If you are a parent who has complained about a teacher, or a janitor, you will lose your right to own a gun—because you have a child. The cops will be able to come into your home, based on nothing, with no subpoena, and search you house at 2:00 in the afternoon or 2:00 in the morning, every day of the week. It will cost you a fortune to hire attorneys to defend your rights. SB 906 is clear—if a government goon—union leader attached to a school—or an ex con for whom you testify as a child molester secretly talks to the cops, you will lose your right to the Second Amendment.
“Worse still, it would require “any school official” including the teacher, the bureaucrat, the school board member, the counselor, the security guard, the gardener, the teacher’s aide, the ex-con supposedly teaching the kids to stay out of jail on contract — anyone in the employ of the school district — to report to “law enforcement and the Department of Justice” any alert, threat, or “perceived threat” as they see it of a mass casualty incident, which would require the school district, working with law enforcement, to inspect student property on school and check those firearm disclosure records. It appears that law enforcement would be allowed to enter those homes to “inspect” firearms without a warrant.
Any perceived threat.”
Nothing real—just a way to help the neighborhood criminal be safer.
Own a gun in California? Prepare to give up your privacy if you have a kid
By Monica Showalter, American Thinker, 2/11/22
Having found schools and COVID a useful vehicle for instituting Big Brother privacy violations, the leftists in charge in Sacramento have decided to go themselves one better by using schools and gun control as their next measure for controlling every aspect of people’s lives.
SB-906, introduced by state Sen. Anthony Portanino of La Canada-Flintridge, north of Los Angeles, requires all parents who have children in public schools to disclose their gun ownership, the location of their guns, whether their guns are stored safely, and whether their kids have access to those firearms. Whom this information would go to and how it would be used or, more likely, misused were not in the bill.
Worse still, it would require “any school official” including the teacher, the bureaucrat, the school board member, the counselor, the security guard, the gardener, the teacher’s aide, the ex-con supposedly teaching the kids to stay out of jail on contract — anyone in the employ of the school district — to report to “law enforcement and the Department of Justice” any alert, threat, or “perceived threat” as they see it of a mass casualty incident, which would require the school district, working with law enforcement, to inspect student property on school and check those firearm disclosure records. It appears that law enforcement would be allowed to enter those homes to “inspect” firearms without a warrant.
Any perceived threat.
This, given that there are penalties for not reporting “immediately” even these perceived threats as the school’s art teacher sees them, should flood the tip lines as school employees seek to cover their rears on anything they can imagine to be a threat. Art teachers, after all, have great judgment, do they not? And that’s just part of the panoply of freaks that can be found in public schools these days. School boards have lately declared parents protesting their COVID lockdown policies “terrorists.” There ought to be a lot of “perceived threats” with this requirement.
And in any case, it’s redundant. Schools are required already to report credible threats, and they do, while parents are legally required to store firearms safely. That’s in California’s law, noted here on its attorney general’s page:
You may be guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony if you keep a loaded firearm within any premises that are under your custody or control and a child under 18 years of age obtains and uses it, resulting in injury or death, or carries it to a public place, unless you stored the firearm in a locked container or locked the firearm with a locking device to temporarily keep it from functioning.
it’s also unenforceable. What are they going to do about people who don’t report, or who report falsely? Will there be Big Brother mechanisms set up for enforcing that? Or will this turn into some data chaos that penalizes the honest and allows others to do nothing? Will illegals with kids in public schools comply with this reporting requirement? They make up an abnormally large percentage of California’s public schools. Don’t bet on it.
While we are on the topic of the public school’s number-one interest, identity politics, one issue that doesn’t come up with this proposed law is what happens when the “perceived threat” is black. Will those cases be reported equally, or will the wokesters and law enforcement they snitch to suddenly perceive no threat because “racism”? We already know they’re letting spray shooters who are black off on bail, instead of locking them up, so expect the uneven application of this law based on the priority race considerations of the wokesters, too.
Meanwhile, the law doesn’t actually do anything to stop an imminent threat; it just requires reporting of information to others, and if there is no threat found, well, the information is still out there — to be sold and data-mined as some tech baron who profits from some state contract sees fit. Too bad about that. As for acting on imminent threats, that isn’t addressed, either. Does the FBI investigate all of these reports? Actually, their record is pretty poor on it. Just ask the Parkland parents.
Worse still, the law should incentivize some “school officials” to report on students whose politics they don’t like, or who have knowledge that these kids’ parents have guns. Sound like a recipe for careful reporting? No penalties, of course, for those who “over-report” or who report made-up “threats.” And don’t think that’s far-fetched. Here’s a sample of what you see in public education, mostly from LibsOfTikTok. Think these guys would be just the people to act responsibly with this new requirement to report “perceived” threats?
