AKA: The Seattle Times
Almost a week ago I posted on the anonymous Oregon teacher who is fighting for her right to to defend herself from her stalker ex-husband at her workplace, a high school in Medford, OR.
Last Friday, The Seattle Times Editorial Board, as a whole, wrote a piece which flatly states that her right to be safe and legally carry her concealed pistol on her person at her job on public property is less important than making sure that students at the school never have to come within 100 yards of a gun they don’t even know is there.
Sympathy for an Oregon high-school teacher with a restraining order against an ex-husband ought not extend to allowing her to carry a gun to school.
The Medford School District teacher, known as Jane Doe in court papers, wants an exception to the district’s policy against guns on school property so she can carry her Glock 9-mm. The answer forthcoming from a Jackson County Court judge ought to be a resounding no. The teacher’s fear of her ex-spouse deserves a compassionate response — one that doesn’t lead to pistol-packin’ teachers.
The school could beef up security. Or the teacher could be given a paid leave while sorting out her personal problems. The restraining order could be strengthened or broadened for maximum protection.
There are solutions that don’t require a gun in the classroom. The teacher has a concealed-carry permit but that doesn’t give her the right to bring a gun to class.
If teachers fearful for their safety can carry guns, what about other school employees, or students fearful of the playground bully? Exceptions could create a school climate that is dangerous and distracts from education.
And the editorial descend into the farthest known reaches of inanity from there.
Nevermind the Times’ strawman of ” Fearful Students”. Students aren’t 21 years old and students cannot get a concealed carry permit.
And how much stronger can a court make a piece of paper? I would truly like the Times’ editorial board to tell me. “Stay Away” is about as strong as the legal language gets. And again, it is a piece of paper.
Restraining orders expire. Glock 9mm pistol and the will to stay alive do not.
Talk about the politics of fear.
“The restraining order could be strengthened or broadened for maximum protection.”
(Kinda sounds like a feminine product)
How so? By adding an exclamation point? If the dude wants to kill her, no amount of paper will stop him.
I’ve seena few posts on Democratic Underground saying if this woman’s husband is so much of a danger to herself that she feels the need to carry a gun, she should find a different job because she shouldn’t be allowed to carry a gun near kids. Like this lady had a choice in how threatening her ex-husband is. I don’t know which is worse; liberals who think she should loose her means of self-defense by wanting to take away a legally-owned & carried gun, or those who think she should loose her livelihood because she insists on the first.
They also point out that many schools now have security guards, but the shooting at Red Lake provided just how effective a security guard could be in the face of an individual intent on mass murder.
Very true. She has that preexisting right regardless of what the school district has to say about it. The question is, “Where does the school district get the authority to infringe that right?”
“The school could beef up security.”
How would that work? Perhaps by hiring an armed security guard. Oh noes!!11!! more guns around kids. Dumbasses.
I found another line in the board’s “excuse” quite comical as well. The one that said “Exceptions could create a school climate that is dangerous and distracts from education”.
That’s a big hardy har har – like they need anybody’s help in THAT department ! Dorks ……..
… Right… because declaring schools to be “gun-free zones” has worked so well in the past. Let us just stick signs out front that say, “This is a Gun-Free Zone… AND WE REALLY MEAN IT!” and see how well the criminals take that one.
Maybe she should find a good lawyer who would drop a notice to the school board that in view of their response to her request they will be held liabel by her (or her heirs if the worst happens) if she is attacked by her ex on the school property.