search
top

Chambersburg School Leaders Oppose Due Process

Reading this article, it appears that the Chambersburg, Pennsylvania school district has decided that they have the power to revoke First Amendment rights over an accusation without evidence about a possible Second Amendment issue without the hassle of going through the Sixth Amendment-protected trial. In other words, the Chambersburg school district has basically decided that the entire Bill of Rights doesn’t apply on their publicly-owned property.

Chambersburg Area School District administrators have banned a Chambersburg man from setting foot on district property after he allegedly brought a gun onto campus.

The district held a closed administrative hearing on Friday for Jay Lightfoot, Chambersburg. …

“You are prohibited from setting foot on school property any time in the future and until advised otherwise,” solicitor Jan Sulcove told Lightfoot today in the administration building’s lobby. “If you enter upon school district property, whether it’s this building or any other building, whether it’s for a public meeting or athletic event, you will be prosecuted.”

The accusation is that Lightfoot carried a firearm on campus during an athletic event. However, the school district refuses to provide any real evidence of the accusation. The school officials refuse to name the event, the specific date, or let him challenge the supposed witness with legal representation.

Regardless, administrators have declared in a private meeting that he may not even attend public government meetings held on public property because of this alleged violation that they will not take to trial.

Look, if the guy was violating the law, then file charges. Operate within the legal system. As school officials, they don’t have the power to just declare that someone may no longer participate in government because of the conclusion of a closed door meeting that is not a trial where the accused is not allowed representation to challenge an accusation from an unnamed witness that has no details or serious evidence provided.

If Chambersburg has a civics or government teacher with tenure protections, this would be an awesome teachable moment to use in teaching children about government abuse.

7 Responses to “Chambersburg School Leaders Oppose Due Process”

  1. Spade says:

    Odds are they don’t want somebody bringing up the “lawful purposes” sentence and risk getting slapped down.

  2. Patrick H says:

    Wow that’s terrible. Unfortunately not surprising.

  3. Zermoid says:

    If I was him I’d be there the next day with a big name tag on just to be sure they know who I was!

    Let them have you arrested (If the responding officer is willing to go along with their BS) and then sue everyone for false arrest and anything else your lawyer can think of!

    I know it’s not definitive legal advise, but I’ve been told by a PA State Trooper that it IS legal to carry concealed in a school if you have a CWP. Because of the “other lawful purpose” part of the law.

    • Bitter says:

      In that situation, they would probably try to get you on disorderly or something. He is facing an actual charge of disorderly for a different incident where they told him to sit somewhere else at a sporting event and claimed a special handicapped section, which he claims is not in any way marked or designated according to the article. I won’t add comment on that one way or the other because there aren’t many facts in the case at this point. Of course, there are none at all in the accusation that got him barred from school property.

  4. Andy B. says:

    I would urge him to contact the ACLU, regarding the First Amendment dimensions of the case. If what he claims is valid with regard to the facts in the case, I’d expect the ACLU to be anxious to take it on. Local officials seem to regard the appearance of the ACLU on an issue, to be a powerful persuader for doing everything by the numbers from that point forward. More times than not, no court action is necessary, because usually the offenders have known they were in the wrong, all along.

    • Bitter says:

      I would say it is valid since the person threatening arrest for even attending a government meeting on school property is the school district attorney. The guy who was banned from the public schools didn’t really comment for the article.

  5. Richard says:

    Where is Richard Ewell, now that we need him.

top