On Monday the Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill that makes it illegal to carry a fake gun within 150 feet of a school. The ban on fake weapons was included in a larger bill that would invalidate local laws that prohibit people who hold gun permits from taking guns near schools. The Tennessee bill aligns the state law with the federal “Guns Free School Zones Act,” which was originally passed in 1990. The “Gun Free School Zones Act” makes an exception to carry a gun near a school if:

the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license

This sounds like good news on the surface, but is it really? Do you know people who you wouldn’t want to be carrying a gun close to your child’s school? In contrast, you probably know people who you would prefer were armed at the school in order to protect your child. The “Gun Free School Zones Act” states that as long as a person has a permit to carry in the state, then they can carry near school property. In many states local and state laws “override” this federal law. This new Tennessee law would give the federal law precedence.

I’m all for protecting the right to bear arms, but above all else I’m a proponent of individual rights. Individual rights go hand in hand with property rights. Property owners, or coalitions of property owners, have the right to ban items from being used on or to prevent them from entering their property. Unfortunately, too often in today’s society the fog created by socialized public goods or services complicates situations and ignores the vital role played by property rights in a more free society. This is one of those instances. For confirmation on the confusion and chaos being created, you need to look no further than the strange restrictions on other fake or real weapons in this bill. The Tennessean reports :

The amendment says the state doesn’t need to pay to remove signs that say guns are banned in parks. However, it also includes a list of new items that are banned within 150 feet of a school. “A person commits an offense who intentionally carries an explosive, explosive weapon, permanently disabled firearm, hoax device, imitation firearm, machete, or sword openly within one hundred fifty feet (150′) of the real property that comprises the grounds or facilities of a public or private preschool, elementary school, middle school, or secondary school,” the amendment states in part. At no point does the amendment mention any ban on real guns near schools; real guns don’t fall under the definition of “explosive weapon,” confirmed House Republican spokesman Cade Cothren.

The Tennessee bill makes no reference to the banning of actual firearms within 150 feet of the school, but the bill does ban guns on property owned or rented by a school. Also, some exceptions are included for parents who keep a gun in their car when they pick up their kids from school.

The new bill would ban the carrying imitation firearms (squirt guns or toy guns) or disabled firearms within 150 feet of the school, but would still allow for a concealed carry permit holder to carry a gun near a school. The bizarre aspects of this law (e.g. the banning of fake guns near schools) can be attributed to a complete lack of understanding of property rights. It is easy to see why a school would seek to prohibit explosives, machetes, swords, and other dangerous weapons from school grounds. However, it’s not nearly as apparent why lawmakers would ban the carrying of squirt guns near schools. As per usual, the carrying of firearms near schools, a common divisive topic, has caused the lawmakers to lose their minds.

Rational people understand that individuals who are trained to use firearms should be permitted to carry their guns in and around a school. This can have a direct impact on safety by providing a first line of defense and can also indirectly enhance safety by deterring potential criminals. However, there is an argument to be made against allowing any Joe Shmoe, who has a license to carry a firearm, to bring their gun near a school.

The fact of the matter being, this dilemma cannot be solved without utilizing property rights. Individuals have different appetites for risk and implement different methods to mitigate threats down to a level where they are comfortable. Our current system of government does not understanding the importance of property rights in all aspects of life. This shifts the decisions surrounding risk appetite and mitigation further away from those that have the most at stake in the decision. Building a society around property rights would bring so many of these very personal decisions, like keeping children safe in schools, closer to home and take the power away from lawmakers who potentially have nothing personally invested in the decisions they make.

Check out previous editions of Second Amendment Watch!

The Lions of Liberty are on Twitter, Facebook & Google+

Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!

Join our brand new Facebook Group: The Lions of Liberty Forum