Despite the fact a leading psychologist has deemed school “zero tolerance” weapons policies “psychotic”, a hearing examiner just ruled that suspension was an appropriate punishment for a boy who wielded the now infamous “Pop Tart Gun”.

A hearing examiner affirmed the suspension of an Anne Arundel County boy who chewed his breakfast pastry into the shape of a gun in what many have come to know as “the Pop-Tart case.”

In a 30-page opinion, hearing examiner Andrew W. Nussbaum supported a principal’s assertion that the suspension was based on a history of problems, not the pastry episode. “The evidence is clear that suspension is used as a last resort,” Nussbaum wrote.

The boy’s family asked to have his school records cleared of the incident, which occurred early last year, when he was 7 years old and in second grade. The findings and recommendation will go to the county Board of Education for a decision.

The case dates to a time of heightened sensitivity to guns after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. The boy’s punishment drew national attention and was one of several D.C.-area suspensions involving imaginary or toy guns.

In Anne Arundel, the boy’s disciplinary referral used the word “gun” four times, asserting that the child “chewed his cereal bar into the shape of a gun” and aimed it at other children. The document quoted the boy as yelling, “Look, I made a gun!” It cited classroom disruption as the primary reason for the suspension, and an administrator noted several previous incidents of disruptive behavior near the bottom of the form.

In Nussbaum’s opinion, dated June 26, he rejected arguments from the boy’s family that the school overreacted and that the suspension arose from a bias against guns. The father said he was told the day that the boy was suspended that it was for playing as if he had a gun, not for ongoing problems.