Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Second Amendment Teachers


a2 I am pretty sure the civics lessons, which Mary Catherine Roes taught did not include anything about the Second Amendment—except maybe mentioning in passing it as the National Guard Enabling Clause. So I think we can assume when Lacey, Washington Police arrested her at the Middle School she taught at for carrying a .38 Special in her purse, it was not her intent to make any kind of constitutional point.

guns 7 And the facts bear this out. Last year Miss Roes was assaulted by her husband—during which a gun was pointed at her head. Since only foolish women think restraining orders are the end all and be all, she purchased a gun and obtained a license to carry. Although prior to becoming a teacher she had worked as an MP she spent some time brushing up on her firearms skills.

guns 4 Ms. Roes tearfully told police officers she was aware there was a state law prohibiting anyone but law enforcement officers to be armed on Washington State school properties. She said she thought if caught she would just be asked to put it in her car. And she tried to explain how fearful she was of her husband who was currently out on bail awaiting trial for false imprisonment, assault and malicious mischief.

But none of that mattered. The case was prosecuted. Perhaps most devastating to the former Teacher of the Year was that her career was over. The School District asked the State Superintendent to institute kangaroo court civil procedures to permanently revoke her teaching certificate.

guns 5 Of course, the soccer Moms were all concerned about this huge danger their children were exposed to. The School sent home a letter and had a special meeting. They adopted some procedures to help with early identification of this type of criminal element in their midst.

Thirty-seven states (and of course the District of Columbia) criminalize the possession of firearms on school property.

Pistol Packing Teacher Oregon high school English teacher Shirley Katz is in a similar situation. She insists she needs to take her handgun with her to work because she has reason to fear her ex-husband could show up and try to harm her. She is asking a state court to permit her to exercise her second amendment right.

Superintendent Phil Long insists employees and students are safer without guns on campus at South Medford High School and their lawyers will be making that argument in court.

It is true the school does already have a safety plan for the situation Miss Katz fears.

That plan provides if somebody threatening comes in, you try to avoid eye contact, and do whatever they say.

guns 6 All these laws were enacted in response to Columbine and the other school shootings. Never mind that not one of those individuals had a license to carry. And none seemed to mind that the school might be designated a Gun-Free Zone.

gun anime No one likes facts. But it is interesting the role some licensed gun owners have played in the school violence problem.

In 1997, in Pearl, Mississippi, a disturbed high school student went on a shooting spree that left several people dead or injured. Fortunately, the school's assistant principal had a gun in the trunk of his car. However, in compliance with the Gun-Free Schools Act, the car was parked more than 1,000 feet away from the school. Even so, the school official was able to retrieve his weapon and disarm the shooter several minutes before the local police arrived. His heroic actions probably also violated the Gun-Free Schools Act, but in view of the circumstances, prosecutors did not pursue the matter

The following year, a gunman entered a school in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, where he killed or injured several teachers and students. A restaurant owner across the street from the school heard the commotion. He grabbed his shotgun, ran to the school and persuaded the shooter to surrender his weapon. The police showed up a few minutes later.

In 2001 an off-duty police officer was registering his daughter at Santee High School near San Diego, California. He heard gunshots, drew his service weapon and forced the shooter to take cover. The actions of this brave officer undoubtedly averted further deaths and injuries.

In 2002 a disgruntled former student with a firearm went to the campus of Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia, where he shot and killed the dean of the school and two students. A pair of students heard the shots and raced to their cars to retrieve their handguns. When confronted with superior firepower, the shooter surrendered.

guns 3 There may be more examples. But what I cannot find is one situation in which a teacher’s lawfully owned gun was used in a murderous school rampage. Teachers, often on the front line of violence, are just another casualty of the attacks on the Second Amendment. They have even fewer rights than most of us—they can’t arm themselves for protection against very real personal dangers—like psychotic homicidal husbands and boyfriends.

I doubt any crunchy court in Oregon will be of any assistance to Miss Katz, any more than the latte slurping Washington State jurists assisted Miss Roes.

guns 8 But being an eternal optimist I remain hopeful that some day reason and the constitution will arise again from the ashes of the Nanny State.
a1Becky's Stuffthingy

P.S. I just saw on CNN there has been another school shooting. This one in Cleveland, Ohio. Someone didn't care about it being a Gun-Free Zone and came in and shot at least one teacher and three students.

There was an interview with one of the student witnesses. He said before the shooting began one of the teachers was present. He said that he did not want to say the teacher's name--but she did not do anything.

She was probably following a school safety policy similar to the one they have at South Medford High School.

~Becky

Digg!

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

18 Comments:

Anonymous Joe the Troll said...

You're absolutely right. Concealed weapons save lives. About a year ago a cashier at a local Wal-Mart was attacked by an ex-boyfriend. He stabbed her several times right there at the check-out counter, while customers just stood there watching. One customer has a concealed handgun and saved her by shooting and killing the guy. Even then, her life was in great danger - she almost died. If medical attention had come any later than it did, she would have.

Can you believe that there were people wanting the police to arrest the guy with the gun? One guy was saying that the gun wasn't necessary - people could have saved her by pelting the guy with merchandise. Yet no one did, they just stood there. The lambs go silently to slaughter sometimes. It's rarely tyhe lambs that get it, though.

I feel for the teacher in Washington. Maybe she will end up in a job where she can get paid what she's worth for a change, and her ex-husband won't know where to find her.

5:11 AM  
Blogger DESPARADO said...

Guns are fine in any place as long as the person carrying it is sane.
Define sanity?
tricky question.

6:19 AM  
Blogger Jon said...

Yes, I agree this case basically describes the situation where for the paranoia of guns at school potentially harming students one must accept disarmament as a condition of employment even when they feel potentially mortally threatened. So then if a person has a bad domestic conflict chasing them they are discriminated against because of someone else's criminal intent. So sad.

(aside)
My son had a friend over, age 23, two weeks ago from college. In his second week of school my son's friend missed two days of classes because he was locked up in a local city jail for posession of a handgun without a conceal and carry permit. The prof's and students were asking each other if anyone knew where Zack was? He's a firearm sport enthusist and wildlife fanatic like my son. They were both shook up as were this young man's parents. Was a very real lesson on legal standards to own firearms. Glad the lesson was close but not immediate.

7:56 AM  
Blogger cxx_guy said...


DESPARADO said...

Guns are fine in any place as long as the person carrying it is sane.
Define sanity?
tricky question.


That is why you never want to be in a situation where only one person is armed.

Just as a group of unarmed people is able to protect itself against an unarmed lunatic, without knowing in advance who he is, a group of armed people is able to protect itself against an armed lunatic, without knowing in advance who he is.

Unless you think that most people are nuts, in which case you might as well give up.

8:13 AM  
Anonymous meleah rebeccah said...

I just dont think our forefathers had the foresight to imagine AK47's when they designed the 2nd amendment.

9:53 AM  
Anonymous Joe the Troll said...

"I just dont think our forefathers had the foresight to imagine AK47's when they designed the 2nd amendment."

I don't see why that would matter, or how it pertains to this situation.

10:27 AM  
Blogger Jay a.k.a. 'Dat' said...

well, it depends on which state it is, but i don't believe they should be able to take guns to school... because it's not like they're going to be able to carry it everywhere and watch if kids get their hands on it then who's fault would that be?

DatCurious.com

1:26 PM  
Blogger Becky C. said...

Jay, I knew someone would come with that argument and was going to mention it. It is the old "you'll shoot your eye out" argument.

First, there is no record of this ever happening in a school that I can find (and until the last 6 years there has not been this ban).

In fact when I went to school, and it was not ancient history, and it was an all girls school, girls in the gun club would bring their rifles in the morning, and actually carry them down the hall and store them in the lockers until needed for the meeting and shooting practice after school. It was the same way in the public high school in my area. Can you imagine that now--the swat team would be called and CNN was be circling he school in helicopters.

Second, we are talking about licensed gun owners who have a license to carry. The vast vast majority are well trained and responsible. They are not going to leave the gun where kids can get a hold of it.

It is, of course a possibility, but one I can find no record of, but everything in life carries some risk, and I believe he potential benefits far outweighs the very slim potential costs.

~Becky

1:35 PM  
Blogger mkfreeberg said...

Trend still holds, fast & firm.

When Becky does a bang-up job researching stuff, gathering information, scrutinizing it, thinking things out with the brain and not the heart, she ends up agreeing with ME. Sixty percent of the time.

And this is about the best-thought-out, well-supported and well-reasoned post I've seen on ANY blog in quite some time. Well done.

2:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what is appalling to me, aside from the fact that "desparado" can't spell "desperado," is that you people don't seem to be bothered by the real threat Roe faces every day. Exes aren't going to be stopped by a restraining order, any more than paedophiles can be rehabilitated. The school where she works( ed) owes her and every other employee an environment free from harm or threat, and if they can't provide that safe zone, complaints should be pouring in. And who is to say that the ex-husband won't injure students who might be in his way? She should at least have a taser.

2:42 PM  
Blogger JayPeeFreely said...

The problem is... simply... fear. People are afraid, after the media blows this incident (or many others) out of proportion to what the incident rate really is.

I hear your protect the gun owner because of a jealous, irrational boyfriend or whatever argument.

But nowadays, the rights of anyone to have a weapon of any sort are being distorted because many Americans have become these paranoia-around-the-corner, freedom-is-only-useful-to-me lunatics themselves. The media, TV shows and novels on the shelf are trumpetting TERRORISM outside and inside. (Like the early 1950's and communism.)

No one can be trusted. Anyone who doesn't communicate what they are doing via a press conference can't possibly be valid in their actions.

Doesn't matter if they are in personal fear for life and limb.

I've never owned (nor wanted to) a gun. The two times I fired one (on a range), I got no rush from it.

I've been an "irrational" person - via the drink and the love bug, if that is not too crass - and yet, my desire was not violence. So, I don't understand the real unhinged element completely (and neither do you or psychologists, contrary to the arrogance, bluster and preminence found in their journals or your blog). Yet, I don't feel it is fair to take away a means to protect one's self. Gun. Dog. Taser. Whatever makes you safe.

Sometimes though, it is real, real simple: leave the area. Take the hit on your career. Accept that it is not going to get better. Sorry. If someone really is going to "get you" they aren't going to let even a jail cell stop them.

Tragedy happens everyday in America and abroad. That is life.

The more we "change" the game, the more confusing the outcomes. Then someone else "changes" the rules and the circle continues.

Sometimes, as I've been told, "it sucks to be you." The survival of the fittest mentality has to hit override and let the cards fall where they may.

Personally, I'd be happier living in an isolated area with reasonable resources. To me, there are too many people - and it is causing the friction we see, the fear we project on anyone we don't feel is like us and the amount of trouble seen via the boob tube.

The gun thing is like the free speech thing or the equal rights under the law thing. Lawyers, politicians, judges and cops have torn the rights up, shredded the dignity of the Constitution and never batted eye one in determining who they hurt.

4:21 PM  
Blogger The All Seeing Eye said...

Bare (legally) arms!

7:27 PM  
Anonymous Gregg said...

meleah, you stated: "I just dont think our forefathers had the foresight to imagine AK47's when they designed the 2nd amendment."

While I concur that they did not necessarily forsee the AK-47 the concept of repeatng firearms was alive and well already in the 18th century. The founding fathers stated that they thought that the citizens of these United States should have "every terrible instrument of the soldier". Nope, that did not mean muzzle loaders and swords only. It included bombs, mortars, canon etc... which is why the term utilised was "arms" not "muskets" or "rifles" or "pointy things" but the catch-all term "arms".

and yes before you bring it up it means that we should be able to purchase anything up to and including nukes. No, it really doesn't worry me. Just how expensive do you think it would be to purchase a nuke? How about the containment necessary to safely store it? Now, how many people are likely to expend that kind of money for something that sits in the ground and glows??

Yeah, the people with that kind of money can lready get nukes if they wanted them. SO, non-issue.

3:15 AM  
Blogger Gunfighter said...

You were ri=ght from the beginning. The second amendment is the enabling clause to establish a militia, which we have in each state. We call it the nationa guard.

Next, I'm all about carrying firearms, as I do so every day... the thing about carrying a gun is this. Going to the gun shop and buying a gunDOEN'T make you a gunfighter. Likewise buying a gun, taking some half-ass NRA "Safety" course doesn't make you a gunfighter. You have to learn. You have to train. Once trained, you have to continue to train.

People with guns without training are unlikely to knw when to use, let alone properly and effectively use a firearm to defend themselves, thereby being a threat to themselves and others.

If the friggin' gun was in this woman's purse, we can easily conclude that it was about as useless to her as it would have been if it was at home in her nightstand.

5:22 PM  
Blogger Becky C. said...

Gunfighter,

I don't really know where you are coming from on this.

The Second Amendment is both the enabling clause of the state militia, and it is the liberal argument that is all it means. For the first time ever the Supreme Court is going to be hearing that argument this term. The DC Circuit ruled that it gave each person the right to bear arms--and the DC could not outlaw possession and this has been appealed to the Supremes.

On the case of the woman in Washington--it was mentioned she was licensed, had been trained as an MP, and went and received additional training once she started carrying.

"Assuming" is never very smart, and "safely assuming" is a contradiction in terms.

In this case without a whole lot of information and facts I would not want to make any judgment as to whether the handgun would have been useful in thwarting an attack from her husband, or in the event of an attack on the school by some psychotic loose cannon.

~Becky

5:29 PM  
Anonymous Joe the Troll said...

I agree wit Becky here - I firmly believe that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to allow Americans to fight tyranny at home, against the American government if necessary. Remember, they had just fought off their OWN government. To say that it only enables the national guard negates its purpose.

7:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

we'll be commenting about a deceased woman with a pistol if somebody doesn't start paying attention to the real problem here- a dangerous ex-husband

2:46 AM  
Blogger Martin Vennard said...

Hi, I work for BBC World Service radio in London and today (Friday) between 1.30pm and 2pm East Coast Time in the States we will be talking to Shirley Katz live in our international discussion programme, World Have Your Say. She is the Oregon teacher who wants to be able to take a gun to school for her own protection. If you would like to take part in the discussion, please email your phone numbers to martin.vennard@bbc.co.uk or call me on +442085761720.
Many Thanks
Martin Vennard

4:52 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home