Parents Threaten Free-Speech Suit Over Gun Issue at School

Gene Beasley

New member
From the NY Times

The parents of two Montclair, N.J., students said yesterday that the school district allowed gun control advocates to distribute leaflets in classrooms in support of pending state legislation, then refused to allow distribution of leaflets opposing the measure.

The parents have threatened to file a civil rights lawsuit against the district, with the backing of the New Jersey affiliate of the National Rifle Association.

The father, John Montenigro, a member of the association, said his 9-year-old daughter and 5-year-old son came home from school in June with a flier, distributed by the Million Moms organization, in support of a bill in the State Senate, S-2045, which would require so-called smart gun technology once it is available. (The technology could include chips programmed to recognize a handgun's owner and keep the gun from firing in a stranger's hand.)

Mr. Montenigro, 48, and his wife, Joan Furlong Montenigro, 41, are active in promoting gun safety classes in schools and said they had taught their daughter to shoot. Mr. Montenigro, whose family business makes gun grease used by the military, said he and his wife opposed the bill because they think the technology will be unreliable.

Before the fliers supporting the bill were distributed, two students in Montclair were arrested for buying guns with false identification they had obtained on the Internet. In reaction to the fliers, Mrs. Montenigro said, she formed her own group, Moms for Gun Safety. She said that as part of its activities it had asked permission to post fliers publicizing a rally in opposition to S-2045, and to give the fliers to students to take home.

The school district gave permission to Moms for Gun Safety to post the fliers but not to hand them out. Mrs. Montenigro said the school district had ignored her efforts to start a gun safety program in the schools, a decision she said reflected Montclair's left-wing bias.

"Whether you're talking about education or you're talking about this bill, the attitude was, `We don't want to hear it,' " she said. "People here like to think it's a fairly tolerant community, but it isn't."

Bryan Miller, president of Ceasefire New Jersey, a group that supports the gun bill, said Moms for Gun Safety was controlled by the National Rifle Association and its state affiliate, which have become "very clever of late" in using mothers to oppose gun laws. "This has nothing to do with gun safety," he said.

The Montenigros plan to hold a news conference in Newark today with members of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, the state N.R.A. affiliate, to announce that Mr. Montenigro will file a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments' guarantees of free speech and equal protection.

The Montclair school superintendent, Dr. Michael Osnato, did not dispute the couple's version of events, and he conceded that the district's Office of Instruction might not have given Moms for Gun Safety equal time. "In this particular instance, there was not a consideration of that by the people that handled it," he said. "We should not be taking political positions."

Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, said the Montenigros appeared to have a solid case. "This is a typical situation where a school has created a forum for speech," she said, "and then discriminated based on the content of the speech."

------------------
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed—and thus clamorous to be led to safety—by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”—H.L. Mencken
 
YEASSSSSSSSSSS! I hope they kick butt! It's too bad there aren't other grass-roots groups in NJ that would step forward and join in on this one. Of late the schools seem bent on violating all kinds of rights under the guise of "policy". We are actively watching for this stuff in our area and will try to bring a coalition together to oppose stuff like this. Thanks geneb for letting us know! Keep us posted.
 
They are SOOOOOO hammered... The Principal just cut the school's throat. And, depending on the type of case the parents file, perhaps his own, as well.

------------------
Smith & Wesson is dead to me.

If you want a Smith & Wesson, buy USED!
 
"Bryan Miller, president of Ceasefire New Jersey, a group that supports the gun bill, said Moms for Gun Safety was controlled by the National Rifle Association and its state affiliate, which have become "very clever of late" in using mothers to oppose gun laws".

If that isn't a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black ...
flipa.gif
 
Read the decision in PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER v. ROBINS, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scrip ts/getcase.pl?navby=search&linkurl=<%LINKURL%>&graphurl=<%GRAPHURL%>&court=US&case=/us/447/74.html

In the decision it states that a person does not need explicit permission to leaflet or gather signatures at a place where the public is usually and customarily allowed to enter -- even if that property is privately held.

From the decision:

Soon after appellees had begun soliciting in appellant privately owned shopping center's central courtyard for signatures from passersby for petitions in opposition to a United Nations resolution, a security guard informed appellees that they would have to leave because their activity violated shopping center regulations prohibiting any visitor or tenant from engaging in any publicly expressive activity that is not directly related to the center's commercial purposes. Appellees immediately left the premises and later filed suit in a California state court to enjoin the shopping center and its owner (also an appellant) from denying appellees access to the center for the purpose of circulating their petitions. The trial court held that appellees were not entitled under either the Federal or California Constitution to exercise their asserted rights on the shopping center property, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the California Constitution protects speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the center is privately owned, and that such result does not infringe appellants' property rights protected by the Federal Constitution.

I have aprised John Montenigro of this decision. This is an excellent decision to keep a printed copy of with you anytime you are leafletting or gathering signatures. If you are asked to leave, simply let them read the decision. If they still ask you to leave, refuse. If they have you forcibly removed by the authorities you have a civil rights violation with the full force and might of the United States government behind you.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited October 14, 2000).]
 
Karansas,
Where did you get that? That is awesome.

The principal may knowingly cut the school's throat. He may be forced to stand on policy.
 
Back
Top