For those who missed his appearance on Fox & Friends Monday morning, Willows High School junior Gary Tudesko, with his mother, Susan Parisio at his side, seemed like a normal kid who might live across the street in any American neighborhood, and you would be glad to have him there.
This Northern California teen has now been branded by an expulsion by the Willows Unified School District board for having had unloaded shotguns locked in his pickup truck off-campus on Oct. 26. They were discovered by “scent-sniffing dogs.” They belonged to Gary and one of his pals who - and this is the gist of it - had done a little bird hunting that morning, then went directly to school in order to not be tardy.
My son was not even parked on school property."—Susan Parisio
He was careful to park off campus.
But that obviously was not good enough for the school board, or Principal Mort Geivett, who was quoted by the Chico Enterprise Record explaining how he felt the school had jurisdiction to send a nosey dog off campus to sniff around cars in a public area because most of the vehicles belong to students. He and other school officials, according to the newspaper, argued that they had "several justifications" for conducting off-campus vehicle searches. One of those, the paper said, is a legal doctrine called in loco parentis -- "where school officials may act in place of a parent for school functions." (In this case, one might suggest that emphasis be placed on the term "loco.")
I'm erring on the safe side of protecting staff and kids"—Willows High Principal Mort Geivett
Chalk up another victory for “Zero tolerance,” the philosophy that is also known as “Zero Intelligence” because it substitutes Draconian inflexibility for common sense. I wrote about this politically correct abomination here a few weeks ago.
So, what happens to Tudesko? Does he now face social ostracism over this expulsion, which will likely follow him like a bad odor if, and when, he applies to attend a university or even a community college? And what about when he applies for a job, or wants to enlist in the military; how will future employers look at this expulsion “because he had a gun near campus?”
Susan Parisio defended her son during the 105-minute public hearing at Willows Civic Center. She acknowledged that Tudesko was lazy for not storing the shotguns at home after a morning of bird hunting, but she questioned the district's ability to enforce its policies off Willows High School property.
How can we be certain that some future California statute or a federal law will not one day be passed that adds this kid’s name to some “watch list” because of this that may ultimately cost him his firearm civil rights? For those who insist that will never happen here, I give you the history of California gun laws regarding semiautomatic rifles, or the way the Lautenberg Act is used to strip people of their gun rights who may have pleaded no contest or guilty to a misdemeanor several years ago.
Tudesko’s pal reportedly was not expelled. Other students who reportedly had ammunition in their cars that morning were not expelled.
Tudesko has learned a hard lesson about intolerance; perhaps made even harder because his school district pats itself on the back on its own website, where it claims to be “committed to providing a safe, enriched, student-centered learning environment where all our students can…develop respect and tolerance for themselves and others…” That is, of course, unless they happen to hunt birds in the morning before school, as their parents and maybe grandparents did when they were kids.
Wonder what they’re teaching in class today at Willows High School, “Hypocrisy 101,” perhaps, or maybe a course in “Acceptable Forms of Social Bigotry.”
If there isn’t a legion of civil rights attorneys lining up to represent this kid pro bono, then there really is not any justice left in California.
More from Gun Rights Examiners
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Wisconsin: Gene German
And Don’t forget to visit:
Comments
It has to be a sick mind that would rather make an example to enforce tyranny than do the right thing and reinforce values.
I would hope that the boy and his mother are suing the school district and the state in both state and federal court for denying the boy his constitutional rights. Was the street posted prohibiting guns within so many feet of the school? Were these signs lear and evident to any driver coming down the street if tthey existed. How did the principle become aware of the potential "violation" in the first place? Was the dog sent out after the principle was notified and by whom? Is that dog rotuinely on campus every day or was he brought in just to go after this kid. Did the prinicple have any idea who he was going after before the dog identified the truck? With this on his public record in school it could be argued that his civil rights to a firearm are now gone under California law which is why his mother needs to fight this with everything she has. Good luck because you have what I consider in my personal opinion to be the biggest anti-gun bigot running the state attorney general's office
I would not only sue the school district, but I would sue the superintendent, the principal, and each member of the school board individually. These people need to be held accountable for their actions. For the school board members especially, see how they like someone showing up at their place of employment or at home to serve them with lawsuit papers. If it is a civil action, the state AG is irrelevant.
With the car on the public thoroughfare, what's next? Where does the right to private property start? The principal's rationale could be used to justify warrantless searches of the kid's home. That is unacceptable. These yahoos are "over the line" big time!
If the schools claim jurisdiction over private property (a car) that is not on school property, what is to keep them from searching a students room at home?
Both liberals (not holding my breath) and conservatives should be outraged at this violation of the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments.
I wonder if the police were involved? Otherwise, why would a student open their vehicle for anyone to inspect/search it? Perhaps, in addition to going after everyone who violated this kids rights, students need to learn their legal rights. "Just say no" to any search without a warrant.
anybody check out the 1996 national "gun Free School Zones ACT"? it defines School Zone as: "within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.
Zero tolerance = Intolerance
Al, can you spell 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL'?
Somehow, I doubt it...
"anybody check out the 1996 national "gun Free School Zones ACT"? it defines School Zone as: "within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school."
I think the law specifically states concealable weapons with barrels of 16 inches or less, or with interchangeable barrels if barrels under 16 inches are available. Plus, I believe the 1996 law was struck down in Lopez on, now sit down.....FEDERALISM grounds!
I already thought that you had to be crazy to live in Kalifornia.
I'm not even going to visit now. This is a blatant, ridiculous, frivolous. You seem to only have the right to have things happen TO you out there. How can we live under this crap? I'm heart-broken for our brothers and sisters in Kalifornia and Neu York who don't have the access to life, and liberty that the rest of us are afforded almost eveywhere else.
All of you converative Republicans were for the "zero tolerance" policies when they first came out. Law and order you said. You asked for it, now live with it!
Injun Joe got it right. Our schools have been brainwashing our kids for a very long time. This is just one of the PC think results of that teaching. For the last few years I have been remembering things taught as facts that were in fact blantent lies down the years. The first Thanksgiving fable, George Washingtons I cannot tell a lie, Abe Lincolns 20 mile walk to return a borrowed penny comes to mind. Bottom line, IF IT AIN'T TRUTH IT IS A LIE! hOME SCHOOL YOUR KIDS. PUBLIC SCHOOL IS gOVERNMENT SCHOOL. SEE NOBAMMA SPEAK! HEAR NOBAMMA LIE! kISS PELOSIES AND CO'S DONKEY . WHERE ARE OUR FREEDOMS GOING? RIGHT DOWN THE CRAPPER!
Hank, you are either a liar or suffering from a memory malady. All of us conservatives haven't always been for zero-tolerance. Zero tolerance equates to lack of responsibility. Why if judgment is to be replaced with this stupidity do we need school principals, administrators or even teachers? The only reason I can see is to have "snitches" in place, sort of like Germany in the 1930's. Are any of your neighbors Jews, if so, you must turn them in.
"Illegal Search and Seizure" comes to mind in this case. A vehicle that is parked on a public street cannot be searched or even sniffed (by a dog) without "probable cause" by an officer, let alone a school principal who decided to send a dog to sniff out all vehicles parked on a public road off the campus. This kid and his family should see a lawyer and file a suit against the school principal and school board for civil rights violations. If you cannot see anything suspicious locked inside in plain view from the outside of a vehicle (ie drugs, guns, etc) an officer lacks probable cause to search it.
This kid didn't break any law. His truck was off campus and his gun was locked in the truck. According to CA gun laws....even that 1000 foot rule, he still didn't break any law because his gun was locked in his truck.
My question is WHY was the security company even OFF the school grounds searching random cars and truck? Unless the KNEW that some of the kids go hunting before school and leave their guns in their trucks?
This is harassment. I hope this kids folks sue.
The 1000 foot law has only stipulations for continous transport to a leaglly accepted destination. He did breake the law on that one. My concern is where is their area of jurishdiction stop at? How can they get a way with using the excuse "in loco parentis" in some situations deny they have responsibility in others? Either they haev full authority or they do not. They can't have both. As for their "security company" Most schools use duly apointed police officers vice traditional security guards. What really has my dander up is the fact they chose to single out this kid while ignoring the others that have violate simular serious rules that call for simular punishment. I feel that he is singled out strictly because he had a couple shotguns. That someone saw an opportunity to further his political ambitions by singling out and persecuting him while hoping the others wont be noticed. If true. I think someones civil rights were grossly violated and they should be sued. contact ACLU.
Part 2... Contact the ACLU and see what they would do. If anything it would be interesting as they seem to have a genuine hatred towards the Constitution, Yet they portrey themselves as defenders of civil liberties. At any rate. I feel that there is a definate question of jurishdiction as well as a case of singling out someone for political gain going on here or he is being made an example to others. That alone would cause me to seek counsel. You can not just punish one person and let the rest go when they have violated rules that require the same punishment.
To the victims family, good luck as I think the winning lottery ticket just fell in to your lap. Remember don't just sue the district. Sue each person as well. Make an example out of them. If you do that maybe they will wake up and learn that zero tollerance has its limits.
Where does it end you say, not intell are freedoms are gone and wer'e all slaves to the government.
Wake up AMERICA wer'e losing our freedoms day by day and these
PUBLIC SERVANTS that keep getting elected over and over again
just keep ripping us off time and time again.
Lets face it jOHN kERRY'S dougter just got off scott fre from a DUI had that been one of mine/ or your'e kids with even half the
alcahole she " ELEDGEDLY" lol,had theyd;e be draged through the
courts, but I soppose they have their entitled to more privledges
than we are.
I think the 1000 foot distance from school grounds applies to someone carrying a concealed firearm (and who has a concealed carry permit) or open carry (loaded or unloaded) who is not a law enforcement officer. However, if you are transporting a firearm in accordance with CA law regarding handguns and/or long guns (rifle or shotguns) that are unloaded and separated from ammo it is legal to drive by or pick up someone at a school within the 1000 feet range (but check the laws just in case I may be wrong. Check around CA PC 12050). Also, the ACLU may only be interested in race related civil violations. I don't think this is the case here. A lawyer would be the family's best bet and I hope they win. There is no reason for anyone to do a search like that unless the shotguns were visible from the outside of the vehicle (which is still a legal way to transport them per state law as long as they were unloaded) that may give probable cause to an police officer.
I, for one, think its time to register and license dogs that sniff.
Kalifornia has a long history of prosecuting innocent hunters. Way back in 1976, KA passed a law that made it illegal to transport a loaded weapon. Who was one of the first to be prosecuted under the new law? It was a 17 year old in Oakland who had gone deer hunting with his uncle. He made the unforgivable mistake of not unloading his .30-30 after hunting that morning and riding home on his bicycle! Those kinds of laws were passed under the clarion call for safety, but have always been used against hunters and law-abiding gun owners. I volunteer $100 to his legal defense and to a lawsuit against each individual who profiled this kid.
This will also teach students to carry a can of black pepper in their car and sprinkle it "liberally" key word "liberal" around the general area of their car, I am somewhat sympathetic of what it does to the sniffer dogs.
There are exemptions:
** The Act`s prohibitions do not apply to:
1) firearms on private property (including homes used for home schooling);
2) unloaded firearms in a locked container or locked firearms rack in a motor vehicle;
3) unloaded firearms possessed while traversing school grounds to access hunting land;
4) entry authorized by the school;
5) persons licensed by state or local authorities;
6) individuals using a firearm in a school program;
7) law enforcement officers acting in an official capacity.
What is troubling he was trying to follow the rules by parking off school property and he still got screwed.
And how did the dogs detect the firearms when the handler most likely had a firearm at the same time ?
My guess he had it in plain site and the dog has no part in the discovery.
Good example for our kids follow the rules and still get in trouble, some will say why bother.
This is so crappy I'm not even gonna comment.
You're right Dave, he is a normal kid. This is a small community and Gary is typical of the kids who live here. He works on his truck, he's in FFA, he attends the local fundraisers and events and is well known. The folks here in Willows are floored over the school boards decision to expel. There is no support for the board members and I believe the Appeal Hearing on January 15th will be highly attended. It will be worth watchin with the attorneys from the NRA representing Gary. Everyone's invited. Hope to see lots of you there.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!