On Point – 11/12/07:

In a narrow ruling that focuses largely on the definition of the word “ordinance,” an Oregon judge has rejected a teacher’s challenge to a school district policy barring employees from packing concealed weapons on campus.

Shirley Katz sued her employer in September, arguing the policy is unenforceable since, under state law, the Legislature has sole authority to regulate guns and prohibits any “civil or criminal ordinances” enacted by a “county, city or other municipal corporation or district.”

The case presented a classic conflict between Katz’s desire to protect herself from her ex-husband and the Medford School District’s concerns over campus safety in the post-Columbine era. Katz, 44, has a concealed weapons permit and gun rights advocates are paying her legal fees.

But Jackson County Circuit Court Judge G. Philip Arnold steered clear of the hot-button issues in an order denying Katz’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

The narrow issue for Arnold was one of statutory interpretation -– whether the district’s weapons policy is an “ordinance” preempted by ORS 166.170.



  1. edwinrogers says:

    What about hand grenades?

  2. GregA says:

    As written the constitution clearly gives me a right to keep and maintain an arsenal of nukes. I demand my right to keep nuclear missles in my back yard.

  3. RSweeney says:

    So the straw men are the first out.

    How about handguns? Can an honest citizen carry one without infringement?

    The Constitution says yes.

  4. Jim W. says:

    but what about the right to arm bears…
    /dodges rotten tomatoes

    FTA:
    “In this case, it is clear the District’s prohibition on weapons is contained in a school board employee policy, and is not an ordinance,” Arnold concluded. “By the very words of the statute, ORS 166.170(2) does not apply to school board policies.”

    So, If a companies employee policy contradicts the state law, does this mean the company policy takes precedence!?!

    I’m all for limiting government but that seems to be taking it a little far.

  5. Veronica says:

    I hear firing squads are the new detention.

  6. MikeN says:

    Well could he be arrested fort violating the policy, or just fired?

  7. Mr. Fusion says:

    #4, JimW,

    So, If a companies employee policy contradicts the state law, does this mean the company policy takes precedence!?!

    You are an effen moran. Of course it doesn’t. If you even bothered to read what you had just quoted, you would have seen that state law does not cover school board policy in this matter.

    [Judge]Arnold concluded. “By the very words of the statute, ORS 166.170(2) does not apply to school board policies.”

    But if someone’s policy is against state law then it is against state law.

  8. Les says:

    #2
    In Colonial times “arms” usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for “ordinance” (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

  9. ChrisMac says:

    Can someone tell me why, teachers need to carry guns at school?

    If the job is that bad… Quit!

  10. Billy Bob says:

    If you had bothered to read the article, you would have noticed that she has an ex-husband problem.

    Imagine how polite her students are.

  11. ChrisMac says:

    I read the article..

  12. http://tinysig.com/GlobalWarmer says:

    #8 – Which is why it is very important that we enact a 28th amendment legalizing private ordnance.

    (Notwithstanding that GregA was being sarcastic.)

  13. Sinn Fein says:

    Can the teachers at least wear Kevlar flak jackets? Perhaps, styled as sport coats or, ladie’s sweaters. Or, would that hurt their student’s self-esteem and scar the little thugs for life knowing that their first shot probably wouldn’t take out the teacher?

  14. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #3 – How about handguns? Can an honest citizen carry one without infringement?

    The Constitution says yes.

    Well… technically, I’m not sure that the Constitution makes any distinction between honest and dishonest citizens.

  15. Cursor_ says:

    Teacher shouldn’t have guns at all. Home of school.

    The ignoramuses can barely TEACH let alone handle and fire a gun with any surety.

    Replace them with robots… at least we know that they will submit to systems that test and evaluate their skills.

    Cursor_

  16. MikeN says:

    I support gun control. I think it’s important that people keep from firing haphazardly.

  17. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #16 – The ignoramuses can barely TEACH let alone handle and fire a gun with any surety.

    Aside from nothing… what do you know about teaching? You don’t seem to even be about to write with any particular degree of acumen, let alone criticize teachers.

  18. Phillep says:

    Cursor, do you have something to back up your opinion of her competence at anything at all?

  19. Mr. Fusion says:

    #19, Philleep,

    To me, it is self evident. If the stupid bitch wants to carry a gun in a classroom, she can’t be too bright.

  20. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #16 – #18 – Wait… Hold on… If you were talking about teachers in general, then what I said stands.

    If you were talking about the gun toting teacher in particular, I apologize and take it back…

  21. Les says:

    #20,
    Any why is that not to bright. Seems like a good idea to me given the things that can happen in schools. Not wanting to be a sheep is stupid? Not to me.

  22. comrade aleksey says:

    why yes, teachers have no right to defend themselves!
    isnt it written in your precious constitution there?
    or maybe it was tthe bible… “thou shalt not kill (the underage ones)”

  23. A.D.D.-Tod says:

    Constitutionally (and I am NOT a layer, nor do I play one on T.V.), not only does she have the Right, the State, as usual, screwed-up in trying to take her Right by statute or policy…

    Having slept thru most of school, my understanding could be easily wrong, but the way I learned it, the Constitution was the SUPREME law of the land, followed by Federal, State Constitutions, then local laws.
    The Second amendment states SPECIFICALLY “the Right of the PEOPLE (emphasis mine)”, not the right of the States, not the right of the Militia, “shall not be infringed.” Plain, simple language saying “We WANT the government to be afraid of the people.

    This means, I could carry a concealed, you could carry an M16, and right-said-Fred could have a sawed-off shotgun WITHOUT any harrasement from ANY local,state, or government employee (also known as OUR employee).
    “Course, this ALSO means not-quite-right-in-the-head-sammy ALSO has these rights. Oh well, ya get the good along with the bad.

    Start watching for Penn and Teller’s “Bullshit” for more information and opinions…
    (ALL opinions mine, unless otherwise specifically stated otherwise)


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5073 access attempts in the last 7 days.