Brief by the National Education Association

No. 18-280 No. 18 -1415

IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ______

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, ET AL., Respondents. ______On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ______BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS ______

ALICE O’BRIEN Counsel of Record JASON WALTA EMMA LEHENY KAITLIN LEARY National Education Association 1201 Sixteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-7035 [email protected] August 12, 2019

Mosaic - (301) 927-3800 - Cheverly, MD

49261_Ltrhd.indd 1 6/11/08 12:44:09 AM

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

B O O

OO O

to children’s psychological and

B ildren’s ability to learn and

Heller Guns Near Schools Are “Presumptively Lawful”

Rejecting Petitioners’ rigid standard of

B Petitioners’ rigid standard of ii that most effectively ensure the safety of children and schools

NLSN

iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases

Bd. of Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox S

Brown v. Bd. of Educ. S

District of Columbia v. Heller S – –

Epperson v. Arkansas S

Hall v. Beals S

McDonald v. City of Chicago S

Missouri v. Jenkins S

Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC S

Wisconsin v. Yoder S

Statutes

la Sess Law Serv h SS

la Sess Law Serv h SSS

Other Authorities

’

After Surviving Classroom Shooting, L.A. Teacher Reconsiders What School Safety Means

Firearm Localism –

Neighborhood Violence, Peer Effects, and Academic Achievement in Chicago

Right to Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data‐ ‐ and a State Level Synthetic Control Analysis ‐ Keeping Our Schools Safe: A Plan to Stop Mass Shootings and End Gun Violence in American Schools – – –

Community Violence: A Meta-analysis on the Effect of Exposure and Mental Health Outcomes of Children and Adolescents –

How Schools Can Help Kids Traumatized by Gun Violence –

Mitigating the Effects of Gun Violence on Children and Youth –

Collateral Consequences of Violence in Disadvantaged Neighborhoods

Exposure to Violence: Psychological and Academic Correlates in Child Witnesses

Historical Examination of United States Intentional Mass School Shootings in the 20th and 21st Centuries: Implications for Students, Schools, and Society

Children’s Cognitive Performance and Selective Attention Following Recent Community Violence

rsls ede n ilene rein r Cniies hile esein he end enden erin ere he n he Cnsiin Ciil ihs n ihs he C n he diir

he e e l Homicides on Children’s Cognitive errne ’

ndersndin in Children

ns rins nd he nrelin le

crtiniing the econd mendment

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE mics crie tion Association (“NEA”). NEA is the nation’s largest sionals in our nation’s public schools. NEA has a deep threats posed by gun violence. NEA’s highest govern- ee —students’ —are core to NEA’s mis- INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT istrict o Colmi v Heller

1 Letters of consent are on file with the Clerk. Amicus states that no party’s counsel authored the brief in whole or in part; no party’s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief; and no person—other than Amicus—contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief.

the Heller ourt properly acnoledged both that “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places” are presumptively constitutional and that schools are quintessentially “sensitive places.” d. at – n.. etitioners and their supporting mici no urge this ourt to eectively disregard the assurances made in Heller about the validity o these important gun-violence prevention measures and instead to read the econd Amendment to invalidate n irearm restriction that does not have a close historical analog or that otherise ails so-called “strict scrutiny.” Such an expansive conception of each individual’s right to bear arms would imperil longstanding restrictions—including those on the carrying o irearms in and around schools—that protect children and the educators ho teach them rom harm. Ater all the strict scrutiny that etitioners and their supporting mici call for has famously “proven automatically fatal.” issori v enins .. () (homas . concurring). mics NEA submits that such an approach to the constitutional validity o sensible irearms regulations is both dangerous and unarranted. hildren are uniuely vulnerable to gun violence. hose ho are eposed to gun violence suer physically emo- tionally and academically. And such harms are not limited to those children ho suer or even itness gun violence directly they etend to all children in a community aected by gun violence. As a result any standard o revie that this ourt might adopt or constitutional challenges to gun regulations must retain Heller’s presumption of constitutionality for “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools.” .. at . n order to protect both children and the insti- tution of education itself laws regulating the carrying and possession of guns in schools must remain “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.” ee id at n.. ore broadly this ourt should reect any constitutional standard—especially the strict-scrutiny and historical-analog standards advocated by etitioners and their supporting mici—that would inhibit the ability of state and local legislatures and school boards around the country to grapple with how to best protect students from the threat of gun violence. o do so effectively these legislative bodies must have the latitude to craft solutions that are tailored to the specific needs of their local school communities. n Heller, this Court noted that “[t]he onstitution leaves the istrict of olumbia a variety of tools for combating the problem of handgun violence including some measures regulating handguns.” d at . he ability to select among these tools provides state and local legislatures the greatest chance of succeeding in their efforts to curb gun violence. oreover it is a quintessentially legislative function to craft such policies following deliberation among legislators who spea for their diverse communities and best now the challenges presented. f this ourt accepts the position urged by etitioners and adopts an inflexible constitutional standard to the regulation of guns the latitude necessary to best evaluate and address gun violence will be off the table. s long as this ourt continues to recognie an individual right to bear arms mics submits that the proper standard for evaluating firearms regulations under the Second mendment must remain a flexible one. s state local bodies struggle to decide among various specific tools for combatting gun violence—whether they involve “Red Flag” laws, safety gun storage reuirements, age limits for the purchase of firearms, or closing loopholes on acground checs—they cannot be expected to find the “perfect” response to the prolem or e prevented from eper imenting to adapt to comple and changing condi tions. ee d o rs o tte niv o v o, .. , . ducators, administrators, and elected school oard leaders must have the latitude to adopt solutions for their communities to protect them against the epidemic of gun violence in our country and our schools. ARGUMENT I. School-aged Children Are Particularly Sus- ceptible to the Harms of Gun Violence. unrelated violence in the nited tates can e “characteried as an epidemic and a pulic health cri sis” that imposes not only “substantial financial burden[s]” on the nation, but incalculable human costs for those affected. ntonis atsiyannis et al., Histori cl mintion o nited ttes ntentionl ss chool hootings in the th nd st Centries m lictions or tdents chools nd ociet, . C , , httpsit.lyspa. or eample, in , there were a total of , gunrelated fatalities—among which were children ages – and adoles cents ages –. d his epidemic of gun violence has even taen root in the nation’s schools. From 2013 to 2018, 405 incidents of gunfire occurred on school grounds. ee ve rytown for un afety, ational ducation ssocia tion, and merican ederation of eachers, eeing r chools e ln to to ss hootings nd nd n iolence in mericn chools e. , 5 201, httpsbit.ly2i. f these, 20 occurred on the grounds of an elementary, middle, or high school, resulting in 10 deaths and 21 inuries.2 d he effects of gun violence on school-aged children are significant and far reaching. hey not only have potentially ruinous conseuences for their phys- ical and mental well-being, but they greatly affect children’s ability to reap the crucial and lasting benefits of their education. A. Gun violence causes devastating harm to children’s psychological and emotional well-being. t is a matter of common sense and lived experience that children suffer devastating harm when exposed to gun violence, and countless studies have con- firmed it. “Exposure to gun violence can traumatize children and youth not ust physically, but emotional- ly as well. tudies have documented that young people exposed to gun violence experience lasting emotional scars. ome children may develop posttraumatic stress disorder , which can affect brain development.”3 ames arbarino et al., itigting the

he burden of un iolence has a particularly outsied impact on lac students mon shootin incidents at schools where the racial demoraphic information of the student body was nown of them occurred in schools with a maori ty minority student population ee erytown for un afety supra at oreoer while lac students represent ust of the total student population in the nited tates they constitute of the ictims of student ictims in the in stances where the race of the ictim was nown ee id osttraumatic tress isorder or is reconied by the merican sychiatric ssociation as a mental disorder caused by eposure to trauma ’ th ed contined ects o n iolence on Children nd oth E . see lso avid . arding Collterl Conseences o iolence in isd vntged eighorhoods . E (2009) (“Violence has been linked to post traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), anxiety, depression and ag- gressive behavior and is thought to disrupt the de- velopmental trajectories of children.”). Echoing these conclusions a study of children in third through eighth grade demonstrated that children exposed to gun violence reported significantly higher levels of anger ithdraal and posttraumatic stress. arbarino sr at citing aren lova and ar inger n iolence osre nd rm mong rl oth EE . hese harmful effects are profound and enduring. hese effects are caused not only by gun violence that occurs at school but by violence in the community more broadly as students carry to school the trauma they experience elsehere. n a meta- analysis of studies the authors concluded that exposure to community violence defined as violence occurring outside the home, represents “a unique form of trauma that is particularly associated ith the development of symptoms especially among children and adolescents.” atric . oler et al. Commnit iolence etnlsis on the

ect o osre nd entl Helth tcomes o Children nd dolescents, 2 DEV. PSPT- 22, 2 (2009). oung children are especially at risk of lasting injury because they “may have more trouble regulating emotions . . . given their limited verbal abilities.” d at 20. ess able to express themselves, young children may have greater difficulty developing coping strategies or seeking help from adults. d see lso SPPT D EDT TTED STDETS DE S-SED PESSS 9 (Eric ossen obert ull eds., 2013) (“Adults frequently believe young children are oblivious to events and conversations, particularly given that children may be less verbal about their fears and concerns, so their distress may go unno- ticed.”). or are the harmful and lasting effects of gun violence limited to those children ho experience it first-hand. The troubling fact is that “[c]hildren do not have to itness gun violence directly to develop symptoms of traumatic stress.” Garbarino, sr, at 76. To the contrary, “hearing about and witnessing community violence predicts PTSD symptoms to the same extent as victimization.” Fowler, sr, at 29 see lso arbarino, sr, at Dana harles coy et al., Children’s Cognitive Performance and elective ttention olloing ecent Commnit io lence, . ET S. EV 9, 2 (20). hildren exposed to violence both in and out of school, either directly or indirectly, are at risk of post- trauma symptoms, resulting in behaviors they dis- play in school. Teachers from around the country see students suffering the emotional costs of gun violence. n re- gon teacher described one of her students, a shooting survivor, in this ay remember a student who survived a shooting in his early teens. y the end of his high school ca reer, he was still moving through the world lie a ghost, quiet, withdrawn. e refused to write with a pen. e made the lines with a pencil only, as if he didn’t believe he could make a permanent mar on the world. Proosals to edce n iolence Protecting r Commnities hile esecting the econd mend ment earing efore the comm on the Constit tion Civil ights man ights of the Comm on the diciar, 113th ong. (2013) (written state ment of the ational ducation Association), httpwww.nea.orghome2.htm. iddle school teacher herry elsdorf—who was teaching her seventhgrade science class when a twelveyearold girl fired a handgun, apparently by accident—described similar traumatic effects of gun violence on her students. Zelsdorf said, “I had never feared for my safety at school, and I didn’t think that ids did either. It’s supposed to be like their safe space.” Several students were struck by the bullet or shrapnel, including elsdorf. he remembers the day her students came bac, albeit to a new room. ne of her students said he wanted to sit in the bac of the room, so he “wouldn’t get shot.” Evie Blad, fter r viving Classroom hooting eacher econsiders hat chool afet eans, AT , Apr. 13, 201, httpsbit.ly2tef. xposure to community violence is a leading con cern for llinois high school teacher indsay Aiman. n her town, gun violence has increased in recent years. “We have kids walking around with chronic PTSD. We have kids repressing the violence they’ve seen, the fear they have of not graduating,” Aikman said. ee . Gaines, o chools Can el ids ramatied n iolence, IIIS EWS, ay , , httpsbit.lyvBd. Illinois mental health counselor Karen Simms points to “[f]ights at schools, increased truancy or lots of disruption . . . such as kids raging on the floor for minutes and teachers being injured,” as behavior often driven by untreated trauma. The result, Simms says, will be that the education system “will leave significant numbers of students behind.” d he emotional costs o eposre to gn iolence hae a direct negatie eect on all children’s ability to learn and develop in school Eposure to violence also affects vital learning skills—such as concentration—and manifests itself in disruptive behaviors that harm the classroom climate and other students’ ability to learn. Affected children exhibit “slowed cognitive development, poor academic achievement or trouble forming relationships with peers and others, all risk factors for school dropout.” arding, sra, at citation omitted. un vio lence, in particular, commonly causes children and youth to “experience difficulty concentrating in the classroom, declines in academic performance, and lower educational and career aspirations. ther out comes associated with eposure to violent trauma in clude increased delinquency . . . .” Garbarino, sra, at see also allam urt et al., osre to io lence Pschological and cademic Correlates in Child itnesses, A PEDIATI ADESET ED. , study found that eposure to vio lence was associated with increased aniety, depres sion, lower selfesteem, lower grade point average, and more days of absence from school. Predictably, students are more likely to act out behaviorally when they have been eposed to violence in the community. owler, sra, at . And these behavioral problems “are directly related to classroom learning.” ulia urdickill, eighorhood iolence Peer ffects and cademic chievement in Chicago, S. . , . hese consequences are not limited to the affected child, but impact entire classrooms and schools, as evidenced in both quanti fiable academic performance and qualitative condi tions of the school environment. hen students expe rience higher levels of violence, “the whole school re- ports feeling less safe, having more disciplinary prob lems, and feeling less trust in their teachers.” d at 219. “Stressed, distracted, disengaged, and poorly be- haved students . . . disrupt instruction and drain re sources in ways that make schools less functional.” d at . xposure to gun violence can erode the educational function of an entire school. t thus comes as no surprise that in classrooms in which many stu dents have been exposed to violence all students’ test scores drop. d at see also atrick Sharkey, he Acute Effect of Local Homicides on Children’s Cogni- tive Performance, . A’ AA. S. , httpsdoi.org.pnas. ex posure to a local homicide before cognitive assess ment reduces performance substantially. Given the magnitude of harm that gun violence imposes on the nation’s children and schools, this ourt should tread very carefully in considering eti tioners’ claim here. n particular, the ourt should reject any call for imposing a rigid standard of consti tutional scrutiny under the Second Amendment that could threaten to invalidate reasonable restrictions that protect the lives and wellbeing of children. 11 his ort hold ot istrb ts ssr ance in Heller that estrictions on ns Near Schools Are “Presumptively Lawful” ny standard of review that this ourt might adopt for constitutional challenges to gun regulations should retain Heller’s presumption of constitutionality for “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools.” Heller, .S. at 2. n Heller, the Court recognized that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” d he ourt then cautioned that nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the men- tally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and ualifications on the commer- cial sale of arms. d at 2–2. he ourt characteried these exam- ples as “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.” d at 2 n.2. o the extent the arguments of etitioners or their supporting amici call any of that into uestion, they should be reected. he ourt in Heller was right to designate schools as “sensitive places” because they are populated by a uniuely vulnerable group—children—and provide an essential function

Indeed, given that Respondents’ have already shown that U.S. 45, 48 (1969) (explaining that when a case has “lost its character as a present, live controversy,” this Court must “avoid advisory opinions on abstract propositions of law”) in our society—education. ach day, children gather in neighborhood schools to receive instruction, grow peer relationships, eercise, develop life sills, and advance their learning. ie the children themselves, the enterprise of education is both invaluable and fragile. herefore, laws regulating the carrying and possession of guns in schools are rightly considered “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.” ee id at n.. etitioner places etraordinary emphasis on the notion that subecting all firearm regulations to the highest degrees of constitutional scrutiny is necessary to ensure a right to self-defense and protection against both public and private violence. ee r. Pet’rs at , – see also Heller, .. at (“he inherent right of self-defense has been central to the econd Amendment right.”). Empirically speaing, the idea that greater access to firearms maes an individual safer is dubious enough in society at large. ee generall ohn . onohue et al., ight to Carr Las and iolent Crime A Comre- hensie Assessment sing anel ata and a tate ‐Leel‐ nthetic Control Analsis, . - CA . concluding that there are persistent‐ increases in rates of violent assaults and other violent crimes in states with more lenient right- to-carry laws. ut in the contet of schools where children are present, it is entirely inappropriate. his is made abundantly clear by the problems associated with the “dangerous” yet persistent sug- gestion that arming teachers or school staff is an effective solution to in-school gun violence. verytown for un afety, sura, at . ar from maing students or schools safer, arming teachers would put “our children at greater risk” and would do “nothing to stop active shooters or other forms of school gun violence.” d lassroom teachers lack the training to make the “splitsecond lifeordeath decisions to pro tect children and themselves” while attempting to neutralie a shooter. ee id at (discussing the minimal amount of firearms training teachers would receive and noting that “even some of the most highly trained law enforcement officers in the country . . . see their aility to shoot accurately decrease signifi cantly when engaged in gunfights with perpetra tors”). Moreover, when a greater number of guns are placed in schools to arm teachers children are more likely to access them. ee id at – (detailing re search that shows that children are freuently aware of the presence of firearms and access them that adults are often unaware that children have handled guns that they maintain and that access to firearms “triples the risk of death by suicide and doubles the risk of death by homicide”). And child access is not the only risk dults who carry firearms are at risk of unintentionally discharging their guns and their presence can complicate and confuse law enforce ment’s response in the alreadychaotic scenario of an active shooter incident. ee id at – (discussing eamples of guns that were accidentally discharged at school and where police responding to a shooting incident did not “know who the good guy is versus the bad guy when everyone starts shooting”). s the ourt recognied in Heller schools are in deed “sensitive places.” 554 U.S. at 626. ecause of the immense importance of protecting our nation’s children as well as education itself laws regulating guns in schools are considered “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.” d at n.. nder any standard of review applicale to constitutional chal lenges to gun regulations this presumption of law fulness must e retained. 4 he ourt Shoul efrai from mposi a ii Staar of ostitutioal Scrutiy o the eulatio of irearm Safety n addition to retaining Heller’s assurance that the Second Amendment presumptively allows guns to be prohibited in school areas, this ourt should reect any reuirement that other firearms regulations sat isfy strict scrutiny or have a historically significant analog in order to survive a constitutional challenge. o hold otherwise would severely and unduly con strain the options available to lawmakers—and spe cifically to local legislative bodies and school boards— attempting to devise solutions to gun violence in their communities. To be sure, “the enshrinement of consti tutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choic es off the table.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 66. ut state and local lawmakers must retain a multitude of op tions for implementing policies that are responsive to the specific needs of their particular school communi ties. ee id (“The Constitution leaves the District of olumbia a variety of tools for combating the prob lem of handgun violence, including some measures regulating handguns.”). A eecti Petitioers’ rii staar of costitutioal scrutiy is cosistet with the ee for state a local leislative oies to evise their ow solutios to the prolem of u violece egislative bodies—including local legislatures and school boards—are “far better equipped than the udiciary” to consider competing options and to devise solutions that are responsive to their communities’ specific needs. urner road s nc CC, 52 U.S. 622, 665 (1994) (plurality opinion). “Such com- plicated multifactor udgments reuire tradeoffs that courts are not institutionally euipped to make. 15 egislatures, by contrast, are structured to mae pre- cisely those kinds of determinations.” Adam Winkler, crutiniing the econd Amendment, 15 C. . . 6, 15 (2). That is especially true because, unlie an isolated and unaccountable udiciary, legislatures and school boards are able to engage directly ith significant staeholders to assess the potential benefits or demerits to a particular regulatory approach to reducing gun violence. or eample, school boards are able to meet ith union representatives that can efficiently convey valuable information from teachers and support personnel that ill help secure the safety of students from gun violence.5 y contrast, requiring all gun regulations to satisfy an infleible constitutional standard ould allo udges to strie don any regulation that is deemed not suffi-

5 prime example of the importance of local decisionma ing can be seen in the Florida legislature’s response to the hor rific school shooting in arland, lorida on ebruary 14, 18, where a former student murdered fourteen high school students and three staff members and wounded another seventeen peo ple. Shortly after the shooting, the legislature enacted the ar jory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act (“MSD Public Safety Act”). One provision of this comprehensive Act au- thoried the establishment of “guardian programs,” regardless of whether the local school board and its constituents believed such a program was the best way to protect their students from gun violence. 18 la. Sess. aw Serv. Ch. 18 5 (C.S.S.. 6). he guardian program provides training to school em ployees who volunteer to serve as armed guards on school prem ises. his year, however, the lorida legislature amended the S ublic Safety ct to add a provision that reuires local school boards to approve the guardian program by a maority vote before the program can be implemented. 19 la. Sess. aw Serv. Ch. 19 .15(1)()(1)(a) (C.S.C.S.S.. ). hus, the 19 amendment to the ct recognied the importance of deferring to local education legislators when deciding which of a wide array of school safety options to implement. ciently analoos to historical restrictions on ns or not “the least restrictive means” of addressing the rolem of n iolence. As lon as this ort contines to reconie an indiidal riht to ear arms, a more fleile stand ard of scrtiny is necessary to roide state and local leislatres, incldin school oards, ith the neces sary latitde to resond to the needs of their artic lar commnities. ndeed, in holdin that the econd Amendment is indin on the tates, this ort acknowledged that “conditions and problems differ from locality to locality” and recognized the importance of maintaining the “ability to devise sol tions to social rolems that sit local needs and al ues.” conald Cit of Chicago, .. , , lrality oinion. he conald lrali ty then assured local lawmakers that “[s]tate and local eerimentation ith reasonale firearms rela tions will continue under the Second Amendment.” d alteration in oriinal internal otation marks omitted. As de Wilkinson of the orth ircit has commented, if the Court instead “establishes a national set of restrictions on n relations, it ill limit the sace in hich states and cities can inno vate.” Hon. J. Harvie Wilkinson III, f uns Aor- tions and the nraeling ule of La, A. . . , . or eamle, an infleile constittional stand ard old otentially eliminate the necessary differ ences eteen ran and rral commnities in their aroaches to relatin ns. ee oseh locher, irearm Localism, A .. 82, 105 (2013) (“A riid national standard old flatten these dee dif ferences, otentially to the detriment of oth ran and rural] gun cultures.”). “[T]he costs of gun violence and the oernment interest in reentin it are en 1 erally higher in urban areas than in rural areas.” d at 122. In contrast, the individual’s interest in armed self-defense may be higher in rural areas, where police response times are likely to be longer. Additional- ly, the individual’s interest in possessing guns for other lawful purposes, such as recreation and hunting, is likely to be much higher in rural areas. “Rural residents should not have to weigh their desire to own hunting rifles against the possibility that urban youth will use handguns to shoot each other. And ad- vocates of urban gun control should not have to deni- grate the cultural salience of hunting in ontana when their goal is to limit cheap pistols in anhat- tan.” d at 10–05. euiring all gun regulations to satisfy an infleible constitutional standard would leave little room for local legislatures, including school boards, to consider these varied needs and interests when enacting their regulations. And the longstanding history of gun regulations in this country demonstrates that courts have tradi- tionally been willing to show considerable deference to such local concerns. ating back to the colonial era, “gun control has remained consistently stronger and more stringent in cities and towns than in rural areas.” d at 120. In fact, “the urban/rural divide [in regulating guns] predates the Second Amendment itself.” d at 112. Thus, this Court should continue the tradition of deferring to local governments on the issue of gun violence by adopting a standard that will allow local lawmakers to tailor their regulations to suit their communities’ needs. Allowing eperimentation to continue at both the state and local levels is essential. “[S]tate and local governments need the freedom to improvise and in- novate and, in particular, to adapt their solutions to 1 the unique circumstances in their own community.” ilinson, sura, at 1. ’ s this ourt has recognied, establishing educa tion policy and promoting the general elfare of chil dren have alays been uintessentially state and lo cal functions. ee eg, isconsin oder, 0 .S. 205, 213 (1972) (“There is no doubt as to the power of a State, having a high responsibility for education of its citiens, to impose reasonable regulations for the control and duration of basic education. roviding public schools rans at the very ape of the function of a State.” (citation omitted)); Eerson Aransas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968) (“By and large, public education in our ation is committed to the control of state and local authorities.”); ron d of Educ, U.S. 483, 493 (1954) (“Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local gov ernments.”). Flexibility in this context is particularly important because, hen it comes the protection of students and schools from harm of gun violence, the most effective solutions are not necessarily limited to the kinds of restrictions on carrying firearms in “sensitive places” that this Court approved in Heller. he most effective measures against school gun violence are ones that “enable intervention before a prospective shooter can get his or her hands on a gun.” Everytown for Gun Safety, sura, at 1. n e titioners’ vie, such measures ould to be subect to the highest degree of constitutional scrutiny. nd it is well known that such scrutiny has generally “proven 19 automatically fatal.” enins, 515 U.S. at 121 (Thom- as, ., concurring). ccepting etitioners’ position would therefore eopardie so-called “Red Flag” laws that create a le- gal process by which law enforcement and family members can petition a court to prevent a person from having access to firearms when there is evidence that they are at risk of harming themselves or others. ee Everytown for Gun Safety, sura, at 15. ften times, there are warning signs that presage a school shooting. ee id at 14 (discussing an example that, prior to the arkland igh School shooting, “[n]early 30 people knew about the shooter’s violent behavior and law enforcement had been called to incidents involving the shooter on more than 20 occa- sions”). Red Flag laws can therefore be a critical intervention tool that can prevent acts of violence before they happen. n aryland, for example, a recent- ly passed ed Flag law has been invoked in at least four cases involving “significant threats” against schools. ee id at 15. nd in Florida, a similar law has been invoked in multiple cases of potential school violence. ee id ccepting etitioners’ argument could also eopardie gun storage laws that protect children and schools. The “most common source of guns used in school shootings and across all school gun violence is from the shooter’s home, the homes of friends, or the homes of relatives.” d at 16. Child-access prevention laws—which require adults to store firearms respon- sibly when they are not in their possession—can have a strong positive effect on preventing gun violence, especially with unintentional shootings and firearm suicide. d at 17 (noting that one study that house- holds that locked both firearms and ammunition were associated with a 78 lower risk of self-inflicted fire- 0 arm inuries and an lower risk of unintentional firearm inuries among children and teenagers). The evidence suggests that such laws can “help prevent underage shooters from accessing irresponsibly stored guns in homes and prevent mass shootings and other violent incidents.” d ccepting etitioners’ argument could also eopardie beneficial laws that limit the age at which certain firearms can be lawfully purchased. “Despite the research that suggests most active shooters are school-aged and have a connection to the school and data that show that to 0-year-olds commit gun homicides at a rate four times higher than adults and older, few states have stepped in to close gaps that allow minors to legally purchase high-powered firearms.” d at . For eample, the arkland shooter was under years old and therefore would have been too young to have gone into a gun store and bought a handgun, but he was able to legally buy the R- he used in the shooting. ee id at . Fol- lowing the shooting, however, Florida changed its law to raise the age to for the purchase of all firearms. ee id uch minimum age laws can work in conunc- tion with responsible storage and Red Flag laws to cut off an easy way to obtain firearms that might be used at schools. ee id Finally, accepting etitioners’ argument could potentially eopardie epansions of background-check laws that eliminate eisting loopholes. nder current federal law, background checks are not reuired for sales between unlicensed parties. ee id This means that people with dangerous histories can easily cir- cumvent background-check reuirements. nd this kind of circumvention has been facilitated on a mass scale by certain online platforms recent investiga- tion showed that as many as one person out of nine who arranes to uy a firearm on rmslist.com—the nation’s largest online gun marketplace—is someone who cannot leally have firearms. ee id at . ffec tive acround checs however are an important part of any school safety plan ecause they are the comprehensive stratey to prevent firearm access y minors those suect to ed la orders and others who should not have uns. tate laws that reuire acround checs for all handun sales are associ ated with lower firearm homicide rates lower firearm suicide rates and lower firearm trafficin. ee id n decidin this case the ourt should refrain from implementin an infleile constitutional standard for all un reulations that would limit the aility of state and local lawmaers to reach com promises on the issue of un control includin the important measures discussed aove. ducators in particular must have the opportunity to contriute their epertise and firsthand eperience to deliera tions over how to respond to the prolem of un vio lence in schools. uniform national un policy that fails to account for the local and reional disparities reardin prolems interests and conditions sur roundin uns would leave little room for local leis latures includin school oards to address their communities’ needs. he disastrous conseuences posed y un vio lence in school communities the uniue epertise of education leaders and the suitaility of factspecific policymain y leislative odies all militate in fa vor of restraint y the ourt. chools are uintessen tially “sensitive places,” as this Court has recognized, which call for reasonale un reulations informed y state and local leislatures. he etitioners’ invita tion to impose a national un policy should therefore e declined. ccordingly, the udgment elo should e airmed. espectully sumitted,

C O’B Counsel of ecord ational ducation ssociation iteenth t., .. ashington, .C. aoriennea.org

Counsel for Amicus Curiae ational Education Association

ugust ,