Colorado "Zero Tolerance" Policy On Fake Guns Lifted, Discretion Left To Schools

You may remember the story of Marie Morrow, a student who faced automatic expulsion from Cherry Creek schools for having drill team rifles props in her SUV on campus.

Thankfully, after the adults stepped in back in February, Morrow avoided expulsion.

But the "zero tolerance" policy that forced the hand of the school remained in place until this week:

When Marie Morrow was suspended from school for bringing in drill team rifle props, she used her days off to lobby state legislators to change the law.

Her story, first reported by 9NEWS, drew national attention.

On Tuesday, Morrow was watching as Gov. Bill Ritter signed a law giving schools discretion when it comes to fake guns on campus. They no longer will mean an automatic expulsion. Each school can decide what punishment fits the situation.

Cherry Creek Schools counted Morrow's six-day suspension as the required expulsion. She had the fake guns in her car for a young Marines drill team practice after school.

The incident won't affect her plans to attend the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy.

Thankfully, a little bit of sanity and common sense has been restored to Colorado's schools following the knee-jerk reactions that stemmed from the Columbine tragedy 10 years ago this week. This legislation gives the discretion to the proper level of action--the local schools. The mindset that prompted the zero-tolerance policy has, however, not gone away:

Morrow's case isn't the first nor will it be the last where unintended consequences precipitated by poorly written, knee-jerk, zero-tolerance legislation affect the lives of those the law should actually protect.

Just remember this the next time someone says "there should be a law." The "cult of action" embraced by those who wish to protect people from themselves and deny others their liberty tend to produce half-baked, "feel-good" laws that legislators tout as "helping the situation."

Most of the time, they end up doing precisely the opposite.

More Sanity In Colorado: No Expulsion For Marie Morrow, The Student With Fake Rifles

The adults--like Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier--have thankfully stepped in.

Background on the standout Cherokee Trail High School student, Marie Morrow from fellow RMA bloggers here and here.

Flawed zero-tolerance laws landed this student in hot water for possessing fake rifles--defined as "facsimiles" according to the law--but thankfully the decision was to punish with time served in suspension:

Seventeen-year-old Marie Morrow will be going back to school next week. The senior at Cherokee Trail High School was suspended for having fake rifles in her SUV at school.
Advertisement

Cherry Creek Schools Superintendent Mary Chesley ruled Morrow's six-day suspension will count as the expulsion mandated by state education law. Morrow is eligible to return to school Wednesday after the President's Day holiday.

School leaders said it was the least severe discipline option available under the law.

"I'm just ready to go back, glad to get back into school," Morrow said. "I'm glad they did the minimum that they could and I can go back."

The school district had the option to expel Morrow for the remainder of her senior year as allowed by law.

"I do not believe that the circumstances of this situation warrant the severe calendar year penalty that legislators intended when this statute was enacted," Chesley said in a written statement.

"They were just following the law in their eyes," Morrow. said "I'm mainly just mad at myself for making the mistake. I'm not blaming anybody."

Morrow is an exemplary student, taking her lumps and not complaining. Cherry Creek's Superintendent had little choice given the national coverage of the story.

Poorly written legislation often ends up punishing those it was never intended to harm, and will require yet more legislation to correct the absolutist language in the current statute:

Several members of the Colorado House and Senate met with Morrow and her family on Monday.

Sen. Kevin Lundberg (R-Berthoud) plans to introduce legislation to change state law to provide an exception for facsimile weapons being used by military-sponsored youth groups.

"There should be exemptions to this hard-and-fast rule so this type of thing doesn't happen again," Lundberg said in a written statement. "I am outraged that a student faces expulsion for participating in a drill team."

In addition to her meeting with lawmakers, Morrow has received encouragement and words of support on talk radio, on blogs and from viewers posting on 9NEWS.com.

"It's really great to have all this support," Morrow said on Monday. "It's just good to know who stands behind you when times get rough."

"It will be all right no matter how it turns out," Morrow added.

Morrow's case isn't the first nor will it be the last where unintended consequences precipitated by poorly written, knee-jerk, zero-tolerance legislation affect the lives of those the law should actually protect.

Just remember this the next time someone says "there should be a law." The "cult of action" embraced by those who wish to protect people from themselves and deny others their liberty tend to produce half-baked, "feel-good" laws that legislators tout as "helping the situation."

Attorney General John Suthers, addressing the story in a presentation at Auraria Campus on Monday, said legislators only have themselves to blame.

Colorado Students Want Ability To Defend Themselves, Carry Concealed Weapons On Campus

And I wholeheartedly agree (and as a grad student at CU-Denver only too familiar with the frequency of "incident" emails, I can vouch for the necessity):

College students who say they're powerless against campus attacks by gunmen want to push legislators and school administrators to let them arm themselves.

In the wake of recent campus shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, a nationwide student group called Students for Concealed Carry on Campus says they've recruited 25,000 members in the last year.

John Davis, a 30-year-old University of Colorado at Colorado Springs senior, is one of about a dozen students at the campus who joined the group and is organizing a local effort to protest not being able to bring concealed guns to school.

He said students at CU-Colorado Springs and University of Colorado at Boulder will join a national demonstration April 22-25 — the week of the anniversary of the Columbine High School shootings — in which students will wear empty gun holsters. Davis said the display is meant to symbolize that students are "basically defenseless" at school.

"I carry because I'm a former Boy Scout and the motto is always be prepared," Davis said.

Commenter "Sun Tzu" nails it--"I would rather have a gun and not need it, than need a gun and not have it."

And the quote of the day goes to "Sun Tzu" again--"Even if it is illegal to carry a gun on campus...

I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six."

Amen.

Not Just JeffCo--Concealed Carry Permit Requests Up Across Colorado

Two days ago we reported on the jump in the number of people seeking concealed carry permits in Jefferson County, citing personal safety and the control of the legistlatures by the Democrats at state and federal levels.

Well, its not just a county trend:

Applications for concealed-weapon permits have skyrocketed in Colorado, with the increase fueled by everything from heavily publicized mass shootings to routine renewals, according to the state's sheriffs.

In 2007, 9,880 people statewide sought permits, compared with 6,649 people in 2006 and 6,670 people in 2005, according to the County Sheriffs of Colorado. And the surge has continued into 2008 in several counties.

Law-enforcement experts have different ideas on why more people want to carry concealed weapons. Some believe it is due to a rash of violent outbreaks at Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois University and a mall in Utah.

Some sheriff's offices believe churches concerned about protecting their flocks are seeking concealed-carry permits. Another official believes many of the initial batch of five-year permits in the state are expiring soon and that people are simply renewing applications. Those seeking permits are not required to explain why they want to carry a weapon. Whatever the reason, the trend is real.

"People want to defend themselves," said Doug Davis, president of the Pikes Peak Firearms Coalition. "That's why they get permits."

At least we have that right--to defend ourselves--at least for the present.

Jefferson County Citizens Spark Boom In Concealed Carry Permits, Citing Personal Safety And The Election Of Democrats

"Local gun dealers and firearms instructors also have seen a spike in sales and class enrollment in the last few months. They say people want to arm themselves because of fear over a recent rash of shootings and gun-related incidents — specifically in Jeffco — and their expectation that the rising power locally and nationally of Democrats will lead to reduced rights for gun owners"--RMN

I'm shocked. Shocked:

Between March 1 and 11, the Jeffco sheriff's office received 246 applications from residents who want to carry firearms. That's five times the number of applications submitted for the entire month of March 2007, according to the sheriff's office.

Since Jan. 1, the sheriff's office has received more than 500 concealed carry applications, almost as many as all of 2006. Statewide, applications have risen nearly 50 percent between 2006 and 2007.

Tiffany Morgan, a college student and part-time employee at the Green Mountain Family Shooting Center in Lakewood, applied for a concealed carry permit in Jeffco in late February.

The 29-year-old Lakewood resident said she's owned a Ruger .357 since September, but decided to apply for the permit so she can travel with her handgun to Wyoming to see her parents and to night classes.

"If I go to stop at a gas station or if I have to stop at the bathroom you never know what can happen on a road trip," she said. "I'd rather have it than not have it."

Actually I'm not shocked.

No, not shocked by citizens exercising their rights. But apparently the writer at the Rocky Mountain News is, um, like totally surprised:

Jefferson County is seeing a shocking rise in applications for concealed gun permits.

Interesting choice of words--perhaps "alarming" was too extreme? How about a lede that actually includes a mention of what is prompting the upswing?

Nah, just bury it in the 7th graf:

Local gun dealers and firearms instructors also have seen a spike in sales and class enrollment in the last few months. They say people want to arm themselves because of fear over a recent rash of shootings and gun-related incidents — specifically in Jeffco — and their expectation that the rising power locally and nationally of Democrats will lead to reduced rights for gun owners.

"As of late, in Jefferson County alone, we have had a ton of situations where people have felt threatened," said Rich Wyatt, manager of Gunsmoke gun shop in Wheat Ridge, a firearms instructor and former police chief. He cited recent fatal shootings at an Arvada youth mission, an Arvada Burger King, and standoffs with barricaded armed men.

Wyatt also said people are trying to get carrying permits because they fear restrictions with a Democratic governor or expect a Democrat will become president.
. . .
Sportsman's Warehouse in Littleton, another large Jeffco gun dealer, also is seeing a rise in gun sales, said salesman Lee Wilson.

"I think it's largely due to the political change that's coming," Wilson said. "Most people are afraid of both Hillary and Obama. That's a big deal."

Sounds reasonable to me.

So, is the RMN journalist "shocked"--by citizens exercising their rights and employing their freedoms?

"Shocked"--by citizens fearing that control of the state and federal branches of government by gun-control mongering Democrats will reduce or eliminate their rights?

"Shocked"--by citizens who might actually, gulp, not like the Obamessiah?

Or "shocked"--by citizens who would rather defend themselves against would-be assailants than wait for government assistance (even the best can come too late)?

MSM bias and sensationalism? No, not shocking at all.

FreedomSight calls the developing story "encouraging," not "shocking."

Max Karson's Arresting Comments--Overreaction And Censorship Or Sensible Precaution?

CU student Max Karson's ill-timed comments (the question of legality is to be decided, as you will see below) have earned him notoriety, an arrest for "interference", and suspension from school pending his trial:

A University of Colorado student has been arrested after making "threatening" comments in class that seemed sympathetic toward the gunman who killed 32 students at Virginia Tech, authorities said.

Max Karson of Denver was arrested Tuesday on suspicion of interfering with staff, faculty or students of an education institution.
. . .
University police Cmdr. Brad Wiesley said that during a class discussion of the Virginia Tech massacre, Karson "made comments about understanding how someone could kill 32 people."

Several witnesses told investigators Karson said he was "angry about all kinds of things from the fluorescent light bulbs to the unpainted walls, and it made him angry enough to kill people," according to a police report.
. . .
Karson has also produced a video on youtube that ends in a deadly shooting he called a comedy.

The film has been made private since I viewed it; it depicted Karson as a jokester given three minutes to make another guy laugh--he is ultimately unsuccessful, and the other individual shoots him. His site is still up for now. The class, for what its worth, was a women's black studies course.

His father, a University of Denver professor, argues that his son's words, however ill-advised, we're neither illegal nor threatening. The school, in his opinion, has violated his free speech rights. Attorney David Lane, of Ward Churchill fame, suggests that a violation of free speech may have occurred, but his ambiguous statement about killings are questionable, and context is important.

What were Karson's words? There is little detail, other than this purported quote:

"If anyone in here says that they've never been so angry that you wanted to kill 32 people, you're lying," Karson said, according to a statement made by a CU faculty member.

People say stupid things all the time; in the heat of passion, words become weapons. Most people would readily admit that in a particularly angry state they have made some statement along the lines of "I am so angry I could do . . . to that person." But serious contemplation of killing innocent people (not in self-defense)? Highly unlikely. Context is important, as is the state of mind of the person making such a declaration. Karson's intent is clearly in question.

In this case, Karson's words unsurprisingly disturbed his classmates and teacher. His previous record of antagonizing CU's administration and fellow students gives a picture of Karson as an agent provacateur, willing to engage others with (to his mind) alternative points-of-view. My defense of his writings last November (a search of his name yields more on his past).

In light of the events at VT, his statements threw up all the usual red flags, and earned him his arrest and suspension. They may earn him more than just notoriety. They also call attention to the heightened state of emotion following the VT massacre--Karson's words, if made in class just last week, would have perhaps raised eyebrows and snickering from his fellow students. This week, he went to jail.

The debate over how to prevent future Columbines and VT massacres includes the discussion of intervention when "red flags" are apparent. Is the fear justified or is Karson's audience overreacting? Second-guessing becomes the name of the game following any tragedy. One can understand CUPD's desire to protect students and faculty from potential harm. People across the country would be hopping mad if the CUPD heard complaints about Karson and failed to take action.

So which is it? Can we have it both ways--unfettered free speech (unless inciting violence, which is at question here) or the "mask" of safety in charging those with disturbing thoughts and expressions with crimes, so as to prevent larger catastrophes?

Karson has earned himself, rightly or wrongly, a day in court. The context of his statements will be revealed in more detail. Is having disturbing (to others) thoughts a crime? Is he victim of of his own poor judgment and timing? Or has CUPD averted a future massacre? It is doubtful the court decision will render a definitive answer, but the outcome will assuredly lead to more questions on how or if we can avoid yet another Columbine or VT massacre.

Cartoonists Blame Gun Culture, NRA, 2nd Amendment, Bush And Iraq War For VT Massacre

No mention of the perpetrator(s) (and these cartoons may indeed have been completed before Cho Seung-Hui was identified), but these editorial cartoonists begin by blaming the Iraq War, America's "gun culture", the NRA and even (inevitably?) President George W. Bush:


Iraq War moral equivalency.


Terror: Made in USA.


That stubborn 2nd Amendment.


Blaming the NRA.


NRA as special interest peddler to legislators.


The triumvirate: Bush, NRA, and gun rights legislators.


Attacking John McCain and the ridiculous! 2nd Amendment.


He should be putting that sticker on, not scraping it off--Cho Seung-Hui killed those VT students and faculty, not his weapons.


America's gun culture gets its due.


More of the same.


America's guns guarantee freedom, something the unarmed citizens were unable to achieve under the oppressive Communist regimes, and severely limited their ability to fight back against the rampaging Nazis. Liviu Librescu had seen violence before, and displayed heroism in defending his students. He wasn't a victim of "random gun violence" but a psychopathic killer who showed no respect for human life.

After The VT Massacre: Gun Control?--Update: Penn & Teller's "Bullshit"

Roger Fraley of XDA fisks an editorial from The Times of London that suggests "America’s deep-rooted and sometimes lethal commitment to its own freedoms" leads to the type of gun violence seen at VT. Money quote:

Don't tread on me. ...cold, dead hands. Lethal commitment to Freedom. All good thoughts.

Other European MSM highlighted America's pervasive gun culture, a violent society, the Iraq War, and even Charlton Heston as explanations for the outburst at VT. Our Constitution and the pesky rights afforded American citizens and their reluctance to cede them to an ever-burgeoning Federal Government was a recurring theme.

Perhaps the Europeans are jealous--jealous of our enshrined freedoms and of our ability to maintain a desire to keep them in the face of ridiculous calls for emotional, knee-jerk reactions to an isolated but tragic event. In similar situations, Europeans permanently surrendered their freedoms for a little temporary safety. We all know how Benjamin Franklin felt about that equation.

---

Liberal Denver blogger Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft calls gun control a "non-cure" and says what every gun-rights and 2nd Amendment advocate said right after Columbine:

Guns effected, but did not cause the killings. They were the means by which an unbalanced, disturbed individual carried out his rage.

For the time being, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid opposes a "rush to judgment" in introducing new gun control legislation--noting that the time for such measures may come down the road, even though the issue has been a loser for Democrats for nearly a decade.

---

Local gun rights organizations showed up to protest GOP Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's visit to Denver, only to have it cancelled at the last moment due to the events at VT.

---

Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" offers their take on gun control. (obviously, NSFW)