An Emerging Trend: Mandatory Firearm Safety Instruction in K-12 Schools
Public discussion about the risks and benefits of teaching firearm safety in K-12 schools dates back at least 25 years. Until recently, state legislatures have only succeeded in allowing schools to implement elective firearm safety programing, rather than mandating it. However, starting in the 2025-2026 school year, mandatory firearm safety instruction is coming to public schools in three states: Arkansas, Tennessee, and Utah. Beyond possibly signaling the beginning of a new trend in firearms legislation, these laws also highlight differing views on the extent to which parents should be able to control the education their children receive in public schools.
Arkansas
On March 4, 2025, Arkansas’ governor signed H.B. 1117, adding § 6-16-163 to the Arkansas Code. It requires public school districts and open-enrollment charter schools to begin providing age- and grade-appropriate firearm safety instruction starting in the 2025-2026 school year. Instruction will begin in the earliest grade determined appropriate by the Arkansas State Game and Fish Commission and the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education, and continue in each subsequent grade through grade twelve. As of publication, neither the Commission nor the Division has released guidance about which grades will receive firearms instruction when school begins.
The instruction must include school safety relating to firearms, proper handling and safe storage of firearms, and steps to take if a student finds an unsecured firearm – including avoiding injury, never touching an unsecured firearm, and immediately notifying an adult of its location. The state also mandates that training “include neutral viewpoints on all included topics.” The Arkansas State Game and Fish Commission and the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education must approve the curriculum or program of instruction. Curricula or programs containing any brand or organizational affiliations other than those issued by the State of Arkansas or its departments, agencies, or divisions, are prohibited. The Commission and the Division may also approve an alternative curriculum that includes an off-campus firearms safety course approved by the Commission.
Students cannot participate in an off-campus firearms safety course provided in conjunction with a live-fire exercise or sporting event without prior written approval from a parent or guardian. No additional language regarding notifying parents or the possibility of opting out of instruction was included in the bill or in any proposed amendments.
Tennessee
On April 23, 2024, Tennessee’s governor signed H.B. 2882, adding § 49-6-1016 to the Tennessee Code. It requires public school systems, public school districts, and public charter schools to begin providing age and grade appropriate firearm safety instruction starting in the 2025-2026 school year. Instruction will begin in the earliest grade determined appropriate by Tennessee’s Departments of Education and Safety & Homeland Security, and continue in each subsequent grade through grade twelve. The Firearm Safety: K-12 Instructional Outcomes and Guidance published by the Departments in April 2025 includes instructional outcomes for kindergarten students, indicating that all K-12 students in Tennessee will receive firearm safety instruction annually.
The instruction must teach students safe firearm storage, school safety relating to firearms, how to avoid injury, to never touch a found firearm, and to immediately notify an adult of the location of any found firearms. Instruction must be viewpoint neutral on “political topics” including gun rights, gun violence, and the Second Amendment, and cannot use live ammunition, live fire, or live firearms. Tennessee’s Departments of Education and Safety & Homeland Security are responsible for developing or approving the firearms safety instruction curriculum or program of instruction. The Departments may not approve any curriculum or program which includes brand or organizational affiliations.
Parents or guardians in Tennessee may not opt their children out of mandatory firearm safety instruction in schools. In a 74-16 vote, the members of the Tennessee House of Representatives rejected an amendment to the bill that would have allowed parents to excuse their child from firearm safety instruction for any reason.
Utah
On March 27, 2025, Utah’s governor signed H.B. 104 S5, adding § 53E-4-207 to the Utah Code. It came into effect on July 1, 2025 and requires that school districts, charter schools, and the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind provide grade-level appropriate firearm safety instruction. Schools are required to present grade-specific safety classes at least three separate times to K-6 students, at least once to middle school students, and at least once to high school students. The instruction must emphasize “best practices and guidelines for the safe handling and storage of a firearm to prevent accidents and ensure personal safety.” However, it may not contain statements regarding firearms that are not politically neutral.
The instruction can be taught live, by using video or online materials, incorporated into an existing hunter safety course, or incorporated into the health education or physical education curriculum. Schools may use firearm safety curricula and materials that the Utah Attorney General’s office has previously created. If the safety instruction takes place on school premises and includes the display or functionality of an actual firearm, only certain state and federal officials can deliver the instruction.
Schools are required to notify parents or guardians before providing firearm safety instruction and must provide details on how to opt a child out of the classes.
* * *
Several reasons may explain why these three states have now required firearm safety instruction. First, the idea of teaching children about gun safety in schools may be more popular as discussions around arming teachers become more widespread, especially following President Trump’s suggestions to that effect in 2018 and 2023. Second, in recent years, firearms related deaths have become more common among children ages 1-17. Although only a small fraction of these deaths were caused by unintentional firearm discharge, instructing students to avoid unsecured firearms and to safely handle and store firearms could help keep them safe. Finally, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Utah consistently rank among the states considered friendliest to gun-owners and have Republican governors and Republican supermajorities in both legislative houses. This makes them well placed to adopt school-related firearms legislation that might otherwise face opposition from Democrats, as was the case in Arizona.
* * *
One important question raised by the Arkansas and Tennessee laws is what happens when a parent decides that they don’t want their child to receive firearm safety instruction. Unlike in Utah, Arkansas and Tennessee schools are not required to give parents the option of opting their child out before providing classroom firearm safety programming, or even to notify parents of the upcoming instruction. This, however, opens the doors to a potential constitutional challenge.
The Supreme Court has recognized that parents have a right to control certain aspects of their children’s education since Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925). Parental rights relating to education have remained a hot-button issue. In fact, the Supreme Court’s decision this past Term in Mahmoud v. Taylor deals with this very question. In Mahmoud, the Court granted a preliminary injunction allowing parents to be notified in advance of instruction including LGBTQ+-inclusive books, to allow parents with religious objections to remove their children. While the challenges in Mahmoud arose specifically within the context of parents’ right to control the religious upbringing of their children, the Court approvingly noted that “[s]everal States across the country permit broad opt outs from discrete aspects of the public school curriculum without widespread consequences.” And Justice Thomas denounced efforts by schools to impose “ideological conformity” more broadly in his concurrence.
Although there may be some parents who would challenge mandatory firearm safety instruction on religious grounds, many would-be challengers likely want to opt out their children for other reasons. Some parents may believe that instruction of young children in firearms-related topics is inappropriate or potentially traumatic. Others may simply wish to teach their views on appropriate firearm usage and safety to their children at home, without interference by teachers and state officials.
Given that the current Supreme Court has endorsed historically-focused methodology in a number of contexts including the Due Process Clause, could courts also turn to history and tradition to determine the constitutionality of preventing parents from opting their children out of firearm safety instruction? In light of the Court’s decision in Mahmoud, it seems unlikely. Writing alone in concurrence, Justice Thomas was the sole member of the Court to use history and tradition to evaluate the state’s interest. The majority made no reference to history and Justice Sotomayor strongly denounced Justice Thomas’s reasoning in a dissent joined by Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson. She noted that “[his] approach fails to appreciate the constantly evolving nature of education” and argued that “[i]t is inconceivable that learning should be shackled to a moment in time.” Therefore, it seems probable that courts would apply either strict scrutiny or rational basis review to decide challenges to mandatory firearm safety instruction laws, depending on whether the parent’s challenge is religiously motivated.
Religious opposition to firearms is a long-recognized part of American tradition, dating back to Quakers and other pacifist religious groups in the founding era. The original draft of the Second Amendment even included a reference to “person[s] religiously scrupulous of bearing arms.” Where parents looking to challenge the mandatory firearms safety education laws on religious grounds may face difficulty, however, is that none of the three state laws require that students directly interact with a firearm as part of the safety instruction. It is possible that courts will distinguish between requiring that religious students learn about gun safety in a theoretical way and requiring that religious students personally interact with a gun when their beliefs do not allow them to. This would align with the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virgina State Board of Education v. Barnette, where the Court distinguished between compelling students to perform the Pledge of Allegiance and simply “acquaint[ing] [them] with the flag salute so that they may be informed as to what it is or even what it means.”
* * *
With the 2025-2026 school year starting in the coming month, it won’t be long before students in Arkansas, Tennessee, and Utah begin receiving mandatory firearm safety instruction. It remains to be seen whether this instruction will have a positive impact in reducing firearm-related injuries and deaths among children, whether parents will challenge the programs—especially in states with no opt-out right, and whether other states will adopt similar legislation in the future.