School Backpedals After CO Teen Was Banned For Shooting Guns With Mother Even After Police Cleared Him : Rally for our Rights

In a follow up to the story we broke yesterday of a Loveland, Colorado teen who was banned from classes after he posted videos of himself shooting guns with his mother on Snapchat, the student has now been cleared to go back to class and the school is backpedaling.

Here’s a recap of what happened: Justine Myers took her son, Nate, shooting earlier this week. When they returned home they discovered the police were attempting to contact them.  Nate had posted two videos on Snapchat; one video had the firearms they were going to use with the caption “Finna be lit” (which is teenage slang for “going to be a great time”), and the other was a video of him shooting while his mother instructed him. Someone had seen these videos and reported him to police via the school’s Safe 2 Tell system which allows anonymous tips to law enforcement and the school.  The police spoke with Nate and his parents, watched the videos, determined Nate was not a threat to himself or others nor had he made any threats, and they were well within their legal rights. They then went on their way. But that wasn’t good enough for the school.  The following morning a voicemail was received from Thompson Valley School District stating that Nate could not go to school and was banned indefinitely until a “threat assessment” hearing was completed. The school also refused to provide Nate with school work to prevent him from falling behind. When Justine explained the situation and stated the police had already assessed it and cleared him, her words were hastily dismissed by school officials.

After this story broke fellow parents, community members, and even elected officials contacted school admin and district board members to express their disapproval of this blatant violation of the student’s civil liberties, as well as the complete disregard for parental rights.  And it undoubtedly had an effect.

The threat assessment hearing took place this morning and Nate has been cleared to return to class. The school officials came prepared with a packet of his homework, and stated they believed him to be a good kid and never thought he was making threats against the school.  They acknowledged that his classmates may now react differently to him (I mean, he’s practically been accused of being the next school shooter, right?) and offered to make sure no one gave him trouble. The SRO who was present agreed that the Safe 2 Tell system is sometimes used inappropriately by students wishing to anonymously seek revenge on another student.  School officials also cautioned Nate to not post these types of activities on social media.  Justine quickly reminded them that this is his First Amendment they’re talking about, and although she gets their point, that is a dangerous slope they’re heading down.

When Justine questioned why any of this had to happen in the first place since the police had already assessed the situation, she was told the school hadn’t received the police assessment until the following afternoon, nearly 20 hours later.  Now here’s where I call BS.  If there is a report of a threat that is deemed credible enough to warrant police investigation to a student’s home on a weekday evening, the results of such investigation would have been relayed immediately to the school to determine if the school was safe to open the following day.  And if that police assessment wasn’t immediately relayed, that school has far bigger security issues than any parent even realizes.

Everyone bent over backwards to try to right the situation, but no one went so far as to apologize.

Is it over for Nate?  The good news is nothing permanent will go on his school record and he can continue his education.  But he’s undoubtedly been traumatized by the entire situation and now will have a “reputation” at school.  He’ll also have the thought police living in his own head every time he wants to share anything that isn’t lock-step with PC culture.  And at 16 years old, he’s had his civil rights violated for participating in not one, but two, constitutionally protected activities – shooting guns and sharing a video of it.

On January 1, 2020 Colorado’s “Red Flag” Emergency Risk Protection Orders ERPO law will go into effect.  I’ve long said ERPO’s will be Safe2Tell for adults, and students have dubbed Safe 2 Tell as “Safe 2 Swat”, referencing the act of “swatting“, a criminal harassment tactic of deceiving an emergency service into sending a police and emergency service response team to another person’s address.  Had this same scenario taken place while the ERPO law is in effect, Justine likely would have lost her firearms.

We need to continue to rally together as a community and push back at every turn.  If you or your child ends up in a situation like Nate’s, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us here at Rally for our Rights. We’ve got your back.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms Will Be Defended Sticker - Rally for our Rights

(other designs available)

6 thoughts on “School Backpedals After CO Teen Was Banned From Classes For Shooting Guns With Mother

  1. Shay Black says:

    The district was notified and kept up to date on the situation the entire time. I personally know that when a report goes into Safe2Tell here, that the district is notified at the same time as law enforcement. Then communication between law enforcement and the school district is clear and up to date. This school district has been known for lying in the past and this time finally got caught publicly.

  2. Donttreadonme says:

    The school distruct needs to be sued! Its the only thing that will FORCE schools to rethink how they treat good kids that enjoy shooting sports.

  3. Knute says:

    Colorado used to be a free State, but is now behind enemy lines and the citizens there are being repressed by tyrants/terrorists. So very sad. Perhaps they might think about liberating themselves before it’s too late.

  4. Krell51 says:

    What happened is their lawyers told them to smooth it over and fast or the kid would own the school in a law suit!

  5. Julie Draves says:

    Julia T Draves I do believe that is a violation of his civil rights. I also do not believe it should be considered a “red flag.” School shooters don’t go with their moms to the shooting range. School shooters are not public about enjoying the sport of shooting, or invest their time in learning how to responsibly handle a firearm. The action against this young man is unreasonable, and most probably illegal, but it lends support to the notion that we need some sensible legislation about gun ownership. This unsupportable reaction by the school demonstrates the fear that people have because there are no reasonable rules about who can own a gun, where they can take their gun, and how powerful that gun can be. This young man is not wielding an assault rifle. He is being coached on how to use a handgun. Even our military and veterans agree that assault type weapons have no place in the hands of civilians. They were meant for killing people and designed to maximize that potential. Restrictions on these types of firearms make sense. They are great on the battlefield. Not so great in a schoolroom or a theater or a public park. An even more sinister point is that the need so many people feel to own assault weapons is to “defend” themselves against an unjust government or against other citizens whom they have branded as “dangerous.” Restoring trust in our government and our cultural values is one of our most important tasks. Our country’s founders had experience with with unjust government, and the second amendment was intended to help assure that governments could not simply prohibit the ownership of firearms, leaving citizens without recourse in the event of government abuse. Guns were the source of power for defense. That said, guns have changed since 1789, and our laws need to change with them. Indeed, the nation’s founders might have been more likely to adopt an amendment regarding access to digital resources and technology if they were gathering today. It is the information infrastructure and the means of communication that is far more important than guns to the assurance of freedom of our country’s citizens. We should be more fearful of losing rights under the first amendment than under the second if we are concerned for our freedoms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *