Why has no one thought of this?
Or,maybe they have and I'm unaware.
The majority of high-profile shootings lately have been in "No weapons allowed" areas-schools,universities,malls,etc. The victims in these shootings are unable to defend themselves,and others,because of unconstitutional laws put in place by well-meaning,but ill-informed beaurocrats who have no idea or concept what the second amendment to the Constitution means.
Why is no one suing local,state and federal governments,schools,businesses,etc,on behalf of the victims? It is a RIGHT,guaranteed by the Constitution,to be able to Keep and Bear Arms,in part,to be able to defend one's person and property. This Right is being superceded,ILLEGALLY,in the name of safety,security and political correctness.
Gun manufacturers have been sued to the point of bankrupcty,in some cases,and most of those without merit. It isn't about right or wrong in these lawsuits. It IS about putting gun makers/gun owners out of business.
I say it is high time we turn the tables. If someone is unable to defend themself,because of some UNCONSTITUTIONAL law,and gets wounded/killed/raped,etc. as a result,the party responsible for not allowing said person to protect themself should be held liable,whether it be local,state,federal gov't,businesses,schools,etc.
Mateo? Any legal/constitutional folks want to weigh-in here?
The majority of high-profile shootings lately have been in "No weapons allowed" areas-schools,universities,malls,etc. The victims in these shootings are unable to defend themselves,and others,because of unconstitutional laws put in place by well-meaning,but ill-informed beaurocrats who have no idea or concept what the second amendment to the Constitution means.
Why is no one suing local,state and federal governments,schools,businesses,etc,on behalf of the victims? It is a RIGHT,guaranteed by the Constitution,to be able to Keep and Bear Arms,in part,to be able to defend one's person and property. This Right is being superceded,ILLEGALLY,in the name of safety,security and political correctness.
Gun manufacturers have been sued to the point of bankrupcty,in some cases,and most of those without merit. It isn't about right or wrong in these lawsuits. It IS about putting gun makers/gun owners out of business.
I say it is high time we turn the tables. If someone is unable to defend themself,because of some UNCONSTITUTIONAL law,and gets wounded/killed/raped,etc. as a result,the party responsible for not allowing said person to protect themself should be held liable,whether it be local,state,federal gov't,businesses,schools,etc.
Mateo? Any legal/constitutional folks want to weigh-in here?
0
-
quote:Originally posted by bigt7mm
Mateo? Any legal/constitutional folks want to weigh-in here?
Please do not look to him for any advice as it is "Cowboy" season and he is busy. Don0 -
The most probable reason is that the victims of the shootings and their families believed (and still believe) in the security of the "gun-free zone". If I have learned anything from going to college (under and post-grad) as an adult is that the majority of the faculty and students at most institutions of "higher-learning" are left-wing nut-jobs. They believe it is the pro-2nd crowd that is to blame for the shooting, not the fact that the institution was a prime target for a psycho because he knew everyone would be unarmed.
If there were anybody that actually believed that it was their own responsibility to provide for their own safety, not the police, government, or powers that be, they would have attempted to stop the goblin. Take for example the two students who stopped the shooter in WV at that law school a couple of years back. They saw what was happening and they took the responsibility to end the threat. IIRC, the campus had a "No Weapons" policy, but they had firearms in their vehicles. They retrieved them and stopped the guy before he bacame as infamous as the VT shooter.0 -
I agree for the most part...but I don't think they should allow guns in schools period. We just need to have a ZERO TOLERANCE for crimes committed. We need stiffer laws out there with much harsher penalties. 0 -
I agree, I feel the same way exactly. But Gun Owners will not stick together?[?] If a law abiding gun owner is done wrong, we should all be beside them in Court etc. I just watched a local man get set up and charged with several Felonies over petty crap. Our local gun owners didnt care as long as it doesnt affect them in any way. If only they knew how wrong they are. 0 -
I do expect to soon be seeing suits for the very reasons you mention. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by HandgunHTR52
The most probable reason is that the victims of the shootings and their families believed (and still believe) in the security of the "gun-free zone". If I have learned anything from going to college (under and post-grad) as an adult is that the majority of the faculty and students at most institutions of "higher-learning" are left-wing nut-jobs. They believe it is the pro-2nd crowd that is to blame for the shooting, not the fact that the institution was a prime target for a psycho because he knew everyone would be unarmed.
If there were anybody that actually believed that it was their own responsibility to provide for their own safety, not the police, government, or powers that be, they would have attempted to stop the goblin. Take for example the two students who stopped the shooter in WV at that law school a couple of years back. They saw what was happening and they took the responsibility to end the threat. IIRC, the campus had a "No Weapons" policy, but they had firearms in their vehicles. They retrieved them and stopped the guy before he bacame as infamous as the VT shooter.
This reinforces my point. Where is the NRA and their "Legal Defense Fund". Why are they not up in arms,so to speak?
The anti-gun crowd has hit the manufacturers and law-abiding citizens where it hurts and deprived many of their rights,including life itself!
I propose that we,as law-abiding citizens return the favor,in kind, and start hitting them where it hurts-their pocketbooks. Anyone suffering harm,danger,threats,injury,etc,as a direct result of not being able to defend oneself as guaranteed by the Constitution,should sue the prohibiting party for violation of their Constitutional Right to Keep AND Bear arms.0 -
The problem is that you need to have somebody to file the suit on behalf of. That would mean that one of the victims families would have to step up. Unfortunately they have all had good long pulls from the "Brady Kool-Aid" and believe that it is pro-2nd people that cause the problem, not the little fiefdoms (colleges/schools).
quote:originally posted by watrulookinat
I agree for the most part...but I don't think they should allow guns in schools period. We just need to have a ZERO TOLERANCE for crimes committed. We need stiffer laws out there with much harsher penalties.
WHAT?!? Most of the shooters kill themselves so stiffer penalties are really not an option. We already have enough gun laws. The last thing we need is more. Do you really think that the VA Tech shooter would have killed 32 people if any one person in one of those classrooms had had a firearm and the proper training to use it. I think not.
Look at what has transpired in the airline industry since we started advertising that plain-cloths (and armed) Air Marshalls are flying regularly and that the cockpit crews are allowed to arm themselves. We have not had one instance of an attempted hijacking.
Another point. In Kennesaw, GA every homeowner is required to own a firearm. It is a law, albiet not enforced very well in my opinion. This town is a short drive from Dekalb Co., GA (Atlanta area) which has a very high crime rate. The violent crime rate in Kennesaw is significantly lower than that in the other metro Atlanta areas.
If a criminal is unsure if their intended victims may stop them before they commit whatever they are trying to commit, it tends to leave them in a quandry. They want easy prey. In the case of school shooters, they want to make a name for themselves. If they get taken out before they get to kill anybody, then they get a brief mention in the news, which doesn't suit their purpose. They want to be in control. By allowing people to arm themselves the power lies with them, not the psycho.
Edit for spelling.0 -
quote:Originally posted by watrulookinat
I agree for the most part...but I don't think they should allow guns in schools period. We just need to have a ZERO TOLERANCE for crimes committed. We need stiffer laws out there with much harsher penalties.
Stiffer gun laws? Pretty hard to match/exceed a gunman's rather immediate death in the form of on-the-spot suicide or "death by police" as is the case in most of these shootings. The fact is the SCOTUS has recently held that it is not the function of police to protect the general populace; that responsibility falls upon the populace. I say they should allow us the tools to do just that.0 -
quote:We already have enough gun laws.
Yes, but there not stiff enough. So what good are they. Obviously there not working. That's why we need to better them. I'm all for concealed carry. Just not at schools. I don't think that teachers nor students should be able to carry a gun on school grounds.0 -
Most laws were written on horseback in 1776. Time for a change! 0 -
quote:Most laws were written on horseback in 1776. Time for a change! Agreed!! 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk
I just watched a local man get set up and charged with several Felonies over petty crap. Our local gun owners didnt care as long as it doesnt affect them in any way. If only they knew how wrong they are.
PLEASE ELABORATE ON THIS ITEM, IF YOU HAVE ALL THE DETAILS BEHIND HIS LEGAL TROUBLES, " INQUIRING MINDS " WANT TO KNOW !!!0 -
quote:Originally posted by watrulookinat
I agree for the most part...but I don't think they should allow guns in schools period. We just need to have a ZERO TOLERANCE for crimes committed. We need stiffer laws out there with much harsher penalties.
I disagree entirely. How are we going to nail them for a harsher sentence when they turn the guns on themselves most of them? Pretty hard to get someone raised from the dead to serve a sentance don't ya think?
Also that is the same mentality most anti-gun folks have. Think about it just for a second. What is the penatly for murder? Most of the time life correct? If they are willing to take on those charges why should they care about a gun charge on top of it no matter how drastic? How much more drastic can you get then life in prison or the death penatly?
Logic is our friend.0 -
At largo High School, where my brother goes, there is 4-5 cops there, patrolling the grounds, then i think 2-3 of them leave, and there is 2 armed oficers there all day. 0 -
quote:Please do not look to him for any advice as it is "Cowboy" season and he is busy. Don
Yeah and in the off season he's busy ropin goats!!![:D]0 -
There is a suit ongoing right now. A female teacher has a CCW, and of course cannot take the pistol to school. She has a restraing order on her husband, and is afraid that he will come to the school to kill her, knowing that is the only place where she is disarmed. She also wants to protect herself and the kids from any "school shooter."
Sorry I can't post a link, I heard an interview with her on the radio 2 days ago, don't have the names or places.0 -
quote:watrulookinat
Member
959 Posts
Posted - 10/14/2007 : 01:34:18 AM
quote:
We already have enough gun laws.
Yes, but there not stiff enough. So what good are they. Obviously there not working. That's why we need to better them. I'm all for concealed carry. Just not at schools. I don't think that teachers nor students should be able to carry a gun on school grounds.
Scariest kind of gunowner there is. One that not only agrees with infringements, like the ones that allow these shootings to be much worse than they should be, but thinks there should be more. Incredible![:(!]
Btw Bigt, I agree, very good idea and very true. Your plan is exactly what needs to happen.0 -
quote:Originally posted by watrulookinat
quote:We already have enough gun laws.
Yes, but there not stiff enough. So what good are they. Obviously there not working. That's why we need to better them. I'm all for concealed carry. Just not at schools. I don't think that teachers nor students should be able to carry a gun on school grounds.
We already have stiff penalties for murder, like the death penalty, and life in prison. How to you suggest making a more serious penalty?0 -
quote:Originally posted by SuburbanNoize
At largo High School, where my brother goes, there is 4-5 cops there, patrolling the grounds, then i think 2-3 of them leave, and there is 2 armed oficers there all day.
If places ban citizens from defending themselves, i think that the place should take on the responsibility of defending them, including liability when they fail to do so. I still prefer letting people have the right to defend their own life, but if this became law, i wouldn't be quite so mad about it.0 -
you know its funny when Hollywood portrays an idiot who walks into a place full of cops or another armed group, and then pulls a gun, and then in real life the only idiot is the ones wanting to disarm citizens, so the shooter will always have the upper hand 0 -
here I googled it up: oregonlive.com
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, 2007
PETER 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.
Advertisement
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.
Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 Next0 -
quote:Originally posted by watrulookinat
I agree for the most part...but I don't think they should allow guns in schools period. We just need to have a ZERO TOLERANCE for crimes committed. We need stiffer laws out there with much harsher penalties.
I believe exactly the opposite to be true. Guns are a deterrant. Laws are not,at least not to criminals. The numerous laws we have only succeed in preventing law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. More/stricter laws are NOT the answer. Criminals do not abide by them anyway so how could this help?
"Zero tolerance" does not work. Witness the "War on drugs".
Statistics invariably show that where citizens are allowed to carry and use firearms to defend themselves violent crimes have significantly DECREASED.0 -
quote:Originally posted by watrulookinat
I agree for the most part...but I don't think they should allow guns in schools period. We just need to have a ZERO TOLERANCE for crimes committed. We need stiffer laws out there with much harsher penalties.
You're either a prankster or a moron, so I suppose this can't possibly be a serious post.
"Zero tolerance" is what gets 8 year-olds expelled for bringing GI Joe guns to school and 12 year-olds expelled for drawing pictures of guns at school. That is simply insane. You don't think the current zero tolerance is enough?
And stiffer laws and harsher penalties? That's an absolute joke. The system is obviously screwed up, and it's time to correct it by going totally the other way.
Lest you forget, criminals break laws. VT is already a gun free zone, but the sicko had a gun. Columbine HS was a gun-free zone, but they had guns, too. Law-abiding citizens who dis-arm because of these laws are being killed by criminals who break those laws. This is not rocket science.0 -
Thank you Allen for the C&P. I've been trying to follow this case. I've added some thoughts/comments.
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
here I googled it up: oregonlive.com
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, 2007
PETER 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.
Because the school can't/won't. Therefore,if she is NOT allowed to protect herself and is harmed the school should be held 100% liable!
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.
Advertisement
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."
For what,exactly? As stated below,there has been no crime!
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.
Why are THEY not aiding her defense?
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. WTH is that supposed to mean?
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.
Not to mention her 2nd amendment right.
"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. If she is denied her right to carry we may well be reading her obituary soon.
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.
Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 Next0 -
quote:Scariest kind of gunowner there is. One that not only agrees with infringements, like the ones that allow these shootings to be much worse than they should be, but thinks there should be more. Incredible!And your ignorant. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by watrulookinat
quote:Scariest kind of gunowner there is. One that not only agrees with infringements, like the ones that allow these shootings to be much worse than they should be, but thinks there should be more. Incredible!And your ignorant.
And you're illiterate.0 -
In places where the honest law biding people are unarmed
the crazys and nut jobs have the upper hand.
WHY?0 -
quote:
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.
Why are THEY not aiding her defense?
BigT, That's the question I want to see answered too!0 -
I think maybe what is so frustrating about anti gun folks is their outright refusal to acknowledge the facts of the situation. It's almost like they must know that what they are doing is ineffective, it's so obvious.
It is, in my opinion, a fear reaction on the part of regular people who have been programmed to think guns are evil things with powers like the ring in the Lord of the Rings to make ordinary people into mindless killers. And on the part of people in government, it is in the interest of greater control and power for themselves. If everyone has to depend on them for everything, including our protection (which has been proven to be a futile hope repeatedly) then they gain more control and power over us.0 -
quote:watrulookinat
Member
960 Posts
Posted - 10/14/2007 : 12:54:10 PM
quote:
Scariest kind of gunowner there is. One that not only agrees with infringements, like the ones that allow these shootings to be much worse than they should be, but thinks there should be more. Incredible!
And your ignorant.
???????
Hmm, well I'm in good company then. ^^^Look up^^^ Apparently everybody here is ignorant, and you are the one who is learned?
No, it is you sir, who in extreme fashion, lacks awareness.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
36 comments