More later...but here's the short/sweet:
Shirley Katz…LOSES…before a
While schools cannot forbid you from carrying your gun to school if you’re a concealed carry permit holder…if you WORK FOR THE SCHOOL …they can. Now…does that make any sense?
We acknowledge the law says you can bring it….but because the school is your employer you can’t bring your gun.
The case boiled down to a “what the meaning of “is” is” moment…in that…the judge said the law states no ordinance can forbid you from bringing your gun into a school.
But the judge reasoned…school boards don’t make “ordinances” they make policies…and so…the law does not apply to Shirley Katz…and therefore she cannot bring her gun.
See…that’s a distinction with barely a difference.
The net effect is the same whether it’s a policy…a rule…a diktat…a suggestion.
The net effect is still the same.
Get the ruling here.
12 comments:
As much as I hate it, it's probably correct. The school board acting as an employer can forbid its employees from bringing guns into the workplace. Just like any other employer can tell its employees no guns or you can't work here.
An article from the NRA's magazine, America's 1st Freedom containes the comment, "Armed Guards protect our money; politicans enjoy security details. But when it comes to our most important asset - our schoolchildren - anti-gun politicans and media refuse to consider the important role firearms have and should play in protecting schools. A new dialogue is needed."
The article goes on to list Pearl Mississippi, and the Appalachin Law School in Grundy, Va. Both had shootings stopped abruptly by others with their own firearms.
It goes on to mention Edinboro, Pa. in 1998 when a 14 year-old shot and killed a teacher and wounded three others at a school dance who was stopped and held until the police arrived, 11 minute later, by a restaurant owner who grabbed his shotgun.
Maybe it is time our schools reconsidered their rulings.
I don't understand the confusion.
If you can tell I am carrying, or I go out of my way to make sure others know, just how is that "concealed"?
If I were her, I would go on packing the gun.
The issue is not whether you can see the gun or not. The issue is that the school does not want guns brought onto the premises. If a teacher can bring a gun, then why can't an 18 year-old student bring a gun. This is a safety issue, not a gun rights issue.
Cheesey, since you say it is a safety issue, care to comment on the shootings that were stopped by responsible administrators or students who also were able to get to their guns and stopped the shooters before they were able to inflict more harm?
If preventing responsible administrators or students from carrying a gun in school (and I mean with the knowledge and permission of the school, not just any that wish too), wouldn't that line of reasoning make our politicians that have armed guards and those that transport large amounts of our money equally as safe without their guns?
Why do we feel our school children are less important to keep safe than we do politicans or money?
The law says you are wrong. When the courts say differently, I shall take your ramblings seriously.
I already said what it is. Employers can tell their employees no guns in the workplace, to tell them, if you want to work here, leave your guns at home. Simple as that. If you owned a business wouldn't you want to reserve the right as the boss to tell your employees, "No, you can't pack on the job"? Of course you would. All employers would. And that's what they did.
Cheesey, that's what I said, isn't it time we reconsidered that law? Why does the law allow protection of money and politicians, but not our children?
I hardly think it is ramblings when I gave you three examples of school shootings being stopped by someone else with a gun. Every other school shooting with massive loss of life, there were no other guns.
Even with the case of an employer saying no guns is his right, what stops a disgruntled and unbalanced ex-employee from entering the job and using his? Written words haven't stopped any before, only someone else with a gun, ready to use it, trained to use it and reponsible with it.
Oddly enough, where another gun stops a shooter, it is rare that the shooter is shot or killed. Usually they are held at gunpoint until the Police arrive to take them into custody. But during that time frame, they didn't hurt anyone else.
I fel it is time to reopen the dialogue and push to change the laws.
I think I would have an issue with any teacher, who had a gun permit, being allowed to bring the gun on campus.
However, I would be in favor of specially trained teachers being allowed to have a concealed weapon.
Fact is Lew, the rate of gun related murder is lower in the schools than the general population. Fact is, the schools have less guns than the general population. The attempt at making your arguement an issue of protecting the children or not is not substantiated by your connection of people having guns to ward off the attacker in your two examples. I have had two kids go through private, Christian school where guns are not allowed by ANYONE, somehow, no shooting happened by ANYONE. I own a handgun, and have gone through a moderate amount of training, I wouldnt say alot, but some. And I know from my training, I dont want my kids shaky handed english teacher pulling a .38 on some rifle toting rowdy and accidentally shooting someone, the problem with that is.... I dont actually know of this actually happening, but I would consider the risk to be quite high, and certainly a good arguement for teachers not carrying guns. Private Security is probably a better way to protect the kids. Funny, my Christian raised kids dont want to shoot people in vengence, I wonder how we could teach other people this same idea....
cn, if we want to list shool shootings by the number of schools, yes they are very low. Still, the Amish School suffered severely, did they not?
Then again, if we want to play the numbers game, how many politicians or armored cars are actually attacked versus how many there are? By the numbers, maybe they don't need armed either.
My argument is that we leave our schools the weakest and easiest target. In the case of each school shooting, nearly all had a no gun policy. Didn't help them, did it? A criminal isn't going to obey the law.
I listed 3 where the shooters were stopped by other guns. Now, compare that to the others where there was no one able to stop them.
It isn't vengence to want to protect the kids, nor does "turn the other cheek" mean we line them up to be targets. In each case where other guns stopped the shooters, they were not shot, just held until Police arrived some minutes later.
There is a strong chance that the ruling is legally valid. I hate it as a PSU Student this ruling bothers me very much. The real lack of logic is that now the ruling has been layed down, it means that I cant carry on campus but the homeless (assuming they are not felons and have a CHL) they can carry.
Post a Comment