Currently, the Second Amendment in general, and specifically the rights of millions of young Americans, are under assault. Why? Presumably, because of the actions of the single 19-year-old who committed mass murder in Parkland, Florida. While the shooter was an adult at the time and responsible for his actions, the government is more than a little culpable in setting the stage to allow this tragedy to happen.
The shooter (I believe in the philosophy of not giving murders the glory they seek by using their name) was a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. He was 19 years old and legally able to buy firearms and pass a NICS check, and that was the government’s fault. Specifically, the trail leads back to the groundwork President Obama’s administration put forward.
Some may contend background checks are a violation of the Second Amendment. Fair enough, but while we have them, let’s look at the elements that led up to the Parkland shooting. First, we need to understand some of the reasons a person could, and should, fail a background check, such as being:
- Convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years.
- Convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or the subject of a protection/restraining order for domestic violence.
- Adjudicated for mental health.
The Parkland shooter was cleared through the National Crime Information Center (NICS) database because he fit none of the above criteria, which leads us to policies originating from the Obama Administration.
The Parkland shooter committed numerous documented offenses for which he should have been arrested leading up to the murder of 14 students.
The Dirty Little Secret
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, and hundreds of additional schools across the nation, is currently part of a program that allows thousands of troubled, violent students to commit crimes without legal consequence. In fact, student offenders may eventually be rewarded by the school for such acts, but more on that later. The aim of the program was to slow what was termed as the “school-to-prison pipeline.”
Four or five years ago, the Broward County school system changed its discipline policy. The purpose was to make it difficult, if not impossible, for administrators to suspend or expel problem students or campus police to arrest them for misdemeanors. This policy set the stage that allowed the Parkland shooter to not be arrested for the crimes he allegedly committed in the years and months leading up to the deadly school shooting. Had the policy not been in place and he been arrested, he should not have been able to pass a NICS check.
The Broward County School District did not come up with this plan. Instead, it was an Obama-era policy that was fostered in 2011 and billed to improve race relations and eliminate perceived excesses in “zero tolerance” discipline policies.
According to Real Clear Investigations, Broward School Superintendent Robert W. Runcie—a Chicagoan and Harvard graduate with close ties to President Obama and his Education Department—signed an agreement with the county sheriff and other local jurisdictions to trade cops for counseling. Students charged with various misdemeanors, including assault, would now be disciplined through participation in “healing circles,” obstacle courses, and other “self-esteem building” exercises.
The news has featured Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel several times, stating much of the blame lays at his feet. In truth, Israel can be seen in a 2013 video signing the (Runcie initiated) district’s 16-page “collaborative agreement on school discipline.” The agreement enumerates more than a dozen misdemeanors that could no longer be reported to police. It goes on to add five steps police had to “exhaust” before consideration of a crime, never mind actually placing a student under arrest.
Runcie’s plan asserted that minority students in particular were unfairly treated by traditional approaches to school discipline. Therefore, the goal was to take significant measures to stop arrests and ensure that students, no matter how delinquent, graduated without criminal records.
As of today, the policy has produced several notable outcomes. Broward went from leading the state of Florida in student arrests to documenting one of Florida’s lowest school-related incarceration rates. Out-of-school suspensions and expulsions plummeted. And, it allowed a future mass murderer to escape justice and the criminal record it would have produced, pass a NICS check, and eventually murder 14 of his fellow students.
“He had a clean record, so alarm bells didn’t go off when they looked him up in the system,” veteran FBI agent Michael Biasello told Real Clear Investigations (RCI). “He probably wouldn’t have been able to buy the murder weapon if the school had referred him to law enforcement.”
Money and Coercion?
Applications for federal grants reveal that Runcie’s plan factored into approval of tens of millions of dollars in federal funding from Duncan’s department.
In January 2014, Runcie’s department issued new discipline guidelines strongly recommending that the nation’s schools use law enforcement measures and out-of-school suspensions as a last resort. The new procedures were publicly communicated as friendly guidance from the Education Department. However, not so publicly communicated were the threats of federal investigations and defunding for districts that refused to fully comply. In 2015, the Obama Administration spotlighted Runcie’s leading role in the effort during a summit called “Rethink School Discipline.”
Is this the fault of the Obama Administration, or does the Trump Administration deserve commendation as well? While the rules are still in effect today, the Trump Administration has been actively trying to withdraw them. However, due to administrative regulations, it has been delayed to this point.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has called for congressional hearings on school shootings. “We have got to have an honest conversation,” she said. Will that include the government’s role in this shooting? Will it include stripping the Second Amendment rights of millions of young adults to bear arms?
According to Real Clear Investigations, the core of Runcie’s plan is a program called PROMISE (Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Interventions, Support & Education), which substitutes counseling in place of criminal detention for students who break the law.
Additional literature reveals that students referred to PROMISE for in-school misdemeanors—including assault, theft, vandalism, underage drinking, and drug use—receive a controversial alternative punishment known as restorative justice.
“Rather than focusing on punishment, restorative justice seeks to repair the harm done,” the district explains. Indeed, it isn’t really punishment at all. It’s more like therapy. Delinquents gather in “healing circles” with counselors, and sometimes even the victims of their crime, and talk about their feelings and “root causes” of their anger.
Counselors reward students who participate in the sessions and respond appropriately to difficult situations with prizes called “choice rewards,” which the offender selects in advance. Parents are asked to chip in money to help pay for the rewards. This means you can commit an assault, participate in a healing circle, and get a prize you chose.
However, a 210-page district report on “Eliminating the School to Prison Pipeline” lists “assault/threat” and “fighting,” as well as “vandalism,” among “infractions aligned with participation in the PROMISE program,” and it states that the recommended consequences for such misdemeanors are a “student essay,” “counseling” and “restorative justice.”
Although the Parkland shooter was disciplined for a string of offenses—assault, threatening teachers, and carrying bullets in his backpack—he was never taken into custody or expelled. This allowed the shooter to avoid a criminal record and pass federal background checks to purchase firearms. In fact, one month prior to purchasing the weapon used in the shooting, he was disciplined with a one-day internal suspension for an “assault” at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and evaluated as a potential “threat.” It was his second offense for fighting in less than four months, but campus police did not make an arrest in either case. However, prior to Runcie’s plan being implemented, repeat offenders would have been arrested under the district’s zero-tolerance policies within the official “discipline matrix” used over the previous decade.
The Failure of the System
The lack of an arrest record hindered police efforts to confirm the Parkland shooter was a proven threat. According to law enforcement, this slowed or prevented any intervention when law enforcement received call-in tips and complaints from neighbors, classmates, and relatives regarding his potential desire to kill people.
About a month before the February 14 shooting, the FBI hotline received a tip about the shooter being a potential school gunman. However, the FBI failed to take action. Perhaps, if he had been previously arrested and booked for the on-campus misdemeanors, the FBI intake specialist handling the call would have seen his violent history in the federal National Crime Information Center database, which includes all state arrests, convictions, warrants, and alerts.
The Broward County Sheriff’s Office received at least 45 calls related to Cruz and his brother dating back to 2008—including a February 2016 call from a neighbor warning he made a threat on Instagram to “shoot up” the high school and another last November advising he was collecting guns and knives and appeared to be “a school shooter in the making.” Though deputies visited Cruz at his home, they did not try to recover his weapons, despite requests from relatives who feared he planned to use them on his classmates.
Conclusion
Supporters of the Second Amendment often condemn lawmakers for highlighting a single incident such as the Parkland shooting and widely applying it to an entire class of firearms or in this case 18 to 20 years olds. Should we do the same with the effort to eliminate the so-called “schools to prison pipeline” program? I am sure we can all agree the shooter is ultimately responsible for his horrific actions, but are there others who should be held accountable? Should the actions of the government in any way change debate as to the legal age to own a firearm?
Share your answers in the comment section.
Sign up for K-Var’s weekly newsletter and discounts here.
I live not far from Parkland and have to say this is the first I have heard of most of what is included in this article. I am going to forward this link to my friends. The author of this should forward such important information to The NRA and more specifically Marion Hammer. I will do the same. This “Gun Control Law” was railroaded in and signed into law by Gov. Scott (whom I will not vote for when he runs against Bill Nelson because of what he has done) within a matter of about 2 weeks after the incident. Never in my life living in Florida have I seen such a quick reaction get forced upon us into law without even gathering the facts such as what has been described here in this article. Instead the Second Amendment Haters just used the shooting to push their agenda. They disenfranchised thousands of “Adults” between the ages of 18-21 with a stroke of a pen and one more assault on one of the most important parts of our Constitution that “Shall Not BE Infringed Upon” yet they do it anyway. Where is the ACLU on this one and what the heck does bump stocks have to do with any of this? Americans need to wake up and realize if we allow any part of the Constitution to be trashed then a time will come when some part of it that is important to them will have the same thing done but it will be too late. If Americans would only research the past and why America was created in the first place, then they may understand the ones that made us what we are, did it to break away from the “Control” of the British. They wanted FREEDOM and setout to create a land where The People are the ones in charge NOT The Government. Our Rights are NOT given to us from the Government but from GOD. It is the Constitution which Protects those RIGHTS. My roots run DEEP in this country. I had relatives who fought in the American Revaluation and others who came here in the 1600’s before we even were America. Because of this I truly value what we are and am Proud of America. I just wish everyone here would feel the same way about this great land we are so blessed to live in. Try going to other countries and see how much freedom they have or the conditions they live in (not talking about the cushy resorts either). Anyway most of what I have commented on here will probably fall on deaf ears.
Why is it that the obvious seems to always be overlooked and ignored? Clearly there is no longer any honest investigative journalism in America… at least not in these cases involving mass shootings.
Believe what you will about whether or not all of these mass shootings are false flag attacks, but why is it that no one is investigating the story of the woman teacher who survived this shooting in Parkland, FL and who was interviewed on the ABC Good Morning America TV show where she gave her first hand account of having suffered a gun shot wound herself and said that she saw the shooter from no more than 20 feet away? What she said she saw in the hall was a man actively shooting who was completely dressed in police SWAT gear that included bullet proof vest and helmet. She said she did not understand and remembered thinking; why are the police here and shooting? And that as she and the male teacher from across the hall from her were trying to usher children into their respective classrooms in an effort to shield them from the gunfire, that she took one round to the arm and that the shooter (looking like SWAT police) then took aim towards the male teacher across the hall and shot towards him. This male teacher was unfortunately killed and was one of the named casualties of this mass shooting. This account from this very lucid woman teacher giving her first hand witness testimony of this event that took place in Parkland, Florida can be seen here: https://www.infowars.com/parkland-teacher-shooter-was-wearing-full-metal-body-armor-helmet-face-mask/
Understand that there is an established timeline for this event that includes the statement from the UBER driver that drove the alleged shooter, Nikolas Cruz, to the school on that day and as to how soon after the shooting began, and how long the shooting lasted, and how long the deputies outside the building stood down while hearing the gun shots inside the building, and as to when the alleged shooter, Nikolas Cruz, was seen by other students leaving the building as the fire alarm was ringing out and all the students were evacuating the building. IF this shooter that was seen by the woman teacher was in fact Nikolas Cruz, he would have had to have been already dressed in his SWAT gear while in the UBER taxi OR at the very least, have been seen carrying two large bags in which one would have held his weapon(s) and ammunition and the other his SWAT gear, and he would have needed time BEFORE and AFTER the shooting to allow for a change of dress both into and then out of the SWAT gear before leaving the school building along with the other students as has been reported by other students that say they saw him.
Just as has been the case in so many of these kinds of incidences; the above, together with a great many other conflicting facts tells me that something is very, very wrong with this picture and with the official narrative of what is being said to have taken place in Parkland, FL on February 14th.
There is clearly a very sinister motive behind what we are witnessing with regards to all of these mass shootings and there can be no doubt as to what that motive is, and what parties are behind it. And if you are not already familiar with the term, it would behoove you to look up the word “Democide” and to review even just the incidents of Democide that have taken place in the 20th century and what preceded each and every one of them as this will then give you some insight as to what course “they” might be attempting to put us on and as to what the real truth is as to why your Rights are under attack.
America was created under the notion and with the belief, as stated in The Declaration of Independence, that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is clear that the belief in God and the recognition that we are all endowed by our Creator with inherent natural Rights is in fact the foundation upon which America was built. The Rights acknowledged and recognized in our founding documents are deemed to be “inherent and inalienable” meaning that they come from our humanity and can not be surrendered nor can they be contracted away.
Furthermore, in reviewing the Constitution for any changes to the very clearly acknowledged Right expressed in the Second Amendment, we can see that there has never been any change, modification or amendment to the Right to keep and bear arms. And as per Article VI, Section 2; The Constitution and the laws of the United States, “made in pursuance thereof”, are the Supreme Law of the Land. This means that all laws must conform and be in harmony with the Constitution or they are void from their inception as though they had never been created. See (among other Supreme Court rulings) Marbury v. Madison and Norton v. Shelby County for further clarification of this point. And so therefore, absent a constitutional amendment providing for any such change, alteration or modification; the Second Amendment stands as originally written; and that as originally written, “the Right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be INFRINGED” remains today as the supreme law of the land. Remember that after all, it took a constitutional amendment (the 18th) in order to ban alcohol and to make Prohibition permanent law. And it took another constitutional amendment (the 21st) to undo the mistake that was Prohibition. And that even a simple change such as to when a newly elected president is sworn into office was only accomplished via a constitutional amendment. All presidents up to and including FDR were sworn in on March 4th simply because that was the date the federal government originally became effective. But not wanting to have to wait so long after the November election, the 20th Amendment was passed and today allows for a January 20th date for newly elected presidents to be sworn in. In light of these historical changes to our American history that required taking the steps to formally amend the Constitution, how is it possible that our government made such dramatic changes that completely altered the people’s Right to keep and bear arms? There is clearly no “sporting purpose” provision contained within the Second Amendment and as per the many quotes left to us by the Founding Fathers, it is very clear that had they wished to include a “sporting purpose” that it would have very well been the hunting down and shooting of tyrants.
It is important to know and to understand that The United States Constitution does not authorize or give to any branch of government the right to interpret its words and meanings, and that the United States Constitution can NOT be changed or modified via any act of the Congress or via any presidential executive order… The only lawful and valid change MUST be made via the amendment process, as is clearly stated within the constitution document itself.