Mother Banned Because of Weapons Permit

[Tom Servo]

What is it we don't do, here?

Unsupported allegations, among other things.

All I know of Ms. Mount from her Facebook page is that the lady seems nice and has a passion for cooking. There's no anger directed at anyone. If she was as much of a "disruption" as the school board claimed, I'd expect to see some indication of it on her site. After all, people vent their id with little provocation or moderation there.

Let's ease off the speculation and wait for facts to surface.

 

[Evan Thomas]

No, not everyone is speculating. Here's the relevant part of the post you referred to by BarryLee:

I’ve attached a link to a video from August TV Channel 6 where the Principal admits that the decision to ban this Mother was based on the Facebook posting. She does state that some other PTO members stated that Ms. Mount had been disruptive, but didn’t offer any examples of threats or violent acts.

I suppose you could say the Principle is simply being proactive, but it concerns me when her main motivation is the Mother being a legal gun owner. Another telling point to consider is that Ms. Mount is not banned from her daughter’s new school within the same district and is allowed to participate in the PTO. The School Superintendent states that they do not anticipate any problems from her.

BarryLee's point is that, based on published information about the case, there doesn't appear to be any reason to think that Ms. Mount was a problem. In the video he linked, the principal, Ms. Davis, was asked if the "no trespass" order was issued because of the Facebook post. She replied, "Yes, it was." The only other specific behavior mentioned was that Ms. Mount "said she wouldn't let anybody bother her daughter." Granted that we don't know the context -- but that hardly seems like an outrageous thing for a parent to say.

What is it we don't do, here?

We don't speculate beyond the published facts of a case that's in the news. When you say, in effect, "Well she obviously did something else, or this wouldn't have happened," that is an unsupported allegation. It's fine to offer opinions, but you need to back them up with evidence.

 

[lcpiper]

I worked with a woman who was similar in many ways to this one. I suspect her posting of the CCL on her facebook page was motivated by pride at having accomplished something she felt challenged by.

I have seen some of you in this very topic speak about facebook and social media as if you think it's really different then this very forum when in all fact it is not. In fact, some of you feel "safe" here and say whatever it is you want, your reservations are removed and you speak plainly while you say you would not do this on facebook. I do not use facebook because I feel it is a targeted site, it is targeted and routinely exploited. But for those who build their own facebook pages and have control over who can and can not see and post there, I see how they too can become comfortable and get a feeling that it's theirs, and the people there are friends, and it's sort of safe. At least until something happens like this.

I guess my point is that as long as you are calling the kettle black, you might want to look at the mirror cause this place is no more private then facebook.

Don't believe me, take any really good post with a good collection of somewhat unique keywords and Google them, you will get that post in the search results.

 

[RX-79G]

Vanya and Tom,

Either she is "disruptive", which is what I referred to as the other factor, or she was not disruptive and whoever misreported that as fact is the one who is speculating.

I base my comments on BOTH reported facts. If either fact is a falsehood then my comments have no bearing. If you don't care for the conclusion I reached from reading and accepting Barry's post as accurate, the fault lies with wherever that inaccuracy came from. Not me.

I am not a journalist and shouldn't be required to fact check other members posts before I respond to them. If Barry's post is factual, I stand behind my assertion that this is likely more than just a reaction to just a Facebook post or her "disruptions" would have never come up.

 

[RX-79G]

Lcpiper,

The main difference is that the majority of posters on forums purposely choose anonymous screen names and don't post pictures of themselves.

 

[Tom Servo]

The main difference is that the majority of posters on forums purposely choose anonymous screen names and don't post pictures of themselves.

That adds a scant layer of anonymity, but it's hardly a shield. IP addresses can be checked, and the information someone posts can be cross referenced.

Many folks will use the same username across several forums, and some will have links to their personal blogs or somesuch in their signature lines. After all, a quick Google search on your username pulls up this personal photo:

In all seriousness, it's a mistake to assume that we're anonymous because we post under a pseudonym.

 

[lcpiper]

Do you know that I work for Army NETCOM, (Network Command)?

Do you think that you are anonymous? That RX-79G is anything but an alias and that only two things prevent people or agencies from knowing your name, address, phone number and what you look like, motivation and capability. Capability is easy, motivation can come in many flavors. Nothing on the Internet is private. It's very structure is similar to broadcast radio because your packets that represent your data transmissions are broadcast out for anyone, with the capability and motivation, to capture and use for whatever purpose they wish.

 

[RX-79G]

Tom,

I take it for granted that the NSA can break 128 bit encryption and has recordings of every phone call in the last ten years.

I also assume that the owners of this website can figure out where my email address goes to.

But I thought we were talking about publicly accessible social media affecting our jobs and life decisions. And I remain confident that the local school board is not going to figure out that I post on a firearms forum or that I'm a Mobile Suit pilot. Any normal civilian background search is not going to connect my real name, SS#, address, phone or drivers license to TFL.

 

[Tom Servo]

I remain confident that the local school board is not going to figure out that I post on a firearms forum or that I'm a Mobile Suit pilot.

As Lcpiper pointed out, it depends on how motivated they are.

Let's say I've got a problem child. I bark at the school and maybe I make threats. Maybe I handed out flyers with the exact wording as a missive I wrote on a gun board as GunLuvr66. It's not hard to make the connections in many cases.

 

[RX-79G]

Sure, you can give away your anonymity 100 different ways, the most obvious posting under your real name with a picture of yourself, like on Facebook.

With half a brain you can avoid that.

Again, it is almost impossible for a civilian to find out what firearms opinions I have by doing a search by my name or by any of the normal information I'd provide to an employer. That's a major difference from the typical Facebook user.

 

[44 AMP]

Disruptive? At a PTA meeting? (PTO might be today's name, but it makes me think of Power Take Off)

Disruptive could be anything from telling some idiot that they ought to have their butt kicked to someone whining because little Johnny got unhealthy chocolate chip cookies instead of granola. Or just someone who opposed the collective group think on a particular issue.

Without a specific threat or even an incident, it means, exactly, NOTHING. ITs just an opinion, without any validation.

The principal stated she had the woman banned specifically because of the Facebook CCW post. Apparently she was not concerned enough to have her banned until she learned about the CCW. That is what I find disturbing. Describing her as disruptive, without any other info sounds like after the fact CYA to me. Or maybe I'm just being disruptive?

FYI, I chose my screen name because it seemed like the thing to do, and it reflected something unique and something I enjoyed. No concern about hiding my identity was involved. and just so you know, .44AMP has nothing to do with electricity.

 

[lcpiper]

Again, it is almost impossible for a civilian to find out what firearms opinions I have by doing a search by my name or by any of the normal information I'd provide to an employer. That's a major difference from the typical Facebook user.

And then, a whole bunch of nice legal handgun owners in New York had their names addresses, etc all placed on an interactive map for the entire world to access care of their local news service. And they didn't even resort to high tech wizardry, they just asked for the data and the State coughed it up.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/26/outrage-after-new-york-paper-posts-map-of-gun-owners-names-and-addresses/

 

[RX-79G]

None of it means anything. That includes all the supposed signs that are dug up after every mass shooting. In principle this shouldn't have happened.

Practically, it might be unfair to paint the Principal as a bigot when they are the ones responsible for the school.



People can either choose to keep their public and private life separate, or blend them and live with the consequences. There's no reason to let the same group you were feuding with at the PTA (or O) know that you carry a gun by saying so on a social network they all belong to. And having done so and it leading to a showdown with the Principle, you can either take steps to diffuse the situation that you had a role in, or leave.

I post (quasi)anonymously because I don't want to have a Dick Metcalf result for the personal opinions I have about guns, laws, child rearing or giant robots.

 

[lcpiper]

Oh I don't think anyone is on you about using the mechanism this forum is designed to support. Some names look real, others are, and some like mine are not because I have always used such a nickname and that's been for a very long time.

I am just ensuring that people are not fooled into thinking that any of this is private or protected. You could run a litmus test, but I assure you the result would be unpleasantly positive

 

[Hitthespot]

Just so everyone knows my user name is my real name.

If this story is true based on "face" value then it is extremely disturbing to say the least. To think an individual can at a whim take away our rights and I would argue our respect because we have a carry permit, I find, well extremely distrubing.