# Ore. teacher wants to take gun to school



## Rich Parsons (Oct 8, 2007)

Check this link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071008/ap_on_re_us/pistol_packing_teacher


----------



## Gordon Nore (Oct 8, 2007)

Rich Parsons said:


> Check this link:
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071008/ap_on_re_us/pistol_packing_teacher



Three thoughts:

1. My understanding of the Second Amendment is that it covers the right to bear arms, not necessarily the right to carry them concealed.

2. As a parent, I would not feel safe knowing my kid's teacher was being stalked, whether she had a gun or not. If she is in that much danger, may she shouldn't be at school.



> Even if she wins, Katz said, she may not bring the gun to school.  "The whole point of carrying concealed is no one should know you're carrying," she said. "So I feel like my carrying concealed on campus now sets me up as a target."



3. So why did she even bring it up in the first place?


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Oct 8, 2007)

It's pretty clear that you're not allowed to have a gun even near a school where I live.  There was even a flap some years back about whether or not gun owners whose _homes_ were within that distance could keep guns at all.

Turns out they could, once all was said and done.

But I find I tire of people who believe they should be the exception to the rule.  This is not the first teacher who's been stalked.  Why does she feel she should be allowed to break the rule?

This isn't really about the second amendment.  It's about one woman's sense of entitlement, which just happens to involve a gun in this case.  If she'd wanted to wear miniskirts to class (also against the rules and arguably free expression), we wouldn't be reading about this.  She'd just quietly be dismissed.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 8, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> This isn't really about the second amendment. It's about one woman's sense of entitlement, which just happens to involve a gun in this case. If she'd wanted to wear miniskirts to class (also against the rules and arguably free expression), we wouldn't be reading about this. She'd just quietly be dismissed.


 
So, how will this song be sung when the perp walks into the school, either when kids are there or not, and guns her down?  This question has nothing to do with what a person is wearing to class, its about protecting one's self from violence.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 8, 2007)

Gordon Nore said:


> Three thoughts:
> 
> 1. My understanding of the Second Amendment is that it covers the right to bear arms, not necessarily the right to carry them concealed.


 As written: [SIZE=+1]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.([/SIZE]

 Main Entry:	*in·fringe*


Pronunciation:	in-'frinj
Function:	_verb_
Inflected Form(s):	*in·fringed*; *in·fring·ing*
Etymology:	Medieval Latin _infringere,_ from Latin, to break, crush, from _in-_ + _frangere_ to break  -- more at [SIZE=-1]BREAK[/SIZE]
_transitive verb_
*1* *:* to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another   <_infringe_ a patent>
*2* _obsolete_ *: [SIZE=-1]DEFEAT[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]FRUSTRATE[/SIZE]
*http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe*)*[SIZE=+1]I don't see any qualifiers, such as; except in certain places, but, not concealed, etc. As written, which is the only sane way to look at it, it allows people to bear (carry) arms and adding qualifiers, such as rules against concealment, etc would seem to defeat and frustrate the armed citizen.



> [/SIZE] 2. As a parent, I would not feel safe knowing my kid's teacher was being stalked, whether she had a gun or not. If she is in that much danger, may she shouldn't be at school.


 People that are attacked don't deserve consideration or help either... 





> 3. So why did she even bring it up in the first place?


Because BOTH her safety and her rights were endangered and she was too honest to sneak a gun to work. Gee, nice to see how being honest helps...


----------



## Big Don (Oct 8, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> This isn't really about the second amendment.  It's about one woman's sense of entitlement, which just happens to involve a gun in this case.  If she'd wanted to wear miniskirts to class (also against the rules and arguably free expression), we wouldn't be reading about this.  She'd just quietly be dismissed.
> 
> Just my two cents.


Really? So, the US Constitution doesn't apply to her? Why?


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 8, 2007)

Let's see...

She's complied with the law to obtain a permit and she's got reasonable justification to carry a gun.  (Not that I really think she needs individual justification... but I'll let David Grossman _et al_ address that in a moment.)

She's got every right to make a living, in the profession she's trained for and practiced for some years.  

While I think it would be good for her (and other teachers & school staff) to recieve some specialized training recognizing their unique situation...  why should she be barred from a reasonable means of protecting not only herself, but the students?

Folks... I got news.  It's not just angry exes we've got to worry about in schools.  It ain't even just the disgruntled students.  Terrorists WILL attack our schools; I really think it's only dumb luck they haven't yet.  (I'll ignore the observation that some gang shootings that have occurred at schools, as well as special interest, hate-related, or narcotic related crime that have taken place at our schools are very arguable terrorism.)  As I said, I'm going to let David Grossman, Richard Fairburn and a few others speak to this...  they do it much better than I can.  See this, or this for starters.  Beyond that... plug things like "Beslan" and "school terrorism" into a search engine.

Why the hell shouldn't a willing teacher be armed?  Does anyone else think that maybe the death toll at Virginia Tech or Columbine would have been a lot lower with a few teachers (or, in the case of Tech, adult students) carrying guns?

And...  for those of the opinion that if her ex is stalking her, she shouldn't be working...  Maybe you'll give up your job because of the actions of someone else, whom you cannot control?  I know this is going to be inflammatory -- but I can't help but wonder if maybe you'd be happier if she'd stayed with an abusive husband?

She's not even argueing a constitutional issue; the state's laws PERMIT her to carry.  (In VA, only cops are allowed to carry concealed at a school -- but anyone who can have the gun legally can leave it in a "locked container" in the parking lot -- and the car counts as a container!)  It's only an exception to a school rule that she's seeking.  And I'd bet there are plenty of other rules that they've made exceptions for...


----------



## Grenadier (Oct 9, 2007)

I actually find it rather odd, that people who are so vehemently against this lady lawfully carrying her gun, think that she could be a source of trouble.  All it takes is a bit of common sense.  

I'll put it forth rather bluntly...  If someone wants to cause problems with a firearm, he / she isn't going to go through the trouble of getting a concealed carry permit.  I strongly doubt that this teacher is going to be the type to cause trouble.  

Criminals the likes of Cho Seung Hui, et. al., are going to commit crimes, regardless of the laws or school rules in place.  Such rules don't create any magical auras that prevent them from carrying out their actions.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 9, 2007)

For those that support her, Suppose a 18 year old student had similar concerns and wanted a concealed carry permit and to bring a gun to school, should they be allowed?


----------



## Big Don (Oct 9, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> For those that support her, Suppose a 18 year old student had similar concerns and wanted a concealed carry permit and to bring a gun to school, should they be allowed?


Absolutely! Is an 18 year old student not allowed Constitutional rights? Does self-defense begin at 21?


----------



## tellner (Oct 9, 2007)

> But I find I tire of people who believe they should be the exception to the rule. This is not the first teacher who's been stalked. Why does she feel she should be allowed to break the rule?



Bushido, take a careful look at the facts and your dismissal of the situation. Her ex is a well-established threat to her life. He is violent. He ignores restraining orders. So do almost all the people who have them. The school board won't even forbid him from working in the same building she does. 

This isn't some sort of Jackie Chan fantasy where they will jump up on the desks and she will defeat him with her superior badly dubbed kung fu. Her only reasonable means of staying alive if or more likely when he comes for her is a gun. She's been investigated and shown to be law-abiding. Her pistol is only a threat to the criminal, not to the innocent. Judges generally issue mutual restraining orders which would have prohibited her from even owning firearms. It's telling that it only goes one way.

She could have just carried her gun and not told anyone. It's what I'd do in her shoes even though it's against The Rule. But she's a standup kind of person and wants to do it legally and above board, so she is trying to get the rule clarified or changed. The callous way you dismiss the very real threat to her life is troubling considering what a kind guy you are in person.


----------



## tellner (Oct 9, 2007)

jks, we've had six uninterrupted years of unremitting paranoia and propaganda about The Terrorists. They're everywhere. They're a constant threat to everyone. They justify anything the twits in the White House want to do. We need to jettison our freedoms and the rule of Law. We need surveillance cameras on every corner. We should all buy duct tape and Saran Wrap to protect ourselves from the poison gas and dirty bombs. Sorry, women carrying breast milk for their babies need to drink it in front of the TSA because it might be a poisoned terrorist weapon (true story). Oops, I mean Homeland Security funds need to go to a turkey festival in the Corn Belt because The Terrorists might attack it (again, a true story). Chertoff reached into his bag of M&Ms and pulled out an orange one. Everybody panic!

The reality is that schools are among the safest places in the country. That's precisely why the teacher's request is so noteworthy. She's in an unusually bad situation and needs to take exceptional measures precisely because it is so far outside what commonly happens in schools. The chances of The Terrorists breaking into a random school in a benighted town in Southern Oregon and getting in a gunfight are about, oh I don't know, half as likely as the cow jumping over the moon and landing on my head when she touches down. And if they did the odds against it being in one of the few schools where someone happened to have a handgun and her encountering them and driving them off with it are pretty much zero outside of Hollywood. 

It's not a good argument much as we both support her right to carry in her personally dangerous situation.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 9, 2007)

tellner said:


> And if they did the odds against it being in one of the few schools where someone happened to have a handgun and her encountering them and driving them off with it are pretty much zero outside of Hollywood.


I'm curious, September 10th 2001, what were the odds that terrorists would fly planes into buildings? Odds have little if anything to do with terrorism or crime, as neither are the acts of rational people.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 9, 2007)

Having had my life and those of my children threatened by an ex on a restraining order ... I'm all for it.  She tried to do this anonymously but found her case would likely be dismissed as an anonymous entity cannot sue another entity and the case would have been thrown out.

I'm frustrated that the school board will not deny this man employ in the vicinity; but I wonder about the employment laws and how that all mixes.  They likely cannot discriminate against him and keep him from doing a job he applied for and is qualified for if he is not a felon and has no other qualities that preclude him from employment through the district.  I wonder if she must submit the court order to her employer and if it's a breech of confidentiality she didn't want to risk?  I'd have to wonder that if they employed him and he had need to be in her vicinity as a part of his regular duties if they could be held liable for aiding and abetting if he decided to be a bad little boy?

Well, if all works out the way it should, the kids will never see the gun, she'll be able to manage their undoubtedly incoming inquiries and maintain a level of respect with her peers.  This is certainly a road less travelled.  I'll be interested to see how all this pans out.

I want to say that it's about doggone time a woman came forward to openly set a firm example of a woman vehemently valuing her own safety and life enough to take such a stance.  Good for her.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 9, 2007)

We've discussed this issue at length before this incident, and my opinion still stands (even though the thread got a bit heated at times...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38449&highlight=Guns+schools



Cruentus said:


> This issue is hard for most of us to really wrap our brains around; but an examination of the arguements on both sides really speaks to the collective phobias and rational of our time and culture.
> 
> It is interesting to hear the impractical arguements regarding the issue on both sides (not refering or pointing fingers to anyone here, I am saying accross the board and in general). Without addressing those, let's just speak in pragmatic terms here.
> 
> ...


 
There are places where you can carry w/ permit on school property, like in Utah, and lo and behold, there isn't mass shootings of our children by law abiding citizens because of it. Imagine that.. 

With a proper permit, there is no good reason someone shouldn't be able to carry concealed in schools.

C.


----------



## tellner (Oct 9, 2007)

Big Don, we knew precisely what odds were on September 10th. It's been tediously well established that the Clinton Administration specifically warned the incoming Bush Administration about specific reliable intelligence they had about the particular plan to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings in the US. The Bush transition team ignored it. They ignored more specific warnings from the CIA in the months and in fact days leading up to the attack. Two FBI employees who tried to get the Justice Department to take note of similar information were fired. 

The White House knew the odds and chose to ignore them. It really is as simple as that.

Why don't you wear plate armor every day? Someone might come after you with a sword.

Why don't you carry a reinforced umbrella to ward off falling meteorites?

How about a bone saw in case someone develops a sudden case of gas gangrene and need to do an emergency high amputation? 

There is a chance that all the oxygen in the room will quantum tunnel to the other side of the globe. Do you have a long snorkel so that you can breathe from inside the affected area? 

Do you *always *carry a gas mask, potassium iodate pills, lead-lined clothes, garlic and silver bullets?

You are a sane man, so the answer to all of these is "Of course not." That's because you calculate the odds of these things happening and decide that the chance of them happening is so low that the cost of taking these barking mad measures outweighs any benefit you might get from taking them. To act otherwise is completely crazy.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 9, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> For those that support her, Suppose a 18 year old student had similar concerns and wanted a concealed carry permit and to bring a gun to school, should they be allowed?


If the 18 year old has complied with the laws, and is eligible to carry legally... why not?

As Grenadier said -- criminals aren't going to play by the rules.  I've never taken a weapon off a criminal who cared that it was illegal -- except that they got arrested.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 9, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> There are places where you can carry w/ permit on school property, like in Utah, and lo and behold, there isn't mass shootings of our children by law abiding citizens because of it. Imagine that..



That is a very weak argument that fails at establishing a cause and effect.  Mass shootings are rare, and I don't think there is anywhere near enough of them to establish a cause and effect connection based on one state not having had any.  

I get the feeling that most of these shooting sprees are carried out by people that have no intention of living through it, just going out in a blaze. Good people with guns might have ended it earlier, but I doubt it would have prevented them.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 9, 2007)

I have to say I am concerned that she feels a Columbine attack helps to justify her cause to carry a concealed weapon, but I feel more strongly about a viable threat on her personal safety and a restraining order which the school district specifically states they will not aid the enforcement of.

Are police officers required to check their guns at the office?


----------



## tellner (Oct 9, 2007)

Agreed. I'd be willing to bet that she knows the Columbine thing is irrational but is willing to invoke it to bring her proposal to a wider audience. The real threat to her life is the one that's going to have her attention.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 9, 2007)

Did it cross anyone elses mind that this might be nothing but posturing?



> He argues that her desire to take her gun to school is about reopening their divorce to get exclusive custody of their 6-year-old daughter.



We're not getting the whole story, as news stories rarely tell it.  Is it possible he is right?  Even at the bottom it says:



> Even if she wins, Katz said, she may not bring the gun to school.



If it was for her protection how would it being known matter?

I've seen women do some pretty excessive posturing after a divorce in order to get sympathy, or maybe to convince themself that they needed to break away because the other person is evil?

Regardless, I don't think 2nd ammendment rights where ever meant to apply to being able to carry anywhere, many government building must still be off limit.  Court rooms, parliment, etc. are they not?


----------



## thardey (Oct 9, 2007)

Since this is from my city, I can fill in a couple of details

First, from another thread on this that slipped under the radar, to quote myself:



> The issue's still going pretty hot here, with lots of opinion/editorials posted pretty much every day. So far public opinion seems pretty evenly divided, but it's hard to tell from the news.
> 
> To me the issue is not on a per-teacher basis - as one of the editorials pointed out today, if this woman is in fear of her life, and is around kids, then the school is responsible to protect the kids around her. I say more power to her.
> 
> ...


As to the questions about the 18 Y.O -- in Oregon, 21 is the legal age for owning/carrying a handgun, and you cannot get a CCW until you are 21.

However, _anyone_ who has a CCW can carry a loaded, concealed pistol onto school grounds, even into a classroom full of students, or an assembly.

(And no, cops don't have to check in their pistols at the front desk).

It falls under the same category as carrying it into a mall, or movie theater. If the owners/managers have a sign barring firearms, and you carry one in concealed, you are not breaking a law. However, if they find out that you have it, they may ask you to leave, or take the gun to your car. If you refuse, then it becomes more of a trespassing-type issue. At least, that's how it was explained at the safety course I took to get the CCW. If I carried my gun into my wife's school (she's a middle school teacher), I'm in a perfectly legal position, but if they know it's there, they can ask me to leave it in the car, but they can't call the police and arrest me for having a gun on school property. But they would probably try. Make sense?

She's trying to widen this understanding, and actually setting a precedent for more of an issue of - if you carry concealed while at your job (whatever it is, public or private), can you get fired for it? The news stories have made it clear over and over again that she already has the legal right to carry it -- the question is whether she can be fired for it.

It's telling, though, that the superintendent, a retired cop, issued a statement saying that if she brought the gun to school, she would be arrested. They would have nothing to charge her with!

This is one main source of confusion, here, and some of the arguments going on locally don't distinguish between the two.

---

On another note, South Medford High School is one of two High schools in the area where gang activity is growing, and growing very, very fast. It's one of the lower-income schools, with a lot of people moving in from S. California. It's not so much a terrorist threat we're talking about, but the problem of a Columbine-style massacre is a definite threat here.

It was not long ago that one happened in Eugene, only a couple of hours from here, and in the same type of community. It's also very common for kids to get expelled for bringing pistols to school -- it happened last year to one _of my wife's own students_, in Middle School! Somebody reported it, and they found it in her locker. It turned out to be an airsoft pistol, but she had brought to intimidate other students.

No, this place is ripe for school-shootings, and S. Medford is the likeliest place. Perhaps not a massacre, but a gang-related shooting is very likely.

----

BTW, since the exemption is at a federal level, you all should check your state laws about CCW on schools, your state may be the same as Oregon, but it's not widely known.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 9, 2007)

I would asked;
Does one have the natural individual right to defend themself and/or family? I believe we all would answer and emphatic "Yes"! Do they need the constitution to state and another person to tell us that it states they have that individual right to protect themself? No! 

It is our natural right and responsibility to protect ourselves and families and the constitution "is" our conceal carry permit.

We have allowed our natural right and responsibility to protect ourselves to be taken from us and have allowed the permit of the 2nd amemdment to be watered down.

Danny T


----------



## Kacey (Oct 9, 2007)

Amendent II states:



> A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has ruled that in some cases, a constitutional right can, indeed, be _infringed_ - the 1st Amendment, for example, has been _infringed_ repeatedly... or we wouldn't have laws about slander/libel, nor about profanity, hate speech, or parade routes.

Do I think this woman, having legally obtained a gun and a permit to carry a concealed weapon, has the right to carry that gun anywhere not prohibited by law?  Yes.  As a middle school teacher, do I think that a middle school (or any other school) is an appropriate place to carry it?  For most people, no.  

In the given situation, the woman is claiming that she needs to be allowed to carry her concealed weapon for defense against her ex-husband.  So unless she's planning on concealing it on her person at all times, she will have to find somewhere appropriate to store it while on school grounds.  Now, I store my purse and other incidentals in a file cabinet, which I lock while I am at school... other teachers I know store such things in a desk drawer (also locked) or in an office (also locked), as pilfering by students, visitors, and staff is not unheard of... or even, sadly, particularly uncommon.  So, unless she is planning on wearing a holster concealed by her clothing, she is going to have to store this weapon in a locked drawer, cabinet, or office - which means that if her ex comes calling and she needs it, she has to go get it.  My file cabinet is at the back of the room, and would not be immediately accessible from the middle of the room, which is where I teach - so if someone with a weapon and murderous intent were to enter my room while I was teaching, I would be unable to reach any weapon I had concealed... making it meaningless.  I would suggest, from my experience (and yes, we've had guns, knives, and various other weapons show up at my school), that unless she's going to carry it constantly, it won't do her any good... 

As far as other school personnel carrying weapons, concealed or otherwise, the same issues would occur - either the person must carry the weapon constantly, like our SRO (School Resource Officer, a member of our local police force who is stationed in the school - and his weapon is *not* concealed, he's in uniform, and his gun is in a standard holster), or they're going to have to find a secure location in which to store it.  In case of a murderous person coming in unexpectedly, having the weapon stored seems less than ideal, and possible counter-productive, as I could see someone who feels threatened with death, who has a weapon that is not immediately accessible, moving for the weapon rather than choosing another course of action.  In the case of a mass shooting, a concealed weapon might be a more use, as long as the shooter(s) didn't start in the same room as the concealed weapon (see previous point).

So... do I think it should be _possible_ to carry a concealed weapon on school grounds, assuming the person is properly licensed?  I can see times when it could be appropriate.  Do I think it should be commonly allowed?  Not really... the risk, it seems to me, outweighs the potential benefits.  This is just my opinion, and I certainly understand the reasons given by some people about _why_ concealed weapons should be allowed - I just don't think that they are relevant for most people/situations; some, but not most.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 9, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> That is a very weak argument that fails at establishing a cause and effect. Mass shootings are rare, and I don't think there is anywhere near enough of them to establish a cause and effect connection based on one state not having had any.
> 
> I get the feeling that most of these shooting sprees are carried out by people that have no intention of living through it, just going out in a blaze. Good people with guns might have ended it earlier, but I doubt it would have prevented them.


 
My argument is not weak at all; it is a counter to an already weak argument; that argument being that our children won't be safe if licensed citizens carry in schools concealed. Naysayers erroniously claim things like kids will be exposed to guns, it will spawn more violence and shootings, etc. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. When you look at test samples like in Utah, however, the evidence actually supports the opposite argument: that law abiding, productive and safety concious citizens will stay that way, and therefore we don't need civil liberty violating laws to protect people from themselves.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Oct 9, 2007)

Big Don said:


> As written: [SIZE=+1]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.([/SIZE]



Thanks for putting the Second Amendment in big letters for me. 



> Main Entry:    *in·fringe*
> 
> 
> Pronunciation:    in-'frinj
> ...


The Webster's reference -- with the sound clip -- was dandy too.



> I don't see any qualifiers, such as; except in certain places, but, not concealed, etc. As written, which is the only sane way to look at it, it allows people to bear (carry) arms and adding qualifiers, such as rules against concealment, etc would seem to defeat and frustrate the armed citizen.
> People that are attacked don't deserve consideration or help either...
> Because BOTH her safety and her rights were endangered and she was too honest to sneak a gun to work. Gee, nice to see how being honest helps...


There are competing versions of what the Constitutional framers intended. Being Canadian, any debate of the Second Amendment will be half-hearted on my part. The aspect of this debate (gun rights) that always cracks me up is this: Gun owners who oppose control won't simply leave it at... _I have the right to own / carry a gun._ They are bound and determined to lecture everyone else on how safe they should feel because of it.

I'll put it to you this way -- just because my neighbour feels safe with a gun in his kitchen drawer doesn't mean I have too. Nor does someone's legal or constitutional rights to carry a gun stop anybody else from using their right to free speech and challenge that belief.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 9, 2007)

Kacey said:


> In the given situation, the woman is claiming that she needs to be allowed to carry her concealed weapon for defense against her ex-husband. So unless she's planning on concealing it on her person at all times, she will have to find somewhere appropriate to store it while on school grounds. Now, I store my purse and other incidentals in a file cabinet, which I lock while I am at school... other teachers I know store such things in a desk drawer (also locked) or in an office (also locked), as pilfering by students, visitors, and staff is not unheard of... or even, sadly, particularly uncommon. So, unless she is planning on wearing a holster concealed by her clothing, she is going to have to store this weapon in a locked drawer, cabinet, or office - which means that if her ex comes calling and she needs it, she has to go get it. My file cabinet is at the back of the room, and would not be immediately accessible from the middle of the room, which is where I teach - so if someone with a weapon and murderous intent were to enter my room while I was teaching, I would be unable to reach any weapon I had concealed... making it meaningless. I would suggest, from my experience (and yes, we've had guns, knives, and various other weapons show up at my school), that unless she's going to carry it constantly, it won't do her any good...


 
You make a really good point here. While I don't think we'll agree on all points, this is one I agree with you on. If she carries her weapon concealed, then she absolutely has to carry it on her person for it to be effective. A CCW doesn't give a person the right to leave their weapon lying around anywhere they want to, as that would be unsafe and therefore an infringement on others rights to saftey. So there are rules as to how you must secure your weapon; usually that means if outside of the home it at the very least must be in a locked container, and usually it has to be unloaded and the ammo has to be seperated from the weapon. This renders the weapon useless as a protection device.

I do believe that people should have the rights to self-defense, meaning that she should have the right to carry concealed. But, that doesn't mean leaving it lying around. If she exercises her right, it needs to be on her person for it to be both safe and practical.

C.

btw... I really like your signature, Kacey!


----------



## Gordon Nore (Oct 9, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I do believe that people should have the rights to self-defense, meaning that she should have the right to carry concealed. But, that doesn't mean leaving it lying around. If she exercises her right, it needs to be on her person for it to be both safe and practical.



So she shouldn't coach swimming.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 9, 2007)

Gordon Nore said:


> There are competing versions of what the Constitutional framers intended. Being Canadian, any debate of the Second Amendment will be half-hearted on my part. The aspect of this debate (gun rights) that always cracks me up is this: Gun owners who oppose control won't simply leave it at... _I have the right to own / carry a gun._ They are bound and determined to lecture everyone else on how safe they should feel because of it.
> 
> I'll put it to you this way -- just because my neighbour feels safe with a gun in his kitchen drawer doesn't mean I have too. Nor does someone's legal or constitutional rights to carry a gun stop anybody else from using their right to free speech and challenge that belief.


 
Well, I am not sure where your coming from here. I respect that fact that many people choose not to carry firearms. That is their right and choice; carrying a firearm is really a lifestyle choice, and comes with a certain responsibility that not everyone is willing or wants to take on. And that's cool. I just don't want those who choose not to carry to try to impose their choice on me through lobbying for government regulation, and so forth. It is at that point when that healthy choice turns into a disfunctional one.

As to the consitution, and so forth. I am greatful for the 2nd amendment, but I personally don't care so much about the laws as I do with this really being an ethical issue.

It is a simple case of whether or not we believe that people have inalienable rights as human beings or not. If we agree that people have rights as human beings, then we must agree that the right to safety is fundamental. And if this is true, then self-defense as a means to keep one safe is also a fundamental, inalienable right.

If self-defense in an inalienable right, then it is only ethical to allow people to take proper measures to ensure their own safety, and to infringe on peoples abilities to take proper measures would thus be unethical. Since the only thing that will reasonably (with reliability and efficiency) allow physically weaker individuals to equalize the threat of deadly force (from a firearm, another weapon like a knife, multiple attackers, etc.) is a firearm, then to not allow people to carry firearms is an infringement on their inalienable right to self-defense.

It is a very simple equation, and in my opinion an ethical issue. If one cannot agree on the ethics, then one won't see eye to eye when it comes to legalities.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 9, 2007)

Gordon Nore said:


> So she shouldn't coach swimming.


 
Or she would have to have it properly locked, unloaded, and secured (most likely in her vehicle), rendering the tool obsolete for her when she is coaching swimming. Or she would choose to leave it at home. Or, she would have to make the choice to not coach swimming. Sometimes, people have to make tough choices that will effect their lives and careers in situations like this. Such is life.

But the point is, as rooted in the ethics of not infringing on inalienable rights and civil liberties, the 2nd amendment ensures that what she does here is her choice to make, and not the collective will of the government or her employers or the masses to decide. 

And that is what it means to protect the rights and freedoms of our citizens...


----------



## thardey (Oct 10, 2007)

Kacey said:


> In the given situation, the woman is claiming that she needs to be allowed to carry her concealed weapon for defense against her ex-husband.



Actually, from what I understand, the "needs" part was invented by the Newshounds. What she is arguing for is that she has the right to bring it, without being threatened by the administration.

I've seen a lot of crap posted in newspapers around here, that just don't understand the issue, so they fill in the blanks with their own ideas. I was reading a local column yesterday that claimed the argument was about whether it was _legal_ for her to have the gun. WRONG AGAIN! Then, at the end of the article, after all the "reporting" had been done, it had a little brief on how "Oregon law gives an exemption to CCW holders" (I'm paraphrasing). Again, wrong! Oregon does not give an exemption. Federal Law does.



> So unless she's planning on concealing it on her person at all times, ... from my experience (and yes, we've had guns, knives, and various other weapons show up at my school), that unless she's going to carry it constantly, it won't do her any good...


From the very first articles published locally, she had stated that she intended to carry it on her person, when she carried it. Also, that she's been quoted as saying "It's called 'concealed' carry for a reason." Then she went on to explain how before her name had to be made public (for the lawsuit), she didn't want her students to know it was her that had it, or even which Medford school she was at. The news did get it right in that it didn't publish that information, even though they knew it, until she came public.

So, she does intend to keep it on her when she has it, and it doesn't appear that she intends to have it all the time. She wants the option to carry it.



> So... do I think it should be _possible_ to carry a concealed weapon on school grounds, assuming the person is properly licensed?  I can see times when it could be appropriate.  Do I think it should be commonly allowed?  Not really... the risk, it seems to me, outweighs the potential benefits.  This is just my opinion, and I certainly understand the reasons given by some people about _why_ concealed weapons should be allowed - I just don't think that they are relevant for most people/situations; some, but not most.


Also remember that this would open up the option for _all_ teachers in Oregon who have a CCW to bring a gun to their classroom, not just her. They're actually trying to change the state-wide school policy, and make it public that they are doing so. This isn't just about whether she would be justified, or if her particular _needs_ warrant a gun, but whether School administration across the state could discipline _any_ teacher for bringing a loaded gun into the building. She's just the poster child.

(Current law does allow for a gun to be on school property, for any legal owner, as long as it is locked in a car, and unloaded, BTW).

Most of the Newspapers are caught up on the OR law that prohibits a county or state to "preempt" state law, which is also a question, but wrongly applied.



> ORS 166.170(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]


People seem to think that the School districts "outlawed" guns themselves, and so they invoke this law to say that the School district's policy is void. But, this _would_ be the law that get precedent set by the lawsuit (since it's the only OR law that's applicable at all to this situation), which means the meaning could be extended to include all employee policies, anywhere in the state.

Again, this issue raises questions about whether anybody could be fired for bringing a gun to work. We could have mall employees carrying while working, postal workers, doctors, hospital staff, DOT workers, whoever, regardless of the employers' policies regarding firearms. At issue is whether employee rights are the same as state (or Federal) rights.


----------



## Dave Leverich (Oct 10, 2007)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/10/cleveland.shooting/index.html

I think I'd want to pack as a teacher too.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 10, 2007)

Dave Leverich said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/10/cleveland.shooting/index.html
> 
> I think I'd want to pack as a teacher too.



Such events are so widely publicized because they are so rare.  I once saw a statistic claiming that more people died slipping in the bathtub than in plane crashes (can't remember where now) - but that no one ever heard about the tub accidents because they were (a) too common and (b) did not involve enough people.

I am a teacher, and have been for 14 years.  I work in a school with a high-needs, at risk population - we've had guns, knives, etc. brought to school by kids, and Columbine is maybe 30 miles from here - and I see no reason to carry a gun at school.  Others have different experiences, different perspectives, different opinions - that's their choice - but for myself, I see no real reason to carry a gun at school.


----------



## Dave Leverich (Oct 10, 2007)

I hear you Karen, it's like it being safer to fly in a 747 than drive. They just make a bigger splash. I personally don't carry, never felt the need to, but my dad has since the VN era.
Things like VT though, man if one or two of the people that are licensed had them on themselves... well I guess hindsight is 20/20, but still sucks when people think the answer is a video game shoot-up.


----------



## thardey (Oct 10, 2007)

Kacey said:


> Such events are so widely publicized because they are so rare.  I once saw a statistic claiming that more people died slipping in the bathtub than in plane crashes (can't remember where now) - but that no one ever heard about the tub accidents because they were (a) too common and (b) did not involve enough people.



Perhaps, but I would think a stronger argument would be for how few auto accidents make national news, because they aren't news, even though it's like the #1 cause of death outside of health-related problems.

I think it goes to the news quicker because the gun is such a powerful icon, that anytime it is used in a perverted way, we can't help but focus on it.

Also, even though the odds may be rare, whenever we're faced with a situation where our most valuable possession is _attacked_, our collective blood boils.



> I am a teacher, and have been for 14 years.  I work in a school with a high-needs, at risk population - we've had guns, knives, etc. brought to school by kids, and Columbine is maybe 30 miles from here - and I see no reason to carry a gun at school.  Others have different experiences, different perspectives, different opinions - that's their choice - but for myself, I see no real reason to carry a gun at school.


Then please don't! If you don't truly believe that the use of a gun is the answer for these bad situations, you won't be able to manufacture that belief if you have a gun, and in that hesitation, you could cause more problems.

It goes back to what's in my sig line: "Don't think dishonestly" I read that to mean that when the bad things happen, that is not the time to hope in something that you're not sure you believe. Don't lie to yourself - do what you believe to be right.

Myself, I have a CCW, a concealed holster, and of course, an appropriate gun, which I train with, both the holster and the gun. I don't carry all the time, but I don't always need a reason to slip the gun on, other than "things just don't feel right". I don't have problem with carrying a gun to school, any more than carrying a gun to work, or in the movie theater. I do have a problem (for myself) taking it to exercise, or to Karate, because of the issues in securing it, while leaving my clothes in a changing room.

Say you're someone who carries whenever you're not in your own house, but are not LEO. You always have a gun on you, whether you're grocery shopping, running errands, whatever. Continuing to wear it while at a school is not anything special to what you're doing.

Now, if you were investing your time and effort into carrying a gun _for the purpose of_ being armed in school, I would have to question why. That would make about as much sense as thinking "I'm going grocery shopping, I'd better grab my gun!"

In this particular case (even though I said above it's not really _about_ this particular case), she carries a gun already. She's already made the decision that it's worth it to be armed, in her regular life. She's wanting to carry it at her work, which also happens to be a school. She didn't go get the license to be the school defender, although she could, _if_ the rare situation came up.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Oct 10, 2007)

Kacey said:


> Such events are so widely publicized because they are so rare.  I once saw a statistic claiming that more people died slipping in the bathtub than in plane crashes (can't remember where now) - but that no one ever heard about the tub accidents because they were (a) too common and (b) did not involve enough people.



One of the many unfortunate outcomes of school shootings is the political hay-making. It really doesn't matter if it's VT, Columbine, or for that matter, Taber, Alberta, Ecole Polytecnique, Montreal, Quebec, or the more recent shooting at Dawson College, Montreal. I noticed this especially in the aftermath of the VT shootings: Some of my online friends who identify as 'pro-gun' or 'pro-Second Amendment' warned: _Just you wait, now those liberals are gonna try to take our guns away._ Come to think of it, they were right.

Then, at the same moment, someone else gets up and says, _If those kids and teachers were packing... _All of a sudden,_ Guns-don't-kill-people-People-kill-_people_ goes out the window,_ and the new killer is the Virginia State Legislature for not allowing guns on college and university campuses. It's like Cho never killed anybody, which, ironically, sounds more like an extreme anti-gun argument.

My point: If we're going to have a discussion on the relative merits of gun control and gun ownership, it can't reasonably be based upon extraordinary incidents of rage and violence. The shooters in the Canadian stories I referenced above live in a country with a lot more gun control than the US has. They decided they were going to kill someone, and they did. They used legal weapons; they used illegal weapons.

Even as one who has all the gun control I could realistically want in my country, I know that someone who determined to do great harm will find a way.



> I am a teacher, and have been for 14 years.  I work in a school with a high-needs, at risk population - we've had guns, knives, etc. brought to school by kids, and Columbine is maybe 30 miles from here - and I see no reason to carry a gun at school.  Others have different experiences, different perspectives, different opinions - that's their choice - but for myself, I see no real reason to carry a gun at school.



Knives yes, guns no. I would prefer to avoid that in my career, but the day may come. Even if I could pack concealed, I wouldn't.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 11, 2007)

Gordon Nore said:


> My point: If we're going to have a discussion on the relative merits of gun control and gun ownership, it can't reasonably be based upon extraordinary incidents of rage and violence. The shooters in the Canadian stories I referenced above live in a country with a lot more gun control than the US has. They decided they were going to kill someone, and they did. They used legal weapons; they used illegal weapons.
> 
> Even as one who has all the gun control I could realistically want in my country, I know that someone who determined to do great harm will find a way.


 
Which emphatically proves that gun control laws aren't what stops crime, and that they only are obeyed by those who aren't threats (law abiding citizens who would obey such laws), and that such laws only reduce the possibility of armed citizens protecting against threats.

Good. I am glad you brought up that point.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Oct 11, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Which emphatically proves that gun control laws aren't what stops crime, and that they only are obeyed by those who aren't threats (law abiding citizens who would obey such laws), and that such laws only reduce the possibility of armed citizens protecting against threats.
> 
> Good. I am glad you brought up that point.



Hmmm. I wasn't actually trying the make the argument against gun control. I just happen to think that many of the rather extraordinary shooting sprees we've witnessed do not form the basis for a discussion _pro or con_ gun rights. Further, I find it invidious that the NRA or its opposition primp and preen for the cameras after a bunch of kids get shot at school.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 12, 2007)

Gordon Nore said:


> Hmmm. I wasn't actually trying the make the argument against gun control. I just happen to think that many of the rather extraordinary shooting sprees we've witnessed do not form the basis for a discussion _pro or con_ gun rights.


 
Well, in order to have an effective argument, you have to look at evidence; school shooting incidents are a form of evidence, whether extraordinary or not.

And the evidence that we do have available does not favor gun control, as can be seen by the evidence you brought up in your previous post. In a way, it is good that you weren't trying to make that point specifically, as that just made the conclusion regarding gun control more effective. Because when observing these arguments, too often people decide what they want the conclusion to be first, and then look for the evidence to support the claim. This lacks intellectual integrity. What should occur is people should instead look at evidence for it's own sake to see what conclusions the evidence builds too, look at the possibilities, and then make a claim of the most likely conclusion(s) based off that evidence. You presented evidence with no motive of bolstering either argument, which is exactly how one should look at the evidence before making a claim. 

When one does that, usually it is difficult to come out in favor of gun control, because as you can see, the evidence just doesn't build to that conclusion.


----------



## tellner (Oct 12, 2007)

And the important fact to note is that these shootings are incredibly rare. Their prominence is due largely to the "if it bleeds, it leads" school of journalism.


----------



## thardey (Oct 16, 2007)

A news update for y'all: 

Now the local newspaper is suing to find out the names of everybody in the county who has been issued a CCW, to find out which teachers have a CCW.

From the Medford Mail Tribune:



> MEDFORD  The Mail Tribune filed suit Friday against Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters, seeking a list of concealed handgun licenses as part of an effort to count how many license holders are teachers.
> 
> 
> The question of teachers rights as license holders to bring guns to schools and how that affects school security are at the center of Mail Tribune reports on a lawsuit between the Medford School District and Shirley Katz, an English teacher at South Medford High School.
> ...



Now, it's no secret around here, that the Tribune's Editor is decidedly not comfortable with guns. Granted, they probably do have the legal right to demand our names (and actually, all of the information we submitted on our application), but it really bothers me that they would want to do so.




> Multnomah County Sheriffs Office recently released the names, dates of birth and license numbers of license holders to the Oregonian and the Willamette Week newspapers but withheld addresses, phone numbers and Social Security numbers.



Did y'all up in Portland know about this?


Oh, and in case anybody's interested, there's an article on an interview with the teacher.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 16, 2007)

That will hopefully get shot down, as people have the right to privacy, and don't need to have their names disclosed to a media source, CCW or not.


----------



## thardey (Oct 17, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> That will hopefully get shot down, as people have the right to privacy, and don't need to have their names disclosed to a media source, CCW or not.



It's not likely, the applications are marked as "public record", most everybody says the sheriff doesn't have a leg to stand on, but that's according to the "unbiased" Newspaper that's doing the suing in the first place.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 17, 2007)

thardey said:


> It's not likely, the applications are marked as "public record", most everybody says the sheriff doesn't have a leg to stand on, but that's according to the "unbiased" Newspaper that's doing the suing in the first place.


 
I would think they have plenty of a leg to stand on, but I don't know how things work in your state. Keep us updated!


----------



## thardey (Oct 17, 2007)

Wow, our little town has gained international attention!

From the Observer:



> Studies show that having a gun at home makes it six times more likely that an abused woman will be murdered. A gun in a US home is 22 times more likely to be used in an accidental shooting, a murder or a suicide than in self-defence against an attack. Yet despite those figures US gun culture is not retreating. It is growing. Take Katz's case in Oregon. She brought her cause to court under a state law that gives licensed gun-owners the right to bring a firearm to work: her school is her workplace. Such a debate would have been unthinkable a few decades ago. Now it is the battleground. 'Who would have thought a few years ago, we would even be having this conversation? But this won't stop here,' said Professor Brian Anse Patrick of the University of Toledo in Ohio. Needless to say, last week the judge sided with Katz and she won the first round of her case.
> 
> 
> It is a nation awash with guns, from the suburbs to the inner cities and from the Midwest's farms to Manhattan's mansions. Gun-owning groups have been so successful in their cause that it no longer even seems strange to many Americans that Katz should want to go into an English class armed. 'They have made what was once unthinkable thinkable,' said Patrick, a liberal academic. He should know. He owns a gun himself. Even the US critics of gun culture are armed.


Not that it's a very flattering article.

They may as well say that we still carry pearl-handled revolvers into the local saloon . . . (With notches, don't forget the notches!)

What they don't realize is that not only are guns useful for keeping bad guys away, anti-gunners won't want to move here, either!



> *Needless to say*, last week the judge sided with Katz and she won the first round of her case.


I didn't realize it was a foregone conclusion! Apparently the guy living in New York, writing for a British Newspaper, knows more about Oregon law than our lawyers.

Of course, we _are_ all just backwards members of the gun culture here in Medford . . .

They don't even want to know how much we all insist on keeping our pointy knives!


----------



## Big Don (Nov 12, 2007)

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1238973620071112?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true
She lost. I hope she appeals.


----------



## Ian Demagii (Nov 15, 2007)

First, let me present my bias, I am very pro-gun, not a member of the NRA, but still very supportive of the right to KEEP and and bear arms.

I can see both points. This lady needs to be able to protect herself. Personally I hope she is armed to the teeth (including a 12 gauge for home defense). However, I can see the school boards side of this too just by asking a few questions: How good a shot is she? Can she hit the broad side of a barn? What about ricoshets if she misses-what if it hit a kid? Maybe she is a crack shot, and very well versed in what she can and cant do, but now the floodgate is open and if she can carry a firearm-any one esle (with a permit) can carry a firearm. Are they all going to practice so they are accurate, are they all steady? Do they live in a stand you ground state? It makes a huge difference legally. Where I live, she would have to prove that she was in immenint fear for her life if she shot the attacker, or SHE might end up in jail!

Where I live (in the freaking Nati) we have armed police in our schools who protect the students and the staff. One safety officer in the school, and two officers that patrol outside. I think this woman deserves at least that if the board rule against her is upheld.

This is a big issue in my town- where yesterday a shop keeper was robbed,but grabbed his gun and persued the robber. He emptied his clip (missed the guy all six times) and he was right outside a school. Needless to say the Sheriff of Hamilton county was not happy and confiscated his gun even though he produced his permit (you have to live here to understand this...). 

Its a tough issue, Ian.


----------



## thardey (Nov 21, 2007)

This is the part I was worried about.

Now that the school boards have realized that anybody with a permit can legally carry on their property, they're trying to get the guns banned for everybody, except police officers.

http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8T25JO80.html

Now, I can see the argument that she signed a contract in order to keep her job, and that contract could include the waiver of her right to carry a gun on campus, but now they want to legally ban anyone from having a gun on school property.


----------



## Guardian (Nov 21, 2007)

Touchy situation, but I would have to rule against her carrying a gun on school grounds.  The most she would have with experience would be some target practice at the local gun range I would imagine and it's probably sporadic at best.

I've been in Law Enforcement in one form or another for 20+ years now and have been in situations requiring me to use my service weapon and with my training and experience, stress plays a big part in being able to actually hit what is aimed at and I know senior patrol officers that will say the same thing.  I can't imagine that she with little to even medium practice would be safe using a gun on-campus if needed.  No thank you folks.  It's not question of if it will happen, but when it will happen, a disaster in the making for sure.

There are other defense weapons out there that would be better suited for her on-campus at least that would be safer for all concerned and yet get results needed and mentally speaking (for most people) would give them that "safer feeling of hitting their target" and the board would probably go along alot easier on them then a gun.

Just my view today.


----------

