Throwing Away School Lunches – A Form of School Bullying

According to a news article published by FoxNews.com, a New Jersey mother has accused her local elementary school, in Galloway Township, N.J., of bullying her 10 year old son. The mother claims that the school personnel has “repeatedly taken her child’s lunch and thrown it away.” The mother acknowledges that her son’s lunch account had “become delinquent” due to unpaid cafeteria balances, however, the mother attributes the situation on her son’s “occasional failure to relay notes and messages on the issue.” According to the article, the child suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome.  Recently, a similar incident occurred at Uintah Elementary School in Salt Lake City, Utah. According to the article school officials in Uintah Elementary School “replaced […] student’s $2 lunches with fruit and milk […] because of insufficient or negative balances.” The father of an 11 year old student whose lunch was taken away by Uintah school officials believes that “young children [should not] be punished or humiliated for something the parents […] need to clear up.” Similarly, the N.J. mother expressed her belief that the issue should remain “between the parents and the cafeteria […not] between the child and the lunch lady.” 

            This article reveals how arbitrary the definition of bullying can be. Some people would argue that school officials have no right to deprive children of their school lunches and in the process humiliate them. However, other individuals would argue that “rules are rules”, and as a result, school officials have the right to deny and deprive students of their school lunches if their parents fail to pay the school lunch balances. In my opinion this scenario is an excellent example of a bullying scenario that contradicts a common assumption. Usually school officials are thought as having students’ best interests in mind. However, this article is proof that the aforementioned assumption is not always the case. Is it really in the students’ best interests to deprive them of their school lunches over fees their parents have failed to pay? What lesson are students supposed to learn, pay or be humiliated?

* In the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment to the Constitution reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.[160]

* Gun control proponents have argued and some federal courts have ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to individual citizens of the United States but only to members of militias, which, they assert, are now the state National Guard units.[161] [162] In 2002, a federal appeals court panel ruled that "the people" only "have the right to bear arms in the service of the state."[163]

* Gun rights proponents have argued and some federal courts have ruled that the Second Amendment recognizes "an individual right to keep and bear arms."[164]In 2001, a federal appeals court panel ruled that the Second Amendment "protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms...."[165]

* James Madison was the primary author of the Bill of Rights,[166] is known as the "Father of the Constitution" for his central role in its formation,[167] and was one of three authors of the Federalist Papers, a group of essays published in newspapers and books to explain and lobby for ratification of the Constitution.[168] [169]

* In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison addressed the concern that a standing federal army might conduct a coup to take over the nation. He argued that this was implausible because, based on the country's population at the time, a federal standing army couldn't field more than 25,000-30,000 men. He then wrote:

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.[170]

* Five critical rules of gun safety from the NRA and other sources:

1) Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction (whether loaded or unloaded).

2) Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.

3) Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to shoot.

4) Be aware of what is behind your target.

5) When handling firearms, never use alcohol or any drug that might impair your awareness or judgment (including prescription drugs).[134]

* The President of the United States appoints judges to the Supreme Court. These appointments must be approved by a majority of the Senate.[143] Senate rules allow for a "filibuster," in which a vote to approve a judge can be blocked unless unless three-fifths of the senators (typically 60 out of 100) agree to let it take place.[144] [145]

* Once seated, federal judges serve for life unless they voluntarily resign or are removed through impeachment, which requires a majority vote of the House of Representatives and a two-thirds vote in the Senate.[146]

* On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that Washington's D.C.'s handgun ban was unconstitutional.[147] Both of the Justices appointed by Democrats voted to uphold the ban, and five of the seven Justices appointed by Republicans voted to strike it down.[148]

* Of the five Justices who voted to strike down the D.C. handgun ban, Barack Obama voted against the nomination of two of them and identified two of the others as judges he would not have nominated.[149] [150] [151] Of the four justices who voted to uphold the handgun ban, John McCain identified all of them as judges he would not have nominated.[152]

* In May 2009, President Obama announced Sonya Sotomayor as his first nominee to the Supreme Court.[153] She was confirmed in a 68-31 Senate vote, with 100% of Democrats voting for her confirmation and 78% of Republicans voting against it.[154]

* Within a year of being confirmed to the Supreme Court,[155] Sotomayor joined in a dissenting opinion declaring that Chicago's handgun ban was constitutional, that "the use of arms for private self-defense does not warrant federal constitutional protection from state regulation," and that the Framers of the Constitution "did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense."[156]

* In May 2010, Obama announced his second nominee to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan.[157] As a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan wrote a memo recommending Marshall deny hearing an appeal from a man who was convicted of violating Washington, D.C.'s gun laws. She wrote in the memo:

[The man's] sole contention is that the District of Columbia's firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." I'm not sympathetic.[158]

* Kagan was confirmed to the Supreme Court by the Senate in a 63-37 vote, with 98% of Democrats voting for her confirmation and 88% of Republicans voting against it.[159]

 

Right-to-Carry Laws

* Right-to-carry laws permit individuals who meet certain "minimally restrictive" criteria (such as completion of a background check and gun safety course) to carry concealed firearms in most public places.[95] Concealed carry holders must also meet the minimum federal requirements for gun ownership asdetailed above.

* Each state has its own laws regarding right-to-carry and generally falls into one of three main categories:

1) "shall-issue" states, where concealed carry permits are issued to all qualified applicants

2) "may-issue" states, where applicants must often present a reason for carrying a firearm to an issuing authority, who then decides based on his or her discretion whether the applicant will receive a permit

3) "no-issue" states, where concealed carry is generally forbidden

* As of January 2012:

• 40 states are shall-issue:

Alaska	Arizona	Arkansas	Colorado
Florida	Georgia	Idaho	Indiana
Iowa	Kansas	Kentucky	Louisiana
Maine	Michigan	Minnesota	Mississippi
Missouri	Montana	Nebraska	Nevada
New Hampshire	New Mexico	North Carolina	North Dakota
Ohio	Oklahoma	Oregon	Pennsylvania
Rhode Island	South Carolina	South Dakota	Tennessee
Texas	Utah	Vermont	Virginia
Washington	West Virginia	Wisconsin	Wyoming

[96]

NOTE: Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming allow lawful firearm owners to carry concealed firearms without a permit. All other shall-issue states require firearm owners to obtain a permit to carry concealed firearms.[97]

• 9 states are may-issue:

Alabama	California	Connecticut	Delaware
Hawaii	Maryland	Massachusetts	New Jersey
New York

[99]

NOTE: May-issue states vary significantly in the implementation of their laws. Some, such as Connecticut,[100] act effectively as shall-issue states, while others, such as New Jersey, act effectively as no-issue states.[101]

• 1 state is no-issue: Illinois [102]

* Click here to see why the following commonly cited statistic does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility: In right-to-carry states, the violent crime rate is 24% lower than the rest of the U.S., the murder rate is 28% lower, and the robbery rate is 50% lower.

 

Background Checks and Criminals' Sources of Guns

* Under federal law:

• It is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison for the following people to receive, possess, or transport any firearm or ammunition:

someone convicted of or under indictment for a felony punishable by more than one year in prison, someone convicted of a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years in prison, a fugitive from justice, an unlawful user of any controlled substance, someone who has been ruled as mentally defective or has been committed to any mental institution, an illegal alien, someone dishonorably discharged from the military, someone who has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship, someone subject to certain restraining orders, or someone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor.[57] [58] [59] [60]

• It is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison to sell or transfer any firearm or ammunition to someone while "knowing" or having "reasonable cause to believe" this person falls into any of the prohibited categories listed above.[61] [62]

• It is illegal to "engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms" without a federal license to do so.[63] [64] [65]

• It is illegal for any federally licensed firearms business to sell or transfer any firearm without first conducting a background check to see if the buyer/recipient falls into any of the prohibited categories listed above.[66][67]

• It is illegal for anyone except a federally licensed firearms business to sell, buy, trade, or transfer a firearm across state lines.[68]

* Under federal law, private individuals are not required to a conduct a background check before selling or transferring a firearm to someone who lives in the same state, but it is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison for a private individual to sell or transfer a firearm while "knowing" or having "reasonable cause to believe" that the recipient falls into one of the prohibited categories above.[69] [70]

* Some states such as California require background checks for all firearms transactions, including those conducted between private individuals.[71] [72][73]

* In the 10-year period from November 30, 1998 to December 31, 2008, about 96 million background checks for gun purchases were processed through the federal background check system. Of these, approximately 681,000 or about 1% were denied.[74] [75]

* During 2002 and 2003, out of 17 million background checks resulting in 120,000 denials, the federal government prosecuted 154 people (about one-tenth of 1% of the denials).[76] [77]

* According to federal agents interviewed in a 2004 U.S. Justice Department investigation, the "vast majority" of denials under the federal background check system are issued to people who are not "a danger to the public because the prohibiting factors are often minor or based on incidents that occurred many years in the past." As examples of such, agents stated that denials have been issued due to a 1941 felony conviction for stealing a pig and a 1969 felony conviction for stealing hubcaps.[78] [79]

* The same investigation audited 200 background check denials and found that 8% of denied applicants were not prohibited from lawfully possessing a firearm.[80]

* During 2008, applicants appealed about 19% of the 70,725 background check denials issued that year. Of these, about 23% were later overturned and the applications approved.[81]

---

* As of 2010, federal law does not prohibit members of terrorist organizations from purchasing or possessing firearms or explosives.[82]

* Between February 2004 and February 2010, 1,225 firearm and three explosives background checks for people on terrorist watch lists were processed through the federal background check system. Of these, 91% of the firearm transactions and 100% of the explosives transactions were allowed.[83]

* Under federal law, individuals who have been convicted of a felony offense that would typically prohibit them from possessing firearms can lawfully possess firearms if their civil rights are restored by the requisite government entities.[84]

* As of 2002, 15 states automatically restore the firearm rights of convicts upon their release from prison or completion of parole, and 6 other states automatically restore the firearm rights of juvenile convicts upon their release from prison or completion of parole. In 2004, the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice wrote that this system

may result in a paradoxical situation in which someone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence is permanently barred from owning a firearm, while someone who kills his spouse has his firearm rights restored after serving his sentence.[85]

---

└ Enforcement

* To undergo a background check, prospective gun buyers are required by federal regulations to present "photo-identification issued by a government entity."[86]

* Using fake driver's licenses bearing fictitious names, investigators with the Government Accountability Office had a 100% success rate buying firearms in five states that met the minimum requirements of the federal background check system.[87] [88] A 2001 report of this investigation states that the federal background check system "does not positively identify purchasers of firearms," and thus, people using fake IDs are not flagged by the system.[89]

* In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be (1) kept unloaded and (2) rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. The law became operative on Sept. 24, 1976.[33] [34]

* On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down this law as unconstitutional.[35]

[36]

* During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.[37]

* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13][14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

* Click here to see why the following commonly cited statistic does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility: "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."

---

└ Vulnerability to Violent Crime

* At the current homicide rate, roughly one in every 240 Americans will be murdered.[23]

* A U.S. Justice Department study based on crime data from 1974-1985 found:

• 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives

• 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime

• 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once[24]

* A 1997 survey of more than 18,000 prison inmates found that among those serving time for a violent crime, "30% of State offenders and 35% of Federal offenders carried a firearm when committing the crime."[25]