s primary sponsor, to make mischief — in this case, dangerous mischief.
Hoell claims that state law already gives the Legislature sole authority to regulate firearms and knives. That’s not what Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, told staff writer Jordan Cuddemi last May. “School boards, in fact, have the ability to prohibit firearms in school zones and do not require a state law in order to adopt such a provision in a particular community,” he said in a statement at the time.
But even if Hoell were correct, school districts surely must retain the authority to decide who enters their buildings or uses their property under what circumstances, and can decide that those armed with lethal weapons — whether visitors, employees or students — are not suitable candidates for admittance.
In this era of mass shootings, many districts have enhanced physical security at their school entrances. What school employee would want to defeat those added security measures by knowingly pressing a buzzer that allows an armed visitor to enter? As Lebanon Superintendent of Schools Joanne Roberts puts it: “The responsibility of the Lebanon School District and the superintendent is first and foremost to provide students with safe schools.” That’s not only because parents rightfully expect schools to ensure the physical safety of their children when they have custody of them, but also because effective teaching and learning cannot take place in a climate of fear.
Moreover, the Legislature has itself shown that safe handling of lawful weapons cannot be guaranteed. So far as we can recall, no representatives or senators have yet shot themselves in the foot (other than in the metaphoric sense, which they do semi-automatically), but they have demonstrated conclusively on a couple of occasions that accidents do happen. The presence of firearms in a school is, sooner or later, a prescription for tragedy.
New Hampshire officials are often asking what they can do to attract young people to a state that is graying rapidly. They might ask themselves instead, What young family from down country would be enticed to relocate to the Granite State by the prospect of entrusting its children to schools where the Wild West is not a subject for historical inquiry but a description of current reality?
Or to a state where the Legislature is the place common sense goes to die?