In May 2017, SLB 204, KingSpry reported that Republican Senator Don White’s bill proposing that Pennsylvania school districts allow school personnel to carry guns in schools was being considered by the Legislature’s Education Committee. That bill, SB 383, passed the Senate on June 28, 2017 by a vote of 28-22, and now is in the House Education Committee for consideration. However, a last-hour amendment proposed by Democrat Sharif Street caused the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) to withdraw its support for the bill.
Titled SB 383: “Protection and Defense of Pupils,” this proposed amendment to the Public School Code would give Boards of School Directors the authority to establish a policy allowing school personnel “access to firearms in the buildings or on the grounds of a school.”
The original bill, referred to the Senate Education Committee in February 2017, was very bare bones, requiring merely that the school personnel who were approved to carry firearms have a license for concealed carry and have training and certification in the use and handling of a firearm.
An amendment proposed by Senator White in May added a provision that information regarding which persons in a school were armed would not be subject to the Right-to-Know law, nor would their identities be disclosed to the public at open meetings. However, the Street amendment to the bill, passed the day before the Senate voted on the bill, added significant language viewed by gun advocates as weakening the bill.
In addition to the requirements of license and training in the original bill, and the disclosure prohibitions in the White amendment, the Street amendment added the requirements that a Board of School Directors adopting a firearm-carry policy in a school must establish a firearm safety plan and file that plan with the local law enforcement agency serving the school.
The plan would not be a public record subject to the Right-to-Know law, and must include:
- Identification of the school personnel with access to firearms,
- Coordination between the local law enforcement agency and school personnel, including those with access to firearms, during an emergency response,
- Procedures for the law enforcement agency to review any discharge of firearms owned by school personnel permitted access to firearms in school,
- Provide notification of the establishment of the policy (Note: the word used here was policy, not plan) to the parents and guardians of students in any district school that has personnel permitted access to firearms, and,
- Provide notification to the nearest hospital of the number of schools in the school district that have personnel with access to firearms (Note: only the number, not the names of the schools).
In addition, any personnel permitted access to firearms in or around the school must complete a psychological evaluation like that of law enforcement personnel, and “receive a professional opinion from the evaluating psychologist that the individual is psychologically capable of exercising appropriate judgment and restraint” with respect to firearms. In addition, the identity of specific individuals with access to firearms in the schools will not be subject to the Right-to-Know law, nor disclosed at an open meeting.
While the Street amendment responds to some of the fears expressed by the media and politicians, concerns about liability still arise. What if, for example, the employee with access to a firearm absentmindedly leaves the firearm where a student could gain possession of it? What if a teacher with access to a firearm mistakes a disheveled parent for a dangerous intruder? What if the firearm accidentally discharges? What if the first responders to an emergency call mistake the teacher with a firearm as the perpetrator? What if…..
The reality is that after every school shooting, lawsuits follow.
Anyone and everyone involved with the school or school district may be subjected to both criminal and civil lawsuits. The only entity likely immune from suit is the gun industry itself. Under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, gun manufacturers and gun dealers are granted broad immunity from lawsuits in state or federal courts. However, School Boards in the Commonwealth affirmatively acting to allow school personnel access to firearms in their schools have no such immunity. While the likelihood of criminal suits being brought against the school district, school officials, or other school employees is minimal, the likelihood of a civil liability lawsuit is near certainty.
Suits against the employee who carelessly leaves a firearm in an unlocked storage place, e.g., a desk drawer or a filing cabinet drawer, allowing a student or another third party to find and use the gun for harm may be sued in a civil action for the tort of negligence. However, the employee will not be the only one named in the suit. The school district itself may be sued; school officials, and even Board members, may be sued in their official and personal capacities, depending on their roles in adopting the policy which allowed firearms in the school. Even an accidental firearm discharge that causes student or third party injury may be the cause for a suit alleging negligence; if no physical injury, emotional or psychological injury may be alleged. Surveillance cameras in schools may become the school district’s worst nightmare, recording all sorts of negligence situations on the part of personnel who have access to firearms in schools.
Bottom Line for Schools
School personnel allowed access to firearms in schools will likely be required to purchase their own firearms. Even with the training required in SB 383, a school employee not familiar with weapons may purchase too powerful a weapon, or one that fires with the slightest touch. The employee who reaches for the firearm may be nervous and let the firearm slip and fall, accidentally discharging. Whom will they all sue? Employees as well as third parties may sue the district for adopting the school firearms policy.
In the realm of personal injury lawsuits, most end in costly settlements; some even settle before the lawsuit reaches court. In the unlikely event that a school district can purchase an insurance policy that covers all the unexpected calamities that can occur due to the presence of firearms in the school setting, such policies will be extremely expensive, especially after the first damage award to a successful plaintiff. Governor Wolf has said that even if the House eventually passes SB 383, he will veto it. Time will tell.
If you have a question about the issues discussed in this article, please contact your legal counsel or one of the Education Law Practice Group attorneys at KingSpry.
School Law Bullets are a publication of KingSpry’s Education Law Practice Group. They are meant to be informational and do not constitute legal advice. John E. Freund, III, is our editor.
