More school administrator stupidity.

It can't even be legal for an administrator to capriciously deny access to a public place - I'd think there's a legitimate law suit here.
 
Anything for the children. If it saves just one life it is worth it. And most importantly some people FEEL icky about guns. Americans not feeling icky trumps everything else.
 
Wow....they didn't even ban her for carrying on school grounds....just saw that she had a permit and banned her on those grounds alone!

Yeah, I'd say she definitely has a case.
 
Fearless Tower said:
...Yeah, I'd say she definitely has a case.
Click to expand...

But note that she's not making it a "case." She moved her daughter to another school and has asked for an apology. So much classier than jumping to sue.

The school has lost a volunteer, and also lost a student who appears to have an environment which teaches good values.

I do question the wisdom of posting your carry permit on Facebook. But it shouldn't have caused such a knee-jerk.
 
What's next? banning people who are members of the NRA?
 
As a parent who has been told not to enter a school building after being available to simply sit at the back of a classroom and observe (we ended up hiring a special education attorney and this story went on well after this) I now know that an administrator can ask someone to leave for any or no reason.

I DO think this reason is crap.
 
docmirror said:
Ask <> ban.
Click to expand...

Assuming you mean "not equal," who said she was merely asked? The article says that she was sent "a criminal trespass warning statement in the mail from the Richmond County Board of Education Police." If true, that's seems to be more than being asked.
 
Post #1 describes a ban. Post 8 mentions an admin "ask"ing someone to leave. They are not the same. An admin can ask me to leave campus, to which I will decline. An administrator cannot capriciously ban someone from their school district without cause.

Well, maybe in totalitarian US 2013 they can. Which - I find damn sad. Guess I should have made it more clear.
 
docmirror said:
Post #1 describes a ban. Post 8 mentions an admin "ask"ing someone to leave. They are not the same. An admin can ask me to leave campus, to which I will decline. An administrator cannot capriciously ban someone from their school district without cause.

Well, maybe in totalitarian US 2013 they can. Which - I find damn sad. Guess I should have made it more clear.
Click to expand...

You might find that this is untrue in a practical sense. You can be banned if your presence is declared disruptive. The disruption does not have to be based on fact, and can be just in the opinion of an administrator or teacher (who probably doesn't like you evaluating their classroom).
 
docmirror said:
Post #1 describes a ban. Post 8 mentions an admin "ask"ing someone to leave. They are not the same. An admin can ask me to leave campus, to which I will decline. An administrator cannot capriciously ban someone from their school district without cause.

Well, maybe in totalitarian US 2013 they can. Which - I find damn sad. Guess I should have made it more clear.
Click to expand...

Well, when a bouncer "asks" you to leave an establishment, I'm guessing that's pretty close to be commanded to leave.
 
I see we have more sheeple in this thread than I first thought. The word ask and the word ban are not synonyms. That's all I was pointing out.

If my actions in a school are disruptive, the admin can ask me to leave. If I decline they can have me removed by being placed under arrest(or asking a LEO to do it). If the LEO arrests me, then I have something actionable against the administration. Suppose I am on school property, after having been issued a CC permit(as in this example). We can then take that to court after my arrest, and we will have a jury, or the bench decide if being a CC permit holder is a lawful basis for prohibiting my attendance at a public school, barring any other kind of actions. Meaning, that while I'm on school property I conduct myself as would any other visitor. If the jury says that yes, holding a CC permit while on school grounds is reasonable to be arrested and denied access, then we can take that on up and see if it will be granted cert to the top court eventually.

However, for an administrator to arbitrarily decide who can be on the grounds and who can't based on being issued a piece of paper 'allowing' a constitutionally protected right, is ridiculous, particularly considering that my tax dollars are funding the school and all that work there.

I know, a lot of you will have plenty to say about 'it's for the children'. The first line of the weak minded fascists.

buh-bye.
 
docmirror said:
I see we have more sheeple in this thread than I first thought. The word ask and the word ban are not synonyms. That's all I was pointing out.

If my actions in a school are disruptive, the admin can ask me to leave. If I decline they can have me removed by being placed under arrest(or asking a LEO to do it). If the LEO arrests me, then I have something actionable against the administration. Suppose I am on school property, after having been issued a CC permit(as in this example). We can then take that to court after my arrest, and we will have a jury, or the bench decide if being a CC permit holder is a lawful basis for prohibiting my attendance at a public school, barring any other kind of actions. Meaning, that while I'm on school property I conduct myself as would any other visitor. If the jury says that yes, holding a CC permit while on school grounds is reasonable to be arrested and denied access, then we can take that on up and see if it will be granted cert to the top court eventually.

However, for an administrator to arbitrarily decide who can be on the grounds and who can't based on being issued a piece of paper 'allowing' a constitutionally protected right, is ridiculous, particularly considering that my tax dollars are funding the school and all that work there.

I know, a lot of you will have plenty to say about 'it's for the children'. The first line of the weak minded fascists.

buh-bye.
Click to expand...

OK, so if I get a criminal trespass statement issued for me, I'm not actually "banned" from going there, I'm just "asked" from going there? If I have a restraining order issued against me, I'm not actually "banned" from going within x distance of the complainant, I'm merely being "asked" not to go near them?

Riiiiiiiight. I'd love to see how my argument would hold up.

"You have a RO here to stay 300 yards away from Susie Snottypants."
"Yes, your honor."
"And yet you were in her place of work no less than 3 times this week."
"Yes, your honor."
"Do you have an explanation for your actions?"
"Yeah, the order was merely 'asking' me to stay away and not actually banning me from remaining at a distance."
"Oh, well in that case you are free to go."

I'm sure that's exactly how it works.
 
Ghery said:
I have a sticker on my car that would give them apoplexy if that were the case (Patron Member, NRA). :D
Click to expand...

A junior shooter at my club has a T-shirt that reads something like "I participate in an Olympic sport that I can't talk about in school"
 
EdFred said:
"You have a RO here to stay 300 yards away from Susie Snottypants."
"Yes, your honor."
"And yet you were in her place of work no less than 3 times this week."
"Yes, your honor."
"Do you have an explanation for your actions?"
"Yeah, the order was merely 'asking' me to stay away and not actually banning me from remaining at a distance."
"Oh, well in that case you are free to go."

I'm sure that's exactly how it works.
Click to expand...
Yes. And your letter will be transported to the recipient by the U.S. Post Office if you see "Please place postage here" on the envelope and you consider that a request, not a requirement. It's a new world.
 
docmirror said:
I see we have more sheeple in this thread than I first thought. The word ask and the word ban are not synonyms. That's all I was pointing out.

If my actions in a school are disruptive, the admin can ask me to leave. If I decline they can have me removed by being placed under arrest(or asking a LEO to do it). If the LEO arrests me, then I have something actionable against the administration. Suppose I am on school property, after having been issued a CC permit(as in this example). We can then take that to court after my arrest, and we will have a jury, or the bench decide if being a CC permit holder is a lawful basis for prohibiting my attendance at a public school, barring any other kind of actions. Meaning, that while I'm on school property I conduct myself as would any other visitor. If the jury says that yes, holding a CC permit while on school grounds is reasonable to be arrested and denied access, then we can take that on up and see if it will be granted cert to the top court eventually.

However, for an administrator to arbitrarily decide who can be on the grounds and who can't based on being issued a piece of paper 'allowing' a constitutionally protected right, is ridiculous, particularly considering that my tax dollars are funding the school and all that work there.

I know, a lot of you will have plenty to say about 'it's for the children'. The first line of the weak minded fascists.

buh-bye.
Click to expand...

They even have a form to ban you from the grounds...
 
Bob Noel said:
A junior shooter at my club has a T-shirt that reads something like "I participate in an Olympic sport that I can't talk about in school"
Click to expand...

I'm torn. It's sad (disgusting) that he can't talk about it, but I love the shirt poking fun at the problem. Best of luck to him in his competitions. We sure didn't have that problem when I was in school.
 
Ghery said:
I'm torn. It's sad (disgusting) that he can't talk about it, but I love the shirt poking fun at the problem. Best of luck to him in his competitions. We sure didn't have that problem when I was in school.
Click to expand...

One of the local high schools still just barely, has a competition rifle squad. It's somehow associated with their ROTC folks or it'd be long gone in nanny land.

How do we stop this stupidity ?

http://distractify.com/news/how-america-is-turning-kids-into-sissies/
 
The logic is as such:

1. Parent has concealed carry permit.

2. You can carry in any place where it is legal to possess a firearm.

3. The school has made it illegal ( and there rules have the force of law because they are a governmental agency in most state), thus, you cannot legally carry in that location.

It is that simple. Chill. The administrator will be supported by the police, the prosecutors and the courts. The parent in this situation needs to mea culpa, apologize, and move on to avoid losing their concealed carry permit.

Geesh.
 
Ghery said:
I'm torn. It's sad (disgusting) that he can't talk about it, but I love the shirt poking fun at the problem. Best of luck to him in his competitions. We sure didn't have that problem when I was in school.
Click to expand...

THAT is protected first amendment speech . . . they can have rules against wearing the shirt and the District will lose.

There are nuances here folks - please.
 
comanchepilot said:
The logic is as such:

1. Parent has concealed carry permit.

2. You can carry in any place where it is legal to possess a firearm.

3. The school has made it illegal ( and there rules have the force of law because they are a governmental agency in most state), thus, you cannot legally carry in that location.

It is that simple. Chill. The administrator will be supported by the police, the prosecutors and the courts. The parent in this situation needs to mea culpa, apologize, and move on to avoid losing their concealed carry permit.

Geesh.
Click to expand...

She wasn't banned for carrying on school grounds. She was banned altogether whether she was carrying or not.
 
EdFred said:
She wasn't banned for carrying on school grounds. She was banned altogether whether she was carrying or not.
Click to expand...

No - she was banned because she brought a weapon onto school grounds . . . tis the only basis to do so.
 
comanchepilot said:
No - she was banned because she brought a weapon onto school grounds . . . tis the only basis to do so.
Click to expand...

Evidently we read different articles, because the one I read stated she was banned solely for posting her updated CC permit on facebook, not for carrying on school grounds.
Army veteran Tanya Mount was banned from her daughter’s school after posting a photograph on Facebook of her updated concealed weapons permit. Mount received a criminal trespass warning statement in the mail from the Richmond County Board of Education Police.
Georgia school principal Janina Dallas confirmed the Facebook post was indeed the reason for banning the parent from school grounds.
Click to expand...
Nothing indicates she ever carried on school property.

I have a permit, but it doesn't mean I am always carrying.
 
Last edited:
comanchepilot said:
No - she was banned because she brought a weapon onto school grounds . . . tis the only basis to do so.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have to support your position?

That's the only explanation that makes sense to me, however the impression given by reports this far is that she was banned because she publicized that she had a concealed carry permit.

In Virginia, a CCW permittee may drive onto school grounds to pick up/drop off his child, and may have the weapon on his person but may not leave the car. If going inside the school, the weapon needs to be secured in the car.

Even folks who CAN carry in the schools (law enforcement or other feds) are encouraged to be as discreet as possible.
 
PW_Plack said:
I do question the wisdom of posting your carry permit on Facebook. But it shouldn't have caused such a knee-jerk.
Click to expand...

Why not? I posted mine because when it arrived in the mailbox, it had a nice little post-it note attached to it.

1df75db8.jpg
 
comanchepilot said:
The logic is as such:

1. Parent has concealed carry permit.

2. You can carry in any place where it is legal to possess a firearm.

3. The school has made it illegal ( and there rules have the force of law because they are a governmental agency in most state), thus, you cannot legally carry in that location.

It is that simple. Chill. The administrator will be supported by the police, the prosecutors and the courts. The parent in this situation needs to mea culpa, apologize, and move on to avoid losing their concealed carry permit.

Geesh.
Click to expand...

except by the original report the parent was not banned from bringing a weapon onto school grounds but rather banned from coming onto the school grounds under any circumstances and it was based on the fact that she had a ccp
 
comanchepilot said:
The logic is as such:

1. Parent has concealed carry permit.

2. You can carry in any place where it is legal to possess a firearm.

3. The school has made it illegal ( and there rules have the force of law because they are a governmental agency in most state), thus, you cannot legally carry in that location.

It is that simple. Chill. The administrator will be supported by the police, the prosecutors and the courts. The parent in this situation needs to mea culpa, apologize, and move on to avoid losing their concealed carry permit.

Geesh.
Click to expand...

Administrator didn't say "You can't carry on school property". Administrator said "YOU are banned from school property!!"

Geesh
 
Perhaps this would be an issue to be brought before the school board, and if that didn't work, the next school board election.
 
Palmpilot said:
Perhaps this would be an issue to be brought before the school board, and if that didn't work, the next school board election.
Click to expand...

Around here, you'd be lucky to find a school board that wasn't 97% rabidly anti-gun. They would probably move to file paperwork with the DSS to have the child removed from custody of the parent.
 
Graueradler said:
Administrator didn't say "You can't carry on school property". Administrator said "YOU are banned from school property!!"

Geesh
Click to expand...

Any why did he make that decision? Just because they do not perform the analysis for you and only go to the conclusion?

Yes - one should appeal to the school board since it is not likely that the administrator has the authority to do that . . ..

Then the CC holder can point out that they a) have a CC and b) that the administrator way exceeded their authority and c) both are civil rights violations . . ..

That said a gentle approach to the administrator should be tried first . . .
 
comanchepilot said:
Any why did he make that decision? Just because they do not perform the analysis for you and only go to the conclusion?

Yes - one should appeal to the school board since it is not likely that the administrator has the authority to do that . . ..

Then the CC holder can point out that they a) have a CC and b) that the administrator way exceeded their authority and c) both are civil rights violations . . ..

That said a gentle approach to the administrator should be tried first . . .
Click to expand...


Well since we are adding stuff to the story as we see fit, the obvious reason she was banned was because she was brandishing, running through the hallway while "field stripping" her clothing, and yelling "I'll get you my pretty!" and that's why she was banned. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top