Well, well. I’m so confused. I thought “gun-free zones” were totally unsafe, you guys! Don’t our law-abiding legislators want to be able to protect themselves from the boogey men lurking in every hallway? Why would they put themselves at risk this way?
Do you think even they don’t buy the bullshit NRA talking points they spout? No, it can’t be!
Meanwhile, as I predicted, the “fiscal note” and confusion that the legislature recognizes is a real thing for itself, but denies is a real thing for everyone else, has already caused headaches for at least one local school board. The Williamson County Board of Education held a special meeting last night to address new signage for its parks, which would cost $7,500:
Looney says permit-holding gun carriers won’t have any way of knowing whether they’re breaking the law at a public park, because it’s hard to tell whether a school-sponsored event is taking place.
If approved, WCS would spend $7,500 to place temporary signs at various facilities during school events that remind people guns are not allowed.
But the board failed to provide enough votes to approve the resolution, with five “yes” votes and three abstentions. Seven “yes” votes are needed to approve resolutions.
The BofE blames a “a communication error” on the failed resolution. Now there will be yet another meeting.
But I’m still confused by all of this. Because according to Legal Scholar/GOP Caucus Chairman Glen Casada, apparently you can’t carry in any park that has ever held a school event — even if the event is not going on at the time. That’s pretty much every park, everywhere, and while Casada chided the rest of us for being confused by this bill — “good gracious, if Glen Casada can understand this, surely the good public can,” he said — the fact remains, the bill is very unclear.
Casada interprets the law as saying “if a school function has occurred at a park, not when,” but he qualified that by noting he’s neither a lawyer nor a judge. But you know who is a lawyer? Robert Cooper, our former state AG, who told Casada in 2009 that the “if not when” interpretation is wrong. So why would Casada tell everyone last week that his interpretation is correct — even being kind of a dick about it, telling us we’re being purposely obtuse — when a real, live lawyer told him he was wrong five years ago?
Curiouser and curiouser.
Of course, all of this could have been cleared up by the legislature with a handy-dandy amendment to the bill basically saying “if not when” a park has ever been used by a school, firearms are prohibited. I mean, if that was their intention — and Casada seems to be very clear that it was — you guys really could have done that. Instead of berating us for being confused by your own sloppy legislation. But you didn’t.
I wonder why.