|
Abstract
|
Available at: https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/uclr/vol92/iss4/16
The crowd's chants of "Do something!" drowned out much of Governor Mike DeWine's August 2019 speech in Dayton, Ohio.1 Governor DeWine was visiting Dayton following a downtown shooting that left nine people dead and seventeen wounded.2 The crowd, angry with the lack of progress on gun reform, demanded action.3 A few years later, the Ohio state legislature would take action--though it was likely not what the Dayton crowd had in mind.
On June 1, 2022, Republican lawmakers passed Ohio House Bill 99 ("HB 99"), citing the 2019 mass shooting in Dayton, the May 2022 Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas, and countless other school shootings over the past few years as evidence for its passage.4 HB 99 reduces the amount of training required for school administrators to carry firearms on school grounds from over 700 hours5 to an amount "not [to] exceed 24 hours."6 Less than two weeks later, on June 13, 2022, Governor DeWine signed HB 99 into law.7
Regardless of the mixed opinions on Ohio's chosen method of gun reform,8 the statute is now in effect and being utilized.9 As of August 2023, forty-six Ohio school districts have submitted personnel rosters of staff members seeking eligibility to carry weapons at school,10 and ten districts have already completed the state's required training.11 While other states have previously passed similar laws, they generally did not see their teachers proceed with firearm possession.12 Ohio does not appear to be following the pattern.
This Comment seeks to evaluate what led to HB 99's passage and attempts to assess its future. Section II of this Comment first examines surrounding context for the law's implementation by providing a brief history of school shootings in the United States. Section II then explores states' regulations for arming school personnel, including HB 99. Finally, Section II summarizes applicable case law, particularly as it relates to the United States Constitution's Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Section III discusses the constitutionality of HB 99, particularly under the state-created danger doctrine and the historical analogues test. Section IV concludes that while HB 99 is likely constitutional, citizens wrongfully harmed due to a school district's implementation of HB 99 may be able to bring a claim against the district under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. Further, use of the historical analogues test as a means of determining constitutionality of a law should be abandoned due to its susceptibility to being manipulated to reach any desired outcome. It should be noted that while evidence of the efficacy of arming teachers will be discussed, this Comment does not examine or argue whether arming teachers is the "best" way to reduce and address school shootings.
Ohio's 2022 passage of HB 99 was decades in the making. Gun violence, particularly in schools, has increasingly gained more of society's attention and prompted various legislative efforts to try to solve the problem.13 This Section summarizes the brief but escalating history of gun violence in schools.14 This Section then examines several states' legislative solutions, including Ohio's HB 99. This Section concludes with an overview of case law relevant to HB 99's constitutionality under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
Language: en |