[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 130 (Thursday, September 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10934-S10936]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            GUNS IN SCHOOLS

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this morning I was watching a morning 
television show and heard a report that was dumbfounding to me. It was 
a report on a decision by an appellate court of New York State dealing 
with a young man who had brought a gun to school. The gun had been 
discovered and taken from the youth. The boy was expelled from school. 
This case has made its way through the New York court system to the 
appellate court, which ruled Tuesday that the security guard had acted 
improperly in removing the gun from the boy who was in a school.
  I came to the office this morning after hearing that report and asked 
for some information about the appellate court decision and got it. I 
read through it and there are times when you scratch your head and 
wonder why there are people serving in public office in any branch of 
government who are so completely devoid of common sense. I read this 
decision and wondered how anyone could really have decided that it is 
all right for a boy to carry a gun in school and not be punished for 
it.
  There is a law on the books now, the Gun-Free Schools Act, that says 
schools must have zero tolerance for guns in our Nation's classrooms 
and hallways. I wrote it. I, along with the Senator from California, 
Senator Feinstein, wrote this legislation that is now law. It says with 
respect to the issue of guns in schools, we are sending a message that 
is very clear anywhere in America.
  The message ought to be clear to every student and every parent: 
There is zero tolerance for guns in schools. Do not bring a gun to 
school. If you do, you will face certain punishment. Now, that is law.
  In the report I heard today about the court case in New York 
regarding the young man, identified as Juan, in the Bronx, at William 
Howard Taft High School, a security guard testified that he spotted 
what looked like the handle of a gun inside Juan's jacket. A search 
turned up the weapon, which was loaded. Juan was suspended for a year, 
and criminal charges were filed against him. A Bronx family court 
kicked out the charges, ruling that the outline of the gun was not 
clearly visible. The slight bulge was not, in any particular shape or 
form, remotely suspicious, so the security guard had conducted an 
unreasonable search. The appellate court went a step further and said, 
since the guard improperly removed the gun, the boy should not have 
been suspended from school.
  I think that is nuts. When I get on an airplane to fly to North 
Dakota, I have to walk through a metal detector. They want to know 
whether I have a weapon on my person. They also have a right to search 
my briefcase and my luggage, and they have a right to determine that 
the people who board that airplane have no guns or weapons on them.
  This court says that a security guard, or teachers, or principals 
have no right to determine whether a student with a suspicious bulge in 
his clothing has a gun in his pocket or in his jacket as he walks down 
a hallway or sits in a classroom at a school in the Bronx. Where is the 
common sense here? Of course, we have a right to determine that no kids 
in schools have guns. When a court says that a school has no right to 
expel a student who was caught with a gun by a security guard who saw a 
bulge in the student's pocket, then there is something fundamentally 
wrong with that court.
  Now, as I said, I wrote the provision 2 years ago that says there is 
zero tolerance for guns in schools, and there are certain penalties for 
every student who brings a gun to school anywhere in this country. That 
does not vary from New Mexico to Indiana to North Dakota. If you bring 
a gun, you are expelled--no ifs, ands, or buts. This court decision, 
along with some background on other court decisions that I just heard 
about this morning on television, so angered me--to believe that we 
have the capacity in a country like this to prevent people from 
bringing guns onto airplanes but we can't expel a kid who is caught 
with a gun in school.
  I have a young son in school today. He is 9 years old. He is sitting 
in a classroom in a wonderful school. I, just like every other parent 
in this country, want to make certain that if there is any kid that 
comes into that school, or any other school, with a gun, our children 
are safe, and that someone can intercept those students, and if they 
find a gun, they are going to remove the gun and the student. We have 
every right to expect that to be the case in our schools.
  This court decision, as I said, denies all common sense. I fully 
intend to pursue additional Federal legislation, if necessary, in order 
to remedy this sort of circumstance. A country that can decide that 
people who board airplanes can be searched--and we can make certain 
that people will not take guns in airplanes--ought to be able to decide 
that children in school will be free from having another child in a 
classroom or in the hallway packing a .45 or a .38.
  Parents ought to be able to believe that security guards who 
intercept people with guns in schools will be able to remove those 
students. Not too long ago, at a school about 2 miles from where I 
stand, a young boy was shot. I had visited that school about a month 
before the young boy was shot. I went to a school with nine students in 
the senior class, in a town of 300. But I wanted to tour this inner-
city school and see what it was like. As I walked in, I went through a 
metal detector, and I saw security guards. I went into a school that is 
in a lockdown state when the school day begins. When the students are 
in, the doors are locked. They have metal detectors and security guards 
to try to make certain there are no students bringing in weapons and no 
unauthorized people are coming through the doors. Frankly, the security 
was pretty good at that school. They felt that there was a need to have 
substantial security.

  About a month or so after I toured that school, a young boy was in 
the basement of that school in the lunch room at a water fountain. 
Another young boy named Jerome bumped him at the water fountain. For 
bumping the boy at the water fountain, Jerome was shot four times. I 
just read about it in the papers. I didn't know Jerome. He was shot 
four times and he lay on the floor critically wounded. He survived 
those wounds. He graduated from school. I visited with Jerome a couple 
of times, just trying to understand what is happening in these schools. 
It was prior to my passing legislation here dealing with the issue of 
zero tolerance and guns in schools. I found it unusual that a school 
with that security still had a boy in the cafeteria with a gun--a gun 
available to shoot

[[Page S10935]]

someone who bumped him at a water fountain.
  Now comes, this morning, a court case where this boy Juan was in 
school 4 years ago. It has taken that long for this case to get through 
the courts. This boy isn't even in school anymore. But the decision is 
that a security guard at school improperly removed a gun from the 
pocket of this student. I find this so preposterous. I know if we talk 
to the judges, they would give a million reasons why they reached this 
decision. I don't want 10 reasons or 5 reasons. I want one person to 
give me one reason why we ought to believe it is ever appropriate for a 
young student to put a pistol in his pocket in order to go to school in 
this country.
  If we can't keep guns out of schools, we can't take the first baby 
step in dealing with this country's education problems. So I come to 
the floor to express enormous dismay over what I heard and read this 
morning and to say to those who are making these decisions: If need be, 
there will be Federal legislation, once again, telling those who are 
trying to keep guns out of our schools that you have the authority to 
do it. We are going to give school officials the ability to keep our 
children safe.
  I am not antigun. I hunt. In my State we have great hunting. But guns 
have no place in schools. No kid ought to bring a pistol to school. 
Those who do ought not to be told by the courts that it is OK. They 
ought to be told by parents and security guards, and by the law in this 
country, that it is not OK. If necessary, we are going to pass Federal 
legislation to make that occur.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Before the distinguished Senator from North Dakota leaves 
the floor, I would like to ask him a question or two.
  I have been listening, with keen interest, to his addressing this 
issue that I know he has been involved in for a long, long time. I have 
some comments to make on this. But I simply would like to ask him, who 
brought the action? Under whose auspices was the case filed that he has 
just addressed, where the decision came down yesterday? Where was this 
case and who brought the action?
  Mr. DORGAN. Well, I say to the Senator from Nebraska, this was in an 
appellate court of New York State. I don't have, at this moment, the 
information about who brought the action. I assume that attorneys on 
behalf of the student, or the student's parents, brought an action 
against the school and, also, of course, contested the criminal 
charges. This student who brought a gun to school, which was then 
seized by the security guard, eventually had the criminal charges 
against him dropped.
  Mr. EXON. Were there any other organizations involved in this, to 
your knowledge? Or was it just an individual action by a parent?
  Mr. DORGAN. Well, other organizations are quoted in the press 
stories, but there is not a reference about whether they were involved 
in the case. So I will not use their names, except to say that my 
expectation is that there are organizations who would join parents of 
the student and who would contest these sorts of policies. But it is 
beyond my comprehension to understand how anyone can argue anywhere 
that it is appropriate under any circumstance for a kid to pack a 
weapon to go to school. If we can't as parents, as school 
administrators, and as public officials decide that our schools are 
places where kids can learn and feel safe in an environment in which 
they can learn, then we cannot solve our education problems in this 
country.

  Mr. EXON. I have not seen the information that the Senator from North 
Dakota has. I guess I am specifically asking whether or not there were 
other organizations who hired attorneys or had attorneys there 
representing those who brought the action.
  Mr. DORGAN. I will get that information. I do not feel comfortable 
giving you the names of the other organizations named in the news 
articles I have because I do not know whether they were actively 
involved in bringing the case. But I hope by Monday or so to have all 
of that information, and I will come to the floor again and provide it 
for the Senator.
  Mr. EXON. I appreciate that very, very much. The fact that the 
Senator has the courage to stand up on the floor of the U.S. Senate and 
make such an obvious, commonsense argument encourages me that we are 
beginning to look at some of the real problems in America. One of the 
problems in America today is kids with guns. Certainly I would agree 
with my friend from North Dakota. If we are powerless to do anything 
about that, regardless of the status, the opinion, the background of 
one court, or one judge, then we are in serious trouble.
  As a former Governor who had appointed lots of judges, I have never 
launched an attack on the courts per se because I think by and large 
the courts do a good job. Unfortunately, it is obvious to me from some 
of the recent decisions that I have seen on a whole series of areas--it 
indicates to me that perhaps all too often the courts think they are 
not the third branch of Government but they are the branch of 
Government, and they seemingly are becoming all powerful.
  There was a time when the courts of the United States were somewhat 
restrained and did not become activists for causes. It seems to me that 
all too often those who are foremost in bringing these actions have 
scrutinized the judiciary to the point where they know what judge to go 
to on a certain issue and what judge would be most likely to go along 
with this particular point of view. To me, that is not a good comment 
on the judiciary that is supposed to be under the law, ones that make 
legitimate decisions based on law. And breaking new ground in the 
judiciary at one time was somewhat reserved. These days the judiciary 
is breaking more new ground more often and, in the opinion of this 
Senator, more wrongly than ever before.
  So I will be looking forward to hearing the next comment on this.
  Mr. DORGAN. I am mindful of the dilemma of criticizing the courts. I 
generally don't do that. I may have used some intemperate language 
today to do so, but I am a little tired of the judiciary saying, 
``Well, you know, don't ever comment about us. We are over here way 
above comment.'' I called a judge one day when I picked up the 
Washington Post some while ago. A couple of people put a pistol to a 
man's head in a pizza delivery murder and killed him. The trigger man 
was let out on, I think, $10,000 bond by the judge. I read that story. 
I thought to myself, ``What on Earth are we doing?'' I called the 
judge. The judge says, ``How dare you call me. You have no right to 
call me.'' I said, ``Of course, I have a right to call you.'' It turned 
out a lot of other people in that community called him, and he decided 
to change the bail. That young fellow was brought back to jail and was 
subsequently convicted of murder and put into prison.
  But the point is that I do not criticize the judiciary lightly. I do 
not want to taint the judiciary. The fact is a lot of people are doing 
a lot of wonderful work, I am sure. But there are times when you see 
decisions come out that are so unsound and so devoid of common sense.
  I try to be mindful of the point about criticizing the judiciary. 
But, frankly, I think sometimes they deserve a little criticism. I am 
going to do it when I feel they have made decisions like this that we 
can remedy with some Federal legislation, and they should know it is 
coming.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my friend. I find myself aligned 
almost identically with the viewpoints that the Senator has just 
addressed. I was very much interested to see how a judge resented the 
fact that a U.S. Senator called him asking the reasons for the decision 
that the judge had rendered. That takes me to the place that, while I 
recognize the courts as the legitimate third force of government, the 
courts are not sacrosanct, and the courts had better get off of the 
kick that they seem to be increasingly on, as evidenced at least by the 
one instance that the Senator from North Dakota addressed. Judges are 
human beings like all of us. Those of us who are in public service 
expect to receive criticism. That is what making hard decisions is all 
about.
  But I simply say that, from what I know of the case that the Senator 
from North Dakota referenced today about the most recent decision, 
probably the most recent outrage by at least one

[[Page S10936]]

court against what thinking people are trying to do to provide at least 
some degree of safe haven for our kids in school, highlights the point 
that the Senator from North Dakota is making and this Senator from 
Nebraska is making about the way things are happening today. The three 
equal branches of Government--the executive, the judiciary, and the 
legislative--had better be looked on.
  I say as a legislator to the courts, ``Do your job but don't trample 
on us as a second-class part of the equal three-part series of our 
Government that has served this Nation and this country so well for so 
very long.''

                          ____________________