[ilbegone]

disruption
threatening pupil's immediate physical safety.

creates a disruption with the intent to threaten the immediate
physical safety of any pupil

whose presence or acts
interfere with the peaceful conduct of the activities of the school
or disrupt the school or its pupils or school activities,

Remains there after being asked to leave

How could it be that a mobile message board be construed to immediately harm elementary and junior high kids or interfere with and disrupt a school or school activities?

Do parents retain the right to picket over shoddy education results?

Do unions which represent teachers in any location have issue with this piece of legislation concerning first amendment rights?

What about activities such as road repair, utility maintenance, trimming or removing trees? "Educators" are so goofy that a downed light pole is cause for classroom lock down and escalating the situation into a virtual national disaster by calling every legal guardian of every student.

Who ultimately decides what constitutes a disruption or threat, and how is that applied without prejudice or even malice? Just what is "willfully or knowingly"?

The bill may be well intentioned (I see perceived hordes of child molesters inspiring the bill), but I believe it to ultimately be just one more weapon to fortify schools against parents and just about anyone else who may unwittingly stroll down the sidewalk while blithely minding his own business. Maybe it's written so broadly that it wouldn't stand up in court, but then someone has to have their innocent activities unconstitutionally punished and have the resources for a court challenge.

I remember something about the authorities in the Inland 10-210 freeway corridor communities crushing cars impounded for street racing - until they crushed a car belonging to a kid whose parents had some money behind them and an attorney wanting to earn it.

Which one of those Sacramento wastrels wrote this thing anyway - don't we have a runaway deficit to address?