The story about the teacher with the CCW permit in Oregon who has sued her school for the right to carry her gun is pretty much all over the place. Telling it quickly, a teacher has a CCW permit, and has a restraining order against her (apparently violent) ex-husband. Because she is concerned for her safety, she wants to be able to carry her firearm at the school district.
I actually got in an argument with a coworker over this; he thinks she shouldn’t be allowed to carry and I support her lawsuit and desire to carry at her place of employment. Unfortunately, I didn’t take notes during my discussion with my coworker, so I can’t reproduce it exactly here. However, this editorial in the Seattle Times reproduces the bulk of my coworker’s (and pretty much the rest) of the objections that I’ve heard to this teacher carrying at her school.
The school could beef up security. Or the teacher could be given a paid leave while sorting out her personal problems. The restraining order could be strengthened or broadened for maximum protection.
“Beefing up” security probably wouldn’t help, because the same problem that applies to law enforcement applies here; security cannot be everywhere at once. Since the teacher (by law) cannot bring her firearm even into the parking lot; the only “beefed up security” that could actually provide 100% protection would be a personal body guard. Now, giving her paid leave might work, as then she is still drawing her salary and can continue to carry her firearm; however it’s a poor solution. Sorting out her problems could take quite some time, and I doubt that the school board is willing to essentially place someone on a paid leave of undetermined length. Strengthening the restraining order will do nothing – if her husband has committed himself to doing violence, no piece of paper, no matter how strongly worded is going to stop him.
If teachers fearful for their safety can carry guns, what about other school employees, or students fearful of the playground bully?
Now, this part I don’t like, because the editorial author tries to equate two things that are not equal. Students fearful of the bully are not the same as adults with concealed carry permits. An adult with a permit to carry a concealed weapon has gone through a thorough background check, and in Oregon has to have undergone training. Obviously, a child bringing a gun to school is not an adult, does not posses the gun legally, has not had a background check, and hasn’t undergone training. Trying to equate the two things is absurdly false.
Oregon’s Jane Doe may fear she’s in harm’s way. But taking a gun into her classroom puts students in the same predicament.
I love the way the author ends their editorial – make a baseless appeal to emotion. How, oh author, does someone with a concealed carry permit put her students in danger? How is a gun that is going to stay in her purse, or holstered and otherwise concealed at all times present a danger to the students in that school? How does someone approved by the state government as mentally and physically competent to carry a firearm present a danger to the students?
I don’t expect answers to those questions; they can’t be answered without resorting to straw men arguments and appeals to emotion. Facts don’t lie – people who aren’t ignoring reality know that a restraining order won’t stop someone, they know that the only person responsible for your safety is you.
I love the GFWs. Let’s see… a man disregards the law and violently beats the expletive out of his wife. Man has restraining order served, realizes his mistakes, and becomes a model citizen.
Meanwhile, it is the gun-carrying lady’s fault that her ex is out to get her, and she should take personal time off. But, remove the gun and I bet they wouldn’t be singing that tune.
Well stated. Also realize that she is a VERY proactive (and brave, since this may lead to her termination for “other reasons” given the GFW nature of our school systems, and union) if she is granted paid leave other teachers could file for the same. This could add up VERY quickly, and it amounts to tax monies for teachers not teaching.
What the “Don’t carry at work” crowd never realize is that not only does banning guns from any workplace leave you unarmed during work hours, but also during your commute, and any errands you may feel the need to do before you return home.
I’m also not a huge fan of leaving a firearm locked in an unattended car. Cars are valuable enough as is, and often stolen, last thing you need to do is give a car thief your carry gun as well!
I am torn on issues like this. I think my hesitation stems from the simple fact that she needs to arm herself to protect herself from this man. I guess I just wish people were nicer to each other. I know, I know, “They’re not, so we have to protect ourselves!!” I get it, I just don’t like it.
But taking a gun into her classroom puts students in the same predicament.
What puts her students at risk is her disarmament, making it much more likely that her Ex will attack her while she’s at school and can’t do anything about it.
I’d like to know what these nit-wits think “beefing up security” means. The only practical “beefing up” would be adding armed guards, and what does that mean? Guns in the school. So why not just short-circuit it, and let the woman carry?
I hope people start taking this kind of restriction to court as the violation of civil rights it is. All the ACLU has to do is look at a school board and they roll over and piss on their belly. Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a group with deep pockets to provide that kind of litigation support and attention to 2nd Amendment issues?
Of course the ACLU is funded primarily by awards from those they sue, so maybe it wouldn’t take that much to get started. For the first time in my life, I wish I were a lawyer.
Comments are closed.