See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Teacher demands to carry gun in school
Source:
The Oregonian
URL Source: http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/p ... ews/118949018187870.xml&coll=7
Published: Sep 11, 2007
Author: Peter Sleeth and Betsy Hammond
Post Date: 2007-09-12 04:13:00 by mirage
Keywords: None
Views: 613
Comments: 17
Teacher demands to carry gun in school Untested in court - Oregon law says a woman can have a concealed Glock; Medford district policy says not at work Some school districts have more expansive policies than Medford. Portland, Tigard-Tualatin, Lake Oswego, Vancouver and other large Portland-area school districts make it a rule that no one except police can bring guns onto school property. Even if those rules are unenforceable, they're on the books and school personnel act as if they count. "We don't allow firearms of any sort in our buildings, no matter who you are," said Matt Shelby, a spokesman for Portland Public Schools. Others, including Gresham-Barlow, have the same policy as Medford, specifying that as a condition of their employment, staff and contractors can't bring concealed weapons onto school property. Rebekah Cook, attorney for the Oregon School Boards Association, says districts are on sound legal footing when they prohibit employees from bringing concealed weapons to work, even when they have a legal permit to do so. In a 2001 case against Washington County, the Oregon Employment Relations Board ruled that the state's concealed weapons law does not prohibit a public agency from making no guns at work a condition of employment. "An employer . . . retains the right to address its unique concerns with its employees' possession of firearms," the board ruled. But Cook concedes it is ultimately an "unsettled area of law," having never gone to the Oregon Supreme Court. Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, who strongly opposes guns in schools, says, "On the face of the law, it certainly looks . . . that if you have a concealed handgun license, you can basically take your gun wherever you want, except federal buildings or through airport security." A North Clackamas School District janitor who sued the district after it fired him in 1999 for bringing a concealed weapon to campus brought what was expected to be a test case in 2000. Custodian Greg King had sought back pay and restoration to his job but got neither after dropping his case after a few months. King dropped his suit after the district pointed out that a concealed handgun license allows the holder to carry a gun hidden on his body, whereas King left his semiautomatic weapon in a backpack in an elementary school's elevator. Portland Public Schools has a rule that no one can bring a concealed weapon on its property, even though the district has been forced to acknowledge state law trumps its rule. That was proven when a parent brought three guns to a Lincoln High School football game in 1999. School security officers were outraged and took him into custody. But ultimately the district conceded the law was on his side. Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Federation, said his organization has sought in the past to clarify gun laws on Oregon's college campuses without success. The issue of public employment and the right to carry a gun remains unresolved, he said. The Medford teacher contacted the federation seeking advice and help. At first, Starrett said, it attempted to resolve the matter out of court by contacting the district, but a courtroom showdown is increasingly likely. Burdick, who opposes the state mandate to let concealed handgun license holders bring guns to school, has backed legislation to let schools bar concealed weapons from campus -- but has gotten few lawmakers to vote her way. Burdick said fear of the National Rifle Association, not public opinion, is what causes Oregon lawmakers to kill the idea year after year. "It's just ludicrous to allow guns in schools under any circumstances," she says. "There are regular common-sense gun owners who overwhelmingly want the local school board to at least be able to make their own decision on this at the local level. Most of the parents I talked to had no idea, and they were horrified when they found out it was possible to bring a gun to school. . . . Johnny's parents don't want his first-grade teachers packing heat."
Similar district policies
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: mirage (#0)
Why shouldn't public employees who enter dangerous areas be able to arm themselves? Can anyone give me one reason why teachers, building inspectors or postal workers shouldn't be able to....oh, wait.
I do not understand this irrational fear of guns. I remember after 9/11 they talked about arming pilots but there was the big outcry against it. Why? Most of them are military anyway and if they wanted to kill you they don't need a gun.
This woman has made the ultimate mistake. Whining. She should have just done it anyway. It would be concealed so nobody would have ever known unless she had to use it. While I had my CHP [I let it expire out of principle and still carry dammit! @!!!] I carried my full-size SIGMA 17 shot 9MM concealed in a vertical shoulder holster at work under my cardigan uniform sweater and nobody ever knew..that was for 6 years. On one day during those 6 years, the place was robbed at gunpoint. I was off that day. I've given enough hints about the work, but due to the nature of the details what went down, both Mexican robbers would have been taken out...and I would have been fired...but alive...and the other two agents and a customer would have been alive. And I would have sued and been rich by now.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Funny you should mention that. At one point, a family member had to disarm a student in a classroom. Technically speaking, since that family member is not a cop, that person was in violation of policy and the law by being in possession of the firearm after tackling and taking it away from the student. Said student also had about $5k worth of dope on him. A long conversation with the local sheriff's office ensued and that's where I got a lot of information from. The local sheriff's office said "Got permit?" The local cops know what is going on. The District Officials have their heads up their arses.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
Our masters want to be able to control the police and to make deadly force policy that will discourage the killing of black criminals. In some scenarios a lawfully armed citizen has more rights than the police to use deadly force with the exception of the common law power to shoot fleeing felons, and most police agencies consider that "out of policy", except corrections officers who are empowered and expected to shoot escapees. And, often the only people who actually stand trial for gun charges are citizens who get snagged and who have committed no other offense against the sensibilities of the govt, while real criminals often have the gun charges dropped in plea agreements. If Americans trained and carried properly and were mature and circumspect in their judicious use of deadly force (which means don't shoot a neighbor because your kids are fighting or solve domestic or barroom disputes with gunplay) the black crime wave would be reduced considerably and the bruthas would shift their emphasis to property crimes instead of rape, robbery, assault, rape ("You said rape twice!" I like rape"__Blazing Saddles) "Strong govt breeds weak citizens" and because govt has taken the responsibility of defending ourselves and even disciplining our kids from us we've been reduced to little monkey children with the nanny state telling us everything including when it's time to die and let our spouses collect our life insurance. (Terri Schiavo) The 2nd amendment is the final obstacle to world government, and the media, the state and academia have conspired to disarm us for that reason. Even when a homeowner lawfully shoots an armed, escaped convict with a history of brutal chainsaw massacres and the headline should trumpet "HOORAY! GOOD GUYS WIN ONE!" what does the media do? The talking head newscaster announces with a somber voice that "the homeowner will not face any charges" as if he wants to say "This is the worst case of justifiable homicide I've ever seen!" Gun control isn't about crime, it's about politics. As the former NRA prez Harlon Carter once asked, "What do you have in mind for me Mr. Politician that my owning a gun makes you so nervous?"
While I had my CHP [I let it expire out of principle and still carry dammit! @!!!] I carried my full-size SIGMA 17 shot 9MM concealed in a vertical shoulder holster at work under my cardigan uniform sweater and nobody ever knew..that was for 6 years. On one day during those 6 years, the place was robbed at gunpoint. I was off that day. I've given enough hints about the work, but due to the nature of the details what went down, both Mexican robbers would have been taken out...and I would have been fired...but alive...and the other two agents and a customer would have been alive. And I would have sued and been rich by now. Southland Corp. has a strict "no weapons" policy for their clerks because they learned long ago that it's cheaper to pay double indemnity ($20,000) to the family of a 7-11 clerk killed in a robbery than to be sued by a dead robber's wife and lose millions. Remember, even though the robber was a violent crim, his wife and kids are victims, and juries often probe deep corporate pockets thanks to lawyers who rent wheel chairs on the day of the trial for their weeping, grief stricken victim/clients. Southland hates to lose beau coup dinero because a clerk is a better shot and the Goddess smiled on him, and the plaintiff's attorney can bring a jury to tears in sympathy with the family of Mr. Crackhead. One clerk ignored the policy and he shot and killed an armed robber about 10 years ago. It was a good shooting and there were no charges filed, but Southland fired the clerk. (ok, leave that gig off your resume) In the stockroom of 7-11s they have signs that advise employees that they are less likely to be hurt if they don't resist a robber. But, if the crim is a three time loser and he will go away for life if he can be picked from a mugbook then he may not want to leave a live or videotape witness. And, many savage black criminals kill whitey just for the pure unadulterated Hell of it. "FOE HUNNRID YEERS OF OPPRESSION MUTHA FUKKA! BLAM BLAM BLAM!!!" Your point is absolutely right and I couldn't agree more. If producing a firearm in a timely manner and my years spent in preparation for that moment result in a loss to the stockholders, well, that's just tuff dooky. It's also cheaper to let a clerk go down than to hire armed security, too. So, it's up to us to explain this to every convenience store, gas station, likka sto and bus company employee we talk to. And, if I get on their jury (if they're charged with a gun rap like Bernie Goetz) I'll hang the jury all by my little ol' pea pickin' self!
Two words: mens rea. No jury would convict for that and only the stoopidest of prosecutors would take that before a grand jury. If he or she does and the grand jury hands up a true bill, fine. I'd still rather go to court for that than to allow the law to paralyze me with fear. If someone was hurt or worse because I did not act I would have a hard time living with that. In his book IN GRAVEST EXTREME self defense expert Massad Ayoob makes it clear that if a mugger sticks a gun in your face and demands your wallet, give it to him. It's a whole lot cheaper to let him go than to shoot him. Even if you win you'll lose if you spend your life's savings defending an unnecessary use of deadly force to protect credit cards that you won't be responsible for anyway. But, the late Jeff Cooper taught that if armed crims bust in and they have the drop on you, you may as well go for it because they're going to kill you anyway. So, you have to trust your instincts and training and hopefully know when a guy wants your wallet only (a white mugger on a busy street for instance) or he or they intend to kill somebody and get in the big league to earn their gang initiation. (with MS 13, The Crips or La Eme-The Mexican Mafia)
That's what I would have done.
I don't think that movie would be made today. Not PC enough but damn funny!
amen bump
"Are you crazy? Can't you see that man is a nig.......excuse me." LOL!
Would you tell me again about that Barrett-type of plinker that you ordered that's necked down to slightly under .50? I can't remember what it's called or the exact caliber. Is it a .460 Sharpton? ;)
Badges? We don't need no stinking badges! Wasn't there a lot of jewish humor in that movie too?
I remember this: "How about, 'LET MY PEOPLE GO!'" "Naw.....too Jewish!!" ;)
I'm going to have to watch that movie again just for fun. What do you think Headly?
"Pardon me while I whip this out!" *wimmen fainting*
So, you have to trust your instincts and training and hopefully know when a guy wants your wallet only (a white mugger on a busy street for instance) or he or they intend to kill somebody and get in the big league to earn their gang initiation. (with MS 13, The Crips or La Eme-The Mexican Mafia) Looks like we have the same book collection ;-)
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#2. To: HOUNDDAWG (#1)
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#3. To: farmfriend, jethro tull (#2)
(Edited)
Untested in court - Oregon law says a woman can have a concealed Glock; Medford district policy says not at work Similar district policies
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#4. To: HOUNDDAWG (#1)
Why shouldn't public employees who enter dangerous areas be able to arm themselves?
#5. To: farmfriend (#2)
I do not understand this irrational fear of guns. I remember after 9/11 they talked about arming pilots but there was the big outcry against it. Why? Most of them are military anyway and if they wanted to kill you they don't need a gun.
#6. To: IndieTX (#3)
This woman has made the ultimate mistake. Whining. She should have just done it anyway. It would be concealed so nobody would have ever known unless she had to use it.
#7. To: mirage (#4)
(Edited)
Technically speaking, since that family member is not a cop, that person was in violation of policy and the law by being in possession of the firearm after tackling and taking it away from the student.
#8. To: IndieTX (#3)
She should have just done it anyway.
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#9. To: HOUNDDAWG (#5)
("You said rape twice!" I like rape"__Blazing Saddles)
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#10. To: HOUNDDAWG (#5)
As the former NRA prez Harlon Carter once asked, "What do you have in mind for me Mr. Politician that my owning a gun makes you so nervous?"
#11. To: farmfriend (#9)
I don't think that movie would be made today. Not PC enough but damn funny!
#12. To: lodwick (#10)
#13. To: HOUNDDAWG (#11)
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#14. To: farmfriend (#13)
Wasn't there a lot of jewish humor in that movie too?
#15. To: HOUNDDAWG (#14)
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#16. To: farmfriend (#15)
#17. To: HOUNDDAWG (#7)
But, the late Jeff Cooper taught that if armed crims bust in and they have the drop on you, you may as well go for it because they're going to kill you anyway.
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest