The STOP School Violence Act is a Joke & Only Grows Government – These Are The Only 10 Representatives Who Stood Against It
Government always claims to have solutions to problems we face as a society, but often times than none they do one of two things: They infringe on our rights as a “solution” or they grow government as a “solution.” Neither of these should be acceptable because neither solves the problem, and this is exactly what occurred with the passing of the STOP School Violence Act on March 14.
The act was nothing more than throwing more federal tax money at schools and changing the window dressing on certain words. It did nothing to prevent or stop school violence because words on paper simply cannot do that.
This legislation did nothing to make schools safer. In fact, it carried on as though the federal government has been given authority in our Constitution to issue money to schools or to be involved in education in the first place, despite the fact that there is not a shred of evidence that they have such authority.
HR 4919 was put forward by Republican Representative John H. Rutherford.
According to the legislation, there are grants that are given to schools and they are increased from what they previously were. Above that, all they did was manipulate language.
Take a look:
SEC. 2. GRANT PROGRAM FOR SCHOOL SECURITY.
Part AA of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10551 et seq.) is amended—
(1) in section 2701 (34 U.S.C. 10551)—
(i) by striking “Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services” and inserting “Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance”; and
(ii) by striking “including the placement and use of metal detectors and other deterrent measures” and inserting “through evidence-based strategies and programs to prevent violence, which may include the use of appropriate technologies, including the placement and use of metal detectors and other deterrent measure and emergency notification and response technologies”;
(i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting after “through” the following: “evidence-based school safety programs that may include”; and
(ii) by striking paragraphs (1) through (6) and inserting the following:
“(1) Training to prevent student violence against others and self, including training for local law enforcement officers, school personnel, and students.
“(2) The development and operation of anonymous reporting systems for threats of school violence, including mobile telephone applications, hotlines, and internet websites.
“(A) school threat assessment and intervention teams that may include coordination with law enforcement agencies and school personnel; and
“(B) specialized training for school officials in responding to mental health crises.
“(4) Coordination with local law enforcement.
“(5) Placement and use of metal detectors, locks, lighting, and other deterrent measures.
“(6) Security assessments.
“(7) Security training of personnel and students.
“(8) Subgrants to State or local law enforcement agencies, schools, school districts, nonprofit organizations, or Indian tribal organizations to implement grants awarded under this section.
“(9) Acquisition and installation of technology for expedited notification of local law enforcement during an emergency.
“(10) Any other measure that, in the determination of the Director, may provide a significant improvement in security.”;
(i) by striking “and has” and inserting “has”; and
(ii) by inserting before the period at the end the following: “, and will use evidence-based strategies and programs, such as those identified by the Comprehensive School Safety Initiative of the Department of Justice”; and
(D) in subsection (d)(1), by striking “50 percent” and inserting “75 percent”;
(2) in section 2702 (34 U.S.C. 10552)—
(A) in subsection (a)(2), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking “child psychologists” and inserting “mental health professionals”; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking “this part” and inserting “the STOP School Violence Act of 2018”;
(3) in section 2704(1) (34 U.S.C. 10554(1)), by striking “a public” and inserting “an”;
(4) in section 2705, by striking “$30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2009” and inserting “$75,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2028, of which not less than $50,000,000 shall be available in each such fiscal year for grants for the activities described in paragraphs (1) and (4) of section 2701(b)”; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
“SEC. 2706. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.
“(a) No Funds To Provide Firearms Or Training.—No amounts provided as a grant under this part may be used for the provision to any person of a firearm or training in the use of a firearm.
“(b) No Effect On Other Laws.—Nothing in this part may be construed to preclude or contradict any other provision of law authorizing the provision of firearms or training in the use of firearms.”.
Now, notice that there is some window dressing in some of the language change, but doesn’t actually impact what is going on. Second, notice the increase in money going to schools. It jumps from $30,000,000 per fiscal year to more than double at $75,000,000 per fiscal year.
See? Bigger government and DC thinks the people will buy into the fact that money will actually make their kids safe. It won’t. It’s a skirt to hide behind as these politicians act like they are doing something when they are not really doing anything helpful. They are merely growing government control.
Furthermore, the most important things that could be done, such as the elimination of schools as gun free zones, is not even mentioned. More specifically, the legislation claims that the money cannot be used to purchase firearms or provide firearms training, something that at least was helpful in this week’s Maryland shooting, although I’m not advocating for federal dollars to be sent to schools in the first place.
Additionally, this law impacts no other laws, like that of the gun free zones that makes schools soft targets for mass shooters.
Two of the most important things that could be done to actually aid school safety and security are never promoted, even though they are available.
The first is to remove any and all regulations and restrictions on the Second Amendment protections at the local, state and federal levels calling on government to know they are to protect our rights to keep and bear arms, not infringe on them. Second, as part of that would be to pass Rep. Thomas Massie’s excellent bill that would repeal the gun free zone status of schools. Rep. Massie has recently warned us that both parties have targeted our guns.
If you really want to see improvement in the issue of school shootings, begin there. Any of this other stuff has about as much effect on such things as banning guns will stop gun violence. Sadly, this is from those who claim to be on our side.
Here’s the list of the ten representatives who saw through this charade and voted against it. Please write them and thank them for taking their stand.
- Johnson (GA)
- Watson Coleman
The other 407 that voted for it simply voted for bigger government, including Republicans, and then there were thirteen representatives who didn’t even represent their people in the vote.
Article posted with permission from Freedom Outpost