Opinion on teacher's suit
In pdf, here. The court rules against the teacher's interesting argument that the state pre-emption statute, which forbids local units to pass gun-related "ordinances," bars the school district's employment policy that teachers cannot pack. The court rules that a policy of this type is not within the ordinary meaning of "ordinance," is known to and applies only to teachers, who take their jobs subject to it.
Here's her attorney's webpage on the case, with pleadings.
This makes TWO different ways in which the NRA screwed up the Oregon preemption bill (School employment policies and Multnomath County - Portland - can ban "assault weapons"). You'd think NRA could do it correct once and then clone the bill everywhere. But they don't work that way.
Posted by: 30yearprof at November 10, 2007 10:32 AM
If we're being honest, I think that's a pretty airtight reasoning. I don't think any of us really think of school regulations as laws or ordinances.
Posted by: Don Gwinn at November 10, 2007 11:50 AM
And therefore Don Gwinn they should not supercede laws or ordinances, should they?
Posted by: straightarrow at November 10, 2007 02:41 PM
"This makes TWO different ways in which the NRA screwed up the Oregon preemption bill (School employment policies and Multnomath County - Portland - can ban "assault weapons"). "
Multnomah County CANNOT ban "assault weapons." The pre-emption statute did correct at least that much. We fully expect to appeal this decision. Both OFF and Ms Katz are very grateful for all the support gun owners from coast to coast have provided.
Posted by: Kevin Starrett at November 10, 2007 07:33 PM
So the school district can require it's non-white employees to use a separate (but equal) restroom from its white employees because it applies only to its employees? I think not. The 2nd Amendment is the law of the land. We should not allow it to be a second class right.
Posted by: RKV at November 11, 2007 06:34 AM
Making the rules at your facility more strict than the law requires is not "superceding" anything.
Shooters will live to regret it if we try to get gun rights advanced by trading away property rights.
Again, I am actually a school teacher, so I have more at stake in this than an intellectual exercise. But the argument that a school district can't make the rules for its own buildings isn't going to cut it. The First Amendment is like a tiny paper GOD to both the left and the courts, but it still isn't binding in a school if the people elected to run that school want to make rules that they and their voters think will make them safer.
This kind of judicial end-run has worked for the left in a lot of cases, but as the courts change in composition, it's all getting rolled back. Why would we do the same thing? If you can't elect members of your local school board who will even consider doing what you want, getting them forced to do it through the courts isn't going to work in the long run. Every public school in the country is run by an elected school board. Elected is the key word there.
Posted by: Don Gwinn at November 11, 2007 07:03 AM
False argument Don. The property rights in question, are public, not private. What we have here is a situation where an elective group wants to ignore state law and the US Constitution and call it a "regulation." Sigh. When will teachers ever learn logic?
Maybe the state law need to be re-written depending on what the citizens want to do about this, but allowing subsidiary governments to ignore superior ones is something we'll live to regret. Much the same issue occurs when elected state legislatures ignore the plain meaning of the Second Amendment. They are still wrong when they do it, even for "good" reasons.
"For those who
believe it to be outdated, the Second
Amendment provides a good test of
whether their allegiance is really to the
Constitution of the United States, or only
to their preferences in public policies and
audiences. The Constitution is law, not
vague aspirations, and we are obligated
to protect, defend, and apply it. If the
Second Amendment were truly an
outdated relic, the Constitution provides
a method for repeal. The Constitution
does not furnish the federal courts with
KLEINFELD, Dissent from denial of
rehearing en banc Nordyke v. King,
Posted by: RKV at November 11, 2007 08:20 AM
when you step back and look at it, what this ruling says is that the county does not trust teachers with guns as much as it does outsiders. kind of sad if you ask me.
Posted by: vinthwrench at November 11, 2007 09:16 AM
I think we can agree that we want to stop/prevent school shootings and attacks. Hardening the target is what must be done. The alternative is to disarm the entire population as England has substantially done. That ain't legal here, nor is it desirable in terms of the overall consequences of giving government a monopoly on armed force. Its not cost effective to have police standing by all day every day at each and every school. The straightforward way to deal with this is to arm and train persons who are there already. The Israelis figured this out several years ago when the Palestinians started attacking shcools. Armed teachers stopped that nonsense. We don't have to reinvent the wheel.
Posted by: RKV at November 11, 2007 09:58 AM
I sent the following to Ms Katz's attorney. He very well may have already considered these questions and and I may just be trying to advise the Pope as to how to be a Catholic.???
I have been a Texas Peace officer and/or correctional officer for just short of 37 years. In all that time I can readily recall only one instance where the person who came out on the short end of a shooting was armed with a firearm.
The most opportune time for Ms Katz’s ex to kill her would be at her job site when she is unarmed. Unless of course the school administrative personnel would be willing to take the bullets intended for her and her children while she runs to the parking lot for her Glock.
Questions: 1) Is a school district in Oregon a subdivision of government subject to open records and open meetings requirements as it is in Texas? If so, it would seem to follow that both sections of ORS 166.170 [State Preemption] would apply in support of Ms Katz’s arguments. And, Black’s definition of “Ordinance” would probably apply as well. (See “An ordinance is the equivalent of a municipal statute, passed by the city council, or equivalent body,……”) 2) Does anything in the Oregon State Department of Education Codes, which would have been passed by the Oregon legislature, contradict ORS 166.170?
It is extremely irritating to me when I read of state or local bureaucrats, along with private enterprise administrative personnel who believe they have the right to control an employee’s every waking moment just because they say they do.
Good luck with your case.
W. W Woodward
Posted by: W. W Woodward at November 11, 2007 12:54 PM
Don, A person being armed does nothing to deprive a person of their property rights. Whether I am armed or not you still posess the same things.
What someone does by disarming me is deprive me of my property ie. my gun plus they are depriving me of my right to defend my life if something should go wrong. No one should be disarming anybody no matter where they go unless that person is there with criminal intent. Than whatever means neccesary should be used to disarm them.
The 2nd does not say the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless your on someone else's property.
Posted by: jim at November 11, 2007 06:18 PM
The argument that this is a employment issue is bogus and a distraction. What is perfectly legal for a private company has been ruled - by any number of courts - as a no-no for a public entities. Consider the famous, or infamous, Christmas tree. Any private employer can place one in their building, and Jewish/Muslim/Pagan/Atheists CANNOT sue that company to force its removal. Find me a Christmas tree in ANY Oregon school.
A vague and arguable Constitutional principle has been held to prohibit public bodies from doing what their local school board and 99% of the population has no problem with, yet the argument is raised that the local school board should be able to ignore a clear directive from the state legislature.That argument is accepted by YAL (which is, after all, what a Judge is).
Once again, we see the REAL principle that drives the engine of American jurisprudence: Find some hair-splitting argument if necessary, but rule to your predjudice.
Posted by: bud at November 13, 2007 02:48 PM
The medford paper has an article supporting the ruling at
posted the following reply.
while it is admirable that the local school district can make policies to fit their concerns, I would have to disagree with the judge's ruling and encourage appeal. The ruling is based on whether the no-gun rule is a policy or ordinance.
While there are some who are pleased with this hair splitting, I would warn you that this sets bad precedence. Imagine if you will that the district also created a policy for a whites only or a Muslim only bathroom. While this would infringe on civil rights and equal protection, according to this ruling, that would be OK. crazy as it seem. Is that what the MT is advocating?
The M/Ts argument of wether a teacher is cable of weapon retention is also ill informed at best. Why not argue it for police officers who carry their weapon in the open. Why not argue it about car keys, since autos cause a magnitude more of death than guns. The skill of weapon retention is easily taught and is a basic responsibility of CCW carriers.
Further I find much disgust in the fact that the 529C holds the lives of teachers in such low regard that are willing to disarm them and trade their control of personal safety and the safety of the students to appease the politics of gun control. There have never been any cases of teachers with CCW shooting up schools, but we have examples of teachers and students who quelled the gunman long before law enforcement arrived. We also have many examples of where an armed teacher could have saved many lives.
self-defense is a basic human right. Why squander it over politics.
Posted by: VINTHEWRENCH at November 14, 2007 11:25 AM