Originally published January 8 2013
Schools that fail to provide armed defense for children can all be sued
by J. D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) It seems as though President Barack Obama, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other gun-grabbers are setting public school districts around the country for the potential to be financially devastated if, heaven forbid, any of their students are killed via armed criminal action at some point in the future.
That's because each of these individuals, along with far too many other Americans, are mindlessly wed to the notion that, despite a rash of school shootings in recent years, our most precious citizens should be kept totally unprotected in gun-free zones (though that's not the case for the president's children and other "elite" politicians, media types and academics who take advantage of or otherwise insist on armed protection for their kids).
As such, public schools have been left wide open to class-action lawsuits from grieving parents seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages who will claim they have lost their children due to callous disregard for their safety.
Schools: Death by lawsuit for remaining unprotected
Such suits have already begun, in fact, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, where a psychotic Adam Lanza blasted his way into a pair of unprotected Kindergarten classrooms and killed 20 little souls, adding six unarmed adults who either tried to stop him or otherwise got in his way.
But here's the twist: The first suit has been filed by the parents of a survivor.
An unidentified plaintiff has filed a $100 million suit on behalf of a six-year-old killed at Sandy Hook identified only as "Jill Doe," because she heard "cursing, screaming, and shooting" over the school's intercom with Lanza, 20, began his murderous rampage, according to details of the claim reported by The Associated Press.
"As a consequence, the ... child has sustained emotional and psychological trauma and injury, the nature and extent of which are yet to be determined," said the claim, which was filed by New Haven, Conn.-based attorney Irv Pinskey.
The attorney filed the claim in late December with state Claims Commissioner J. Paul Vance, Jr., whose office is required to give its permission before a lawsuit can be filed against the state or on of its subdivisions.
"We all know it's going to happen again," Pinsky said during an interview with AP. "Society has to take action."
Pinsky's claim accuses the state Board of Education, Department of Education and Education Commissioner of failing to take appropriate steps to protect children from what he described as "foreseeable harm," a charge no doubt based in large part on the string of past school attacks.
Further, his claim said those agencies and entities failed to provide a "safe school setting" or establish "an effective student safety emergency response plan and protocol."
Isn't self-defense one of the purposes behind the Second Amendment?
The attorney said he had been approached by the child's parents within a week of the attack.
The shooting has once more prompted a national debate about gun laws, though much of it so far has been focused on what government - federal, state and local - can do to limit or ban guns, in spite of the Second Amendment's language guaranteeing Americans the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense (and wouldn't this seem like an extremely appropriate use of that right?).
So far only one national organization - the National Rifle Association - has been brave enough to suggest the obvious: Placing trained, armed guards in schools. Others, such as police chiefs and security experts, have suggested training and armed school personnel.
Obama has vowed to use the power of his office to "do whatever it takes" to enact new "sensible" gun control legislation. He is being helped in the Democrat-controlled Senate by Feinstein.
All of this despite the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in June upholding the Second Amendment as an individual right to own firearms for self-protection.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml