We often get questions relating to students wearing our products to public schools. Most parents are under the impression that shirts etc.. featuring firearms aren’t allowed to be worn due to school dress codes.
Lets be clear here, there is no State of Oregon or Federal law that supports school dress codes which infringe on the First Amendment rights of students.
In fact, in 1969 The United States Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision in favor of the students in Tinker vs. Des Moines. The high court agreed that students’ free rights should be protected and said, “Students don’t shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates.”
Of course, just like many of our State legislators ignore both Federal and State Constitutions, many “Educators” in this state also feel they can ignore the Tinker vs. Des Moines decision and push their agenda through dress codes that ban free speech. Turns out that when students and parents stand up for their rights, things change.
Of course this is one of those “pick your battles” situations that a lot of parents may not be comfortable with. Confronting the civil rights violations of those in charge of your children’s education isn’t something everybody wants to do. The choice to fight that battle is up to you.
A student from Liberty High School in Hillsboro, OR sued the school district in May of this year for their dress code which violated his First Amendment rights. The district settled for 25k. Here’s a link to an article about that from the Washington Post.
“Barnes made contact with Benbrook’s firm after reading about another case in which the firm was involved, Benbrook said. His firm represented an eighth-grader in Nevada who sued the district after he was disciplined for wearing two gun-related shirts, one of which was an advertisement for a gun store that appeared to depict an assault-style rifle, and another which promoted a gun rights advocacy group and the slogan “Don’t Tread on Me.” That case was also settled after the public school district updated its dress code to allow clothing that promoted weapons and agreed to pay a portion of the boy’s legal fees.”