Nino would not approve.
The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia never intended for guns to end up in schools—and he said so 10 years ago. When he wrote the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision, Scalia declared that the “right to keep and bear arms” was an individual right. It was a watershed moment for gun rights advocates. Scalia, ever the careful textualist, was quite specific and forceful in his 2008 decision. And while he may not have imagined a president pushing for armed classrooms, his words are prescient a decade later.
In the years leading up to the Heller decision, gun regulations had varied dramatically: a handgun legally purchased in Arizona might get you a felony conviction in the nation’s capital. Enter Dick Anthony Heller. As a licensed special police officer for the District of Columbia, Heller could carry a gun while on duty, but not while at home. The D.C. handgun ban became the central issue in his lawsuit. In the end, Scalia and four fellow conservative justices agreed: the ban was unconstitutional, and the Second Amendment was an individual right.
That’s probably what most people know about Heller. You can keep your handguns. Neither the District of Columbia, nor other cities, can take away what is a natural right. But most people probably haven’t read Heller (and who could blame them, it’s 157 pages long). If you did read the decision, you might remember that Scalia and the majority specifically staked out what limitations on guns are still in place. (For instance, machine guns are off limits.)
But Scalia also talks about schools in the decision:
This unambiguous statement is even repeated in the syllabus of the decision. It’s clear Scalia wasn’t pushing to turn America into a gun bazaar—especially if the guns were near schoolchildren, felons, and “sickos” (as President Trump likes to say).
Some states do have armed teachers. Trump made sure to highlight that point when he called on the governors of Texas and Arkansas during a recent televised event. But here again, the court has an answer. Scalia makes it clear in Heller that much of gun regulation is a federalist issue: “States, we said, were free to restrict or protect the right under their police powers.”
So, if Gov. Greg Abbott wants to have armed schools in Texas but Gov. Jerry Brown prefers California’s restrictive guns laws, well, fine. If the state law doesn’t violate the Constitution, then it’s not an issue for Washington. It’s not clear that Trump was thinking about such federalist nuance when he declared “Gun free zones are dangerous. The bad guys love gun-free zones.”
When I first wrote about guns in schools last month I was primarily concerned with the unintended consequences of placing half a million guns close to hormonally-challenged teenagers. Today, I’m also worried about a president who seems to view America as more of a personal fiefdom than as a collection of states with different peoples, traditions, and priorities. What’s good for San Francisco is not always good for San Antonio.
If Trump really wants to help schools, he should step back, read Scalia and remember that it’s the states and local school boards that govern most public schools—not Washington.
Kevin Tripp is a teacher and writer in Orange County, CA. Find him at @kevintripp.
