As would the DPS and SWAT team throwing a flashbang grenade in my window while serving a warrant for something that is not a crime.
Take the flashbang part out and the above has already happened to someone in Bexar County.
Return to “30.06 Ruling Letters”
As would the DPS and SWAT team throwing a flashbang grenade in my window while serving a warrant for something that is not a crime.
I don't think the opinion goes that far. When the letter refers to "applicable education program" that could mean "applicable to SCHOOLS". Like Head Start for Pre-K SCHOOLS, not daycares (which wouldn't qualify).Scott in Houston wrote:Read his letter. These comments, "(opining that FERPA applies to student records at both the state and local level because "educational agency or institution" includes any public or private agency or institution that receives federal funding under an applicable education program, without regard to whether it enrolls students") "ELB wrote:I find your comment a bit baffling, since I see little doubt that forbidding concealed (and now, open) carry on elementary, junior, and high school districts (without permission of the district) was exactly what the legislature intended. I don't like it, but an independent school district is precisely what the law meant. There is no slope at this point, for the AG to say otherwise would have been in direct contravention of the law. I'm even puzzled that someone went to the trouble to even make a complaint about a ISD administration building.Scott in Houston wrote:Very disappointed in the Elgin ISD ruling.
That could create the slippery slope for others wanting to claim exclusion based on being an educational institution or school district.
So any agency that gets federal funding from an education program can now be considered a school? So what if a zoo gets money? Or libraries, or … ? See the slope I'm talking about?
I believe the intent of the was SCHOOLS… not all buildings supporting them like bus barns or administrative offices completely separate from a school.