The Firearms Policy Coalition has filed an opening brief in the appeals phase of an FPC-backed lawsuit challenging a Michigan Public School’s ban on gun-related speech.

The case involves a third-grade Michigan girl who, on the school’s “hat day,” was told she couldn’t wear a hat bearing the text “Come and Take It,” along with an image of an AR-15 rifle. In the case C.S. v. McCrumb, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that the school district was within its bounds in banning the hat and that the decision “was justified by undisputed evidence in the record and therefore does not violate the First Amendment.”

FPC has appealed the ruling to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and recently filed its opening brief on the case.

“[Plaintiff’s] speech, which expressed her views about constitutionally protected rights, is protected by the First Amendment: Elementary-school students have the right to speak in school unless their speech falls within one of the narrow exceptions to protection (which are not applicable here) or unless their speech can be reasonably forecast to cause substantial disruption,” the brief argues. “And on this record, no such forecast is possible.”

Brandon Combs, FPC president, said the lower court’s decision was wrong and hopes the appeal will prove that to be so.

“Public schools may not violate the First Amendment rights of their students because they don’t like the Second Amendment and protected weapons like America’s Rifle, the AR-15,” Combs said in a release announcing the appeal. “The Sixth Circuit should remind school administrators that the Constitution’s protections apply even to speech they disfavor about rights they dislike.”

Of course, public schools aren’t the only entities barring the wearing of hats they find politically offensive. On September 15, an Arizona Cardinals season ticket holder for the past 34 years was forced to throw her Make America Great Again (MAGA) hat in the trash before she could enter the stadium.

Longtime fan Susan Rosener and her husband were passing through the security checkpoint for the season opener when a female member of the security staff shouted at her concerning her hat, “You can’t bring that in here.”

“In retrospect, I wish I would have stood my ground a little bit, ” Susan Rosener told 12 News after the incident. “But I wasn’t sure what the repercussions would be, and my husband would kill me if I did something with the season tickets or that jeopardizes them somehow.”

The Arizona Cardinals and State Farm Stadium have a rule against clothing items they deem “obscene or indecent in a public setting” or “any item deemed inappropriate or hazardous by stadium security.”

The team later released a statement saying, “In an isolated incident at Sunday’s game, a stadium security member misunderstood a policy on prohibited items.”

The statement continued: “Moving forward we will work to provide clarity to all stadium personnel in these situation. We have also reached out to the individual involved to communicate that their experience was not consistent with our policies and practices and to apologize for that.”

24 COMMENTS

  1. The Sixth Circuit should remind school administrators that the Constitution’s protections apply even to speech they disfavor about rights they dislike.
    The First Amendment isn’t about ensuring the government can’t prevent you from saying something they agree with.
    The First Amendment is about ensuring the government can’t prevent you from saying something that they do not agree with. Period, full stop.

      • No.

        Just governments secure rights. Tyrannical governments restrict rights.

        Ref: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…” – Thos. Jefferson

        “… rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” – ibidem

          • Funny I don’t need permission from the bureaucrats. Buy from a private individual and there isn’t even a paper trail.
            Alabama is one of the backward conservative/red states that for the most part honor’s the Constitution.

  2. Below was moderated because I forgot to break the code
    by separating the h to accomodate the recent draconian level of Free Speech allowed on this site. To whom it may concern: Whether it’s a hat or a link it is Protected Free Speech.

    Those opposed to Free Speech are opposed to most everything…
    h ttps://youtube.com/watch?v=7A3zBe1zWRg&feature=shared

  3. “But I wasn’t sure what the repercussions would be, and my husband would kill me if I did something with the season tickets or that jeopardizes them somehow.”

    Grillers gotta grill.

  4. If the student had worn a cap with the emblem of a fire extinguisher, with the slogan “come and take it,” would that have been prohibited speech? How about an emblem of a fetus or Pride flag with the same slogan? How about the AR-15 emblem with the slogan, “I’m a designated safe place”?

        • With the illiteracy rate, inability to do basic math, and general lack of critical thinking skills we have observed increases in here in NY that has already happened with or without a policy fight. The remote classroom nonsense the teachers union pulled made it worse faster but it was already headed in that direction. For reference school tax here in NY starts around 3500 if you are not a elderly disabled veteran. For most middle class homes 4000-6000 is normal. So yeah may as well have the policy fight and homeschool. For normal states you are probably right.

          • I’m not sure if it came across, but what I was trying to say is homeschool, regardless of your state. Policy fights take time your kid doesn’t have.

            • My apologies I did misunderstand you entirely. Yes and it is worth the money one doesn’t have to have kids that are not self destructive by design.

    • former water walker,

      Home school or private school is all but impossible these days.

      Most married couples cannot eek out a meager existence on a single income.* That almost always requires both spouses to work which eliminates home schooling. And private school is incredibly expensive. A married couple that I know are looking at $4000 per month very soon for private school for their three children. That is $48,000 per year in AFTER TAX income (which requires about $70,000 per year in gross income before taxes). Very few married couples have an extra $70,000 per year in gross income available for education.

      * Years ago I tried crafting an extremely tight budget for a single income with a respectable professional college degree. That tight budget entailed the smallest home in the region in the least expensive area of the region that was not completely crime-ridden. The budget only allowed for one car (a used car at that, although a decent used car), and very simple groceries with no eating out. By the time you allocate money for retirement, charitable giving (tithing), and a very small amount of money (well under $1000) annually for gifts and entertainment (and no vacation), the budget fails.

        • “No, it’s not impossible. More families are homeschooling now than ever since the advent of public schools.”

          Yes and no. Its more a conditional thing

          Family’s that can (the three most common home school situations)…

          1. Have a parent work at home… can also home school.

          2. Have one parent remain home… can also home school.

          3. Have relatives that can do it (e.g. grand parents who no longer work, others who don’t work) … can also home school.

          So, yes, it is possible. But if the opposite of the above is not true, which is most family’s with children in 66% of house holds (because both parents must work now), and single parent homes, can’t really home school. So although the option is there its more conditional-possible than possible-for-all.

  5. Regarding the two cases described above, the following admonition obviously needs to be brought to the attention of officialdom or should it be described as “officiandumb”. Think Before You Leap. Another version of likely sage advice might run as follows. Given that the pool you plan to swim in might be home to “meat eaters”. Look Before You Leap.

  6. I hope I’m wrong, but I fear that the FPC will lose this case, unfortunately. Courts have repeatedly held that students under 18 give up their rights to free speech when they enter schools, much like we soldiers gave up our right to free speech when we put on our service uniform (for example, you can’t wear your military uniform while engaging in your 1st Amendment right to participate in political protests, and if you do wear the uniform, you’re subject to punishment under the UCMJ). There are numerous precedents where courts have upheld school rules against wearing clothing with words on it, not just obscene words but any words at all that the school doesn’t like and calls “inappropriate.”
    Again, I hope I’m wrong, but precedent suggests otherwise.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here