A fair compromise.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Guns don't belong on school property, period. They especially don't belong in Springfield schools, where Kip Kinkel's 1998 rampage at Thurston High School remains a fresh memory. Kinkel killed two students and wounded 22 others before he was subdued.

But, sadly, the 2003 Legislature let stand a law on the books that allows police, military personnel and people with concealed weapons permits to bring guns onto school property. The Springfield School Board's no-guns-on-school-property rule conflicts with the law - a situation eagerly highlighted by local National Rifle Association activist Curtiss Greer in late July when he brought a gun to a school board meeting.

The conflict led the board to modify its policy this week. The new policy, a rational compromise, simply states: "Individuals with a concealed weapons permit are asked to voluntarily comply with the intent of this [no-gun] policy and not bring a weapon onto district property."

Nothing could be more clear and fair. No mandate, just a rational request for permit holders to leave their guns at home. But predictably, Greer objected. "The state says the school district has no right to ask for control and regulation" of permitted concealed weapons, "and by asking somebody to do this, you are exercising control," Greer said.

Because of Greer's myopic objections, the district said it would tinker with the new language before bringing the new policy back to the board later this month.

It's unthinkable that Greer or any firearm advocate would object, especially given the Thurston tragedy, to a policy simply requesting - not demanding but requesting - that concealed weapons permit holders voluntarily refrain from bringing a gun onto school property.

Greer argues that permit holders are trained and responsible. Undoubtedly, the great majority of them are. Indeed, most are responsible and sensitive enough to honor a request that they not bring their weapons onto school grounds.

Some argue that anti-gun policies would not have stopped Kinkel. But if a no-gun policy had been vigorously enforced, it's possible that Kinkel would not have been in a position to return to school after being caught with a gun in his locker the day before. Some even say that Kinkel could have been stopped if someone on the scene - a teacher, perhaps - had been armed. Such speculation provides flimsy support for inviting increased firepower at schools. It's just as plausible to imagine that a gunfight between Kinkel and some other armed person would have ended in more mayhem, not less.

The Springfield School District has a fundamental obligation to keep children safe from harm. Certainly it's reasonable to request the cooperation of the community, including concealed weapon permit-holders, to that end. Even Greer should understand that his rights can be exercised in ways that conflict with his responsibilities.