Shirley Katz on Gun Talk

I'd like to hear how she reached her present point in the road with respect to mindset. That is, for how long has she understood that self defense is not only a basic human right, but an individual responsibility. Did she used to be an anti or fence-sitter and then came around? If so, how did that happen.

Is she concerned that her personal situation may actually draw danger to her students and, if so, is that part of why she wants to be allowed to have access to adefense tool? Not that she is there to protect the kids from all possible dangers, but that she may be concerned that a student may be exposed to collateral harm intended for her.

I'd want her to answer the questions that a fence-sitter may wonder. Why doesn't she just get a different job? How does violence solve violence? How can you be sure a student won't get ahold of your firearm? You may be safe, responsible and trained, but doesn't this open the door for all CCW license holders to carry in the school (who might not be so responsible, safe, and trained)? Why do you deserve special treatment?

What does she think of the local media (newspaper, I believe) trying to get access to the entire list of CCW holders in order to "out" any other teachers who have a CCW?

I'm going to assume by the name of your program that your audience is primarily gunnies, so that has some impact on what I'd ask.

I would definitely ask what protections she has in place against AD, theft, collateral damage, etc. I'd ask what sort of response she's gotten from her community and the children, and if she is doing this just for herself, or if she feels she's part of something bigger.

I'd be interested in knowing something about her probable competence and her attitudes.

Competence. Does she have training beyond the basic course required of all permit holders. How often does she practice, and how.

Attitudes. Does she consider herself SuperWoman sworn to protect the children of Metropolis or the children's bodyguard, or is she a normal person who wants the means to defend her own life against superior force in an environment known to be both attractive to murderers and vulnerable to them.

A third issue has been on my mind for some time but I don't know how to categorize it. There seem to be disconnects in society's attitudes towards teachers and those attitudes puzzle me because they seem to make no sense.

Here's the dilemma I see:

1. Society allows teachers to have concealed weapons permits and to carry the means of self defense on the streets. They're treated as competent adults outside the school.
   
2. Society considers teachers to have special competence with children and to deserve special trust with them. They're treated as both competent and especially well qualified adults inside the school.
   
3. So no one would be especially concerned if a group of children happened to encounter a teacher on the street or in an ice cream store after school even when the teacher is carrying a legally permitted concealed handgun.
   
4. But society suspends all trust in teachers and withdraws all confidence in their competence when the teacher and the children are on school grounds if the teacher is carrying a handgun that is otherwise legally permitted.

The teacher is the same person, the legally permitted handgun is the same, and the children are the same: off school grounds the mix is okay. On school grounds, though, the same mix creates terror.

So I wonder if the problem is the nature of schools or, possibly, the introduction of school administrations and school boards that create dangerous conditions within the schools. In other words I wonder if problems in the schools might be related to the people who create and administer school policies and create them. If that's a valid connection, school problems are greater than those related to firearms and much more serious. And, if so, those are the problems that need solution and teachers should be encouraged to have legally permitted firearms with which to defend their lives while inside institutions that are made dangerous by other people.

I've never been able to figure out why parents trust teachers with their children behind closed doors except when the teachers are legally armed. There must be something in the nature of schools and school policies that could turn reasonable adults into homicidal maniacs or terminally careless bozos. I don't understand.

I'd like to know Shirley Katz's thoughts on that dilemma if there's time. I'd also like to hear her responses to Henry Bowman's questions. Perhaps if she's articulate and interested you might consider having her on more than once?

1 - Rhetorical, but to hear it in her own words (obviously you want good sound bites), why doesn't she think the police can protect her?

2 - What kind of tactical training and practice is she getting, planning on?

3 - What does she say to parents that are afraid to have an armed person in their kid's class/school?

4 - What does she say to parents that are afraid to have someone with a violent ex as a teacher for their kids?

5 - what will she do for personal protection in the long term if she loses her case?

6 - what does the school district say about its obligation to protect her from her ex?

This is a very interesting and necessary discussion since our society in gerneral seems to be back sliding.

Would Shirley be able to shoot a raged student with a gun that she may know?

Would she be able deal with an errant shot hitting an innocent student?

I am a permit holder and a parent and I have not made up my mind if I want teachers or anyone other than a trained police officer have a weapon on school grounds.

Teachers and educators are just a human as the rest of us and latley even police officers have had their duty weapons stolen from thier vehicles. I hate the thought that a teacher who may be distracted would have a student get access to their weapon.

Just my opinion on all of the rambling.

RU

What does the teachers union think?

Why should teachers have to take extra tactical training? What part of the RKBA mandates extra tactical training? I admit going beyond punching paper is a good idea, but requiring teachers to do this to allow them to carry is absurd. Will this tactical requirement carry over to allow individuals to carry on college grounds? Will parents who want to pack on school grounds be required to be tactically proficient?

Do you think those of us who want to carry everywhere believe we are superhuman and drip pixie dust where we walk?

Anygun

What hour of the program will she be on. Since I only get the first hour where I live, I need to know whether or not to tell a friend who is interested in this case (but not firearms).

Standard CHL and the potential for what might be expected in class might be two entirely different things. CHL training is defensive in nature; there's no aspirations for being a civilian HRT member or "running toward the gunfire" as the police are expected to do.

There's been filing for potential lawsuits at Virginia Tech over the (in)actions of some authority figures.

Does she see any potential for expectations for her to act like a one-person SWAT team if carry is permitted? In the event of a disturbance, could she simply evac or secure her classroom? It may sound farfetched but I wouldn't put it past someone to expect her to Rambo her way down the corridor to a different classroom if she was the only armed individual at the time and place.

Could someone with CHL training only be sued for "failure to engage"?

As farfetched as it seems, I've had a sinking feeling in my stomach that if school carry was permitted the board would suddenly expect much more from that teacher in an emergency than is reasonable to expect from a CHL.

"We let you go armed! Why did you hole up and not save my little Johnny?!"

I may be all wet on this issue, but I was lead to belive her desire to carry was inresponse to threats against her by her ex-spouse and even though she has a restraining order against him she feels threatened at school where he is assured she is disarmed. Is this the case or have I been mislead?

I may be all wet on this issue, but I was lead to belive her desire to carry was inresponse to threats against her by her ex-spouse and even though she has a restraining order against him she feels threatened at school where he is assured she is disarmed. Is this the case or have I been mislead?

Click to expand...

That's the one, but the mention of Columbine has, IMHO, pretty much clobbered any chance she had of the thing being "just about her and her husband".

At least AP seems to be attributing the Columbine remark to her. IMHO, that's where the danger of inferred promise is going to come from.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jGLqbyW_oXVAOOZmJx8D6rKQ8n4AD8S59HRO0

I'd like to know where to send some monetary support for her battle with the powers that be. I don't have any question to pose but I'd like to say thank you Mz Katz for standing up for your belief. Obviously, the no guns in schools policies have not worked nor will they until there is some known and immediate ramifications for preying on others.

I'd probe for some attitude revelation, as some previous posters have suggested, Tom. I'd particularly probe for attitudes about student discipline and classroom behavior.

What I am getting at is the issue of student behavior. At the bare minimum, any teacher has to consider the issue of assault in the classroom--an assault that is, by the students, on her.

IIRC, she teaches on the elementary level. Assault at that age / level is a lot less likely, but it does still happen. Depending on the factors that make up a profile for her typical student and class, having a known firearm in the classroom would invite such an assault. So, how would she handle this problem should it occur?

Further, IMO, be choosing to be a public figure for this issue (and, generally I am completely in favor of classroom teachers with carry permits being permitted to carry in school), she has effectively eliminated a long-term teaching career.

Jim H.

I'd want to tell her that all Americans who believe in the Constitution support what she is doing.

Other than that, I just want to hear her talk about what she is going through to try to get this "officially acknowledged" as being legal.

What does the teachers union think?

Click to expand...

Union teachers think?

It's interesting that so many seem to be looking at this as a job interview... trying to determine her fitness to do this.

My opinion: it isn't a job interview. Her qualifications don't matter. Her mental state doesn't matter. The details of her specific case don't really matter all that much to me unless they can be tied to the larger picture, the larger dialog, of "disarmament zones" that cannot be enforced. It may be important to face some of these "is she a rambo" questions head-on because apparently even people on THR leap to them, but they should only be brought up to knock down.

As I recall this teacher was not carrying in class. Is that correct? My impression (and I could be wrong) is that she had a permit to carry and was carrying outside of work. The school administration found out and went on the offensive but really wasn't able to do anything because she wasn't breaking any of their rules. It was only after they threatened her that she brought legal action against them. If that's the scenario then most of my questions would really be about how this case plays out in the larger context.

So, how does this case play out in the larger context of gun rights? Will this action improve or disrupt the dialog of CCW in universities? How does it influence post-Virginia Tech thinking in that context? Will a win have any impact there? Will a loss? Just how important is this case to the RKBA fight. What are the implications of a win? Of a loss? I'm not sure she can answer those but she might serve as an excellent foil to start the discussion. It would be great if you also had an RKBA activist along to discuss some of those issues.

Tom, Based upon the anti- gun-toting - teacher comments I read, the two most common expressed "concerns" are:

1. How will she secure the firearm while in the classroom so that the students cannot get access to it at any time?

2. Won't her evil ex-husband simply take the gun away from her and use it on her and the kids? (Basically, what training has she had in weapon retention?)

Another concern: How does she handle facing her dangerous ex in a classroom full of kids? Has she sought training for that sceanerio?

As a general theme, the major concern I read is that "untrained" teachers or students will panic or flat go crazy and start shooting randomly at the bad guy and end up killing more people that the bad guy would have. How is that concern being addressed?

Henry Bowman,Ed Ames-In Oregon,ALL CCW holders may carry on any state-supported property,including public schools.The issue is her district is saying this is a condition of employment,and that their conditions trump state law,which does not allow,or rather expressly prohibits them from preventing CCW holders from carrying on the property.So,essentially,you and I and everyone on this board can legally walk around that campus armed,but her district won't allow her to carry there...Go figure...

I live in Oregon,not far from Medford,this is going to be interesting.

I believe she's being represented by an attorney from the orginanization Oregon Concealed Carry.

Edited to add:lots of posting about this case on www.oregonconcealedcarry.com

Thanks, Kirk. I guess I knew that but had forgotten.

How will she secure the firearm while in the classroom so that the students cannot get access to it at any time?

Click to expand...

This seems so common-sense to me, but I understand that the unarmed masses have no concept of on-person concealed carry and a even gun owner who hasn't thought through the responsibility might think stowing it in a purse or desk drawer was A-OK.


I wonder what keeps kids and teachers who "snap" from grabbing other safety equipment [like those legally-mandated, district-supplied, conspicuously-stored fire extinguishers] and going nuts with it. Couldn't be self-restraint, could it?

Given the circumstances in Oregon described by Kirkcdl, in which the only CCW holders who can't carry on that school's property are its employees, I'd be interested to know why that school district hires the only unstable teachers in Oregon and only the unstable teachers. Is the district or its board so notorious throughout the state that the trustworthy teachers avoid them? Or, again, is there something about its schools or its board that turns rational teachers into homicidal maniacs who might snap at any moment? In any case the rational solution would be to fix what's wrong with the district and its board instead of trying to restrain the teachers from doing in their students and each other.

I'm long past school age and so are my own children but I think it's rather unrealistic to be concerned about matters such as how a teacher would secure a firearm while in a classroom so that kids can't take it away from her or whether she would go nuts (I mean nutsier than other unstable people being hired by that school district) and massacre the kids. If those are real concerns, teachers shouldn't be allowed to drive cars onto school property and there shouldn't be any courses in which teachers have access to bunsen burners, matches, pointers or laser pointers. A teacher running amok with a sharp pencil or ballpoint pen could be a disaster too. And I certainly hope that teachers are not allowed into the school's cafeteria where they could put poison in the children's food.

Perhaps the parents should insist that their offspring be removed from all contact with teachers: classes could be carried on through closed circuit television as distance education. Of course that would not prevent the teacher who snaps from exposing himself or herself on camera, but careful monitoring could limit the damage.

The schools in that district must be awful places and dangerous to the children at every moment. When I compare the concerns of today's parents with the concerns I and my parents had while we were raising children, I am sad that the remedies seem so much more awful than whatever problems they are intended to correct.

Tom,

I am particularly interested (like a few on this thread) in knowing the support-- or lack thereof-- of the teacher's unions, the position of the school board, and the administration.

What kind of feedback is she getting from community, other educators, parents, etc.?


-- John

Tom ~

I'd like to hear a good, solid explanation of the legal situation there. As far as I understand it, it is perfectly legal for a concealed-carry permit holder to carry a firearm into schools in Oregon. So that's not the issue, right? It's "just" a dispute with her employer? Complicated by the fact that her employer is a public entity which can't go making up extra rules that aren't in law?

pax

Pax,

It is legal to carry firearms in schools as long as you have a CCW. Ms. Katz, however, is subject to school district policy. She is legally able to carry her glock 19 to school with her, but she would get fired for doing it. Her case is trying to make a precedent that states that policies, such as the school district policies, which limit her right to carry weapons to be unlawfull and unenforceable policies.

She is a pretty good spokes woman. I think this is the fifth thread that I put this link on. She is being interviewed by an NPR reporter. NPR of course leans to the liberal side, and the reporter asked her a couple questions to try to trip her up, but she doesn't hesitate to answer and her interview I think was stellar.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15198546&ft=1&f=1003

She also has several interviews with Lars Larson another talk show host in Oregon.

Here is an article published by the Oregonian.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1192161306137240.xml&coll=7

I can't find any information on where the union stands. She says she has had more support than she thought from fellow teachers, and only a few students out of her over two hundred or so have transferred out of her class. I think teachers don't want to stick their necks out on this one. Since her case will originaly only affect Jackson county, the rest of the counties seem to be sitting back and watching what happens before they do anything.

I too would be interested in some of this and this seems to be a good line of questions to ask Shirley on guntalk.