"Here is the scoop:
My son was home Thursday evening doing his homework when his ink pen died. He asked if I had one he could have. I reached into the pen holder on my desk and grabbed a pen and gave it to him. He continued his homework as usual. The night passed normally, everyone goes to bed, and Friday rolls around.
So, my phone rings Friday afternoon. It's the vice principal from my son's school saying that he needs to discuss a serious situation about my son. When I asked him what was going on, he tells me that a pen bearing a Glock logo is forbidden by school policy and that I need to come and pick up my son because there is a manditory 3 day suspension because of the violation. Apparently, one of my son's teachers saw him writing with the pen during an assignment.
While I have the VP on the telephone, I retrieve my son's student handbook. Flipping though it, I see that weapons, replica weapons, pictures of weapons, and weapon images on keychains or other items are forbidden. The pen I had given him was one I picked up at a law enforcement firearms competition last year - which bore only the Glock logo, but not an image or rendition of a firearm. Nowhere does it say that a firearm company logo is restricted by school policy. I explain this to the VP.
So, the VP gets his handbook and looks through it. He was in agreement that the pen did not directly violate the policy, but that the Glock name was commonly known to be a firearm and therefore it technically was in violation. Then, the VP even makes a statement to the fact that I am a local LEO and I should know the proper application of the rules.
I found this to be the most hilarious interpetation of school law yet. I engaged in an argument for a short time about the suspension and how the pen did not violate the posted rules as understood by anyone reading it. The VP would not budge on his position and referred me to the school system's superintendant's office.
So, my son is at home and I have an appointment at the school superintendant's office tomorrow. I will try to be diplomatic, but this situation is clearly not covered by the rules by the VP's own admission. Maybe I am wrong here, but this just seems very unfair and exceptionally liberal.
How would you deal with this situation?"
It's one long ass thread over at AR15.com so click the headline link if you've a mind to bear witness.
And thanks to The War on Guns.
No comments:
Post a Comment