Teacher sues over CCW in Oregon

FYI,

http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/09.10.07%20alert.html

:>)

Honestly, it's hard for me to see how the district doesn't have the right to forbid its employees to carry. They're the ones on the hook if anything happens to any one of the little darlings; since it's their responsibility, it's their authority.

I'm a school teacher, and I do wish I had the right to go armed. There have been specific families in the past, for instance, who've made me wonder if we were going to make the news, and there still are. But I wasn't elected to the school board, I was hired to teach. If the school board thinks the school is safer with no armed good guys, then that's their call.

Don,

If the school board thinks the school is safer with no armed good guys, then that's their call.

I suggest we revoke it--they are mind-bogglingly incompetent in their exercise of it.

They're the ones on the hook if anything happens to any one of the little darlings; since it's their responsibility, it's their authority.

I think both sides of the argument here in the comments are right. It's not up to the teacher to defy the school board, but it is up to the people to pressure the schoolboard to change, if they don't agree with the schoolboard's positions. Some folks from oregonfirearms.org should run for the schoolboard.

Of course, depending on the language in the CCW, the schoolboard may not have a legal right to prohibit licensed teachers from carrying, in which case, more power to the teacher challenging the board.

The Constitution establishes the sovereign will of the people and that the safety and security of the people rests in a well regulated militia. The school board's actions not only disarms the militia, it violates the public policy of the state. Plona v. UPS, 2007 WL 509747 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 13). and Feliciano v. 7-Eleven, Inc. 599 S.E.2d 713, 210 W. Va. 740 (November 30, 2001).

"We answer the latter question quickly. Article I, section 27, clearly guarantees the right to bear arms for purposes of defense -- specifically, "for the defence of [the people] themselves, and the State." See Kessler, 289 Or at 371 (clarifying that the "defence of themselves" wording includes right "to possess certain arms for defense of person and property" (emphasis added)). Although the parties do not focus their arguments on that part of the constitutional provision, the "defence" wording nonetheless is significant, because it serves to limit the scope of the constitutionally protected conduct at issue in these cases. Specifically, Article I, section 27, precludes the legislature from infringing on the people's right to bear arms for purposes of defense, but not for purposes other than defense. It follows that Article I, section 27, does not preclude the legislature from prohibiting persons convicted of felonies -- or any other persons -- from owning or possessing firearms for other than defensive purposes." State v. Hirsch, 114 P.3d 1104 (Or. 2005).

If the Medford School District were a private institution, they would be perfectly within their purview to ban any damned thing they wanted.

BUT... they're not. They are a governemt institution, and, as such, are held to a different standard. As an illustration, Wal-Mart can put up a Christmas Tree, and call it such. Think about what would happen were the MSD to try that.

I just heard a rumor on a talk show that the school district is so afraid of this lawsuit (as are all GFW groups) that they are going to offer to put the teacher on permanent, paid administrative leave for the rest of her career, just so they don't have to deal with the question of CCW on school property.

If true, it would cost anywhere between $70-100K/yr, which could amount to seven figures easily. It shows just how far the GFW culture will go not to have to backpeadal on any of their un-Constitutional anti-gun positions.

I have a problem with ANY institution tell someone that rights protected under law are not valid on their property. Who gave them the right to change the laws to suit themselves?

I have a problem with ANY institution tell someone that rights protected under law are not valid on their property. Who gave them the right to change the laws to suit themselves?

"You are free to stay off their property."

That might be true in the case of private property. It most certainly isn't the case in Oregon on public property. The states preemption (ORS 166.170) specifically forbids any entity but the legislature from regulating firearms. So...Sounds like Grey is right on. To answer his question, "Noone gave them the right to change the laws."

If that is the case, then I concede the point.

I should have said "If it's private property, then you can retain your right to be armed by staying off it."

Oh goody, I have private property, maybe I can lure some young lovelies onto it so I may do what I want with them. I mean the law won't apply here, right? Nor will their rights to be unmolested, because they are on private property. I could rob them, rape them, kill them and you would support my right to do so on private property, right Peter Boucher? Right?

Or is it just possible that some rights apply everyGoddamnedwhere?

Straight Arrow,

You have the right to free speech, but I can make you leave my property if I don't like what you say. Likewise, I don't have to let you on my property with your gun. Neither of these facts implies that I can rape people who come to my house.

I'm not anti-gun, I'm pro-gun and pro-property rights.

You seem to have some hostility issues that need addressing.

If you want a school to be just as restricted in dealing with its own employees as the federal goverment is in dealing with the average citizen, that's your call (much the same as my previous point that it's the school board's call--and I agree with you about as much.)

I wouldn't want my kids in that school.

Remember the guy after 9/11 who got into trouble for burning an American flag in the classroom and trying to incite his students to rise up in rebellion against the Great Satan?
By your logic, he had every right to do that--doesn't he have the right to free speech?

Or the guy just a few weeks ago who got fired because instead of teaching art class, he was indoctrinating the kids that drinking milk kills and only vegans are decent people. Hey, free speech and all that--how dare they fire that guy?

If it is a private school I'd agree with you Don. Public schools are part of the government.

In a government school, you want teachers to be allowed the same rights of free speech and religious freedom and free association they'd have on the street corner? And the school should not have the ability to respond by firing them?
Why is that desirable because it's a government school?

It's not desirable because it's a government school; it's desirable because it's government. Given that the federal government has its fingers in so many pies -- and in some cases, actively trying to prevent anyone else from starting work in some of those sectors like nuclear technology or education -- it doesn't take a Randian Objectivist to realize that many fields could quickly turn into an example of toeing the political or religious line or being permanently out of a job.

As an aside, the government does have the ability to act more against an employee than someone on the street corner in that sort of situation. Anything that could be remotely shown as incitement to an imminent unlawful act can be very easily acted against under modern interpretations of the 1st. Same goes for anything defamatory or, within many situations, factually untrue.

There is also no requirement for the local or federal government to keep an employee simply because they've made free speech : if it significantly and negatively effects someone's performance review, the government can quite justly terminate employment (at least within the terms of their union contract).

On the other hand, we're looking at law that's pretty notably different -- the teacher wants to do nothing that would violate the law, or affect his or her job performance negatively, or even be visible.

Would you be comfortable with teachers being banned from daring to talk about politics in the break room?

Actually peter boucher what you say does imply that you can because I have no rights on your property in your opinion.

I do have. Period. And only a very foolish man would say otherwise. I don't have the right to come onto private property uninvited or disinvited. But if I am there only a very foolish man would try to deprive me of what is mine. If I stay when unwelcome then you have a right to do what is necessary to remove me, but you do not have the right tell me to shut up, or disarm, or assume the position or any damn thing else.

Only an idiot would do so on property I partially own, such as a public school.

It seems we are drowning in idiots, some of whom think they are on our side.

Actually peter boucher what you say does imply that you can because I have no rights on your property in your opinion.

If you choose to enter my property against my wishes, you are tresspassing.

Re: the rape angle, if I say you can't come on my property unless you consent to sex, I still don't have the right to rape you if you withdraw your consent, but I do have the right to eject you from my property.

I do have. Period. And only a very foolish man would say otherwise. I don't have the right to come onto private property uninvited or disinvited. But if I am there only a very foolish man would try to deprive me of what is mine. If I stay when unwelcome then you have a right to do what is necessary to remove me, but you do not have the right tell me to shut up, or disarm, or assume the position or any damn thing else.