Oregon teacher loses fight to take gun to class

[no_problem]

The teacher wants to bring a gun to class to protect herself from her ex-hubby. She has a CCW but the school policy prohibits gun ownership.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071110...c&printer=1;_ylt=AvWzHDK2Kko7cylun2NTRDAXIr0F

Oregon teacher loses fight to take gun to class

Fri Nov 9, 7:13 PM ET

An Oregon high school English teacher will not be allowed to carry her gun to school, a state circuit court ruled on Friday in a decision closely watched by both sides of the gun debate.

Shirley Katz, who has a legal permit to carry a concealed handgun, argued she needed the Glock semi-automatic pistol to protect herself from her ex-husband. She sued the school district when it told her carrying a gun was against a district policy prohibiting guns.

Circuit Judge G. Philip Arnold agreed with the district, saying "The District has a right to enforce this policy." he noted that employees "accept their jobs subject to, and knowing, the policy."

"We are pleased," said Dr. Phil Long, superintendent of the Medford School District. "This case was a distraction from our real mission, which is educating children."

The teacher had support from pro-gun rights groups. In light of multiple school shootings, some gun advocates have argued that teachers, and maybe even students, should be armed to prevent such tragedies in the future.

In April, a student shot dead 32 people at Virginia Tech University and earlier this week a gun-wielding student killed eight people at a high school in Finland.

"I was not particularly surprised," said Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Federation, whose group paid the teacher's legal bills and is discussing an appeal.

(Reporting by Theresa Carson, editing by Mary Milliken and Todd Eastham)

 

[Seminole]

What a shame.

Still, I'm not surprised.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I am not too surprised either I guess. I can't remember how many times during press coverage I heard parents say that she brought this on herself, or that they were happy she wouldn't be bringing her personal problems into the classroom.

Clear thinking is not a hallmark of the USA as it once was.

Meanwhile, as this is going on, the following comes to light:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310361,00.html

Tuusula, Finland — The YouTube killer who shot dead eight members of his school in Finland before turning his gun on himself had internet contacts with an American teenager who was planning a shooting spree in a high school in Philadelphia, it was claimed yesterday, according to a Times of London report.

The disclosure could turn upside down previous assumptions about the dynamics of school massacres. Until now, teenage killers were regarded as depressed loners whose imagination had been stoked by aggressive computer games. Now it seems that information may have been shared by potential killers over the Internet: a virtual community of young people who idolize the 1999 Columbine High School murders, said the Times of London.

Well at least Oregon schools will be safe from this stuff since they have that "no guns policy".

 

[The_Shootist]

Yeah

Saw that article on Foxnews as well and thought "Great - whats next? All the lunatics form a union or a support group or something?"

Bad enough the media coverage probably incites like minded individuals. Having them correspond online world-wide can't be helpful.

I can see it now - the terrorists have their own web page. Are we gonna see one for school shooter's, dispensing such basics as ammo tips, how to get a gun, how to evade detection etc?

Given we have kiddie porn sites liberally set up throughout cyberspace, I can see it happening. The article notes European police are nervous that Islamic websites could be a beacon for "other marginalized groups." School shooters as a marginalized group? GROAN

 

[BridgeWalker]

...as my husband and I revisit the possibility of homeschooling...

 

[FieroCDSP]

So, I guess the question has to be asked, If the woman's ex does come into the school and attempt to commit violence in some form, and succeeds in injuring her and/or a student, is she liable, despite the fact that she tried to do something about it and was stopped?

 

[TexasRifleman]

is she liable, despite the fact that she tried to do something about it and was stopped?

I'd say everyone in the state is liable EXCEPT HER at that point after all that has happened to get there.

 

[fast eddie]

"We are pleased," said Dr. Phil Long, superintendent of the Medford School District. "This case was a distraction from our real mission, which is educating children."

What an elitist ass. If the ex shows up at the school to kill this teacher the kids will get an education all right. The court has all but invited this guy to attack the teacher at school.

 

[Gustav]

I would hope that they file an appeal and continue to fight for her rights.

 

[macadore]

Teachers are among the most emasculated people on the planet. I taught in grade school for one year and at the university level for four. There are much better ways to make a living.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I am not too surprised either I guess. I can't remember how many times during press coverage I heard parents say that she brought this on herself, or that they were happy she wouldn't be bringing her personal problems into the classroom.

Yeah, as if she was going to invite her ex- to come into the school and try to off her.

The blissninnies don't seem to realize that her personal problems will (or will not) be "brought" into the classroom whether or not she's allowed to be armed. All she wanted was to be allowed the appropriate means to respond if one particular problem followed her into the classroom.

Idjits.

 

[nplant]

Seriously? If the ex has any brains whatever, he would do well to NEVER EVER show up at her school. "But he'll know that she's unarmed," you say. True, but he also knows that the entire state of Oregon knows she works there and is unarmed. If he were to show up, given the statements she's made about her fear of him, he will absolutely need to kill himself as soon as any harm is done to her, otherwise there will be no possible way to try to run from the punishment.

The only unfortunate part about all that is that he probably won't ever come to school if he wishes her harm, he'll just wait until she's driving home. Personally, I'd like it if she politely ignored the ruling, and carried anyway, highly concealed, and tightly lipped.

 

[crebralfix]

Why do we continue to believe the courts will "save" our RKBA?

It is clear they will do everything in their power to inhibit our Second Amendment rights...she shouldn't even have to ask, much less risk prosecution.

BTW, what would happen if there was a school shooter, and 50 citizens (not working for the state) showed up with weapons? Isn't this why we have a militia in the first place?

Why is it that NOBODY (not even parents) is willing to have an emergency call tree and roll out when something happens? Heck...their kids are the ones at risk.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Seriously? If the ex has any brains whatever, he would do well to NEVER EVER show up at her school. "But he'll know that she's unarmed," you say. True, but he also knows that the entire state of Oregon knows she works there and is unarmed. If he were to show up, given the statements she's made about her fear of him, he will absolutely need to kill himself as soon as any harm is done to her, otherwise there will be no possible way to try to run from the punishment.

You are attempting to predict a rational action from someone who may or may not be in a rational state of mind. Fact: lots of people get divorces every day without either party ever threatening to kill the other party. The mere fact that she feels intimidated enough to want a gun suggests that her ex- is not pulling a full train.

I have read too many stories of angry ex-spouses (usually male, I am chagrined to admit) who decide to end it all in a blaze of ... something. They beg, borrow or steal a gun (can't buy one, because they're usually already under a resraining "order"), blow away the ex-, and then either turn the gun on themselves or engage in an episode of "suicide by cop." One of the ones around here a couple of years ago was a couple of senior citizens. The wife went to an open air concert on the village green one evening. Her formerly loving ex- walked up behind her and blew her skull open in front of approximately 350 witnesses.

And you expect reason to prevail?

 

[no_problem]

The thing is, now the anti gun media, in trying to drum up anti gun hysteria, has really hurt her by letting everyone in the world know...including her Ex, that she now will be UNARMED AND HELPLESS while she is at work!

 

[fjolnirsson]

Simply for informational purposes, Oregon law allows those with a CHL to carry on school campus. This case says the district(as an employer) may forbid concealed carry, but it does nothing to prevent anyone with a CHL(or without one) from carrying on campus all day long.

 

[CNYCacher]

"The District has a right to enforce this policy."

Oh, government organizations have rights now?
I could almost understand if the school was a private company. . .

 

[bluestarlizzard]

"Simply for informational purposes, Oregon law allows those with a CHL to carry on school campus. This case says the district(as an employer) may forbid concealed carry, but it does nothing to prevent anyone with a CHL(or without one) from carrying on campus all day long."

with the choice of possibly getting fired (if thats all they can do) or getting killed by ex, i think i would choose getting fired.

 

[4v50 Gary]

I wonder if there'll be a viable lawsuit if she is killed at school by ex-hubby? The school has been informed that she is in fear of her safety and if she proved any violent disposition on his part (spousal abuse, threats, ability to carry out those threats), then the school would have a duty to protect her.

I hope nothing happens to her though as I hate to see a woman die just to prove we're right about these victim disarmament policies.

 

[simpleguy]

If we could create as much bogus rhetoric as the antis......then again that would also mean we would have to have a near-complete disregard for the truth.....so that will never happen. That being said.......sooner or later some judge, somewhere, sometime has to see the light.

Help keep this fight going, you can donate to Oregon Firearms Federation who helped underwrite/fund this effort.

https://payments.auctionpay.com/ver3/?id=w020692

What is it "they" say? The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Why do we continue to believe the courts will "save" our RKBA?

It is clear they will do everything in their power to inhibit our Second Amendment rights...she shouldn't even have to ask, much less risk prosecution.
This isn't a decision of the courts per se. They only get to rule on the arguments put before them. The court basically upheld the positions that the school had the right to impose policies pertaining to employment and noted that the teacher agreed to said policies on taking employment. The issue was not one of guns in that regard.

The story above is a bit misleading. She did not sue for concealed carry at school per say. She did not file a 2nd Amendment-based suit. She sued on the basis that only the state legislature had the legal authority to limit lawful concealed carry, not the school's administration. Here, it should be pointed out that the suit did not pertain to federal laws. I thought the suit had some merit given that it was about the ability of a higher government entity mandating behavior of a lower government entity (State Legislature over a public school district).

In short, she sued on the basis of a technicality of the law pertaining to authority and not on the RKBA. You can't expect the court to rule on a matter not brought before it.

Note that while Katz claims this is a 2nd Amendment issue, she filed in a state court in regard to state law. She did not sue in a federal court based on federal/constitutional law, although the 2nd Amendment is mentioned in the suit. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...ature+"Shirley+Katz"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

In this particular suit, the 2nd is something of a red herring issue. Note that...

In this motion Plaintiff relies on the State statute as a basis for granting a preliminary injunction prohibiting the District from enforcing its policy
against her.

So, she was suing on the basis of state statutes, not federal.

BTW, what would happen if there was a school shooter, and 50 citizens (not working for the state) showed up with weapons? Isn't this why we have a militia in the first place?

You mean like what happened in Austin in the 1960s?

Why is it that NOBODY (not even parents) is willing to have an emergency call tree and roll out when something happens? Heck...their kids are the ones at risk.

Probably for the same reason that most families don't have plans in place for a home intruder or fire, don't practice fire drills at home. A call tree would require organization, communication, and participation of a large number of people to set up the system and to maintain it. It would have to be renewed on a yearly basis and updated regularly as kids transferred to and from schools. Nobody wants to be responsible for such an endeavor.

I wonder if there'll be a viable lawsuit if she is killed at school by ex-hubby? The school has been informed that she is in fear of her safety and if she proved any violent disposition on his part (spousal abuse, threats, ability to carry out those threats), then the school would have a duty to protect her.

Since the court ruled that the district has the right to make and enforce such a policy, saying that this is a condition of employment, I don't think a post-mortem suit would fly. One might fly if it could be proven that the school was negligent in taking reasonable precautions for safety but reasonable precautions for safety is a pretty low standard and is easily maintained.

It is interesting to note Katz's special interest here. She only became concerned about this matter after her life was allegedly threatened by her ex-husband during her divorce back in 2004. She says she is also worried about Columbine-like shootings, but apparently that really didn't bother her enough to act until she felt her specific life targeted by a person who likely would not do a Columbine-like shooting.

 

[Guntalk]

I got an email from Shirley last night, saying they plan to appeal.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

I hope she wins the appeal. That's a slimy way to circumvent state law, claiming that although Oregon law specifically exempts CHL holders from the no guns in schools policy, the employer can forbid them (even though the employer is an agency of the state).
Thats as low as "we aren't banning machineguns, we are just going to tax them (out of existance), it's a revenue raising measure (wink wink snicker)"

 

[mjrodney]

I could have bet big money on the results of this one.

Shirley might as well have done this......:banghead:

What's the saying?

"It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission."

Shirley should have simply gone for deep concealment and kept quiet about it.

Like plenty of other CCW's who are prevented by their employer from concealed carry, but who otherwise have very real and legitimate concerns about their personal safety.

 

[Oohrah]

I can understand the LEOs not having to protect equally all citizen,
but they have taken the idividual right of self protection away. I
would thin after the barn gate is closed, it is now the state's respon-
sibility to be held accountable for her safety! Yeah, right !!!!!