Teacher demands to carry gun in school

[pwd72s]

Teacher demands to carry gun in school
Untested in court - Oregon law says a woman can have a concealed Glock; Medford district policy says not at work Tuesday, September 11, 2007PETER SLEETH and BETSY HAMMOND The Oregonian Staff
A Medford high school teacher is arguing she has the right to carry a concealed semiautomatic pistol to her classes to protect herself from a violent ex-husband in a case certain to set off alarm bells in schools across the state.

In a standoff with the Medford School District, the 44-year-old teacher may go to court this week to ask a judge to allow her to carry a Glock 19 9 mm pistol to school.

There is no appellate law in Oregon that would cover this situation. Under Oregon law, people with concealed handgun licenses can carry guns into public buildings.

What is murky in the law is whether school districts can stop employees from carrying concealed weapons onto school property. Most Oregon schools have policies against employees -- and in some cases the general public -- carrying concealed weapons onto their property.

A lawsuit by the teacher could serve to clear the matter.

"I was shocked when I heard this was an issue," Tim Gerking, attorney for the Medford School District, said Monday.

At her request, The Oregonian is not identifying the teacher because she is a domestic violence victim. She did agree to be interviewed anonymously, however.

The woman said she has had a concealed handgun license for about three years but would not say whether she had carried the gun to school.

When confronted by school authorities in May, "They asked me if I was carrying then and there," she said. "I said no. My administrator told me . . . that if they had any reason to suspect I was I would be searched, I would be arrested and the board would take action against me."

The teacher said she is a longtime member of the National Rifle Association. Her legal bills are being paid for by a foundation of the Oregon Firearms Federation.

Medford School Superintendent Phil Long verified Monday that the teacher has told school officials she is not currently carrying her gun. The teacher says she knew of other Medford teachers who had concealed handgun licenses but told officials she did not know whether they carried guns.

Oregon law is clear that holders of concealed handgun licenses can carry concealed weapons into schools. Medford officials maintain the teacher is not committing a crime if she carries the gun but would violate district policy if she brought the gun into school.

"If an employee violates our policy, it isn't a crime," Gerking said. "We just have the right to restrict our employees from carrying dangerous weapons on school property" as a matter of policy.

James E. Leuenberger, a Lake Oswego attorney representing the teacher, said the school board's policy conflicts with state law, which allows anyone with a valid concealed handgun license to carry a gun in a public school building.

"State law is crystal clear," he said. "State law says a person with a concealed weapon permit can carry a concealed weapon in a public building."

The Medford teacher has a restraining order against her ex-husband, whom she divorced last year, according to Jackson County Circuit Court records. Those records show the teacher has accused her former husband of hitting her and threatening to kill her numerous times.

In a filing for a restraining order in September 2006, the teacher wrote that her former husband told her he would "kill me and that I would never get a cent out of him." At the time, she said he drove by her house four times one night and made repeated, daily phone calls to her. The teacher has two children.


Similar district policies


Some school districts have more expansive policies than Medford.

Portland, Tigard-Tualatin, Lake Oswego, Vancouver and other large Portland-area school districts make it a rule that no one except police can bring guns onto school property. Even if those rules are unenforceable, they're on the books and school personnel act as if they count.

"We don't allow firearms of any sort in our buildings, no matter who you are," said Matt Shelby, a spokesman for Portland Public Schools.

Others, including Gresham-Barlow, have the same policy as Medford, specifying that as a condition of their employment, staff and contractors can't bring concealed weapons onto school property.

Rebekah Cook, attorney for the Oregon School Boards Association, says districts are on sound legal footing when they prohibit employees from bringing concealed weapons to work, even when they have a legal permit to do so.

In a 2001 case against Washington County, the Oregon Employment Relations Board ruled that the state's concealed weapons law does not prohibit a public agency from making no guns at work a condition of employment.

"An employer . . . retains the right to address its unique concerns with its employees' possession of firearms," the board ruled.

But Cook concedes it is ultimately an "unsettled area of law," having never gone to the Oregon Supreme Court.

Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, who strongly opposes guns in schools, says, "On the face of the law, it certainly looks . . . that if you have a concealed handgun license, you can basically take your gun wherever you want, except federal buildings or through airport security."

A North Clackamas School District janitor who sued the district after it fired him in 1999 for bringing a concealed weapon to campus brought what was expected to be a test case in 2000. Custodian Greg King had sought back pay and restoration to his job but got neither after dropping his case after a few months. King dropped his suit after the district pointed out that a concealed handgun license allows the holder to carry a gun hidden on his body, whereas King left his semiautomatic weapon in a backpack in an elementary school's elevator.

Portland Public Schools has a rule that no one can bring a concealed weapon on its property, even though the district has been forced to acknowledge state law trumps its rule. That was proven when a parent brought three guns to a Lincoln High School football game in 1999. School security officers were outraged and took him into custody. But ultimately the district conceded the law was on his side.

Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Federation, said his organization has sought in the past to clarify gun laws on Oregon's college campuses without success. The issue of public employment and the right to carry a gun remains unresolved, he said.

The Medford teacher contacted the federation seeking advice and help. At first, Starrett said, it attempted to resolve the matter out of court by contacting the district, but a courtroom showdown is increasingly likely.

Burdick, who opposes the state mandate to let concealed handgun license holders bring guns to school, has backed legislation to let schools bar concealed weapons from campus -- but has gotten few lawmakers to vote her way.

Burdick said fear of the National Rifle Association, not public opinion, is what causes Oregon lawmakers to kill the idea year after year.

"It's just ludicrous to allow guns in schools under any circumstances," she says. "There are regular common-sense gun owners who overwhelmingly want the local school board to at least be able to make their own decision on this at the local level. Most of the parents I talked to had no idea, and they were horrified when they found out it was possible to bring a gun to school. . . . Johnny's parents don't want his first-grade teachers packing heat."

Peter Sleeth: 503-294-4119; petersleeth@news.oregonian.com

Maya Blackmun, Wendy Owen, Holley Gilbert and Casey Parks contributed to this report

[Mo_Gearhead]

Why did the school even find out about the gun? Was she bragging about 'packing heat'? Why would the issue even come up? She apparently has a license to carry (ex-husband problems) that is legal in Colorado.

She should have kept her mouth shut.

(speak softy ... and carry a GLOCK!)

[onewhippedpuppy]

I'm amazed that Oregon allows concealed weapons on school property, or in public buildings. When KS passed their CC laws, both were prohibited, along with a number of other places.

I'm also curious how the school found out?

[legion]

This is tricky.

On the one hand, I support the right of employers to set whatever rules they want for the workplace.

On the other hand, this women believes her life is at risk. The ex-husband could assume that she would be un-armed at school, and could attempt to kidnap or kill her before, after, or during school. The attackers at Columbine and Virginia Tech were so successful in killing people because they knew everyone was disarmed.

Then again, schools are notorius for zealously adhering to state laws that they do like.

[Mo_Gearhead]

QUOTE: "Her ex-husband could assume that she would be un-armed at school"
________________

Not any more he won't ...unless ...golly...now that the entire world knows she was and may know in the future ...if she loses the ability?

women = "I talk too much"

[stomachmonkey]

I'm sure he knows she carries.

Makes him more likely to show up carrying himself.

I support her right to defend herself by any means at any time.

But if my kid were in her class or in that school i'd have a big problem with it.

Tough one, not sure where I stand on it.

[Rick Lee]

Where in the world does her boss get off telling her she will be searched if they have reason to suspect she's violating the policy? Oh, I wish I had been there. Since when can your employer legally search your purse? Since when does a school policy have the weight of law, especially when it's contrary to clearly established state law? I know a lot of places in VA can say it's prohibited to carry a gun there, but that doesn't make it illegal unless they see the gun, ask you to leave and you refuse. Then it's a trespassing charge at worst. In VA you can carry into the state capitol bldg. I regularly carry in DMV, though I try to avoid that place as much as possible for other obvious reasons. Sadly, it would probably be pretty easy to identify this lady, as OR's CCW holders list has probably been made public at one time or another. I don't think it would be too hard to cross reference that list with domestic violence victims and public school teachers in that particular school district.

[BGCarrera32]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Since when does a school policy have the weight of law, especially when it's contrary to clearly established state law?

Because its for the kids.

[sammyg2]

Maybe she had it coming?
J/k

with any luck she'll shoot a vegan.

[jyl]

State law may say a CHL holder is permitted to bring a gun on public school property, but that doesn't mean the school is required to continue employing that person.

Analogy - you have the legal right to view adult websites, but your employer can terminate you for doing so at the workplace. You have the legal right to bear gang tattoos, but your employer can terminate you for having them. You have the legal right to drink alcohol, but your employer can terminate you for drinking at work. And so on.

Basically, if you are an at-will employee, your employer can terminate you for pretty much any reason or no reason, as long as it doesn't violate specific labor and anti-discrimination laws. If you have an employment contract or union contract, you may have additional protections.

I'd bet she loses. Unfortunately.

[Rick Lee]

Are public school teachers at-will employees in OR? I doubt it. Pretty sad that you can get fired for this, but not SUCKING at your job. I can guarantee that any employer who want to search me would have a lawsuit coming. When's the last time a teacher shot up a school? When's the last time kids were shot by other kids who continued shooting until they either killed themselves or others with guns showed to stop the gunplay?

[sammyg2]

Where I work employees get searched all the time. We have our vehicles searched too.
I like it that way, If mohammed the Terrorist got past security he could do a lot of damage.

[Rick Lee]

Sammy, if they're searching everyone, that's quite different than singling someone out. Plenty of jobs require it as a condition of employement. I doubt it's in any teacher's contract though.

[sammyg2]

Nope, no way it's in a teacher's contract. If it was they'd all be on strike again.

The same reasoning applies though, providing a safe workplace.

[mikester]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

I'm sure he knows she carries.

Makes him more likely to show up carrying himself.

I support her right to defend herself by any means at any time.

But if my kid were in her class or in that school i'd have a big problem with it.

Tough one, not sure where I stand on it.

If my Kid were in her class I would pull him out. There is a known threat to her and I don't want my kid becoming collateral damage. It is nothing against her and I would not at all be happy about it because it is the fault of an outside influence. The fact is if she has a restraining order against the man - she appears to be in danger and if I were the principal I would pull her from class. She doesn't belong around students were something to happen it would be witnessed by them and they could get hurt.

Any damages to her caused by this should be born by the ex-husband who has made the threats. She can go after him in civil court for those damages.

[Rick Lee]

Ok, but I fail to see how banning guns in the workplace makes it any safer. Those bent on murder and mayhem have only ever ignored such bans and those who complied with them were completely defenseless against those who ignored them. In OH a lot of businesses ban CCW, the signs are very conspicuous and it is a crime to disobey them. However, I believe a business that prohibits CCW is liable for damages if you are unable to defend yourself during a crime on their property because you complied with their CCW ban. When's the last time some nut wanted to kill someone and was deterred by the potential weapons charge?

[id10t]

the SCOTUS has already ruled that the police have no obligation to protect individuals, but society as a whole.

If the state "grants" you the right to defend yourself (thats a whole different can-o-worms) then in my opinion, anyone who wishes to remove that right thru policy - court houses, air ports, schools, etc - should provide complete security for you while you are under their rules and either provide complete security to/from home/work/etc. on your normal daily errand runs/life, or provide a secure place for you to leave your weapon when under their rules/protection.

For example - I work at a college. If I have a CCP, and the college (or state legislature) says I can't carry while at work, then the college (or state) should be preparted to escort me from home to work and to errands after work until I return home. OR they should provide a secure location to lock my pistol up for the day (campus PD building) and then escort me to/from there to my office, classrooms, etc until I reclaim my pistol at the end of the day.

Oh, and the woman in the article is an idiot- concealed means that, if it was *that* important to her she'd take the stance of "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by id10t

the SCOTUS has already ruled that the police have no obligation to protect individuals, but society as a whole.

If the state "grants" you the right to defend yourself (thats a whole different can-o-worms) then in my opinion, anyone who wishes to remove that right thru policy - court houses, air ports, schools, etc - should provide complete security for you while you are under their rules and either provide complete security to/from home/work/etc. on your normal daily errand runs/life, or provide a secure place for you to leave your weapon when under their rules/protection.

For example - I work at a college. If I have a CCP, and the college (or state legislature) says I can't carry while at work, then the college (or state) should be preparted to escort me from home to work and to errands after work until I return home. OR they should provide a secure location to lock my pistol up for the day (campus PD building) and then escort me to/from there to my office, classrooms, etc until I reclaim my pistol at the end of the day.

Oh, and the woman in the article is an idiot- concealed means that, if it was *that* important to her she'd take the stance of "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

I concur. But in such cases I just opt for deep concealment and make certain it is totally undetectable. I ignore plenty of laws against CCW. Those places where you cannot be armed happen to be those places where you are most likely to face some derranged nut bent on mass murder.

[jyl]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Sammy, if they're searching everyone, that's quite different than singling someone out. Plenty of jobs require it as a condition of employement. I doubt it's in any teacher's contract though.

Contracts usually have some boilerplate language about requiring employee to comply w/ rules and regs of the employer; contract needn't expressly prohibit CHL. What might be more effective to protect her is if union contract has procedures about grievances and disciplinary process. Don't know how well organized the teacher's union is, assuming there is one.

I hope she wins, but I wouldn't put money on it.

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by jyl

Contracts usually have some boilerplate language about requiring employee to comply w/ rules and regs of the employer; contract needn't expressly prohibit CHL. What might be more effective to protect her is if union contract has procedures about grievances and disciplinary process. Don't know how well organized the teacher's union is, assuming there is one.

I hope she wins, but I wouldn't put money on it.

John, as you should know, living in Portland...the Teacher's Union rules this state Politically...the OEA, a branch of the NEA, is the single largest, in terms of money, lobbying group in the state. They own the Democrat majority legislature through "campaign contributions"....

The result here will be as the Teacher's Union wishes it to be....my prediction.

And before you ask...yes, the OEA donates to the campaigns of Oregon Supreme Court candidates. Here they are elected as (wink-wink) non partisan candidates.