Mother Banned Because of Weapons Permit

There are many parents of school-age children who are passionate about diligently searching Facebook for any dirt they can dig up about teachers, staff members, other children in the class or other parents. This information is then forwarded on to the principal and/or school board members with dire warnings about protecting the safety of their precious children, most of whom could use additional parenting (and less parental Facebooking). Unfortunately most principals prefer to implement a CYA policy rather than do what is right.

These are general comments and do not necessarily apply to this case, but this happens ALL THE TIME. My advice is, if you engage in any sort on non-PC behavior, is to stay off Facebook or at least not to advertise it.
 
Facebook

It's not just guns that get folks in hot water.

It's SOP for our HR Dept to check out a prospective employee's FB page as part of the background check process. Post pics with guns or alcohol, personal political views, risque pics, or rants and your stock value just went down. I freakin' run IT for a national brand and I don't have a FB page or use Twitter or Instagram!
 
If she has been disruptive at school previously, then I can see where the principal is scared of the woman and took the actions that she did. I don't like it necessarily, but understand it. After all, the principal has echoed a sentiment that we have echoed here numerous times about folks who had exhibited histories of being a problem who then did harm to others. The proclamations and queries get made about why nothing was done beforehand. This principal is making that beforehand effort. She is being proactive relative to what she sees as a specific possible threat.
 
Lots of discussion about what is wise and what is unwise to post on facebook, but its not really the point. Does a person deserve to be banned from a school or any where else for publically dislcosing they have a legal CCW, keeping in mind she was not charged with any firearms violation of any kind, or any other violation of the law?

Seems to me these days in America, a jihadist is given more respect and deference than a lawful gunowner.
 
Hi Tim,
[Lots of discussion about what is wise and what is unwise to post on facebook, but its not really the point. Does a person deserve to be banned from a school or any where else for publically dislcosing they have a legal CCW, keeping in mind she was not charged with any firearms violation of any kind, or any other violation of the law?]

NO, she should NOT have been banned. It demonstrates the attitudes of too many teachers, and we can then make a good guess as to what the message is to the students.:mad:

But we do need to realize that when you post personal information it may do harm.

Jerry
 
Double Naught Spy wrote:
If she has been disruptive at school previously, then I can see where the principal is scared of the woman and took the actions that she did. I don't like it necessarily, but understand it. After all, the principal has echoed a sentiment that we have echoed here numerous times about folks who had exhibited histories of being a problem who then did harm to others. The proclamations and queries get made about why nothing was done beforehand. This principal is making that beforehand effort. She is being proactive relative to what she sees as a specific possible threat.
Click to expand...

Tom Servo wrote
I suggest we reserve judgement on this until more facts come to light.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good idea. We don't know all the facts yet, so before we make a martyr out of her, maybe we should get all the facts first.
 
DNS makes a great point - everyone screams about seeing the signs after the fact, but this is what playing it safe looks like.
 
DNS makes a great point - everyone screams about seeing the signs after the fact, but this is what playing it safe looks like.
Click to expand...

After serving as a safety/security coordinator I understand the importance of being proactive. However, being proactive should be based on behavior and not simply the fact that someone owns a gun or has a weapons license. As previously mentioned the school district does not seem to feel she presents any threat based on the fact that they’ve allowed her back into the classroom.

I want to be careful not to make any definitive statements about this specific case, but the general trend to demonize someone for simply owning a gun is troubling.
 
Last edited:
well.. I'm not sure if it is different where she is, but in Missouri I'm pretty sure you cannot carry in a school or on the grounds. If the facebook post was more than a simple "I got my permit" and more of a " I carry everywhere" or something similar then the principal at that point would have known this may have been a problem. May have been forced to say something because she knew.
 
It doesn't sound like the principal and parents thought the gun thing was in a vacuum. And once the air was cleared the Super may have decided that the Principal's instincts proved incorrect, but her response was appropriate given what she knew.

After the embarrassment, the mom may have wanted to avoid the Principal and PTO, even if the air had been cleared by the Super.


I don't think this is a "gun thing". The CCW was only one of several factors that made people at the school feel threatened.
 
I don't think this is a "gun thing". The CCW was only one of several factors that made people at the school feel threatened.
Click to expand...
Upon what basis do you make this conclusion? That she posted a picture of it?
 
That the CCW was only one of several things that made the PTO and Principal nervous enough to bar the Mom for school safety. Firearms are one factor, but they didn't have to be because the Mom's behavior combined with some other factor may have also been enough to prompt the reaction.

"I'd punch that guy in the face if I was there" is another kind of Facebook post that might have prompted the same reaction that Mom is not someone to take a chance on when kids are involved.
 
[B]Yes I agree that the general trend to demonize someone for simply owning a gun

BarryLee said:
I want to be careful not to make any definitive statements about this specific case, but the general trend to demonize someone for simply owning a gun is troubling.
Click to expand...


Yes I agree that the general trend to demonize someone for simply owning a gun is troubling.


ITA




Cnon
 
"I'd punch that guy in the face if I was there" is another kind of Facebook post that might have prompted the same reaction that Mom is not someone to take a chance on when kids are involved.
Click to expand...
Did she say that? I found her Facebook page, and there's pretty much nothing confrontational there.
 
No, she didn't say that. I was using that as an example of another variety of Fb post that might have gotten the same PTO reaction, in light of her other behavior.

Again, this didn't happen just because of the CCL post. It sounds like that was just another unsettling thing she did. If it hadn't been that, it would have been something else.

That's why this isn't just a gun thing. If this lady was everyone's buddy the CCL post wouldn't have caused this reaction.
 
That's why this isn't just a gun thing.
Click to expand...

Right, not just a gun thing. The gun aspect did appear to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, but it wasn't the sole issue.

And you are right, it is what being proactive can very much look like. Everyone screams AFTER THE FACT when things go wrong about why people didn't stop a lunatic beforehand. It is sketchy to be able to do this and to always knowingly be right as it involves prognostication.

But this also resounds with another one of our favorite sayings that we are very two-faced about as well. "It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." We think this saying makes great sense when we agree with the actions of the person who opts to act and take a stand in response to a perceived risk, but we are also apt to crucify them in text if we don't agree with their actions. "It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" is only meaningful/valid when we agree with what went on.

We like all our cutesy mottos, but in reality, many often have poor relevance or application to real life. They just sound good.

As previously mentioned the school district does not seem to feel she presents any threat based on the fact that they’ve allowed her back into the classroom.
Click to expand...

Right, they reviewed the situation. Sounds like standard protocol for any such action that goes high vis. No reports of wrongdoing on the part of the principal who like Mount, was acting fully within the accord of the law.
 
I don't buy the "not just a gun thing" argument that a CCL coupled with whatever other perceived threats there were makes for a greater threat.
The fact that she obtained a CCL should have been an indication that she was NOT a threat.

As the police officer at our CCW class said, "When I pull you over and run your plate, and it comes back that you are a CCW holder, (and I verfiy its you behind the wheel) I can breath a sigh of relief because I know you won't be a problem.

How many lunatics who shoot up schools obtain a CCL or CCW before doing so?
 
RX-79G said:
Again, this didn't happen just because of the CCL post. It sounds like that was just another unsettling thing she did. If it hadn't been that, it would have been something else.

That's why this isn't just a gun thing. If this lady was everyone's buddy the CCL post wouldn't have caused this reaction.
Click to expand...
Double Naught Spy said:
That's why this isn't just a gun thing.
Click to expand...
Right, not just a gun thing. The gun aspect did appear to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, but it wasn't the sole issue.
Click to expand...
There's nothing in any news report I've read to suggest that Ms. Mount had done anything "unsettling." Unless either of you has some evidence to back up these statements, they're just unsupported allegations that "she must have been up to something," and we don't do those here.
 
I'm basing my replies on BarryLee's post that the PTO found her "disruptive".

Everyone on this thread is speculating since none of us were there. My speculation is based on both the Fb post and the PTO thing.

What is it we don't do, here?
 
None of us have any idea exactly what was meant by “disruptive” if she acted in an inappropriate manner ban her from campus for the behavior itself not for being a legal gun owner. This all plays into the false stereotype that gun owners are violent hotheads that will snap and open fire during any confrontation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top