What are your opinions of my union's stand on CCW?

T

Tokamak

New member
I am a member of the AFT (American Federation Of Teachers) in Pennsylvania.

I teach adults.

Recently we got a security summary from the union citing deficiencies in security at the school.

One of the items was that a teacher had seen a student with a gun in his briefcase and when the student was confronted said that he was allowed to carry as he had a ccw.

They went on to state that 13% of the student surveyed reported bringing a gun to school.

There was a call for metal detectors and signs prohibiting guns.

I wrote back and said that I thought that we should encourage those with permits to carry as I would rather have a class of armed citizens rather than a class of dead victims should a terrorist or nut job attack my class room.

I got a nasty reply back saying that my email was "bizarre and could not go unchallenged". An incident where a student who had a permit "murdered" someone and then asked a teacher for a character reference in the trial was offered as proof that students were not mature enough to carry guns (these are licenced adults - over 21 we are talking about). I was further told that anyone who felt they needed to carry a gun to school should not be attending school.

I was asked if I carried a gun.

I wrote back that I found the position of the AFT bizarre and wondered what rock they had been hiding under to not know that in PA 1 out of 20 adults has a carry permit. I also stated that the only place that is illegal to carry in PA is a court house and that the school had no legal right to deny a permit holder his right to carry.

I said that I carry a gun, my wife carries a gun and my daughter carries a gun, but that I do not carry on school grounds because it is against school regulations (I will not go into whether or not that is a true statement) but that I did not feel that that regulation had any legal weight.

I also pointed out that their own statistic 13% carry yet there has never been a single incident in or around the school should tell them that permit holders are not just blasting up class rooms.

I got a one word response "MISINTERPRETATION!". :) Master debaters, eh?

I am tenured so I am in no fear of losing my job over this issue.

What do you think?
 
who were you corresponding with and what english/communications class did they fail?

they cant come up with a legitimate rebuttal to your position backed with substantiated facts so they throw a tantrum is seems..

the idea that 21+ yr olds are not mature enough to carry firearms is retarded, apparently its good enough for the police who issue the permits, the locations that instruct the class...and the freakin F B I .. who does the background checks..

id rather have everyone in my classroom be carrying some firearm, i dont care if theyre single shot 22s so long as there are 60 of them.
 
I'm agreeing with you there. I think we should be allowed to carry on school grounds (I'm in a professional school, where no one is under 21, and w/ my CCW). I would feel much safer if I was allowed to carry onto school grounds, but they so much as catch me w/anything gun related on my person--I'm kicked outta school.

Statistics haven't lied in this regard, those who have their concealed permit have the ethics and morals to know when to use a firearm. They are not the ones that are going to statistically commit a gun-related crime.
 
There's been no problem with adults legally carrying in Utah schools (elementary through university). It appears that many states consider their citizens to be less trustworthy than Utah does (people with permits from other states can carry in Utah schools). :D
 
People think the Democratic Party wants a nation of sheep...

The Democrats are pikers when compared to most unions.

I abhor unions.
 
Tokamak

If you haven't already noticed, most labor unions - and especially the teacher's unions - are simply adjuncts to the Democrat National Committee.

You'll notice all 'endorsements' posted by the union is for Democrats. Your union dues go to pay for Democrat campaigns. Union leaders are all controlled by local Democrat commisars.

With all that in mind, you shouldn't be surprized they're anti-gun.
 
Hmmm...

I actually had thought about the tie between unions and the democratic party but atributed that to the anti-union sentiment from the Republican party.

If the Republicans hate the unions and push them away, where else do the unions have to go?

I like most people am a centrist. I see good and bad on both sides. I have been a union member on and off for a LONG time.

There is a reason unions exist. Power tends to corrupt and if companies can do anything they want there will be abuse of workers.

On the other hand, power tends to corrupt and unions that get too powerful can destroy even a well meaning management.

I have never seen a real abuse of power by my local AFT though, until now. As unions go, the AFT is pretty moderate. Also, note that this whole gun issue has not yet been resolved. It is just in the proposal stage and may never come to anything.

When Reagan acted against the Air Traffic Controllers Union, he was refusing to give into union bullying and illegal actions and that was a good thing.

It seems to me though that the pendulum has swung pretty far in the other direction and now a lot of honest hard working people live in miserable conditions without benefits and decent pay.

To me working at a grocery store selling Chinese trade goods for minimum wage and no health care is not a viable option.

I happen to believe in gun rights and think that in this case the union is wrong. I don't think they are totally evil, just wrong on this issue.

I have seen them wrong on other issues. When I worked in a steel mill, we had a crane operator who used to come in drunk and who almost killed someone.

The union kept getting his job back (not a less responsible position until he proved himself, but right back on the crane) This happened several times.

I really resented having to put my life on the line by working with him up in the air above me.

On the other hand, I used to enjoy fair wages with benefits that enabled me to raise a family. Management did not have the attitude that they could get away with anything while they laughed at you. I have seen that attitude at a non-union place I worked at.

What I would like to see is fairness. Hasn't happened since the beginning of history and probably won't any time soon...

I know the dems are generally anti-gun and do not agree with them on that issue. Do they have everything wrong... no. Do the Republicans have everything right? No.

But they sure are right in general on gun issues.

I did not mean for this to become an anti-union statement.

I think what I was trying to find out about was whether or not they could demand (against state law) the banning of ccw.

We have a hospital in the area that has these signs. They say: "Even if you have a permit you are not permited to carry a gun in this hospital".

They make no attempt to enforce the sign and I ignore it believing it is illegal and just a feel good statement, from someone high up in the hospital, about his/her position on guns.

Am I wrong in ignoring that sign? It is a public facility not a private club and I do not see how they can override state authority like that.

I do not think our school can do it either.

I really need the input of someone like LawDog. What do you say LD? Do those kinds of signs have legal implications?

Or am I going to wind up in jail due to my ignorance?
 
Unions in my mind are the same as corporations.

A union is when a group of workers get together to collectively bargain from a position of strength that they would not possess alone.

A Corporation is when a group of investors and business owners get together to collectively obtain benefits that they would not possess alone.

With that said, I am a Union member and a Corporation owner.

I would send them a reply, asking what they mean by that. Or you could just drop it. I have discovered that most people don't want to discuss, they want to argue. Big difference.

When you discuss, you seek to become informed. When you argue, you seek to gain "points" over the other. Anyone who reads WA's posts will understand what I mean :p
 
After talking to my union rep I did get a clarification.

"The campus is a weapons free zone and any violation of that policy will result in immediate dismissal."

I was told that there was something in the contract when were were hired that stated that we would not bring drugs, alcohol or weapons on campus.

They did not mention legality at all. So, it is a school policy and not a law.

I believe that I could lose my job or a student could be expelled for carrying but that there would be no legal consequences.
 
Does school policy in PA supercede legislative perogative - does the Legislature reserve to itself the formulation of firearms policy for all public entities?
 
We have a hospital in the area that has these signs. They say: "Even if you have a permit you are not permited to carry a gun in this hospital".

They make no attempt to enforce the sign and I ignore it believing it is illegal and just a feel good statement, from someone high up in the hospital, about his/her position on guns.

Am I wrong in ignoring that sign? It is a public facility not a private club and I do not see how they can override state authority like that.

I do not think our school can do it either.

I really need the input of someone like LawDog. What do you say LD? Do those kinds of signs have legal implications?

Or am I going to wind up in jail due to my ignorance?
Click to expand...

If it is public or private and has either 1. signs (in compliance with state law regarding visibility, layout, etc...) dictating a no-gun policy or 2. In-Place security weapon screening devices or detail, you can not take your gun in there. Against state law or not...To do so would be asking for either a heavy fine or even and up to having your CCW permit stripped from you. Sure, you might be in the right, but you probably don't have the cash to fight them as much as they would be willing to fight you.

I generally avoid going into those places, though I don't see too many of them around here. But, to leave your weapon in your vehicle and open yourself to attack while in the place might be more risk you want to take than ignoring the signs and taking it with you anyway...

I would follow the building's rule/policy or avoid them altogether. Chances of being engaged in a shooting while in that place for some amount of time is pretty low *but it does hapen*.
 
I don't know about that. Signs have no legal weight at all in Florida. I carry, and I just remember that concealed means concealed.
 
Signs have no legal weight at all in Florida.
Click to expand...

Kinda like California? "Speed Limit 55" HAHAHAA, YEA RIGHT.


Do you have a statute you can reference to back up that statement? I wouldn't go by 'word of mouth' or 'righteous belief' really. But, if that is true, I would guess written notices are not allowed either, unless it is a contract and you sign it, agreeing to it.
 
Tokamak,

You have a golden opportunity here, I think. Not that it's a great one, but one to open the AFT's eyes.

First, do some research. List some school shootings and the number killed, specifically including both VT and Columbine where no one could challenge the killers. Also include other incidents where a student or faculty member obtained a firearm and subdued or stopped the attack (there are several but my mind has gone blank here) and list the number killed. You'll see that the numbers are very low where the killer was challenged by an armed citizen. Put this into some kind of table for easier understanding.

Also point out that if 13% of students say they are bringing a gun to school (with a legal CCW permit or not), point out some stats;
  • 13% of an annual 8,000 student population = 1,040 students with guns. And no shootings.
  • If adult students average 2 class vists per week, that is 16,640 incidents of guns on campus. And still no shootings.
  • That is approximate 65 incidents per day on average (excluding weekends and a 51-week year).
  • With over 16,500 "opportunities" for someone to suddenly decide to be a mass murderer, it hasn't happened.
  • If one of these 65 persons did start shooting, then the odds are there would be 51 other students (80% of 65, less 1 for the shooter) immediately available and capable of stopping him.

Now reverse it.
The AFT policy is, regardless of the student's race, age, religion, occupation, training or skill level, firearms and other weapons should be prohibited from any school campus.

This means the AFT and the school district(s) share the responsibility for the safety of persons within the school. As such, the AFT must acknowledge that any student injured or killed in a shooting incident has a legal right to bring civil action against the school and the AFT for failing to provide a "safe learning environment" when students and faculty are prohibited from taking steps to protect themselves.

The AFT can greatly lower their legal liability by acknowleging that people with concealed carry permits, having a their own vested interest in retaining their permits and using their firearms only in a manner authorized by law, may possess and carry their firearms in schools.


An incident where a student who had a permit "murdered" someone and then asked a teacher for a character reference in the trial was offered as proof that students were not mature enough to carry guns (these are licenced adults - over 21 we are talking about).
Click to expand...

For an organization supposedly representing educated teachers, this makes me question their decision making abilities. Statistically, "a sample of one does not make up a statistical universe". Based on this logic, every member of the AFT is a child-molester since there is a much larger sampling of teachers who have committed such a crime.

I was further told that anyone who felt they needed to carry a gun to school should not be attending school.
Click to expand...

This is not an issue of feeling but one of fact. Columbine, Virginia Tech and others have shown us time and again that defenseless students can be killed with ease. Schools should be a place of learning, not places where entering a building subjects you to a metal detector, pat-down search and rummaging through your personal effects.
 
Bill in CA good post - update

Believe it or not the college actually responded in a fair manner.

They said that they believed that I was wrong because any institution can ban guns on their own property, but that I might be right so they are seeking a legal opinion.

They did not just say: "You are wrong shut up".

I thanked them for considering that their position might be wrong and am awaiting the legal decision.

Good to deal with reasonable people for a change.
 
I did't see any mention if it was a public uni or private? I would think a State funded Uni would have to follow State Law?
 
As such, the AFT must acknowledge that any student injured or killed in a shooting incident has a legal right to bring civil action against the school and the AFT for failing to provide a "safe learning environment" when students and faculty are prohibited from taking steps to protect themselves.
Click to expand...
I think they should take it one step further and hold them criminally liable for it as being an accessory to murder by disarming the victims. It should be made extremely costly for those who force helplessness upon people as to make it something they should deem too costly to them to do so.
 
They said that they believed that I was wrong because any institution can ban guns on their own property, but that I might be right so they are seeking a legal opinion.
Click to expand...

Oh boy. :rolleyes: I just wonder what the opinion of their lawyer will be. The *#^&!# lawyers get involved and everything has to have warning labels in thirty-five languages and one hundred eleven safety devices or you have liability because "what if the person is wearing an iPod and can't hear the warning bells over their iTunes music?" :Barf: [/rant]

It may be a school's perogative to ban weapons on campus - we know a lot of businesses do so - to avoid legal suits if a firearm is accidentally discharged.

One thing that can be done, though, is show the school how much extra cost they wil incur if they prohibit weapons. That's why I wrote the foregoing post. If you restrict my ability to protect myself, then you must provide a minimum amount of protection. In businesses, that usually means locked doors and card-key access, vistor badges and the like. In an academic environment, badges are unlikely, so that means somehow screening people to prevent "smuggled in" guns; security to stop someone who gets a weapon inside; equipment, training, procedures, etc.

Even then, if you implement all of that and someone does manage to get past your security, there are suits alleging inadequate, inefficient or poorly executed processes that allowed the incident to occur.

So why prohibit them at all if you're just going to have to defend yourself in court regardless? Let the students with state-issued permits have a means to protect themselves and their classmates.

Yellowfin - I doubt criminal charges could be successful. No one is forcing them to go to that school or to remain there. The school probably does have the right to restrict items it feels are dangerous or inappropriate to the campus (loud music, displays of pornography, distributing political pamphlets, commercial sales flyers, guns, knives, etc.) to maintain an educational environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top