In the wake of last year’s triumphant passage of groundbreaking gun safety legislation, Democrats find themselves in an unexpected showdown with the administration, one that’s strangely focused on the fate of school archery programs.
As the law begins to take effect, a surprising divide has emerged between the Biden administration and rural-state Democrats. The bone of contention? Recent guidance from the Department of Education stipulating that federal funds cannot be allocated to school archery and hunting programs. This guidance has ignited the ire of Democrats from red states where these programs hold immense popularity and has left Republicans, who played a role in negotiating the gun safety legislation, equally agitated. Both camps argue that the Education Department is misconstruing Congress’ intent and that the administration has displayed little willingness to resolve the issue.
Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) didn’t mince words, accusing the Education Department of overreaching and missing the mark when it comes to congressional intent. He voiced his frustration, asserting that the agency has been tone-deaf and unresponsive.
This fierce debate has unveiled a long-standing rift within the Democratic party, pitting Democrats from states with a strong hunting tradition against the more progressive elements of the party that support stringent gun control measures.
Notable Democrats, including Senators Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin), Tim Kaine (Virginia), Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota), Bob Casey (Pennsylvania), and the vulnerable Senator Jon Tester (Montana), have signed a recent letter urging the Education Department to reconsider its interpretation of the law. Senator Tester has gone a step further by introducing a bipartisan bill to restore the funding, hoping it will find a place in government spending legislation. He has slammed the administration for its flawed stance, labeling D.C. bureaucrats as out of touch with rural America.
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which underpins this controversy, prohibits schools from utilizing a specific pool of federal education funds, funds from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, for firearms training or instruction in the use of dangerous weapons. The Education Department contends that the law doesn’t impede support for shooting or archery programs through alternative funding sources, apart from ESEA dollars. Furthermore, the administration argues that no school has been denied funding based on this law’s language thus far.
However, lawmakers from rural states remain wary of an overly zealous interpretation of the law. They insist that the prohibition of school programs was never discussed during the bill’s negotiations, primarily aimed at preventing the use of federal funding to arm teachers, a contentious proposal that arose in response to school shootings.
Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) lambasted the White House for derailing a bipartisan piece of legislation, accusing the Biden administration of misinterpreting congressional intent. Republicans fear that this conflict erodes trust in how future bipartisan bills would be enacted under a Democratic administration.
Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) expressed his frustration, saying he and others were “angry” over the interpretation of the law and vowed to make things uncomfortable if the Education Department fails to respond.
An Education Department spokesperson pledged to provide technical assistance to help Congress address the statutory language issue. Several Democrats expressed hope that the department would change its stance once lawmakers clarified their intent with the bill.
Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), another key negotiator of the gun safety bill, acknowledged that the administration’s interpretation is technically accurate but viewed it as an unintended consequence that needs correction. He anticipated bipartisan legislation to rectify the language to be included in an upcoming government funding bill.
Meanwhile, numerous Republicans, even those who didn’t support the law, aren’t content to wait. Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) introduced a bill explicitly stating that the dangerous weapons provision doesn’t apply to student sports and teams, and Representatives Mark Green (R-Tenn.) and Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) introduced a similar bill in the House.
