Dear Sen. Bartolomeo,
In your press release of Feb. 13 regarding school safety, you say, "Students should be able to receive mental health evaluations/treatment, and districts need some recourse if parents and students refuse to participate."
The last part of the sentence contradicts the first part. The first part says, students "should be able to receive mental health evaluations," implying a choice. The second part says, "districts need . . . recourse if parents and students refuse. . . That changes the first part, "should be able receive evaluations", to "must receive evaluations." It makes them manditory and implies sanctions against anyone who refuses.
This is a dangerous precedent. It forces something on parents and students that they may not want or need for whatever reason which is no one else's business without probalble cause, reasonable suspicion or judicial review. It places the state above the parents and usurps the parent's rights, responsibilities and authority.
Nowhere in the CT or federal Constitutions does the state have the authority to order mandatory psychological evaluations. No, not even the "General Welfare" clause.
It is blatantly in violation of an individuals right to be free from unwarranted searches and violates the individuals rights to privacy. Children are persons under the Constitution and are afforded equal protection rights, too.
The best and most efficient way to save lives under such circumstances as that in Newtown is to have armed guards in the schools and eliminate so called "gun free" zones. The only ones in them, free of guns, are the victims and it is proven that such mass murderers as Lanza deliberately seek out "gun free" zones because they know they can act there with impunity. It is foolish to require pistol permitted parents to disarm themselves before entering a school.
Allowing teachers and staff the opportunity to volunteer to receive training and carry a firearm, (with perhaps a small stipend), would work to protect students because the evil and mentally deranged would know they would be met with a resolved spirit of resistance.
Permit qualified volunteers to receive the same training as teachers and patrol the schools, acting as "resource" personnel. By qualified I mean retired military and police veterans and others. The idea that children would be "frightened" by having armed guards around is absurd!
These volunteer would be members of the community and known as the grandparents, uncles, aunts and neighbors of the students. Trust me, what grandchild would not be quite happy and proud to know her grandfather was keeping her and her classmates safe at school.
As far as the current "gun control" proposals go, I have yet to see anything that even closely resembles "common sense". For "Common Sense", I suggest reading Thomas Payne. I also urge you to re-read some of my past emails to you on the subject and listen to the testimony I delivered before the Gun Violence Task Force, in January.
No government can be all thing to all people at all times. Nor should it try to be. A government that governs best, governs least. And that is as it should be.
Very truly yours,