RSS
No Right To Carry
A judge has ruled against a teacher in Oregon who sued her school district because it prevented her from exercising her Second Amendment rights on school property.
Interesting case. Pro-Gun Pro-Christ, your thoughts?
Interesting case. Pro-Gun Pro-Christ, your thoughts?
posted by Spencerblog at
8:42 AM
21 Comments:
If she has her concealed carry permit she should have been carrying her pistol all along, regardless of the policy, and no one would have known unless she saved a life.
After surviving the deadly force encounter, if it ever came, then you fight the policy if disciplined.
I carry a pistol everyday concealed and no one knows it but me. A policy would not stop me from being prepared.
This post has been removed by the author.
An armed society is polite society. It is the criminals that make it hard for us law abiding citizens to exercise our constitutional right.
As for the Oregon case, I am waiting to get a copy of the opinion. It seems as though the decision was a results based decision and that the judge said that the restriction on her right was not a law, but an enforceable policy. Her lawyer says they will win on appeal. I will comment further after I read the decision.
David, gun free schools are a good idea until a bad guy violates the rules and shoots innocent victims who are unarmed. Recently, I approached one of the Delco Council "persons" and asked if he would ever support teachers being armed. The answer was no! He won't even support it if the teacher has proper training, as he feels that only the police should have guns. So I kept pressing to see if he was willling to think about this outside of the box. So I asked him if he would support a teacher being armed that was also a part time policeman (they are out there). He said NO!
Some people just won't consider anything other than utopia.
Actually, it is hard for any "idiot" to get a license to carry a firearm.
Here in Pa. they have to be approved by the local county sheriff's department and checks are done to make sure they're responsible and reasonable law abiding citizens.
It is not unreasonable to be concerned about guns falling into the wrong hands at schools or anywhere else. A teacher could be over powered and the gun taken away for him or her.
Still, it is just as conceivable and (in fact it has happened on numerous occasions) that an armed teacher or student has managed to draw down on a violent criminal and stop them from hurting others.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether to allow teachers to carry concealed weapons in schools. What is unreasonable is not to recognize the legitimate arguments of the other side.
Speaking of some teachers being overpowered, there are plenty of small females and men who are police officers that could very easily be overpowered by someone much larger. However, with proper training, like act 235 lethal weapons training, a person learns and trains using proper weapon retention techniques.
Gil, I agree with your last statement about refusing to listen to the others argument as being unreasonable. I have been accused of having radical views about guns and the homosexual agenda, and my opponents won't talk to me on an intellectual level. Instead, they name call. For the ones that do engage in some type of debate quickly learn that many of my views are similar to their own.
Hey Pro Christ Pro Gay-Basher,
I've seen you debate.
Here's your argument.
The Bible says that homosexuality is bad.
The Bible is the literal word of God.
Therefore, homosexuality is bad.
Do you wonder why main-stream thinkers - straight or gay - believe that you're a shallow-minded extremist?
To Anonymous:
Why is it that you resort to tactics where you hit and run, under your cloak of anonymity? First of all, I am not a gay basher. I have said that homosexuality is sin, which is clearly stated in the bible. However, the only reason why I ever have to say that is because I represent citizens who get arrested for making that statement in the public square. I also represent various organizations who have members who get arrested for preaching in public, or for making statements against abortion. Just last month, one of my clients got arrested on a sidewalk in Philadelphia next to the Liberty Bell (of all places)for saying out loud that sin is what separates us from God. When he was arrested he was told by the US Park Rangers that he was being arrested since he was not in the free speech zone. I hold out hope that you think that being arrested for your viewpoint is wrong.
Believe it or not, I also represent homosexuals in various civil and criminal matters.
My Christian belief that the homosexual agenda is bad (on many levels) lies at the heart of my conscience. Your right to conscience is one of the most basic rights of being a free person. I am not sure what is in your conscience, but you have a right to believe whatever you want, and if you ever get arrested for expressing your viewpoint, I will represent you for free, like I do for my other clients!
As for the rest of your name calling, it is people like me who have a moral sense of Christian charity, who will listen to and learn from people like you, and who will give time and resources to our communities without asking for anything in return. That is who I am and it harldy fits your tag of being a shallow minded extremist.
Now how about removing your anonymity.
Scott,
The Bible clearly says that eating pork is bad.
The Bible is the literal word of God.
Therefore, eating pork is bad.
Do you eat pork, Scott? If you do, are you a sinner?
No one should ever carry their gun in their purse, other bag or car if they are going to leave the firearm out of their control. That is completely irresponsible.
What's the harm in someone lawfully carrying a concealed gun? When it's concealed, no one knows you even have it. No one, unless they intend on doing a bad deed that requires you to unveil your big surprise. See they thought they were the only person there with a gun.
As far as the "trained/uniformed police/security", most are anything but trained. Do a little research. cops are only required to shoot 60 rounds once a year to qualify with their guns. Qualification is not training, it's a very easy test where you stand still and shoot at a motionless target. They are not required to attend any firearms training beyond their initial Police academy. I was talking to a couple of cops at the range last week and they told me that most Policemen never train on their own with their guns, contrary to popular belief.
Hi Debater (whoever you are):
The Bible, specifically, the Old Testament, made mention of many rules (law), including the prohibition against eating meat from animals that have cloved hooves (pork), and eating shellfish. However, along came the New Testament, which did away with many of the laws (like those stated above), in exchange for faith in Christ.
Even the new testament teaches that sexual immorality is still a sin, jut like adultery, theft, and murder.
The irony is that we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God, for many different reasons, and that Christ died on the cross for our sins. Christ teaches that the way to God is through him, that is faith.
As for homosexuality, as in man/man sex or woman/woman sex, the New Testament couldn't be more clear. My question, notwithstanding my Christian perspective, do you think that homosexuality is natural? Do you think that God made man in his image so that we would engage in sex acts with people of the same sex? When God mentioned marriage and how intercourse makes you one flesh with your spouse, did he also include homosexuals? Do you think that God condones homosexuality, abortion, murder of the born, theft, adultery, etc...? Or are these secular views that have taken hold in our society because it isn't cool to say that you believe in God, as the self is so much more important?
Help me to understand you and what you think and where you think I am wrong about my position. I promise I will not call you names or imply that you have character flaws. I just want to know how you think.
Hi "E":
That proves another of my points. It is ok for police to carry guns in the open, but noone else? I know that many police officers don't train with their weapons, except when required, and that they sometimes have no idea what type of weapon they are carrying, yet the gun grabbers think that only the police should have firearms. It makes little sense to me.
Arming teachers that want to be armed is the only way to keep our children safe in our public schools, period!
Obviously you and I are on the same page with this and many other issues. I don't believe that all teachers, or airline pilots or all of any profession (other than law enforcement) should be armed. Something like this should not be forced down anyone's throat. But if anyone in any profession wishes to lawfully (keyword lawfully) carry a concealed weapon, I think they should do so. If they carry a concealed handgun for 10 years and no one knows, then all of a sudden one day they save a life with it, they should get medal not be criticized.
Hi "E":
We are definitely on the same page.
For all of you gun grabbers out there, if you are ever in a situation where somebody near you opens fire with a handgun, and there are no policemen around, who you gonna call?
a. God
b. Ghostbusters
c. An armed American citizen
As they say, it is better to have it and not need it (a gun), than it is to need it and not have it.
Lastly, for all of you gungrabbers, it is someone like "E", myself, or the many thousands of Delaware County residents that have concealed carry permits that will end up saving your butt from certain death if ever confronted by a bad guy with a gun.
Hi "E":
We are definitely on the same page.
For all of you gun grabbers out there, if you are ever in a situation where somebody near you opens fire with a handgun, and there are no policemen around, who you gonna call?
a. God
b. Ghostbusters
c. An armed American citizen
As they say, it is better to have it and not need it (a gun), than it is to need it and not have it.
Lastly, for all of you gungrabbers, it is someone like "E", myself, or the many thousands of Delaware County residents that have concealed carry permits that will end up saving your butt from certain death if ever confronted by a bad guy with a gun.
Dave-
It really doesn't matter what I do. I might be the guy you bought a Daily times from at the Wawa this morning. I might be the UPS guy who delivers your packages. I might be a cook at a pizza shop, I might be an "unarmed" security guard who works in a bad area or I might be the gas station attendant who works the overnight shift. The fact of the matter is, all of those people could and should carry a gun concealed if they choose to.
Also, I really don't care what my boss thinks about it. The topic has never come up and I won't be bringing it up. If it comes down to where he does find out, it will be because I saved my own life with it. At that point I'll be alive to find another job.
Are you suggesting that it's better to get killed at work unarmed than to get fired after saving your own life?
Also, (as if you can't tell this is an important topic to me) I don't like the way you just throw the word "idiot" in there without any justification. You have no idea who I am or what I can do with a pistol. I been shooting since I was a child. I served in the military and I have hundreds of hours of firearms training since I've gotten out of the military.
Me leaving home without my pistol is like a Jedi being caught without his light saber.
This is the link to the decision from Oregon.
http://www.ojd.state.or.us/jac/documents/Katz%20v.%20Medford%20School%20District%20549C.pdf
Essentially the Judge stated that the prohibition against her carrying a gun was the result of a policy she accepted when she accepted her position, and not a law or ordinance that is prohibited by Oregon's statewide preemption statute. I would think that her lawyer will make an argument that the school district is a quasi governmental entity. The appeal should be interesting.
This decision shows that there is a mentality to do anything to keep guns out of places where they can do the most good. If their schools are like our public schools, they are advertised gun free zones that are open to anyone who wants to cause some mischief. If some deranged killer goes into one of our public schools and shoots the place up without any resistance then maybe people will start talking about common sense safety measures for our children, including arming teachers that want to be armed. It is such an good and obvious solution to this public safety threat to our children.
This post has been removed by the author.
Wow David:
Do you think that Jedi really exist?
Parents have a right to have their children in a gun-free environment
Uh, no they don't, Dave.
You guys just invent "rights" whenever you feel like it, huh?
Right on randal! He's so quick to dispense of MY constitutional rights while defending the make believe rights of "everyone" (whether they agree with him or not).
Post a Comment
<< Home