Last month I posted about a court case in Oregon where teacher Shirley Katz was suing the school district that employed her for the right to carry her legally licensed concealed firearm. News is out that she lost in Oregon state court and will not be allowed to carry to class.
Shirley Katz, who has a legal permit to carry a concealed handgun, argued she needed the Glock semi-automatic pistol to protect herself from her ex-husband. She sued the school district when it told her carrying a gun was against a district policy prohibiting guns.
Circuit Judge G. Philip Arnold agreed with the district, saying "The District has a right to enforce this policy." he noted that employees "accept their jobs subject to, and knowing, the policy."
"We are pleased," said Dr. Phil Long, superintendent of the Medford School District. "This case was a distraction from our real mission, which is educating children."
As mentioned in the earlier post, Shirley Katz may not have been the ideal candidate for this type of lawsuit. There was some question about whether her need for self defense had a bit to do with a custody battle rather than real physical danger. It is unfortunate that so many people still believe that banning guns will do anything more than keep them out of the hands of those who obey the law. The people who go on shooting rampages usually refuse to check their guns at the door, don't they? The people who might be able to stop such incidents, having obeyed the ban, are unarmed.