Oregon teacher loses fight to take gun to class

Source: Reuters

PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - 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.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0938888020071110

Good ruling.

WE MUST ENFORCE THE "GUN FREE" ZONE at all costs, especially from the people we entrust our children too, no matter if they are being stalked..

Yea, we KNOW that a restraining order, made of a few sheets of paper, will stop a mad man killer, right??.

We also KNOW that "gun free" school zones, will stop someone intent on killing, ....right???










They DO work?? Right??......

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Seems to me, that an awful lot of mass murders, happen in "gun free" zones...

Loony is be trying to do the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.

Fact remains, that school shootings in the recent past where stopped when the shooter was confronted by an armed civilian..

In Pearl MS, school shooting, the gun man surrendered, when the vice principal, retrieved a pistol from his car, and confronted him.....

In the Appalachian Law School shooting, two students, retrieved guns from their cars, and when they confronted the shooter, he surrendered..


I am not saying "Arm the Children" I AM, saying, that if an adult, takes the time to get the training, to get a CCW Permit, I have no problem with them keeping a firearm at school..And YES, I have two school age children.

We already ENTRUST them to their teachers and facility, if we cannot trust a few of them to be armed, then they should not be entrusted with our children.

EDIT, Would you hang a "gun free" zone sign on your house???? Why do it to where the kids spend most of their days??

It shouldn't be an eye for an eye using schools as the experimental control group. Teachers who carry guns would need a battery of psychological tests to go with their credentials which is already a heaping huge amount of continuing education in a system that needs an overhaul in the first place. There are sexual predators getting hired under the radar now and you want to add ARMED to that description?? Are you willing to put out more of your tax dollars for such a program? I'm guessing NOT. I do not believe that the training just for a CCW would suffice with a HUGE percentage of parents whose kids are entrusted to be in school. Your argument does not stand nor does it come from anyone I suspect is a parent.

All I was saying was, that if some of the STAFF, wish to be armed, and if they can pass the test, why NOT??

What kind of tests do the SCHOOL SHOOTERS TAKE NOW??

My argument stands, because I posted incidents where school shooters where STOPPED, by armed civilians. Also, note, that the school shooters, where NOT harmed by the civilians.

Can you name a single case, where the gun free school zone WORKED???

NAME ONE......

Your new argument is an eye for an eye by building up arms in hopes that it deters something that hasn't happened yet, betting that the staff member who is armed is psychologically sound, doesn't get their weapon snatched away from them, or circumstantially acceptable to shoot or take down a gunman. In fact, it's interesting that you would forego said gunman's rights to a fair trial should they outlive your notion of vigilantism. This is all in your utopian concept where none of the other "OOPSIE" variables are even considered.

I do believe your first point was not about arming staff so much as the one teachers 'right' to carry because she was being stalked. You are starting a circular argument.

If you think a sign, EVER, stopped a school shooting from happening.

If someone is hell bent on death and destruction, what is the threat of a felony conviction?

Most days at non-gun-free zones end with no shots fired as well. In fact, I'd venture to say that gun stores, the antithesis of a gun-free zone, have a much lower rate of shooting sprees than schools do. At a gun-free school, the only reason a day goes by with no shooting is because no one felt like doing it that particular day. When a psycho gets it into their head to commit mass murder, the only thing a "gun-free zone" will do is ensure that they have helpless targets, unless that gun-free zone is enforced with checkpoints and metal detectors like an airport or courtroom. And if a teacher isn't psychologically capable of carrying a gun without using it in anger, they shouldn't be teaching in the first place.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Protecting our children NOT, been a liberal idea???

By the way, this teacher's intent was to protect herself from her ex-husband. This incident had nothing to do with 'protecting our children'.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You'd be surprised at how many DUers took the side of the teacher who wanted to pack heat at school. Their reasons included sympathy for abused women who had a restraining order against their estranged husband.

I disagree with those odd liberals who support the idea. There is no acceptable reason for an elementary school teacher to pack a gun to school.

But you can't justifiably call those people freeps.

...is this woman, this teacher with a CCW permit, putting students at risk by carrying her pistol at her work?

I don't think she is. Anymore than I think that if you carried a pistol you'd be more likely to kill and murder.

The teacher is not a murderer or a criminal, nor does she intend to become one. Regardless of how many guns she carries on her person, she is not going to just off and kill somebody.

The issue here is really that most of us are taught that violence is unacceptable under pretty much any condition and as a result have sort of a 'zero-tolerence' policy towards images and items of violence. It is not thought of as civilized or cultured or progressive.

The reality is that our civilization, any civilization, had to maintain itself by the controlled use of violence, typically in the form of police officers. Law enforcement officers (usually) use controlled, limited, proportional, and acceptable violence to maintain law and order. We also allow the citizens of this country to defend themselves with injurious or deadly force as well. The issue is not "no violence", it is "no aggression".

Trying to have 'zero-tolerence' policies on violence works about as well as 'abstinence-only' education. The kids know what they're being taught has little if any bearing on reality and don't take it seriously.

I personally think that physical education in middle and high school should include, among the usual sports, some martial-arts classes focusing on self-defense, so that the glamor of violence can be dulled with reality. A basic gun-safety and marksmanship class would be beneficial as well. Not necessarily pistols, but rifles. The discipline and work required to shoot accurately would slap some reality into kids that learn to shoot on PlayStations and Xboxes.

Schools are suppose to both protect and educate. Protection includes things like controlled access to the campus and the building, an effective fire alarm and evacuation plan, and an effective lockdown procedure with local police response. It can also include teachers that have CCW permits and are carrying their pistols. I think this last is particularly true with miltary veterans that have combat training. They already know how to handle a tactical firefight, so we might as well not let all that taxpayer-funded training go to waste.

I feel that a basic CCW permit is probably not enough for a schoolteacher, to be honest with you. An advanced course that includes training in a simulated, crowded school environment would make me happier. Just because a regular violent encounter is more likely to occur in quiet, empty, dark areas, while a school shooting is more likely to occur indoors in a very busy environment with lots of screaming and movement.

My post was a response to someone else's post #7, which got deleted.

Your post is so long and so thoroughly written, it would be a shame to write all that just to post it in a mistaken place.:)

I'm usually only short and sharp when making snarky comments!

On the serious stuff, well, there are so many interconnected things going on it's hard to be brief. The right-wing does that a lot as part of controlling the language and debate. Putting facts in a vacuum is one example, like "Iran is supplying insurgents in Iraq with bombs that are killing our troops". Factually true, yes, but entirely out of context. And it forces the other side (us) to say things that begin with the word "But" a lot.

So I try to keep things in context.



Hey, that was pretty short! :-)

Period.

It appears that they are already their to me..

to put guns in school in order to keep them out of school! Tell me, how many schools across the nation have never had a shooting???

In most schools that appears to be sufficient. Despite the fear mongering, schools are in general safe and gun free. Most people would prefer to keep it that way.

Our high schools have metal detectors. If I took a gun to work I would lose my job. It's against the law to bring a gun into a public school. And yes, I support that law.

So let's just legalize murder, then! I mean, if laws were enforced only because they had a 100% success rate, then we wouldn't have any laws. It's against the law to drink and drive, but that doesn't stop anyone from getting behind the wheel of a car and driving while drunk. Should we just do away with that type of law? It's against the law for a teacher to molest a student. That doesn't stop, however, a teacher from doing just that. Might as well make molestation legal, too, right?

as she takes potshots at somebody who she thinks is threatening her? Even if a kid accidently got killed, everybody knows how to make another one! And anyway, bullets never hit innocent bystanders.

then be liable? Along with the police? And what if he takes a few students with her?

Would they be? Wouldn't count on it.

she should have just did it and told no one. Concealed means concealed.

Breaking the law, trampling all over other people's right, endangering children for God's sake, all so they can carry their precious little security blankets. How fucking disgusting.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

CCW is the law in most states, though the gun lobby, led by the NRA circumvented the will of the people in some states in order to force CCW down our throats.

But with legal CCW, you have every right to carry a gun in public and private places where there is no "no carry" notice. Schools happen to be one of these areas, as are churches, businesses and private property that posts a notice to that effect. Yet rather than obeying this law, gun nutters want to carry everywhere, posted or not, whether CCW guns are wanted or not. Sorry, but we're not the ones abusing people's rights, it is those who insist on breaking the law and abusing the rights of those who don't want guns on their property.

But once again we see the gun nutters using their poor pitiful me routine in order to justify this law breaking and their trampling of other's rights. Good show:eyes:

You are mentioning some restriction in SOME states, not ALL states. In some states, guns are allowed on school property. In Michigan, the state limits where a gun may be carried, not a business or even a city.

I don't for a minute believe that a majority of the people were against ccw laws. The only evidence of that that I have seen is some link/data posted be some gun grabbing org., of which you are no doubt a member.

I'm not going to post about every single other state with CCW laws just for your edification. However I do know that the number is much greater the "some", it is much closer to "most", thank you very much.

As far as the majority of people being against CCW laws, I'm again speaking of my own state, though it really illustrates the mindset of the pro gun lobby that is overrunning our country.

This is what happened: Back in the late eighties, the pro-gun coalition, led by the NRA, tried to ram a CCW law through state Congress. When this failed, this coalition took the singular action of trying to get CCW passed via a statewide initiative petition. This was unheard of, since the pro-gun coalition rightfully didn't want to take the chance of having the people of a state vote down CCW(and according to their own private communications, this was a likely scenario in many states). They thought that Missouri was probably the best state in which to try this tactic, and if they were successful, perhaps use in other states. However in 1999, the Missouri people came out firmly against CCW in a special election that saw widespread voter turnout. The people had spoken, they didn't want CCW in our state.

However this didn't dissuade the pro-gun coalition. Who gives a rats ass about the will of the people was their opinion. The next legislative session, they managed to ram a CCW bill through a much more conservative legislature, however Carnahan vetoed this. After the 2000 election, they tried this again, though governor Holden stood by the will of the people and the principle of majority rule, and vetoed the bill. So the pro gun coalition waited until 2004 when a very conservative legislature, and a conservative governor took power. This time they rammed the bill through, over the wishes of the people, and Blunt signed it, again against the wishes of the majority. Congratulations, you are on the side of the conservatives and those who wish to circumvent the will of the people.

The majority of the Legislators voted for CCW laws.

The Legislation was voted into office by a majority of the voting populace.

Ergo, The majority of the voting populace wanted CCW laws.

Voted against CCW. You know as well as I do that legislators are easily swayed by corporate and special interest cash. I find it amusing that you consider a vote of the legislature more representative of the will of the people than a vote of the people themselves.

Please, stop twisting like this, you're starting to look like a pretzel.

The referendum was several years ago. Attitudes change.

I find it amusing that you consider a vote of the legislature more representative of the will of the people than a vote of the people themselves.

Unless you missed that year in basic civics class, while in grade school, where this process was covered, that's the way our Government works. We are a Constitutional Republic.

Signing off now as this is usless.

Sometimes they don't. There was a huge broughaha in the state when the gun lobby rammed CCW through the legislature, and there were several very good polls out there that showed that no, attitudes really hadn't changed, that the majority of the people still didn't want CCW in our state.

Oh, and I've probably had more civics and poli sci classes, read more on the subject that probably two of you, and am fully cognizant of how our government works. Yet you still did not answer my question, namely that you consider a legislature vote, influenced by corporate money and lobbyist's power more representative of the people than a direct referendum vote by the people. Apparently you do, given your strawman arguement. Really now, that's sad. Nice to see that you're putting the power of the lobbyists and corporations ahead of the the people. That's half the problem with our country is corporate and lobbyist influence, but hey, that's all right with you so long as it means that an unpopular bill that goes against the will of the people allows you to carry your precious little security blanket with you. Nice show, way to subvert democracy in pursuit of your own selfish interests:eyes:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

she needs to leave teaching for a while for the sake of the children.

I don't think I would chance having elementary school kids exposed to a situation that I feel I needs a gun for.

... he should be in jail. He's the one trying to ruin her life.

This situation will not be resolved for years. Feelings die hard.

Perhaps she should change her name and move to another teaching job, but again, that is making her suffer for the threats of her ex, while he goes on merrily with his life, friends, and family.

It's a toughie.

1) Set the example by showing you can live without guns. Detractors say that policy doesn't keep schools safe anyway.

2) If they (rogue students) are going to be armed, then so should be the teachers. Let's have an arms race.


I still go with #1. And I'm not sure that just having a gun makes things safe. I think it sends the wrong message. Also consider a student with a BB pistol or unloaded weapon, who has some mental issues, and is waving it around... police officers are trained to deal with those situations and evaluate threats. Just being trained in how to use a weapon isn't enough, you need to be trained to know WHEN to use a weapon. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if we have lots of teachers with concealed weapons, even if they were trained in how to use one, it won't be long before you get some kid who gets shot when they weren't really a threat but the teacher didn't know that and/or upped the ante in a standoff.

I don't want my son in a school where teachers have guns on them.

Once this fight became public...it's like telling people you're carrying large amounts of cash.

One of two things will happen

- Students will know which teachers have guns and attack other classrooms instead, or...

- As you point out, will take the gun from the teacher, so now a student that had no access to a gun previously can ambush a teacher and get a gun

For many years (I think it changed recently) the bobbies in the UK had no guns. There simply was no prevalence of guns in the country. Or, you can take the middle east where it seems everyone has an AK-47 in their living room. I say the UK is safer.

Like I said, I don't want my son in a school where the teacher's are armed. I can't say it makes me feel my son is safer.

if their is a chance that violence will show up at the school because of this teacher why not suspend the teacher due to the fact that she may bring violence to the children. Although this is not her fault if she feels the need to bring a gun to school should the school allow her to be around the children who would more then likely be involved with whatever violence erupts around this teacher? I know its not fair to the teacher but is it fair to the children to be exposed to hypothetical violence.

Think how many profitable weapons the gun cartel and it's pushers could sell if every kid had to have one? Disaster capitalism at it's most basic. No matter how many guns we have out there supercharging the crime rate, the neocon answer seems to be more guns.

And that of those around her.

this lady may give detention a whole new meaning.

Are there metal detectors and armed guards at the entrance to the school where Ms. Katz works?

If so, then I agree with the decision.

If not, it's hypocritical for them to say they have a no-weapons policy.

You know, for those battles with chain-mail. :eyes:

:crazy: