A Second Amendment Case of First Impression
[Guest post by DRJ]
A pistol-packing teacher from Oregon is suing to bring her gun to school …
From the AP via the Houston Chronicle (naturally):
“English teacher Shirley Katz insists she needs to take her pistol with her to school because she fears her ex-husband could show up and try to harm her. She’s also worried about a Columbine-style attack.
But Katz’s district has barred teachers from bringing guns to school, so she is challenging the ban as unlawful, since Oregon is among states that allow people with a permit to carry concealed weapons into public buildings.
“This is primarily about my Second Amendment right and Oregon law and the simple fact that I know it is my right to carry that gun,” said Katz, 44, sitting at the kitchen table of her home outside this city of 74,000. “I have that (concealed weapons) permit. I refuse to let my ex-husband bully me. And I am not going to let the school board bully me, either.”
Oregon issues concealed-weapons permits to “anyone whose criminal record is clean and who completes a gun-safety course.” Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia prohibit guns in schools but this case may test whether those restrictions override concealed-carry permits. Nationally, this appears to be a case of first impression and it’s unclear what will happen in Oregon:
“Oregon had a school shooting in 1998, when student Kip Kinkel killed his parents at home, then drove to school and opened fire in the cafeteria of Thurston High School in Springfield, killing two and wounding 25 others.
Since then, the Legislature has considered barring people with concealed weapons permits from carrying guns in schools, but the bills have failed, said Dori Brattain, general counsel to the Oregon School Boards Association.”
In the meantime, Katz says she is ready:
“Katz won’t say whether she has ever taken her gun to school, but she practices with it regularly and has thought about what she would do if she had to confront a gunman. She would be sure students were locked in nearby offices out of the line of fire, and she would be ready with her pistol.
“Our safety plan at our school now is that if somebody threatening comes in, you try to avoid eye contact, and do whatever they say, and that is not acceptable anymore,” she said. Shootings at Virginia Tech University and the one-room Amish school in Pennsylvania, “reinforced my belief we have to take action, we can’t just acquiesce as we have been taught to do.”
Katz’s ex-husband says this is a ploy:
“Shirley Katz said she bought her own gun in 2004 after Gerry Katz grabbed her by the throat and threatened to kill her — an allegation he denies. He argues that her desire to take her gun to school is about reopening their divorce to get exclusive custody of their 6-year-old daughter.
“She’s just scamming everybody,” he said. “As soon as this thing started … I called the principal at her high school and told her … I am not coming to your school. I am not a threat to her. I have no desire to hurt her.”
Katz admits that, even if she wins, she may not carry her pistol because the purpose of concealed-carry is that people don’t know you have a weapon, noting: “So I feel like my carrying concealed on campus now sets me up as a target.”
— DRJ
The school district is permitting students to opt out of her class. I wouldn’t want my kid to run the risk of being shot while she and her ex engage in a shootout. The only legal issue is whether the school district can override Oregon’s carry law. Students, of course, are prohibited from bringing scissors to school.
steve (ca97c2) — 10/8/2007 @ 7:02 pmI wouldn’t want my kid to run the risk of being shot while she and her ex engage in a shootout
And they’d be at less risk if her ex could corner her in the classroom with the absolute knowledge that she would be unarmed there????
Um… does the phrase “hot burglary” ring any bells?
Darleen (187edc) — 10/8/2007 @ 7:15 pmAll I know is you said “ex husband”, implying she’s not married, and “gun”, implying she carries.
Whoa, someone get me an air conditioner, I think I’m burning up here. Where is this girl at again?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/8/2007 @ 7:17 pmHeh.
Russell (a32796) — 10/8/2007 @ 7:18 pmI don’t see that this case has any Second Amendment issues myself. It is my belief that the Second Amendment does not create a constitutional right to carry arms in one’s workplace. This seems to me to strictly be a question of statutory interpretation of Oregon law.
That said, I can’t sort out who is more credible here, her or her ex but I wish her success.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/8/2007 @ 7:32 pmHeck if they want to let you opt *out*– can parents have their kids opt *in?!*
I’d honest to God pay extra to have my kids taken care of by a teacher who can shoot any criminal or terrorist SOBs who show up, and I’m more willing to trust in her good aim than a criminal’s good will!
Anyone remember those poor kids that were taken captive in their school by terrorists?
Now imagine they try it with THIS gal.
Foxfier (97deae) — 10/8/2007 @ 7:32 pmAnd they’d be at less risk if her ex could corner her in the classroom with the absolute knowledge that she would be unarmed there????
They’d be at less risk in another class. If she thinks she is going to be attacked, she should not get students in the way.
steve (ca97c2) — 10/8/2007 @ 7:33 pmSteve– so no women with violent ex’s should be allowed to teach school?
I can’t imagine you believe that, but it sure sounds like that’s what you’re saying.
Foxfier (97deae) — 10/8/2007 @ 7:40 pmShe should be fired immediately. The kids in her class are not responsible for her marital troubles and they should not be in the line of fire between her and her husband. As for the “Columbine” crap, she’s my first suspect. She’s a flake.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/8/2007 @ 7:51 pmnk, firing all women teachers who are victims of domestic violence is insane. There are certain risks in life including that one.
She has a right to her day in court where I expect her to lose. She should not be fired for fighting for her rights provided she respects the court’s verdict and there is no evidence she poses a threat to the children. Someone threatening her isn’t sufficient. Rather, it argues in her favor for the need for security, whether provided by herself or the school system.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/8/2007 @ 7:56 pmErr, Christoph, would you hire her as your kids’ babysitter knowing only what we know about her now?
nk (6e4f93) — 10/8/2007 @ 8:11 pmChristoph #3,
Hee hee hee… but what makes you think she’d have anything to do with a durned Canadian?
Leviticus (244ce4) — 10/8/2007 @ 8:30 pmWell, when she sees my gun she’d probably swoon. Caliber matters.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/8/2007 @ 8:33 pmDam! How did I miss Christoph’s #3? So what happened with the Australian girl?
nk (6e4f93) — 10/8/2007 @ 8:36 pmIt’s a joke. She and I are very much in love and are making plans to take it further. We had a great three months together earlier this year. But my Australian girl knows how I feel about chicks with guns…
😛
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/8/2007 @ 8:38 pmC’mon, man… she’s from Oregon! She’s from America! No self-respecting Oregonian woman is gonna swoon over a Canadian .22…
Leviticus (244ce4) — 10/8/2007 @ 8:40 pmDude, it’s the rimfire nature of the .22 cartridge that allows me to come in at a different angle, that gives women an unexpected, but most welcome, effect.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/8/2007 @ 8:42 pmSo anyone who has a nutjob ex to worry about should be fired so as not to endanger others in their workplace, perhaps.
Chalk one up for the nutjobs.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/8/2007 @ 8:49 pmnk, in the past I’ve been impressed with your consistently reasonable posts, so I was quite startled by your comments at #9 above.
What, no question of whether her performance is adequate or not?
First, let me point out that she isn’t married! She doesn’t have “marital troubles,” she has a problem with a potentially violent attacker; and not only should the kids in her class “not be in the line of fire,” neither should she! You then go on to characterize her thus:
I’m guessing that you don’t have a concealed weapons license (CWL): but if she does, the chances that she is a “flake” are exceedingly small considering the application and licensing process.
You go to ask Christoph in #11:
and I have to tell you, there isn’t anything that we know about her so far that would exclude my hiring her as a “babysitter” for my daughter, and her having a CWL is actually an asset in my book.
As it happens, I carry a concealed firearm wherever I am legally allowed to. Prior to our engagement, we discovered that my wife was being stalked, and had been stalked for quite some time previous by an old boyfriend. Seems only prudent since the stalker was willing to communicate an interstate threat to me, and my wife believes that he could be violent to her or resort to hurting our daughter.
Does that make me a flake? Or just an experienced military and law enforcement veteran?
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 10/8/2007 @ 8:50 pmgeez, nk, you sound like one of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s neighbors.
Darleen (187edc) — 10/8/2007 @ 9:15 pmSorry EW1(SG),
I have owned guns since I was sixteen-years old and know how to use them. But I would never take my daughter anywhere where I needed to carry a gun. Similarly, I would not send her into a situation where the only need for a gun was because of her caregiver. Between the teacher, her ex-husband and the schoolchildren, who’s least at fault and who should be protected the most?
The “Columbine” remark raised my hackles and caused me to call the lady a flake. What’s there in the article to suggest that it’s anything other than her fantasy?
nk (6e4f93) — 10/8/2007 @ 9:20 pmnk, you’re off base here. Make whatever decision you want re: your daughter, but the state can’t “immediately” fire every person who’s threatened by another person. No one would ever be a teacher, paediatrician, bus driver, children’s retail store owner, etc., if they knew they’d lose their livelihood in these circumstances. Your position is… extreme and ill-thought out.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/8/2007 @ 9:25 pmWell, nk, mass murders in schools are a growing social epidemic with a lot of copycatting going on, not a fantasy. I think the court may well decide against her, but your position is she should be fired because of the threat by her ex, which is just not supportable in society.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/8/2007 @ 9:26 pmYou don’t know when you need to carry a gun. I’d say you “need” to the moment someone decides to harm either of you, which can happen anywhere. This is why many states have concealed carry permits in the first place.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/8/2007 @ 9:27 pmnk,
Where are the places where you need to carry a gun? Do you know beforehand where you might later wish you’d had one?
EW(1)SG,
Pablo (99243e) — 10/8/2007 @ 9:32 pmDid you guys have a new bundle of joy, or are you referring to “Teh eyebrow”? If it’s the former, congrats and my best to all, regardless.
Yeah, Pablo, unless you’re planning on offing someone, I don’t know how you’d “know” you need a gun.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/8/2007 @ 9:33 pmOk, guys,
Maybe you’re all professional gunfighters who can rely on your fast draw and dead-eye aim to save you. Not me. I rely on a community with a zero crime-rate and a police force a minute away. And knowing what other communities are like mine to drive through.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/8/2007 @ 9:37 pmChristoph #22,
The lady condemned herself.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/8/2007 @ 9:39 pmI don’t carry a gun. It’s not legal in my country. I do carry a knife openly, which is legal, but it’s a dual use device and frankly I mostly use it for cutting string and for opening the prepackaged coffee at the supermarket so I can grind it. In a fight it is very unlikely I’d use it for legal reasons, but also tactical. I have a certain level of training that makes the advantage the knife gives me much smaller than for most people and I’d fight identically with or without it.
But… I DON’T know when or if violence will strike and it, or the threat of it, HAS happened at unexpected times so… mentally at least… I’m always prepared and you should be too.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/8/2007 @ 9:40 pmPut another way, if I was a teacher I’d absolutely have a plan for something like Columbine and, in fact, all schools have such plans. Armed resistance isn’t the plan and I understand that. That doesn’t mean an armed individual within the approx. 9 feet or so where the gun ceases to be much of a tactical advantage against a highly trained adversary would find me all full of sweetness and love.
Or more accurately, they would. For my students and my family whom I’d want to see again.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/8/2007 @ 9:42 pmnk 28, you’re making the victim the “condemned” now, literally, by your own words. As I say, your position is ill-thought out and backwards. You’re a liberal when it comes to guns obviously. “Rely on” your “community” and “zero crime rate”.
I live in a great neighbourhood full of loving people. But I don’t rely on it.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/8/2007 @ 9:45 pmnk, let’s say it’s September of last year, and you’ve just sent your daughter to the peaceful, idyllic campus of Virginia Tech. And let’s say she takes Science classes in Norris Hall. And you know now what you didn’t know then.
Would you want there to be more than one person carrying a gun into that building on April 16 of this year?
And would you, back last September, have considered that building full of classrooms to be a place where you needed to carry a gun?
Pablo (99243e) — 10/8/2007 @ 9:51 pmChristoph #31,
I’m no gunfighter and I doubt the teacher is much of one either. It’s not just knowing how to shoot but also when and whom to shoot and if you can bring yourself to shoot. I’ll stick to learning law and pay the police to learn shooting.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/8/2007 @ 9:52 pmWell, this thread is getting almost as silly as the Armegeddon thread.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/8/2007 @ 9:53 pmWell, she’s obviously passed the Rubicon of being willing to shoot and good for her under the circumstances. Second, you don’t need to be a pro, although I guess I was once by definition. With decent training, a gun increases your odds of surviving dramatically. And much more so for a woman than a man due to the strength difference between the two (a man being more likely to be able to fight off an unarmed violent assault).
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/8/2007 @ 9:55 pmGod forbid gun control and usage should be discussed on a thread about the second amendment or nuclear war effects and strategy should be discussed on a thread of… well, “Armageddon”.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/8/2007 @ 9:58 pmPablo #32,
Knowing what I know about Virginia Tech now, I would never have sent my daughter there in the first place. When she goes to college and if I’m still around we’ll pick one one that screens out psychos.
And yes, I’m speculating that she’ll be mature enough at age nine for me to start her shooting with a .22 rifle.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/8/2007 @ 10:00 pmGood luck with that, nk.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/8/2007 @ 10:05 pmnk, you’re showing yourself as a fool.
There are tens of thousands of people on that campus. No organization that size can screen out all psychos. Nothing in this world will guarantee your daughter will not face aggressive and evil men.
She’s entering her sexual. I pray to God nothing but good things happen for her… but it is not guaranteed. If she understood how to apply force, with and without a gun, the odds of her not only surviving but controlling her own body and not being in abusive relationships could only increase.
But the question here is whether a person who’s being threatened by an abusive ex-husband should be able to carry a gun and the state of Oregon says yes. Now the courts will decide whether this carries to her workplace and I don’t know their answer.
But fire her? Because her ex-husband may be violent? A lot of men are violent… we can’t go firing all their wives, girlfriends, and exes. Jesus.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/8/2007 @ 10:05 pmSorry, I misread your comment. Your daughter is very young. I meant when she goes off to college and starts dating.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/8/2007 @ 10:06 pmAnd I meant she’s entering her “sexual and dating prime”, but truncated it. Again, my apologies. I pictured your daughter heading off to college about now, and was mistaken.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/8/2007 @ 10:07 pmNo problem, Christoph.
Anyway, this thread is not about me. I agree that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. But it does not impose an obligation on me to believe that America is Darfur.
Hmm, maybe it is about me. Goodnight all.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/8/2007 @ 10:29 pmguns don’t belong in schools. she’s subordinating the safety of the children in her class to her own gunslinger fantasy. if the gun goes off somehow and an innocent child dies, the people on this board supporting her carry rights would call it collateral damage.
assistant devil's advocate (c1c2e5) — 10/8/2007 @ 10:31 pmada, I’m not even sure if I support her position. But a court can decide that after looking at Oregon’s law.
I’m mostly disagreeing strongly with nk’s position that she should be fired or that gun’s aren’t really necessary at all and it makes sense for him to “rely on” his zero crime rate neighborhood, etc. I want a good neighborhood, but being ready and willing to defend yourself doesn’t make a bad one.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/8/2007 @ 10:43 pmA reminder:
Columbine HS was a “gun-free” zone;
Virginia Tech was a “gun-free” zone.
“Gun-free” zones could also be classified as “free-fire” zones for criminals, as they are pretty much guaranteed that there won’t be any opposition to their perfidy.
The Oregon legislature has refused to take up legislation that would specifically prohibit the carrying of licensed weapons upon school premises.
It seems that the people of Oregon, through their duley elected representatives, have decided (at least at this point) that self-defense is a rational, public policy, regardless of the location of the individual.
BTW, nk, if you won’t take family members anywhere there might be “flakes”, it seems you won’t be going out much.
Another Drew (a28ef4) — 10/8/2007 @ 11:07 pmnk says:
Not at all. But since the safety and security of my family is very important to me, I feel it incumbent on me to educate myself about how best to protect them.
And, as I mentioned above, my circumstance is a little different since I have a known threat to deal with; much like Ms. Katz in the news story.
First of all, NO community has a “zero crime-rate.” Even in the small, affluent village I live in, a young girl was recently abducted and disappeared without a trace~and no, a firearm wouldn’t appear to have prevented that. But just because crime isn’t immediately apparent doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening.
Prior to our engagement, my wife and daughter lived in Tampa Police District 2; an area that has declined into a veritable cess pit over my wife’s lifetime. In fact, she lived only blocks away from Busch Gardens, a major destination attraction. How many tourists are aware that the route they drive to get there takes them through a criminal combat zone?
And police who are “a minute away?” What good are they when a home invasion and accompanying violence take but moments to perpetrate?
nk, nobody is suggesting that America is Darfur, only that we have long recognized the right of an individual in this country to protect themself, by force of arms if necessary. And just because some of us have specific reasons for believing that might be necessary doesn’t (necessarily) make us flakes.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 10/9/2007 @ 4:12 amI was arrogant and condescening in a lot of ways. Still, it is her messed up personal situation which raises the specter of a “Columbine”. Remove her and there goes the specter. And her ex-husband should be very careful, maybe even accompanied by a police officer, when he goes to pick up his daughter. It sounds to me that she’s setting him up to be “self-defensed” or maybe “Mary Winklered”?
nk (6e4f93) — 10/9/2007 @ 4:53 amQuoting nk at #21:
An admirable intention, to be sure. But as others have noted…how can you know?
Well, you appear to have an advantage there, since the “need for a gun” in our case is “because of her” mother. Not sure that finding another mother for our daughter is really all that practical.
I think you’re looking in the wrong end of the telescope here. Who’s most at fault? Why, it’s the ex-husband who seems to be threatening violence! And we should all be protected from him. But because of the way the law is structured, there isn’t much we can do about him until after he’s committed a crime~and then, usually only one that piques the interest of the state into prosecuting him.
In military and law enforcement, it’s called anticipating a situation and training to deal with it rather than calling it a “fantasy.” And since Oregon has had its own Columbine like incident at Thurston, in a community where you wouldn’t think such a thing possible, I presume that’s why she brings it up: Its been known to happen, and not all that far up the road from her.
#43 assistant devil’s advocate:
Baloney. At my high school, less than an hour’s drive north of Ms. Katz’s location, it was common on any given day for about half of the cars in the parking lot to have firearms in them, many in plain view in gunracks. In addition to which, there was the gun club, the skeet club … you get the idea. My point is that Ms. Katz lives in an area where guns aren’t regarded as much more than tools, dangerous tools, but tools nonetheless. To impute some “gunslinger fantasy” is silly.
Guns don’t just go “off somehow,” and part of the licensing requirement she’s passed is a knowledge of gun safety. So your attempt to impugn licensed concealed weapons carriers as dangerous maladroits who care so little for life as to callously brush off the deaths of little children as “collateral damage” is not only ridiculously inaccurate, when the whole reason for carrying is the preservation of life, it’s damn insulting.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 10/9/2007 @ 4:59 am#47 nk:
It actually sounds to me like she’s annoyed by a nannylike school bureaucracy that is overreaching, and she’s decided to make a stand.
We seem to have crossposted above, Columbine and Thurston weren’t the result of domestic violence, and it would be very unusual for a domestic violence incident to escalate to Colombine like proportions. (Although it does happen, viz the multiple murders in Wisconsin recently.)
In her situation, she is most likely to be vulnerable when entering and leaving the school, rather than in the classroom. But because of the current policy, she’s prevented from carrying at the times she most needs to!
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 10/9/2007 @ 5:12 amEW1–very well said.
I’d like to add that I really wish schools would have gun education classes.
Why?
Because I am a small woman. And I think it’s BS that folks keep telling me to take “self defense classes” if I feel threatened– as if a 5′ nothing woman can do anything against a 6′ man who wants to hurt her.
The idea that I should lose my job and that my children should count on the good will of those who are law-breakers is simply insane. I’d rather arm those who have shown they’re dependable and make sure that there is *always* a chance that criminals— especially violent criminals who target the weak and vulnerable– will end up facing at least one gun.
NK- 9 is plenty old enough for a .22 rifle, if you get one with a short enough butt on it. (You may have to get it sawed off and put a new rest on it– my folks did. Most comfortable gun I own, to this day.)
Foxfier (97deae) — 10/9/2007 @ 5:16 amThanks, Foxfier. It will be a question of mental and emotional maturity more than ergonomics, though. BTW: My high school did have gun education classes and I got a subscription to “American Rifleman” too. But it was a different time and in a lot of ways a different place.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/9/2007 @ 5:29 amP.S. My college had an indoor range, as well, and provided the rifles. We only paid for the ammunition.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/9/2007 @ 5:32 amThat the husband says that is, I think, fundamentally meaningless — what would you expect the guy, if (and I do say and mean “if”) he has choked and threatened her: “The bitch better not carry a gun or I’ll slap her around more?”
Yes, if she’s phonied up a threat, she’s despicable; on the other hand, letting any teacher’s ex get him or her fired by making a threat has some obvious downsides.
Joel Rosenberg (677e59) — 10/9/2007 @ 5:38 amnk:
Which is why we haven’t started taking our daughter shooting yet, even though she’s older than yours.
In some ways worse, and some better.
Interestingly, my child’s elementary school, in addition to some standard liberal education school pabulum, taught the kids that “All maps are lies…Why are all maps lies? Because the world is always changing.” A lesson we have used to great advantage to get her to think for herself.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 10/9/2007 @ 5:41 amnk has been right since the beginning, I think.
EW1(SG)- You carry a gun in a public place to protect your family (which is fine). This lady is carrying a gun in a school to protect herself (which isn’t).
It’s fine that she wants to protect herself, but if she’s willing to do it at the possible cost of young lives, then she needs to find a new profession.
Leviticus (68eff1) — 10/9/2007 @ 6:12 amIts a right granted by the 2nd amendment of the constitution and it liberal dipwads for a liberal school district cants understand what that means then they can take a hike and get another job
krazy kagu (f674df) — 10/9/2007 @ 6:31 am#55 Leviticus:
No, I carry in public and private places to protect me, so that I can continue to protect my family whether they are physically with me or not at any given moment.
And I’m sorry, you just can’t get much more public than a municipally owned school. So why exactly is it wrong for her to protect herself? Who the heck is she supposed to protect?
Where in the world do you get the idea that “she’s willing to do it at the possible cost of young lives” when one of the reasons she gives for wanting to assert her right to carry is to protect those young lives if necessary?
When climb in my car and drive to the grocery, there is always a chance that a small child will dart out in front of my car in the parking lot and die because of the impact. Does that make me willing to go to the grocery “at the possible cost of young lives?” Of course not! And neither does willing to be proactive about protecting yourself and others infer that you are doing so with wanton disregard for the lives of others.
The reason to carry is to preserve life. If that’s not why you carry, then you are a criminal.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 10/9/2007 @ 8:25 amHmmph. Dropped a pronoun up there, should be “When I climb in my car…”
And from personal experience, when we discovered that my wife was being stalked, she was attending a school with a “no weapons” policy (above and beyond state limitations).
One of our criteria for selecting schools now is making sure that our carry rights aren’t abrogated~it can be a very lonely and intimidating walk across a huge parking lot knowing that someone is watching you with malice in their heart.
And, as Foxfier notes, telling her to take “self defense classes” just doesn’t cut the mustard.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 10/9/2007 @ 8:34 ami’m a gun owner, occasional hunter, 2nd amendment supporter, but i don’t have the right to carry a gun everywhere i go, nor do i feel the need. the right of children to be safe in their classrooms is equal or greater. ms. katz is anticipating a gunbattle in her classroom. if we take her at her word, then we have to weigh her self-defense interest against the safety of 20-30 children, knowing that if guns become widespread in classrooms, sooner or later miss simpson will have to go to the can, leaving her purse on her desk, and little billy will see the gun in that purse, pull it out and playfully kill little tommy and little susie. this will happen inevitably, eventually, even if ms. katz never gets attacked in her classroom. i don’t have a problem with high school students/licensed hunters having rifles in their gunracks during deer season, i have a problem with deadly weapons brought into the presence of innocent children in anticipation of violence. the children’s safety interest will prevail, just you watch.
assistant devil's advocate (630930) — 10/9/2007 @ 9:18 amYeah, Leviticus, re: your comment #55 and EW1(SG)’s rebuttal at 57, how the hell can you say:
Huh?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/9/2007 @ 9:46 amADA, your comment makes no sense. I can’t see the rationality in claiming that the solution to Ms. Katz’ concern about being attacked is to ensure that she is defenseless.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/9/2007 @ 10:11 amI think sometimes society has to look at the big picture even in cases where the little picture (the children she teaches) are most important. Referring to nk’s point and repeating myself, a lot of men are violent… we can’t go firing all their wives, girlfriends, and exes.
As far as whether she should be allowed to carry a guy, I think this should be allowed if she meets the requirements for a concealed carry permit, but am also interested in the school’s rebuttal and whether they have any other type of security plan in place negating the necessity of her doing this. Plus, the state’s court will have to look at the law and hear the school’s position before deciding… I respect the process and would reserve a final opinion until each side has made their case.
I can see practical arguments on both sides whatever the law is. Ultimately though, gun-free zones are potential shooting galleries if recent experience is anything to go by.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/9/2007 @ 10:17 amassistant devil’s advocate says:
That’s nice.
Really? With support like yours it won’t be long until the 2nd Amendment is nothing but meaningless drivel.
Nobody has insisted that you do. Private property owners are quite free to restrict your behavior, and their property rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights. Many other examples exist as well.
I don’t always “feel the need” either. I’m quite comfortable onboard a Naval Station without feeling the need to be armed myself. But when I alone am responsible for the safety of my family and myself, then it’s silly not to prepare as best I can for all contingencies.
Bzzzt! I’ll agree with equal, but not greater. There are some other Constitutional clauses that apply, but it’s disingenuous to suggest that Ms. Katz is less entitled to the safety of her person than any other citizen just because of her age.
I really have no idea where you got that notion, nothing in the story even remotely suggests it!
Her “word” is that not only does she have a personal concern for her own safety, she is willing to take on the onus of responsibility to a much greater degree than an ordinary teacher would for the safety of her students. Further, you’re blaming the victim here, Ms. Katz isn’t a criminal; and at this point, her ex-husband is only a potential criminal.
Very few people who are elegible to acquire a concealed weapons license do so. Florida’s (2003) population was about 17,019,068; and currently has issued about 410,000 CWLs. That equates to about 2.4% of the population, and assuming that most Floridians are law abiding and elegible for a license probably reflects the general interest in obtaining a CWL, even without correcting for confounding factors. So the idea that guns are somehow going to become “widespread in classrooms” is a dog that won’t hunt.
Ridiculous. Somebody responsible enough to consider carrying in a classroom situation is going to be responsible enough to prevent such an outlandish scenario. In fact, when I carry, the first thing I protect is my firearm so that it can’t be used against me or my family.
I am going to guess that you meant “expectation of violence” rather than “anticipation.” Nobody enters a classroom with the expectation of violence, the reason for carrying is the anticipation of preventing violence, even in a classroom. As I said above, the reason for carrying is the preservation of life, and I’m glad that you don’t carry because I don’t think you grasp that distinction.
No, unfortunately it won’t; and in many places has already been subordinated to “feel good” solutions that are worse than the problem they are intended to solve.
For a different perspective on “safety interest,” I invite you to visit graphic artist Oleg Volk’s website: A Human Right. If nothing else, I guarantee its entertaining, and hopefully thought provoking as well.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 10/9/2007 @ 10:38 amthe children’s safety interest will prevail, just you watch.
Just like it did at Virginia Tech? The “no guns allowed” thing worked so very well there, after all– the folks who followed the rules got killed, the ones willing to break the rules didn’t mind that there was one more. Fish in a bucket.
I’m just amused that we’re willing to trust this woman with the minds of our children, but the instant she wants to actually *defend* herself–thus also being able to defend her students–she’s some kind of a maniac.
Foxfier (f765f6) — 10/9/2007 @ 10:57 amHave a law like in florida called THE CASTLE DOCTIRNE which states a person can use a gun in defense of life and property and if the lying BRADY CAMPAIGN and its fearless leader DANNIS HENNGAN dont like it then they can take a hike
krazy kagu (d59162) — 10/9/2007 @ 12:10 pmHear, hear little birdie.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/9/2007 @ 12:12 pm#64 Foxfier:
Hear, hear!
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 10/9/2007 @ 12:17 pmI’m sorry I smothered my main point by chanelling Harry Carey last night. The only reason those kids might be in danger is because of her. Ok, her ex-husband may well be the lightning and she only the lightning rod. But there’s no reason the parents of those kids should rely on her shooting skills for their kids’ safety when their kids will be safer if she is not around them.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/9/2007 @ 12:25 pmI think a world where we (and does this apply to only women? As often as women are threatened in domestic disputes, men are far more often the victims of violent assaults) fire those who are threatened by others would be sad. In my opinion, your position is crazy.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/9/2007 @ 12:27 pmI have also forgotten how to spell. Honest, I did not pour No.5 on Harey Carey last night. 😉
nk (6e4f93) — 10/9/2007 @ 12:50 pmAnd I’m not advocating firing her “because she’s threatened”. You can read better than that. I’m advocating firing her because she’s the reason for a threat to innocent third parties. What if instead of her ex-husband she was in danger from her bookie for not paying bad debts? Or from her hairdresser for bad-mouthing him after a bad dye job?
Oh, and she’s the one who went ballistic with “Columbine” innuendos and a lawsuit when she should have handled it quietly with school security and the police.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/9/2007 @ 1:02 pmAt 68 from nk:
The problem is, that the only danger that we know about! And we only know that she considers herself at risk because she went public about it.
How many teachers in your child’s school are involved in potentially violent domestic situations? There just isn’t any way to know, because they aren’t under any obligation to disclose that to anyone.
As Ms. Katz herself points out, even if she were allowed to carry at school, she might not because the deterrent value alone might be enough to accomplish her goal of personal safety. And often, the display alone of a firearm is sufficient to interrupt a potentially violent situation.
Ms. Katz shows the courage to stand up and be proactive. It could well be that her students are safer in any situation that requires an active response from a teacher: a fire, for example. At least she’s not a shrinking violet.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 10/9/2007 @ 1:12 pmThat may all be true, NK, but you can’t deprive everyone of the right to carry (even in schools) just because of a fact situation involving one person. It seems to me there are at least 2 questions here:
First, should people be allowed to carry on school campuses? Reasonable people can certainly disagree on that. In fact, different jurisdictions may come to different conclusions as to what works for them. I wouldn’t be surprised if Chicago schools said “No way,” nor would it surprise me if some small West Texas communities (not mine) already permit guns because of their remote locations and/or due to risks from rattlesnakes, etc.
Second, if you’ve answered the first question in the affirmative, it then becomes a question of whether this particular person should be able to carry on campus. I think the answer is the same, except it’s up the that particular campus to make the call. If they don’t want her to carry, the solution isn’t disarming her. In that case, I think the solution is to reassign her because the school decides her personal situation is dangerous to her, the students, or the campus.
DRJ (74c23b) — 10/9/2007 @ 1:14 pm#70 nk: At least mispellings aren’t usually deadly. 😉
Asserting a Constitutional and statutory right by appeal to a court is going “ballistic?” Having some basic familiarity with the area she lives in, I don’t think “school security and the police” are adequate to deal with the potential situation. You see, as far as school security goes, I doubt there is any.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 10/9/2007 @ 1:19 pmAlthough rattlesnakes are a real danger there.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 10/9/2007 @ 1:21 pmAsserting a Constitutional and statutory right by appeal to a court is going “ballistic?”
I just wanted to insert a shooting reference. My other choice was “going off half-cocked” but it sounded awkward in context.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/9/2007 @ 1:25 pmIn nk’s world, how to get someone fired: Threaten them.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/9/2007 @ 1:28 pmIn any case I seem to be missing the mark here. I may as well be shooting blanks. I better hold off or adjust my windage because I don’t want to reduce the caliber of this discussion.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/9/2007 @ 1:33 pmNK,
I think you’ve taken some good shots and I’m not trying to shoot holes in your argument.
All kidding aside, my comments are not intended as disagreements and I see your point.
DRJ (74c23b) — 10/9/2007 @ 1:40 pmI appreciate the multiple metaphors. My shots are intended as disagreement and I understand and dismiss your point.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/9/2007 @ 1:41 pmIf this firefight should continue I might find more ammunition but it could take me a while to reload.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/9/2007 @ 1:52 pmP.S. And I know you weren’t drawing down on me, DRJ.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/9/2007 @ 1:54 pm#78 nk: Oy.
We got another opening for a terrible comedian/lawyerly commenter over at GCP.
Disclosure: I get extra points for recruiting people that can almost spell! Allows us the elevate the discussion!
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 10/9/2007 @ 1:58 pmThanks EW1(SG),
But I have to tell you that for the third trombone the impressario is indispensable.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/9/2007 @ 3:05 pmI have one simple desire. I wish the 2nd Amendment was treated with as much respect as the 1st Amendment is afforded.
JD (edb511) — 10/9/2007 @ 3:17 pmA question (or two, or more):
Another Drew (8018ee) — 10/9/2007 @ 7:43 pmWhy are we concentrating on the kids in the classroom? Is the entire area of a school occupied by classrooms? Would this teacher be anticipating that she might be in danger in other areas of the school grounds? If she is not in danger, then why did a judge on two seperate occassions issue restraining orders against the ex? Why is it more dangerous for teachers to carry in Oregon, than it is for students and staff to do so in Utah? If rational people make rational decisions concerning their own security, why do other allegedly rational people become irrational about the imagined future actions of their friends and co-workers? BTW, who checks under your bed for monsters?
nk
You’re worried that a female teacher who went public about her woes with a [potential] stalker ex is a “threat” to her students – indirectly
yet privately, what other teachers in the same school might be direct threat to their students? (physical/sexual abuse)?
Hate to tell you how many teachers we file charges on for diddling with their students.
and please let me know when you have discovered that planet called “zero crime rate”
sheesh
Darleen (187edc) — 10/9/2007 @ 10:18 pmBTW, who checks under your bed for monsters?
The house ghosts, of course. That’s their job.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/9/2007 @ 10:26 pmYou’re worried that a female teacher who went public about her woes with a [potential] stalker ex is a “threat” to her students – indirectly
Sigh. She claims that her ex-husband is a threat to her and to the students. “Columbine” is the word she used. But it’s not because he has anything against the students. Because he’s after her. Let her and her ex go out to some remote field and rip each others’ eyes out for all I care. Just keep her troubles away from the kids.
Hate to tell you how many teachers we file charges on for diddling with their students.
All the more reason to let them carry guns in the classroom.
and please let me know when you have discovered that planet called “zero crime rate”
It’s a very small one. My parents built it for me.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/9/2007 @ 10:53 pmDarleen, well said.
I like nk so won’t actually do this, but should this change in the future… I wonder if I should threaten to ‘go after him’ then get him fired because of it?
Next, he won’t be able to provide for his daughter, but he’ll concede this is perfectly fair because of the threat I posed to his co-workers. The thought that I, the in this case unstable criminal, should be the person punished or at least that he should have a right to defend himself and his co-workers against won’t occur to him.
Well, it will, but somehow it shouldn’t have to Shirley Katz.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/9/2007 @ 11:06 pmYou’re known by the company you keep, Darleen.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/9/2007 @ 11:20 pm~89 nk:
Ah. I had wondered at your intransigence in ‘blaming the victim.’ I think the problem is that you are conflating two differing concerns that Ms. Katz expressed.
I don’t think she views her ex-husband as a threat to the children, but instead is advancing an argument in support of her quest to exercise her Constitutional and statutory right to carry. That is, that when she carries she becomes an additional resource to prevent or stop a Columbine or VT like rampage.
In dealing with our own stalking situation, we have learned a great deal about domestic violence as well. While I haven’t seen anything to indicate that her ex-husband is stalking her, there are some common precursors there. One of which is that while Ms. Katz might be endangered, and any children of hers; it would be very rare for the violent individual to pose a threat to anyone not directly related to the situation. In other words, the children in the classroom aren’t in danger from the ex-husband.
And knowing that may explain why we’ve been talking past each other a bit.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 10/10/2007 @ 3:04 am~86 Another Drew:
As I pointed out in #49, she is most at risk entering and leaving the school. We appear to have been discussing the classroom because it was felt the ex-husband (mistakenly I believe) posed a threat to the children.
I am also compelled to point out that Ms. Katz teaches at high school, in an area where it’s likely that at least some of the students could have firearms in their cars for a legitimate reason.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 10/10/2007 @ 3:19 amIt’s a very small one. My parents built it for me.
How do you even leave the house each day? Why aren’t you living in a sealed compound somewhere in Montana?
You know, life is rife with risks. I just find it amazing that you want to do actual harm to someone based on your fantasy that known victims are more threatening than criminals.
Darleen (187edc) — 10/10/2007 @ 5:40 amYou’re known by the company you keep, Darleen.
So the victim of DV ‘had it coming’
niiiiiccccceeee
Darleen (187edc) — 10/10/2007 @ 5:42 amDarleen #94,
Why aren’t you living in a sealed compound somewhere in Montana?
It wasn’t Montana but I spent my share of time on a mountainside watching lambs get woolier. Thanks to my parents I got a very good education and could make other choices about how I wanted to live.
Comment #95:
So the victim of DV ‘had it coming’
niiiiiccccceeee
I was referring to commenter #90 who was agreeing with you.
On the implication that I hate lady school teachers who want to defend themselves against their abusive ex-husbands: If one of the teachers at our school were suffering what Mrs. Katz claims to be suffering, she would have free legal representation from thirty or so parents who are lawyers, me included; all the parents personally talking to the police chief and demanding twenty-four hour protection for her; and teams organized both to look out for her and to monitor the ex-husband. We would likely also post his picture all over the neighborhood with a request that if he was seen near the school to immediately call 911.
You know …just because the Second Amendment gives you the right to live as though you were in Lincoln County in 1881 it doesn’t mean that you have to. Not even if you did ….
nk (6e4f93) — 10/10/2007 @ 6:34 amNk, you’re missing the point.
I don’t care if you would defend her.
She should have the right to defend HERSELF.
Foxfier (f765f6) — 10/10/2007 @ 10:21 am~97 Foxfier: Totally agree with you here. We had the kiddo in a private Catholic school, and we couldn’t get them to stop giving out information to our stalker, nor get them to call the police when he invaded school grounds.
Any wonder that I carry?
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 10/10/2007 @ 10:36 amIf more was needed, some additional food for thought, nk.
People shooting guns at students in school shouldn’t be as common as it is… but it’s increasing because it’s a social epidemic. You’d really get a lot of value out of Malcolm Gladwell’s non-fiction bestseller, “The Tipping Point.”
It puts this issue in context and just generally is a very enjoyable and useful book.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/10/2007 @ 11:40 amOh, sorry, the link I meant to draw to your attention:
Gunfire Erupts at Cleveland High School
It’s happening a lot and it didn’t used to. You will enjoy his book, nk, and it’s not really about crime as such. Get a copy.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/10/2007 @ 11:41 amSchool violence and shootings are always breathlessly reported in a manner that one would think that the rates are skyrocketing. Is that actually the case, or is it just covered more in the media?
JD (edb511) — 10/10/2007 @ 12:06 pmI believe it’s occurring much more commonly, for the reason Malcolm Gladwell makes clear.
He also makes clear this is occurring at a time when crime rates generally are falling (you really should buy his book; trust me, you’ll consider it money well spent) and he goes on to explain why this crime in particular is rising. His book is about what he calls “social epidemics”, not crime as such, but it explains very well this phenomena.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/10/2007 @ 12:13 pmChristoph – Everything I have found, except for advocacy sites, shows that the school violence rates are significantly down, over 50% since 1994.
Link here
JD (edb511) — 10/10/2007 @ 12:43 pmSchool violence rates ARE down. One of the points his book makes clear. Mass shooting incidents are up.
It’s a limited social epidemic, not a broader one. Violence in schools was greater in the 50s than now.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/10/2007 @ 12:46 pmMass shooting incidents do not appear to be up either. In fact, statistically, students are actually safer at school then they are when they are not in school.
School shootings are rare. If you compare the number of school shootings to the number of shootings outside of school, the number of overall shootings, or to the number of students as a whole, school shootings represent a tiny miniscule fraction.
JD (d27d21) — 10/10/2007 @ 3:03 pmYou’re wrong.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/10/2007 @ 3:16 pmMore students are shot outside of school than at school. Students are statistically more likely to be victims of all types of violent crimes away from school than at school. Mass school shooting account for a tiny number of deaths a year. More kids are killed by their parents every year than are shot in mass slayings at school.
It is covered breathlessly by the media, and as such, it may seem like it is happening a lot, or is increasing, but that is not borne out by the numbers.
JD (d27d21) — 10/10/2007 @ 5:04 pmJD– the number of school shootings being up or down has nothing to do with non-school shootings.
It is a statement of past numbers about the shootings as compared to current numbers of shootings.
Your response is like arguing that skydiving is safe, because more folks are killed in cars than while skydiving. Skydiving may indeed be safe, but it has nothing to do with cars.
Foxfier (f765f6) — 10/10/2007 @ 5:21 pm