In the wake of a devastating school shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis, which left two children dead and more than a dozen injured, a new debate over school safety and gun policy has erupted on Capitol Hill. At the center of this renewed controversy is Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who, on August 29, 2025, announced the reintroduction of the "My Safe Students Act"—also known as HR 5066 or the Safe Students Act—aimed at repealing the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.
The Gun-Free School Zones Act, originally signed into law by President George H.W. Bush, makes it a federal crime to carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school, with certain exceptions for residents of private property within the zone and for individuals holding state-issued concealed carry licenses. Violators of the law face up to five years in federal prison and significant fines. The law's intent was to create a protective buffer around schools, but critics like Massie argue it has had the unintended consequence of turning schools into "soft targets" for would-be attackers.
According to Townhall, Massie explained the rationale behind his bill in a post on X (formerly Twitter), stating, "My Safe Students Act, HR 5066, would repeal the dangerous Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, ending the default federal policy of making schools soft targets." He further emphasized that the bill "would make it easier for state governments and school boards to unambiguously set their own firearm policies." In essence, the legislation would shift the authority over gun policy near schools from the federal government to individual states and local districts, potentially paving the way for more armed personnel on school grounds where permitted by state law.
The timing of Massie's renewed push is no coincidence. The Minneapolis school shooting, perpetrated by Robert "Robin" Westman, has reignited national conversations about mass shootings and the effectiveness of current gun control measures. According to Breitbart News, the shooter specifically targeted a gun-free zone, with his manifesto stating a preference for attacking a place where people would be "unarmed," echoing past tragedies like the 2012 Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting. Massie seized on this detail, retweeting a post from crimeresearch.org that quoted the shooter: "That’s why I and many others like schools so much." Massie added, "Deranged shooters choose schools because they know their victims are vulnerable. This one even admitted it. There’s never been a shooting like this in a school that allows staff to carry."
Support for Massie's proposal has come swiftly from prominent gun rights organizations. Gun Owners of America praised the move, declaring, "Congress needs to abandon the failed federal gun-free schools policy & arm willing teachers instead!" The National Association for Gun Rights also lauded the effort, signaling a broader push among Second Amendment advocates to challenge federal restrictions on guns in schools. These groups argue that arming teachers and staff could deter would-be shooters and save lives, a perspective that has gained traction among some lawmakers and segments of the public following high-profile school shootings.
The case for repealing the Gun-Free School Zones Act is further bolstered by a recent report from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), cited by both Townhall and Breitbart News. The CPRC analyzed 512 active shooter incidents in the United States between 2014 and 2023, finding that armed civilians stopped 57 active shooter events that otherwise "were likely to have escalated into mass public shootings." The study reported that "armed citizens reduce the number of people killed by 49 percent while police increase the number killed by 16 percent." The rationale is straightforward: individuals already present at the scene have more immediate opportunities to confront and stop an assailant, whereas police, no matter how quick their response, inevitably arrive after violence has begun.
Not everyone is convinced by Massie’s arguments. Critics point to instances where armed police officers were present during school shootings but failed to stop the violence, such as in the tragic 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. In a public exchange on social media, one user challenged Massie: "Please, there were armed police in Florida. Didn’t do s**t. Most Cops aren’t prepared for some random shooter to just open up on people. Regular Cops on their daily patrol aren’t even always ready for that. It’s so random, it’s impossible to know where or when it’s going to happen." Massie responded pointedly, "You just made my point. I’m not saying we need a cop at every school, I’m saying we need staff carrying concealed."
While Massie and his supporters argue that repealing the Gun-Free School Zones Act would empower states and localities to tailor policies to their specific needs—potentially allowing trained teachers or staff to carry concealed firearms—opponents fear that more guns in schools could lead to accidental shootings, increased risks during confrontations, or weapons falling into the wrong hands. Many states already have some form of restrictions on firearms in or around schools, and these would remain in place unless changed by state legislatures. The federal repeal would simply remove the blanket prohibition, leaving the matter to local governance.
The debate is deeply polarized, reflecting broader national divisions over gun rights and public safety. Proponents of stricter gun control laws argue that the presence of more firearms, even in the hands of trained individuals, increases the likelihood of tragedy—whether through mishandling, theft, or escalation of violence. They also contend that the focus should be on preventing guns from falling into the hands of dangerous individuals in the first place, rather than arming more people in sensitive environments like schools.
On the other hand, supporters of Massie’s bill cite the CPRC data and the explicit statements of shooters themselves, arguing that "gun-free zones" are magnets for those seeking to inflict maximum harm. As Mediaite reported, Massie has introduced a version of this repeal bill in every session of Congress, maintaining that "there’s never been a shooting like this in a school that allows staff to carry." For these advocates, the right to self-defense and the protection of children outweighs concerns about the risks of arming school personnel.
Ultimately, the fate of the My Safe Students Act remains uncertain. The bill would need to pass both chambers of Congress and be signed by the president—a tall order given the current partisan divides on gun policy. But as the Minneapolis tragedy reminds the nation yet again of the vulnerability of schools to violence, the questions Massie raises are unlikely to fade from the public conversation anytime soon.
In the end, the debate over how best to keep students safe continues to pit deeply held beliefs about freedom, security, and responsibility against one another, with no easy answers in sight.
