Gun Control is Two Steady hands. If That Moron Potter and Rosie's Raiders Won't do anything in Portland Then We as Citizens Should Take Control As For Medford Right On. Any Citizen is Allowed To protect themselves and Their Property.

Looovely.

Just what we need, another idiot gun freak to make the rest of us look like idiots.

Duuude, you make gun owners look bad.

As a high senior my only response to this post would be what kind of person would want people to bring guns to schools. These days almost all public high schools have security guards (mine has 5 or 6) and dedicated police officers who are there to protect students and teachers. Also theft if huge at schools espacially theft of things owned by teachers so very easily a student could steal a teachers gun and cause havoc. The answer to school violence isnt more guns its dealing with the mental problems of students. There are a lot of kids with clear mental problems in our school system but a lack of resources prevents them from getting the help they need. At my school teachers have to many students to realize the individual problems of students. As a high school student I dont see how students can be expected to learn when their teachers carry guns around. Teachers are there to help students learn and help them with problems and to give advice. Its important that students realize that teachers are open to helping them and carrying a gun around with you while teaching screams dont mess with me and students wont approach those teachers for advice and when they need help. When will radical gun rights advocates realize that carrying a gun around with you all the time doesnt make the world safer per say.

I own no small arms or pistols. Here in Southern Oregon there are no armed police officers in the schools. There are no security guards, let alone 5 or 6. If the concealed carry permit has been obtained in a legal and lawful manner what is the problem with an adult being given the permit and carrying in accordance as they see fit?

I think Kurt hit on a couple points that are important:

1) Guns in rural and urban areas are entirely different things and people have different attitudes towards them as a result. Many rural residents use guns to protect livestock and even their gardens from wildlife. They are a tool with legitimate uses. The only reason to have a gun in an urban environment is to shoot people or as a toy for recreation.

2) The real problem here, as the former police chief points out, is that any yahoo can get a concealed weapon permit. There is simply no good reason to bring a loaded gun into a school. That someone would want to do that is a clear indication they aren't a responsible gun owner and they shouldn't be carrying a concealed weapon at all.

So, instead of exempting schools, the state should require people to provide some real reason they need to have a permit. If they want to carry a concealed, loaded weapon around with them for no good reason, they probably aren't folks who should be allowed to.

Here's a thought, just fire any school employee who brings a gun to school. Just because its legal doesn't mean you can't get fired for bringing it to work. There are plenty of inappropriate-but-legal things that teachers shouldn't be bringing to work (porn, alcohol) that would probably get them fired if they did so.

There is an underlying argument regarding persons who choose to carry a concealed firearm which almost never surfaces when stories like this come to the public attention.

Everyone does have the right to defend their person, but not everyone should carry or possess a firearm. Unless a person is totally physically competent and fully mentally prepared to accept the responsibilty of carrying a firearm, a firearm has more potential to harm the bearer than to protect them. Simple possession of a firearm does not guarantee a person's ability to defend themselves.

I'm not talking about simple firearm safety, although that is a component. I'm not talking about the time it takes on the firing range to be able to proficient at hitting a non moving paper target. We won't all be safer if everyone has a gun on thier hip, in plain view or concealed.

What I am talking about is the fact that carrying a firearm or any weapon requires the bearer to fully accept the totalilty of the increase in responsibilty they must have in order to simply be safe and not exageragte the danger in any situuation they might become involved in where they are defending themselves or another from deadly physical force.

Nothing against the school teacher mentioned, but it's not really very likely that she has the skills and mindset necessary to responsibly carry a firearm at school nor anywhere else for that matter. Her fear of an ex-spouse and resulting restraining order are more than valid reasons for her to be concerned about her safety and the ability to defend herself. But the fact that she was carrying a concealed weapon at work tends to indicate that she's possibly not fully aware of the responsibilty involved. In other words, if anyone is carrying a concealed weapon, it is not to person's tactical advantage to divulge that information. The fact that the ex has knowledge that she's carrying does not constitute a deterent. It does add the possibilty that he will escalate and now arm himself as well.

The act of possesing a firearm for self defense is the same as an any other commonly thought of martial art. A person should not expect that enrolling in karate class will instantly protect them from harm or be able to adequately defend themself from an attacker. It takes a lot of practice, discipline, and a whole mindset/way of life to be truly proficient. Not to mention the responsibilty of being totally awawre of your environment.

It's an unfortunate fact, but the majority of folks who possess a firearm simply do not realize the weight of the resposibilty in owning a firearm for self defense. Which gives weight to the old saying that guns don't kill people, it's people who kill people and the incidence of people being shot with thier own guns.

As a retired police officer, law enforcement/military firearms trainer, who has seen the full gamut of firearms violence, including having personally been involved on much more than just one occassion, dealt with the aftermath on so many levels, and spent thousands of hours on and off the firing range, I can say the following:

I abhor the violence in our society. Both domestically and in war. It is an unfortunate underbelly component of our society. I believe in the right of a person to possess a firearm and would glady defend that persons right to possess a firearm, where ever they may be. I strongly do not believe that the simple possession of a firearm makes any one automatically safer or capable of defending themselves. If anything, the possession of a firearm without the proper skills and appropriate mindset potentially only serves to make them and the public around them less safe in reality. I am totally opposed to promoting the possession of firearms by, for example teachers at Virgina Tech or BYU, as a means to somehow make those environments safer. It's an invalid argument based upon the assumption that just possession of firearms and minimal training would deter or prevent violence. However, if any of those people are really competent, have the training, discipline and appropriate psychiological mindeset, I would support their carrying a concealed weapon. But this is a veiled oxymoron. If a person were indeed competetent, have the required training and mindset, they would realize the error in judgement of carrying a concealed weapon in these environments. Instead opting to intelligently raise the awareness of those around them to the potential of violence in their environment. In nearly 30 years of experience, there's only been a handfull of incidents where a person carrying a concealed weapon has really made a positive difference. In most cases it has been an off-duty police officer who reacted properly under the extreme situation. It's simply not reasonable for the average citizen to be expected to react similary and get the same results.

I've been shooting guns since I was knee high... not an option when your daddy runs a liquor store in a rough part of Chicago.

That said, THIS IS THE CRAZIEST IDEA I have ever heard.

Any teacher who wants to carry a gun, to work, is a menace to society and should be thrown in jail. Period.

Good Golly, Miss Molly. Now, I've heard everything.

p.s. Stay outta Medford, they crazy down there!

Guns don't belong in schools unless they are wielded by guards/police hired by the district. Teachers can be overcome by students, especially middle school and high school age kids who are going through major emotional angst and hormonal upheaval. These kids usually outweigh and can overpower most teachers in seconds and their momentary lapses in judgment can have a lifetime of consequences. Carrying a gun in a situation like that is asking for trouble. This teacher may have to accept that, unfair as it is, this situation may require her to relocate in order to try and elude her ex. The simple fact is that if she still feels unsafe after a restraining order and other measures (including keeping a gun in her home), she may need to get more proactive about trying to remove herself to a safer locale. Fair? No. Reality? Yes.

I've worked crisis lines, juvenile detention areas, and in prisons. I've owned guns of all types in the past, although I currently own none. Guns wielded by those who don't understand the first rule of guns---"don't hold it unless you are trained, capable, and WILLING to use it"--is a recipe for disaster. I've seen too many people with permits who can't hit the broad side of a barn when they are calm and thinking straight. Guess what? If you ever need to use a gun on another human being, the situation will NOT be calm and rational. YOU must be the one calm and rational thing in the midst of fear, anger, pain, and chaos--and that takes a very trained, rational, experienced mind.

By the way, not all teachers are completely sane either. One of the most admired teachers in my high school snapped one day--no warning, no pre-existing condition. She started throwing scissors, chairs, anything she could get her hands on at us and then she jumped through a plate glass window. Admittedly, it was a rare instance, but really, what if she had had a gun that day? Police go through rigorous psychological testing and training. You just can't get that in a one-day permit class.

My late husband always said: "I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-stupid."

Bringing guns into schools is just stupid.

In a time when police often shoot people for carrying visible mobile phones, I would not feel safe carrying a visible gun around town. It doesn't take much to make an officer of the law fear for his/her life, it seems, especially if one is an ethnic minority.

Posted by: dk | Sep 10, 2007 9:52:16 AM Here's a thought, just fire any school employee who brings a gun to school. Just because its legal doesn't mean you can't get fired for bringing it to work.

<hr/>

Hey dk, did you read the article? How about reading this:

From the MailTrib: "School district officials said they believe they have the right to regulate the possession of a weapon by an employee and will fight the issue in court."

<hr/>

The school district is attempting to do just what you suggest. The only problem is, it might be illegal! When school districts restrict people's rights as a condition of their employment, they can and often do get a lawsuit.

What would you say about a teacher who was asked to give up her 1st Amendment rights as a condition of her employment with the district? Does that view change when you go to the rest of the Bill of Rights?

To quote further from the MailTrib: "There is a state statute that prohibits local governments — including school boards — from restricting possession of firearms by concealed firearm permit holders," Leuenberger said. "The state statute says any such local restrictions are void."

The Oregon Firearms Federation would love to see this go to court, so that they can test the constitutionality of this law. If the school district can restrict the right of this teacher, they can also restrict the right of a retired police officer who becomes a teacher or asst. coach and wants to carry concealed at school.

I believe it was Hillsboro School District that tried and failed to prohibit the general public (non-school district employees) who held CWP from visiting the school property. They did not go to court, since they knew they would lose their case.

It will be interesting to see if Medford can legally enforce as a condition of employment this particular provision (restricting CWP employees from concealed carry). I doubt that they can. If it looks like they will fail in court, I bet the district will settle out of court rather than have this grey area settled in the teacher's (and all CWP holders) favor. Better to leave it grey.

You may be right, Chris. It will be interesting to see how the "condition of employment" issue gets ruled.

Where I said above: "I believe it was Hillsboro School District that tried and failed to prohibit the general public..." I was wrong. It wasn't Hillsboro, it was Lincoln HS. See below from the Oregonian:

"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."

So it's ok to deprive people of their rights if you agree? I hear a lot of people basically arguing that, because they think guns shouldn't be in schools, then this is OK, even though the state fairly clearly has preemption.

This sounds an awefull lot like republicans (Domestic spying, torture, habeas corpus).

Not to mention that once again, there's almost no evidence that something bad would, in fact happen. Why is having a gun (legally, with CCW) in school any different than out in the rest of society? And do you actually have research showing good reasons for depriving people/teachers of their rights in schools? And there are, in fact, a couple of good instances (Appalachia Law School, Pearl High School) where gun owners did stop violence. There's a lot of PSH (Pants S#$%@ing Hysterics) going on here with almost no reasoned discourse on the subject. It's for the children!

To the people who believe only the police should have guns in school:

1) How has that worked? How often of police actually managed to stop school violence in process. 2) Castle Rock v Gonzales.

I was alerted to this right after it came out, but chose to let others have their say...read what they had to say, and then weigh in.

Pro-Gun Progressive wrote about this on his blog: http://progunprogressive.com/?p=639

His most salient point to us was this:

"Does anybody really think a “no guns” policy at the lady’s school would keep her hubby from stabbing her as she teaches or walks to her car after work? Of course not. What the handwringers never seem to want to acknowledge rings true here: the bad guys are going to get to us, and be armed if they choose to, no matter what policy you have in place. The only thing we can control is how we react to the situation."

once again, we are brought to the thoughts on personal security and morality: If the police are not required to protect you (see Castle Rock Vs. Gonzales) then that duty falls upon the individual.

IF that is the case (and it is,) why should we NOT allow the person in fear of his or her life the most effective means of defense? ESPECIALLY for a woman against a potentially physically larger and physically stronger assailant. The teacher in question has a restraining order against her ex, and is enough in fear of her life that she has chosen to carry despite the wish of her employer (nominally, the Citizens of the State.)

Ultimately, what we see here is the logical extension of the thought "killing someone is wrong...let the police protect you." Again, please visit the above court case for that logical extension.

I say, "If someone tries to kill you, you kill them right back, (and you don't stop until they cease to be a threat -- in accordance with state law."*

If she took her CHL course, and paid attention, then she learned the legal threshold that exists in order to shoot a firearm at someone. If she didn't, then she will end up doing something dumb, getting arrested, have her 2nd Amendment rights stripped from her, disarmed by her own idiocy.

THEN she will be gutted like a pig by her ex. Which is, apparently what some folks are willing to let happen.

whoops...credit where credit is due:

• Apologies to Joss Whedon for the bastardization of his quote from Firefly.

"You can be an undiagnosed psychotic or you could be a criminal, a serial killer even, who just hasn't been caught and you can come onto our property with a concealed weapon and we can't do much about it," Moran said.

mr. Moran is quite right. he can't do jack about criminals and psychopaths coming onto his property, with or without weapons, concealed or not, no matter what policies or laws he manages to write down. the violent, unpredictable, unreasonable sort of people he's describing won't care about his policies or his laws, they'll just walk right on in carrying whatever they please.

unless somebody stops them. that will take using force, because if they'd stop with less than being forced, they wouldn't be the sort of unreasonable, unpredictable, violent people mr. Moran is so concerned about. and using force gets a lot easier when you're armed.

which, i would hazard to guess, is why a woman whose ex-husband has repeatedly threatened her with violence might just possibly want to go armed. but perhaps mr. Moran would prefer she be helpless in the face of just such criminals and psychopaths as he himself admits he cannot stop from coming onto the property...?

Will the school accept responsibility and accountability for teh teachers safety since she is under threat of violence by her EX?

"So it's ok to deprive people of their rights if you agree?"

Yes, this is the core, guiding assumption of "progressivism." It's all about the tyranny of the majority. As one prominent Blue Oregon contributor stated explicitly, "we don't individual need rights." Nice.

Funny how libs are always squawking about "violence against women," yet want to disarm women to make it easier for their stalkers to harm them. Guess y'all hate guns more than "violence against women," huh? Typical hypocrisy from the left.

Whoops, should have read "we don't need individual rights."

Just when you thought this subject was dead!

The Oregonian has three items in it's editorial section today...and I actually agree with Lars (there is a first time for everything I suppose, although I should probably buy a lottery ticket given the odds.)

The first is an actual commentary from Jane Doe in Medford. The teacher herself has graced our local fishwrapper with her own words. Not terribly illuminating, but worthy of a read all the same.

The second is an opinion piece by Portland Own NutBar, Lars Larson. While I disagree with Lars 99.9999999% of the time, I am afraid I have to agree with him this time.

The last is from Portland's own PR Mouthpiece, Ginny Burdick.

Now, to answer a concern of Ginny's:

In the seventh paragraph, she asks:

Now, let's move on to an actual situation. The teacher is at the blackboard and her 30 third-grade students are at their desks. In walks her ex-husband. What does she do?

Something that Ginny doesn't get, and probably is incapable of fathoming, is that it is not her response that dictates how that "scenario" plays out, gun-wise. It is HIS actions that dictate her response. If he doesn't present himself as a threat, she is LEGALLY unable to do anything. If, on the other hand, he shows up (with the restraining order, this would probably meet the requirement for "motive") with a firearm of his own in hand ("capability"), threatens her or the children under her care ("intent") then she is legally allowed to draw and shoot.

These are the requirements that are taught in that pesky class that she refers to in this fashion: But the teacher can receive a concealed handgun license simply by showing a clean criminal record and attendance at a gun-safety class.

It is a serious misconception, on her part, as well as others, that people who carry firearms are "out to shoot people." or that CHL holders are inherently dangerous to be around. The news reports and numbers do not support this lie.

WE trust teachers with the safety and wellbeing of our children 5 days a week for up to 10 hours at a stretch. I am EXTREMELY offended by her assertions that 1. a kid -- any random kid -- is more dangerous that an ex with a restraining order and a prior history of violence: What if one of her students hugs her and finds the gun? What if the student grabs the gun? and 2. oh, she is JUST a teacher: And yet, the gun-rights advocates would argue that this teacher is capable of making life and death, split-second decisions in a classroom with 30 children! Cuz we all know that teachers are idiots out to hurt our children and shoot holes in 12 year olds, right?

Why is OK for police to be armed in schools and not teachers? Do students respect the police more than the teachers?

For those of you who say a teacher's weapon could be taken and used against them, wouldn't a student have an equal chance of grabbing an officer's gun and turning it against him? This hasn't happened yet.

Concealed carry demands that the individual pass a rigorous screen and demonstrate proficiency with a weapon. Most CCW holders get MORE training than police officers because they enjoy shooting as a skill.

Please look at Utah as an example. Utah has allowed CCW in schools since 2003 (actually 1997). Nothing has happened. many teachers who are CCW-qualified carry a weapon EVERY DAY to school.

JJ writes: why should we NOT allow the person in fear of his or her life the most effective means of defense?

We deny people that right when the possible risk to society (or, in this case, the teacher's classroom) is too great. The reason for prohibiting this teacher from carrying a weapon at school is the same reason we prohibit people from owning machine guns, anti-tank missiles, high-end explosives, and nuclear weapons. I know there are a few extremists who argue that the 2nd Amendment allows people to own all types of arms, up to and including nuclear weapons, but I don't get the sense you are one of them. So do you agree that it's okay for society (through their government) to regulate an individual's ability to own certain types of weaspons that are too dangerous?

If so, then what we're really talking about isn't a rights issue, but a danger issue. That is, does this teacher's gun present a danger to her students? Personally, I think reasonable people can disagree on this. What it really comes down to are odds: Is there a higher probability that an attacker will be shot dead by a person with a concealed weapon, or that a student will take the gun and shoot others? The odds of each are very, very small, which leads me to believe that maybe this should be left up to each community. If the community wants to allow concealed weapons into schools, fine. If the community doesn't, also fine. I'm not sure a one-size-fits-all state law works here.

P.S. -- Doesn't the argument that a concealed weapon protects the holder only work when the existence of the weaspon is not known? Once the ex-husband knows about it, which he clearly does now, it's possible he'll be deterred, but it's also possible he'll escalate. If he's really out to get his ex-wife, he's going to shoot first knowing that she's armed.

The reason for prohibiting this teacher from carrying a weapon at school is the same reason we prohibit people from owning machine guns, anti-tank missiles, high-end explosives, and nuclear weapons.

i honestly think you could make a more persuasive argument if you'd try to refrain from such obvious hyperbole. it does you no credit. the arms at issue here are handguns; there really is no reasonable, non-hysterical way to compare them to nuclear weapons. (why are nukes so often brought up in these debates, anyway? it's a patently stupid comparison, and it is never helpful.)

Doesn't the argument that a concealed weapon protects the holder only work when the existence of the weaspon is not known? Once the ex-husband knows about it, which he clearly does now, it's possible he'll be deterred, but it's also possible he'll escalate.

true, but this does not seem to me like a good reason to go to (public) court just to deny the teacher her right to carry. rather the opposite, in fact.

The reason for prohibiting this teacher from carrying a weapon at school is the same reason we prohibit people from owning machine guns, anti-tank missiles, high-end explosives, and nuclear weapons.

I think that is a miiiiiighty big reach you are making with that one.

So do you agree that it's okay for society (through their government) to regulate an individual's ability to own certain types of weaspons that are too dangerous?

actually, I do happen to agree with that statement...but a concealed handgun is NOT that type of weapon. A nuclear weapon does NOT equal a handgun. Nor is it the same as field artillery, explosives, or anti-tank missiles.

Machine guns aren't even the same class as the above, as they are NOT illegal...by any stretch of the imagination, nor any twist of the metaphorical knife. They are closely regulated, but even YOU could get a fully automatic machine gun. You just have to pass a background check and pay 200$ for the tax stamp (hmmm...same process as the CHL--except that the FBI does the background check, not the county--and you give them 200$ instead of ~50$)

Sorry, but the "nuke arguement" is a canard. This teacher isn't asking to bring a nuke into class...nor even a machine gun. She has a Glock.

Anyhoo...

That is, does this teacher's gun present a danger to her students?

Hers??? Nahhh. How could it? Guns are inanimate objects. A gun doesn't do anything at all without someone there to pull the trigger. I can't imagine a teacher, EVER, EVER shooting a student. If that has EVER happened, please let me know, cuz I have NEVER seen anything related to a teacher shooting a student.

Now, a decent arguement could be made that SHE, herself, is a provocation, and therefore presents a danger...not the gun, and not her even WITH the gun, but her husbands reaction to the gun, a point that you yourself made:

If he's really out to get his ex-wife, he's going to shoot first knowing that she's armed.

That is a very real possibility...even Lars would be forced to admit such.

However, unless we are willing to assign her a guard (setting a precedent that will shake the State to it's fiscal foundations,) or we are gonna just outright fire her to get rid of the problem, we have to allow some measure of lethal protection.

Or we don't. WE have to be willing to live with the consequences of our actions (as a whole society.) Sometimes those actions mean people die. Sometimes its in a far off land, when we must make soldiers do without adequate protection (thank you, GWB) or sometimes its around the corner when we ban the sale of cheap, but affordable handguns that have a target of low income, but legally clean people.

Now, to answer the gist of your arguement: I don't LIKE the fact that a firearm in mine or anyone's possession could kill someone. It does NOT make me feel safer at night knowing the thugs run around with guns, and that about 20 kids a year accidentally kill themselves with them. I do NOT like the fact that citizens of good stature are mowed down by evil people with no intent other than committing political chaos.

But I do sleep more comfortable knowing that there are millions of firearms in personal possession...and that the ownership of firearms passes all geopolitical and gender lines here in the US. That gives me hope that if some piss ant general decides he is going to coup or the ruling party decides that the last election truly was the last, it would not be another Rwanda, Kosovo or an Aushwitz.

On a personal level, it also gives me joy to know that our populace isn't just chattel. A citizen in our State is permitted, by law, the ability to resist, with deadly force if necessary, evil committed by bad people, provided the legal requirements are met.

""You can be an undiagnosed psychotic or you could be a criminal, a serial killer even, who just hasn't been caught and you can come onto our property with a concealed weapon and we can't do much about it," Moran said."

Yep. So true. And every single word of this can be applied to any teacher or any police officer. And that my liberal friends, is why people need to be able to respond to threats. The incidence of sexual abuse by teachers is at an all time high, but the freedom haters and the public school establishment seem quite comfortable with that. But a gun? Let the pant wetting begin.

""You can be an undiagnosed psychotic or you could be a criminal, a serial killer even, who just hasn't been caught and you can come onto our property with a concealed weapon and we can't do much about it," Moran said."

You guys mean like that off-duty cop in Wisconsin? Now I feel safe. Only cops should have guns, right?