Is there a civil liberties violation here?

[13lucky13]

California

My brother (18), in order to participate in high school athletics, was required to sign a code of ethics. This code states the signee would be found in violation for breaking the following provision:
"Absolutely no use or possession of the following items on or OFF CAMPUS.....5) Weapons"

The California Ed. Code guarantees students: "You have the right to be provided with an equitable opportunity to participate in all academic extracurricular activities, including athletics.

However; to obtain this right, the signee is, in effect, coerced into surrendering their second amendment rights. Is there a rights violation in here?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[Hot Topic]

Why does your brother "need" to carry a weapon on or off campus? When idiots carry guns, innocent people often die.


Your "reasoning" is ridiculous.

 

[justalayman]

is there some reason this is a problem?

Did something happen to bring his gun ownership or use to light?

 

[ecmst12]

The only reasonable activities that could violate this code that I can see are target shooting at a firing range, and possibly hunting. If he engages in either of those activities, he might want to talk to the school about whether they would consider it to be a violation. My feeling is they would not, and the code is just poorly worded.

 

[CdwJava]

My sons have had to sign something similar, and the language indicates any act that would be a crime if it were reported to the police - this would include an unlawful weapon possession. Perhaps someone should bring this language issue up to the school.

 

[13lucky13]

Thank you everyone for your input. My brother was not involved in a weapons violation. And yes, the wording of the document is terrible. Our school district has suspended many athletes on other poorly worded provisions that reach well beyond IN LOCO PARENTIS.

Despite many attempts the code has yet to be changed. I was hoping the "poor choice of words" and apparent rights violation would give us a little ground for revision.

 

[justalayman]

generally, you cannot challenge a law until such time you are charged with the law. If they will not listen to you now, it may take a person that has been disciplined due to the rule first.

then you (or whoever) could challenge the rule.

 

[13lucky13]

My thinking was that the educational code grants students the right to be provided with an opportunity to participate in athletics. The second amendment grants that same student the right to possess or use "weapons". The Code of Ethics contract sits squarely between those two rights. Can a public institution leverage one right for the surrender of the other?

 

[CdwJava]

The second amendment grants that same student the right to possess or use "weapons".

Not entirely ... he has a right to legally possess certain firearms and some other weapons, but not all firearms nor all weapons.

The issue would be whether or not the possession was otherwise lawful.

I strongly suspect that the school policy is not going to be applied to students who are at a rifle range, hunting, or engaging in some other legal possession.

 

[13lucky13]

Unfortunately the language does not specify lawful possession or use. The language is the all-encompassing "weapons". The school's extracurricular contract is an attempt to "parent" students outside of In Loco Parentis. They have not wanted to revise this code despite requests. I'm thinking the only catalyst would be some legitimate threat of litigation.

Does the poor use of language in regards to the Second, and the coercive nature of activity participation contingent upon signing, constitute a violation that could have the Code revised? We need something to take to the board that they might pay attention to.

 

[CdwJava]

Unfortunately the language does not specify lawful possession or use. The language is the all-encompassing "weapons". The school's extracurricular contract is an attempt to "parent" students outside of In Loco Parentis. They have not wanted to revise this code despite requests. I'm thinking the only catalyst would be some legitimate threat of litigation.

Does the poor use of language in regards to the Second, and the coercive nature of activity participation contingent upon signing, constitute a violation that could have the Code revised? We need something to take to the board that they might pay attention to.

Only under fear of litigation might they relent.And until there is a cause of action, there is not likely to be any action.

 

[tranquility]

Please re-read the 2nd Amendment. It is still undecided by the Supreme Court as to if it is an "incorporated" right. (In that it applies to the states. In California, the ninth circuit says it is not.) However, since athletics is a choice, those offering the choice can place restrictions on it. *If* the right is incorporated, then the school would have to make an argument as to why the restriction is reasonably designed to accomplish an important governmental interest. As others have said so far, it is quite possible they can make that argument.

Bottom line is how many hundreds of thousands of dollars do you have (or can get support of from interested organizations) to make the case?

 

[HomeGuru]

California

My brother (18), in order to participate in high school athletics, was required to sign a code of ethics. This code states the signee would be found in violation for breaking the following provision:
"Absolutely no use or possession of the following items on or OFF CAMPUS.....5) Weapons"

The California Ed. Code guarantees students: "You have the right to be provided with an equitable opportunity to participate in all academic extracurricular activities, including athletics.

However; to obtain this right, the signee is, in effect, coerced into surrendering their second amendment rights. Is there a rights violation in here?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

**A: I do not understand what the problem is.

 

[Silverplum]

**A: I do not understand what the problem is.

Neither do I. (Particularly if the student is also a minor.)

 

[HomeGuru]

Neither do I. (Particularly if the student is also a minor.)

**A: yes, since the student was to parcipate in a school related function such functions would be under the jurisdiction of the school (on or off campus) and therefore all school policies apply.
I can just see school athletes carying knives and guns.