Should teachers be allowed to pack a gun?

[HEMIzygote]

Ashland, Ore. - In court documents, she's known as "Jane Doe." Innocuous enough, but the woman behind that pseudonym pushes one of the nation's hottest political buttons: guns and school safety.

What Ms. Doe wants to do is take her Glock 9-mm pistol to the high school in Medford, Ore., where she teaches.

She's licensed to carry a concealed weapon and she has what many supporters say is a legitimate reason for being armed: a restraining order against her ex-husband based on threats he's allegedly made against her and her children.

But district policy prohibits anyone except a law-enforcement officer from bringing a weapon onto campus. When word got out that she had a concealed-carry permit, administrators reminded her of that policy. There's the political rub: According to state law, "any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly."

Backed by gun-rights groups, Doe intends to challenge the school district in state court this week. Meanwhile throughout the country, lawmakers are filing bills that would make it legal for adult school employees to carry firearms, in some cases providing special weapons safety training for those who want to be part of their school's security force in addition to their classroom teaching duties.

Gun-rights groups and school boards around the country are paying close attention to the Oregon case.

"There's a specific state statute that prohibits local governments, including school districts, from passing laws or policies prohibiting people from owning or possessing firearms," says James Leuenberger, the Portland, Ore., lawyer representing the teacher.

"Jane Doe," who agreed to be interviewed by phone on condition of anonymity, says she does not want to be viewed as an "Annie Oakley." Trying to extricate herself from an abusive relationship led her to buy her first gun just a few years ago, she says. Prior to that she had not been an activist in defense of the US Constitution's Second Amendment provision regarding "the right to keep and bear arms."

But as a veteran teacher, she has come to believe strongly that having responsible armed adults on campus could have prevented tragedies such as those at Columbine High School in Colorado, Thurston High School in Oregon, and Virginia Tech University last April.

"I have no doubt at all that any time a criminal has gone into a school intending to commit violence they did so knowing nobody was going to be able to stop them," she says. "We've seen what happens when teachers do nothing or can do nothing, and that's not acceptable to me."

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 37 states have laws specifically banning guns at schools. In general, administrators, teachers' organizations, and law-enforcement agencies favor such laws. In the confusion of a school shooting, police officials have said, adding guns to the situation just makes the predicament more dangerous.

The state panel investigating the April 16 shootings by a mentally disturbed student who killed 33 people at Virginia Tech University (the nation's deadliest school shooting) agrees.

"If numerous people had been rushing around with handguns … the possibility of accidental or mistaken shootings would have increased significantly," the panel wrote.

But that has not stopped a push by the NRA and other gun advocates to allow guns on school property as a safety measure.

In Michigan last week, 16 state lawmakers sponsored legislation allowing teachers, administrators, and other school employees to carry concealed weapons on school property. Ohio has a similar bill pending.South Carolina, Alabama, and Virginia are among several other states that have considered lifting school campus gun bans this year, according to Stateline.org, which tracks state issues.

Louisiana lawmakers refused to pass a bill that would have outlawed guns in college dormitories, and legislators in Maine similarly killed a bill that would have given colleges the authority to prohibit guns on campuses.

Anthony Stavros, a member of the Nevada State Board of Regents governing higher education and a Las Vegas police captain, has proposed deputizing university employees as reserve officers, trained and qualified to carry weapons. The Iowa Board of Regents is close to allowing campus police to be armed.

But efforts to allow guns in grade schools and high schools tend not to get very far in state legislatures. The South Carolina measure failed. Administrators and the state teachers' union in Michigan have voiced strong opposition to the proposal there.

So far, just one state - Utah - allows concealed weapons on campus. Utah's law applies to public colleges and universities. The University of Utah opposed the 2004 legislation that allows weapons on campus (including those owned by students with concealed carry permits), but lost in the state supreme court.

For high school teacher "Jane Doe," who takes her case to court this week, the issue is very personal.

"I have two children in school," she says, "and I would like to think that if something like that ever happened, there would be somebody there to do the right thing to protect my kids."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070918/ts ... elfdefense

[BShook]

Good for her!

[Mithras61]

"If numerous people had been rushing around with handguns … the possibility of accidental or mistaken shootings would have increased significantly," the panel wrote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070918/ts ... elfdefense

How would it be any different than if a shooting were to occur at (f'rinstance) a mall? This is a ridiculous counterargument. It's like asking "How can we be certain an ambulance can get to the accident if they don't have a special lane all to themselves on all the streets around town?" The question doesn't have anything to do with the problem, and it is actually a problem that is unlikely to exist. Anyone who responds to a shooting in their area of the campus will almost certainly NOT still be shooting when police finally manage to respond (especially if the response time is several hours as it was in Va. Tech & Columbine!).

[Xander]

In the confusion of a school shooting, police officials have said, adding guns to the situation just makes the predicament more dangerous.

More dangerous than running and hiding while you're shot at like a fish in barrel? I guess I'd like to take the "more dangerous" option in that case.

"If numerous people had been rushing around with handguns … the possibility of accidental or mistaken shootings would have increased significantly," the panel wrote.

I'm mildly disturbed, and mildly amused by how any many people consider any version of "the sky is falling" to be a valid point of argument. It reminds me of the leader of the flight attendants union who in vehement protest of TSA's decision to lift the restriction on carrying scissors aboard airlines predicted a "river of blood" brought on by both terrorists and escalated arguments between drunk passengers. This despite the fact that nothing of the sort happened in the decades prior to 9/11 when scissors were allowed on airplanes....And yes, terrorists and unruly drunk passengers existed back then too.

In this case, it's a failure to recognize that you simply can't eliminate risk from life, you can only manage it. Sometimes, managing risk means accepting smaller risks in order to protect against larger ones.

[jimlongley]

I would love to see her succeed.

My wife is an administrator in a school district and would also like to be able to use her CHL privileges, but a sounding out of the school district indicated that they would never grant her request.

I have suggested that she try to go through whatever formal process they have, and I really doubt that they do have one, but she does not want to ruffle feathers.

[Keith B]

"If numerous people had been rushing around with handguns … the possibility of accidental or mistaken shootings would have increased significantly," the panel wrote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070918/ts ... elfdefense

How would it be any different than if a shooting were to occur at (f'rinstance) a mall?

I think their reasoning (even though it may be unreasonable) is that if a LEO or someone else armed comes in and sees someone with a gun in hand, they may fire on them thinking they are the BG.

However, if it is over, the BG is down and everyone has re-holstered, no guns will be seen and lives may have been saved.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I think their reasoning (even though it may be unreasonable) is that if a LEO or someone else armed comes in and sees someone with a gun in hand, they may fire on them thinking they are the BG.

However, if it is over, the BG is down and everyone has re-holstered, no guns will be seen and lives may have been saved.

Which is just what is most likely to happen in real life.

After all, we have documented instances where armed citizens HAVE stopped school shootings. In no case were there people "running around" with guns. And LE didn't arrive on scene until everything had pretty much quieted down.

I'm not aware of any armed citizen intervenor being shot by cops or anyone else in any of these incidents.

So the scenario posed by the "no guns" people is just a contrived hypothetical with no evidence or real world experience to support it.

Too bad that the VT report people didn't expend the effort to research what really happens when armed citizens are present at incidents like this before they published their preconceived notions as if they represented something profound.

[Mithras61]

"If numerous people had been rushing around with handguns … the possibility of accidental or mistaken shootings would have increased significantly," the panel wrote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070918/ts ... elfdefense

How would it be any different than if a shooting were to occur at (f'rinstance) a mall?

I think their reasoning (even though it may be unreasonable) is that if a LEO or someone else armed comes in and sees someone with a gun in hand, they may fire on them thinking they are the BG.

However, if it is over, the BG is down and everyone has re-holstered, no guns will be seen and lives may have been saved.

I think their reasoning (such as it is) is that they don't like guns and will do/say whatever they think it will take to keep guns off their campus, because having guns on campus makes them aware that "bad things" can happen, and it's much safer in their little bubble world with no guns to be found (even though reality intrudes occasionally into their world in the form of bad guys with guns).

[cbr600]

In the confusion of a school shooting, police officials have said, adding guns to the situation just makes the predicament more dangerous.

Wait. The police are going to respond to a school shooting without their guns to avoid making the predicament more dangerous? Is that what "police officials" are saying?

[TX Rancher]

In answer to your question "Should teachers be allowed to pack a gun?", yes...not only should they be allowed, but a certain percentage in every school should be required!

I mean after all, these are our childern they're responsible for.

If the plan is to lock down the school and herd the children into rooms, I would feel much better if the teachers in that room were armed and willing to protect those children...and that's rather hard to do without some sort of weapon.

Schools should not be one of the "softest" targets around.

[Venus Pax]

I hope she wins and sets a precedence for all states.

[phddan]

In answer to your question "Should teachers be allowed to pack a gun?", yes...not only should they be allowed, but a certain percentage in every school should be required!

I mean after all, these are our childern they're responsible for.

If the plan is to lock down the school and herd the children into rooms, I would feel much better if the teachers in that room were armed and willing to protect those children...and that's rather hard to do without some sort of weapon.

Schools should not be one of the "softest" targets around.

I absolutely concur.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I hope she wins and sets a precedence for all states.

To do that the case would have to be lost at the state level , appealed to the federal level, then lost and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court where they find in her favor via some broad constitutional principle. (Like the 2nd Amendment. Yeah, I know. But don't expect such a broad application of its principle as we would like.)

Not only would this take years, but for numerous reasons it is incredibly unlikely to happen.

In this area, what we really need is some good law passed by the state legislatures. Conceivably, a new federal law could help us. ("Any school receiving federal funds shall allow for......") But given the current and likely future makeup of the congress, I have little hope for this approach.

Be glad you live in a state like TX. There is a better chance of us following the Utah model someday than there is of getting a broad court ruling or federal legislation.

[Keith B]

I think their reasoning (even though it may be unreasonable) is that if a LEO or someone else armed comes in and sees someone with a gun in hand, they may fire on them thinking they are the BG.

However, if it is over, the BG is down and everyone has re-holstered, no guns will be seen and lives may have been saved.

Which is just what is most likely to happen in real life.

After all, we have documented instances where armed citizens HAVE stopped school shootings. In no case were there people "running around" with guns. And LE didn't arrive on scene until everything had pretty much quieted down.

I'm not aware of any armed citizen intervenor being shot by cops or anyone else in any of these incidents.

So the scenario posed by the "no guns" people is just a contrived hypothetical with no evidence or real world experience to support it.

Too bad that the VT report people didn't expend the effort to research what really happens when armed citizens are present at incidents like this before they published their preconceived notions as if they represented something profound.

While I don't disagree it may, and probably would, prevent others from being killed by having individuals armed, what I was trying to relay is this type of scenario:

I am an officer responding to a call of, or just heard gunshots down the mall where I am working off-duty security. I immediately head to the scene, only to see 6 people with guns drawn. I have no idea who ANY of them are. I now have to take time to sort out who are the BG's and who aren't. The BG can easily identify me from my uniform. If there is only one gun displayed, and they are waving it around, it is a lot easier and shorter time for me to make the call on their intentions and potentially get drawn down on the subject vs. sorting through the others and maybe not picking out the right one.

Yes, I know we tactically train, but not all BG’s look like the target pictures we have. Remember the firing range in Men in Black? The only one that was the threat was the little girl carrying the quantum physics book.

Just my thoughts for discussion.

[seamusTX]

I am an officer responding to a call of, or just heard gunshots down the mall where I am working off-duty security. I immediately head to the scene, only to see 6 people with guns drawn.

In the first place, there are fewer than 300,000 CHL holders in the entire state, which is bigger than most countries. The chance of two of them being in a crowd (unless they are husband and wife) is exceedingly small.

I would think, if you shouted, "Everybody down on the floor," you would eliminate the innocent people from consideration. If one of the armed people turned toward you with a weapon, you would be justified in using deadly force. The police frequently find themselves in that kind of situation.

P.S: I don't know how many LEOs are in Texas, but there's probably a greater chance of a plain-clothes LEO being on the scene of a shooting than CHL holders. If there's an argument against CHL, it applies equally to off-duty LEO.

- Jim