Woman Sues to Carry Weapon In School
A high-school teacher in Medford, Ore., is suing for the right to carry a Glock to school.
Her ex-husband, she said, has threatened her life. She’s already done what the experts advise: had him arrested for what’s known down there as “menacing.” Filed a restraining order. Told family, friends and anyone who would listen that she worries for her safety and that of her two kids.
Then she took the required classes on handling and firing a handgun, and got a concealed-weapon permit.
School officials found out and, understandably, forbade her from packing heat along with her lunch. If she did, they said, she’d be fired.
So today the teacher’s lawyer, James E. Leuenberger, will ask a judge to remind the school district of an Oregon statute that allows concealed weapons in all public buildings except courthouses. (Washington law prohibits teachers from carrying firearms on school property.)
The 44-year-old Oregon teacher — who wishes to remain anonymous and is not named in the lawsuit — called the school’s policy prohibiting guns “fear-based.”
Hat tip to Vista on Current Events.
As I understand it, the district has a policy prohibiting guns on school property - so the woman would not be breaking the law, obviously, but rather a policy put in place by her employer.
As it pertains to this situation, one is explicitly allowed to carry in public buildings in Oregon, but there’s no specification (or appellate rulings) that addresses the issue of carrying the gun onto school *property* - which is not, by itself, a public building.
My hope is that the woman will lose because the legislature failed to provide specific guidance in regards to school property. Anyone who believes that the legislature should make law and not the judicial branch should probably feel the same way.
Fixing this doesn’t require a lawsuit - it requires a bill.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on September 18, 2007 at 1949 hrs
And if her ex-husband kills her while she is at work, they can name the new law in her memory.
Posted by triticale on September 18, 2007 at 2047 hrs
Yes, yes they could. But that alone isn’t sufficient reason for judicial activism. Arguing anecdotally is no better when the right does it than when the left does it.
No good conservative could ever argue that the woman has a right to her job as a teacher. Employment of any sort is a privilege, and she chooses to accept certain guidelines and rules as a part of her employment.
If the ability to carry guns onto school property is such a pressing issue, then surely the Oregon Legislature will move swiftly to resolve this matter of legislative oversight and Governor Kulongoski will quickly sign the bill so this woman can pack heat on school grounds. But it should be their decision and not the decision of the courts that decides this.
Otherwise (gasp), perhaps the woman should consider finding for the time being an employer more sympathetic to her “need” to carry a firearm with her.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on September 18, 2007 at 2103 hrs
Recess: You would be right if this was a situation where something was not already a right enumerated by the U.S. constitution.
Unless it is expressed specifically in the law where one cannot carry a firearm, it is expected that they would be allowed do so.
Following the letter and intent of the constitution is not judicial activism.
Posted by David on September 18, 2007 at 2248 hrs
David,
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the phrase “to bear arms” as “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight.” The word keep implies storage or retaining possession of, but in no circumstance implies carrying.
I will be happy to agree with you 100% considering that was the common usage of the phrases when the Constitution was written.
The word “liberal” today has taken on an entirely different meaning as well. If the Constitution said “the government shall remain as liberal as possible on matters of the Second Amendment,” would it be okay for Democrats to argue that the founders intended their ideas on gun control to be enacted because we’ve constructed another meaning of the word liberal?
Of course not. That’d be stupid. About as stupid as trying to construct an alternative meaning for a commonly-used phrase in the 18th Century in order to suit one’s own political agenda.
If you want to be a literalist, be a literalist. Your right isn’t nearly as broad as you think, and court after court after court after court have agreed - in part because they, too, have clerks who can look in dictionaries.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on September 18, 2007 at 2348 hrs
A question. Isn’t this case similar to the case where the teacher was fired by the catholic school for breaking their rules? as I recall conservatives were all in favor of the school being able to impose rules on its employees and that when they are fired they are told they should have known the rules.
Am I mistaken in my understanding here?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2007 at 0623 hrs
From the article:
(Washington law prohibits teachers from carrying firearms on school property.)
What does the **** does that have to do with this case? Has absolutely no bearing on this case in OREGON! Agenda obvious enough!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2007 at 1143 hrs
The above linked article is by a Seattle columnist!
Ridiculous line:
Maybe have parents volunteer to escort the teacher through the day, I said, just as they would come in to tutor. If the safety of students is at stake, I know I would offer.
What is supposed to do between school and home then? I’m sure the school would be happy to allow her to store her gun in her car! //sarc//
Try this one: CBS News: Allowed to Pack
Relevant quote from news article:“There’s a specific state statute that prohibits local governments, including school districts, from passing laws or policies prohibiting people from owning or possessing firearms,” says James Leuenberger, the Portland, Ore., lawyer representing the teacher.
Seems pretty cut and dried to me!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2007 at 1200 hrs
RS - you really need to read more case law. The two most recent second amendment cases (DC Court of Appeals and the 5th Cir.) confer that it is a broad individual right that has little or nothing to do with service in the military. The 5th Circuit Case is a terrific read for anyone interested in the issue. It traces the historic understanding of the 2nd amendment from the founding through today discussing case law, law reviews on the subject and contemporaneous writings and the common law history of the right in England.
Also if you actually read Miller (the 1934 US Supreme Court Case) you will see that the limitation the Supreme’s put on the right was not whether the gun was kept for use in the militia but rather whether the type of gun being kept was the type of gun one would use if the militia were called up. In other words the rational of Miller would actually make it easier to own a .50 caliber machine gun then a .22 caliber rifle because the military uses .50 cals when we go to war.
Also be careful with tossing around the terms like “literalist” you left it undefined and yet tried to use it to support your argument - The objective is not to read the words literality but to read them with the understanding of the reasonable meaning of the words and phrases at the time they were written. Thus, what today’s dictionary says is not important. What a dictionary that was published in the 1780’s or 90’s would have some bearing on the reasonable meaning of the language used.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2007 at 1358 hrs
Joe, that was my point. If you go back to the OED and other dictionaries of the time, the phrase “to bear arms” has specific military connotations. I believe the earliest use of the phrase “to bear arms” in that context dates back to the 13th or 14th century. Some others will try to read the phrase without any regard for historical context, as though the founders intended for some unfettered right for anyone to pack heat for any reason at all.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on September 19, 2007 at 2118 hrs
RS,
The common practice at the time the Constitution was written was to carry a brace of pistols. The right to carry was quite broad - and still is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2007 at 2127 hrs
It is nice to know that through all this blathering that those fun loving kids @ Columbine were just practicing their constitutional rights.
No reason to fear that, right?
I just love the vision of this teacher and her husband shooting it out in a classroom. Really nice.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 19, 2007 at 2223 hrs
A high-school teacher in Medford, Ore., is suing for the right to carry a Glock to school.
I don’t think teachers should be taking Glocks in the classroom.
I mean think about it…
A Smith & Wesson hammerless airweight would be a way better choice. I’d probably go with the 357 in skandium/titanium. Smaller, lighter, and still plenty of knock-down power in the 357. Cheaper to shoot at the range cause you can run 38 rounds thru it. Definitely a smarter choice
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2007 at 0727 hrs
Right Pjr, because the kids at Columbine and this teacher are the same thing? Right? Same sort of situation?
Please, please stop yourself before posting this kind of drivel. It demeans you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2007 at 0741 hrs
PS,
I am simply pointing out that the right to carry sometimes needs to be tempered.
I don’t think it is in the public interest to set the stage for a shootout in a classroom.
I would not want my son in a classroom that had the potential for it. How about you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2007 at 0757 hrs
I would not want my son in a classroom that had the potential for it. How about you?
If your son was at Columbine, you wouldn’t have wished a teacher had a handgun?
If your son was at Virginia Tech, you wouldn’ thave wished their teacher had a handgun?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2007 at 0934 hrs
The kids at columbine had not reached the age of majority so in my understanding and reading of the constitution and the manner in which our laws were administered by the guys who actually wrote it - their rights could be limited if their was a valid justification.
RS - I think we spoke past each other - I am saying that the right to keep and bear arms is not limited to military service, the meaning of the phrase at the time encompassed military service but was broader than just military service. The latest case law that examines the historical origins of the right do a nice job of laying that out.
Here is the DC Court of Appeals decision: http://www.gunowners.com/dcbanoverturned.pdf
Here is the 5th Cir. decision: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331.cr0.wpd.pdf
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2007 at 0943 hrs
No xxp I wouldn’t want a K-12 teacher to carry a gun to school with them.
If it takes metal detectors manned by trained and uniformed security (public or private) to keep weapons out of grade and high schools then so be it. We do it at airports.
College age kids should be able to figure out on their own what it takes to protect themselves and have the means to do it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2007 at 0958 hrs
No xxp I wouldn’t want a K-12 teacher to carry a gun to school with them.
So if your son was sitting in a classroom at Columbine, you would rather not have had one of the teachers in the room have a gun to have been able to stop the killing and save your sons life?
Instead you’d rather have had the kids helplessly getting pegged off like sitting ducks… Interesting.
If I had a child, I’d want someone there who could have protected them. Oh well… Maybe I just love kids more than u.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2007 at 1154 hrs
If it takes metal detectors manned by trained and uniformed security (public or private) to keep weapons out of grade and high schools then so be it. We do it at airports.
Right, cause if someone is willing to walk into the school and shoot 50 kids they would stop at the metal detector to get screened first…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2007 at 1155 hrs
manned by trained and uniformed security (public or private)
I would expect these personel to be armed and ready to use deadly force if needed. Something I do not expect from a teacher.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2007 at 1224 hrs
Most jurisdictions require training before being issued a Concealed Carry permit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2007 at 1231 hrs
just how many security guards are you going to have?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2007 at 1235 hrs
just how many security guards are you going to have?
As many as it takes.
Just wondering how many teachers you think would be armed?
How would they keep the wearon at the ready for what might be a split second chance to use it and keep it secure from unauthorized access?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2007 at 1249 hrs
pjr-
How would they keep the weapon at the ready for what might be a split second chance to use it and keep it secure from unauthorized access?
Have you ever used a firearm? You keep it in a holster, that’s why its called a concealed weapon! At the ready? That’s why you practice, so it becomes instinct. If they don’t know you are carrying wait till the opportune moment to use it. Quick draw is not necessary, just accuracy! Most likely you hear shots before they get to you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2007 at 1310 hrs
Just wondering how many teachers you think would be armed?
Only the ones that want to, are willing go through the training and feel confident enough! All it takes is a few per school to prevent the next Columbine or Virginia Tech. Most likely would not be able to prevent any/all incidents but instead contain/end the situation.
Currently nutjobs who decide to go on a shooting rampage know that most schools are free of guns, which they don’t tend to abide by. That makes schools a target-rich environment, everyone there is defenseless!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2007 at 1319 hrs
Fuzzy,
That makes schools a target-rich environment, everyone there is defenseless!
get a grip.
This post is about a teacher who wants to carry a gun to protect herself, not her students.
Her problems with an ex husband have nothing to do with VT or Columbine or anyplace else.
She made a poor choice in partners and now she wants to make it everybody’s problem by bringing a gun to school.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2007 at 1342 hrs
This post is about a teacher who wants to carry a gun to protect herself, not her students.
I sure she would just stand by and do nothing if someone threaten or endangered others in the school! Who cares the reason if she is able to protect herself and others!
She made a poor choice in partners and now she wants to make it everybody’s problem by bringing a gun to school.
Wow, the sensitivity and understanding are just overwhelming!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2007 at 1351 hrs
Xx, if all teachers kept a gun on their person in the classroom, how many more incidents might arise per year where students overpower teachers and use the weapon against the other un-armed students? They’d be able to kill a few before another teacher arrived. (Unless of course they were using their Kevlar book covers to protect themselves.)
There are about 23,000 high schools in the US and about 3 million teachers nationwide.Posted by John Foust on September 20, 2007 at 1747 hrs
how many more incidents might arise per year where students overpower teachers and use the weapon against the other un-armed students?
I’d expect… about NONE
What about cops in schools? They can be overpowered by students? Maybe cops in schools shouldn’t carry guns.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2007 at 0649 hrs
Xx, of those 23,000 high schools, how many do you think actually have armed cops? Who’s going to pay to train all those teachers to use the weapon safely and effectively? Who’s going to buy all the weapons and pay for continuing range training? Can teachers opt out?
Posted by John Foust on September 21, 2007 at 1157 hrs
J. Foust -
No one said every teacher should or would have a gun! Did you completely skip comment 26?
Also, I believe the cost would be almost non-existent. You would be surprised how many teachers already have guns and know how to shoot! They would just need whatever training is required for concealed carry! This would not be a liberal program, no one is asking to have the guns bought or provided for them! Just allow law-abiding citizens to use their own weapon to defend themselves and others!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2007 at 1208 hrs
Sorry, SSG, I was talking to Xx, not you.
Posted by John Foust on September 21, 2007 at 1211 hrs
John, no need to apologize. xx can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think xx or anyone else ever suggested/stated every teacher should be armed. No one should ever be forced to carry a weapon if they don’t want one. That would be against common sense!
Only those with the willingness and ability to defend themselves, complete whatever background check and training necessary for state concealed carry permit!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2007 at 1224 hrs
John, no need to apologize. xx can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think xx or anyone else ever suggested/stated every teacher should be armed. No one should ever be forced to carry a weapon if they don’t want one. That would be against common sense!
Precisely… I believe in freedom. I don’t believe in forcing anyone to do anything they would choose not to (bound by boundaries of other peoples individual rights of course)
I must chuckle at the propensity to leap to the conclusion that somewhere in my above comments I would ever be a proponent of forcing anyone to carry a weapon?
I neither stated nor inferred anything of the sort.
Perhaps in the minds of those who seem to think legislation and government intervention has a fix for everything there is a proclivity to always think in terms of ‘requirements’ and other typical government policy scenarios.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2007 at 1705 hrs
Xx, saying things like “don’t you wish your kid’s classroom was protected by a teacher with a gun” sure made me think you thought it would be a good idea for every classroom.
What about people who don’t want their kids in a classroom with a gun-toting teacher? Tough luck?
Posted by John Foust on September 21, 2007 at 1838 hrs
I do think it would be a good idea.
I think its a good idea that everyone would become learned and proficient with firearms. Our fouding fathers thought it was a very patriotic exercize.
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.”
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
But you know how Thomas Jefferson was such a radical…
I think the country would be better off if everyone became proficient with firearms and excersized their right to carry.
I think crime would be drastically reduced.
But I would never suggest that ANYONE should be made by law to do anything they wish not to (again, respective of the individual rights of other people)
And for future reference, you can always assume that I am not for any law making anyone do anything.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2007 at 1948 hrs
Recess Supervisor’s comment well expresses why teachers make some of the worst jurors—it is typical that they want to parse and argue detail of every case academically, rather than realistically. Did anyone fail to notice that the Oregon legislature expressly permitted licensed carry of concealed weapons in ALL public buildings EXCEPT courts. That is a direct statement of law as to the issue at hand. Way to go Oregon!! There is no need to specify further—indeed, to do so would only make things more unclear, since you would then have to question whether each and every type of building, perhaps down to grades of schools and floors of particular buildings would be gun/no-gun. Can you say, reductio ad absurdum—sure you can. This teacher has a valid basis to oppose her employer’s unlawful and perhaps unconstitutional policy and I hope she not only wins, but is awarded her attorney’s fees and damages for the anxiety and inconvenience she has suffered by their wrongful conduct.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 24, 2007 at 1133 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 99
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 04:57 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).