Group Claims Oregon Senator Wants Female Teachers Defenseless Against Abusers

(BELLEVUE, Wash.) - A right wing Oregon gun ownership group is steaming over proposed legislation that would ban guns from school grounds. The group's angle in attacking the legislation brought forward by Ginny Burdick, is an implication that she is trying to make life "less safe" for female teachers.

"Oregon State Sen. Ginny Burdick's plan to sponsor legislation designed to make female teachers more vulnerable to abusive ex-spouses by specifically stripping away their right of self-defense on school campuses is a new low in gun control extremism," the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

The group describes Burdick as an "anti-gun Portland Democrat," and they are clearly hostile toward the bill she will introduce that would specifically authorize Oregon school districts to ban firearms on campus. The new rule would affect teachers with a concealed carry permit.

For all intents and purposes, most teachers are not trained firearm experts, and most do not have military combat experience or police training.

Few would disagree that shooting guns on a school campus would put students at extreme risk, but this group believe it is of utmost importance to keep teachers armed, rather than keeping guns out of the public learning environment.

"While she has sponsored similar bills in the past, and all have been defeated, this one will be aimed at the rights of teachers like the one in Medford, who is fearful of an ex-spouse against whom she has a restraining order. That teacher has gone to court to force the Medford school district to live by state firearms law and the Oregon Constitution."

But critics say it is ridiculous for any teacher who has a dangerous ex-spouse to put students at risk by insisting to arrive at school armed.

"Burdick's hypocrisy is world-class," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "She has championed legislation to protect nursing mothers in the workplace, and to prevent discrimination against domestic partners. Yet, she obviously thinks single moms don't need protection from abusive ex-spouses, nor is she the least bit concerned about discriminating against law-abiding Oregon female gun owners who happen to be teachers."

The gun rights group implies that Burdick's action is to endanger female teachers, but they fail to mention that the legislation will have the exact same impact on male teachers, who would be equally affected.

They appear to believe that armed female teachers are an extremely important aspect of society, and assume that the school ground is where they must prepare to meet an armed confrontation. "There is no evidence that a legally-armed teacher has ever harmed a single student in any school in America," added CCRKBA Executive Director Mark A. Taff. "Indeed, I am reminded that an assistant principal at Mississippi's Pearl High School retrieved a gun from his vehicle and confronted school shooter Luke Woodham there in 1997, holding him at gunpoint until police arrived."

In the end, CCRKBA comes across as an extreme, almost fringe group with its clearly unwavering attack on Burdick. They have their supporters, but they keep their position tight in the far right corner pocket of politics.

"Sen. Burdick is a text book example of the socially-prejudiced liberal," Gottlieb stated. He faults the Senator who has championed many successful programs to aid women, which he admits.

"She would stand up for a woman's right to choose on every issue except when it comes to the choice of personal protection. In this case, she obviously feels women like the teacher in Medford should simply submit to fear and perhaps being victimized in the work place. What a horrible, demeaning double standard."

Salem-News.com Top Stories

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

rewilding LA: Matilija Dam History and Ecosystems

One Killed and Two Injured in Shooting Near South Salem High School

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Henry Ruark September 23, 2007 4:16 pm (Pacific time)

In any school, safety for both students and teachers must always be foremost. Given heavy negatives at play always everywhere today, guns-present constitute an unforgivable risk in the often undisciplined and sometimes unmanagable community. IF we ban drugs and seek every protection vs any poison by chance, surely we need the samed safeguards for guns,too. IF intermittent circumstance demands additional security, is it not better to provide that via trained personnel ? Billions spent in Iraq might well make possible rational, reasonable related action.

Chris Ewens September 23, 2007 10:19 am (Pacific time)

According to reporter Tim King's bio info, he served in the Marine Corps for three years. If that is true, then he should know better about some of the content of the article. As a an experienced firearms instructor, I can assure you that teachers who complete an adequate amount of training can be just as competent as police officers with their handguns. Many officers have little or no interest in practicing with their handguns unless required to do so by their agency. If the teacher who is protecting herself completed one of the advanced courses at my facility, BullsEye Tactical Firearms Training, I am confident she could out-perform many Medford police officers. And what is with the labeling of CCRKBA as an "extreme, almost fringe group" that keeps "their position tight in the far right corner pocket of politics"? I have just as many liberals who complete concealed handgun training as do conservatives. Protecting yourself is a right that people of all political persuations value in this country.

skucera September 23, 2007 8:49 am (Pacific time)

I thought the Citizens Committe for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a national civil rights organization based in Bellevue, Washington. When did they become an Oregon "right wing" organization? By the same logic, is the NAACP now an Oregon right wing civil rights group? Is insisting that governments and law enforcement obey the letter of the law and the Constitution now a "right wing" thing? I'm a liberal who believes that everyone should have the right and power to protect themselves, to protect their children, and to protect the defenseless from criminals. How does banning law abiding citizens (who have passed background checks from their local sherriff, the Oregon State Police, and the FBI) from carrying their pistols according to Oregon law in schools protect anyone? How does it protect the teacher? How does it protect her students? How does it protect the people of Oregon from abuses of power like the one being perpetrated by the Medford school board? I'm as ardent a liberal as Eugene ever bred. Seeking to ban guns only works to strengthen the hand of criminals. Good, law abiding people obey laws that disarm them, but criminals will still carry guns when they are banned. They _are_ criminals, after all! Someone like Kip Kinkel or Cho Seung Hui or Charles Roberts select schools to kill in specifically because they offer concentrated, unarmed targets. Killers like these choose "unarmed victim zones" like schools and churches because they don't want to be shot down themselves before they can kill as many people as possible. Israel had several school shootings years ago, and they decided that the best way to protect the kids was to allow teachers, staff, parents, and grandparents to protect the kids with concealed weapons. It worked. It still works.

Scouse September 23, 2007 7:05 am (Pacific time)

For all intents and purposes, most teachers are not trained firearm experts, and most do not have military combat experience or police training. RUBBISH! Few would disagree that shooting guns on a school campus would put students at extreme risk? MORE RUBBISH Well I would dissagree, shooting innocent Teachers and Students is terrible, shooting mad men doing just that, is fine! The reporter Tim King knows nothing about self defence with a pistol, it needs no super human skill, none,you produce small pistol, .380 with 7 or 8 hollow points loaded in it, then with a two handed tight grip, look at the threat at maximum room size (5 yards approx) mad man/nut case Husband,insert pistol sights between threat and threatened, depress trigger, and do so till threat is dead, or injured to the extent they are no longer a threat, my adopted Country was not founded on the actions of wimps, or cowards.

Jagermann September 22, 2007 1:20 am (Pacific time)

Oregon State Sen. Ginny Burdick plans to sponser legislation that will protect mass murders and endanger the lives of students and teachers alike. Your constitutional freedom should not end as soon as you walk onto a school campus nor should your right to defend yourself be restricted. Gun free zones are a major safety hazard. It disgusts me that after so many school shootings the gun shy liberals are still preventing changes in policy on our school campuses.

Vic September 21, 2007 6:55 pm (Pacific time)

I agree with EazyMoney...

Neal Feldman September 21, 2007 1:28 pm (Pacific time)

Im sorry but there is no such thing as an unrestricted right. The right to free speech does not allow for libel or slander, for example. The right to bear arms does not extend to nukes, biochemical or biologicals etc. And I'm sorry but schools should be gun free zones. Yes I know the old saw about how in the event of a gun toting maniac there might be some benefit, but as statistics show lightning striking is more likely in the cafeteria than to have a Columbine incident we need to also look at the stats for home owned guns which statistics show are far more likely to be used against someone in the home (or misused by a child in the home with potentially lethal results) than ever against an armed intruder. I do not care if the person has a CCP. If there is a gun in the school some stupid students will find a way to get it and misuse it. That is a far more likely outcome than the heroic teacher shooting the next Dylan Kleibold. But the gun nuts continue their ravings that any kind of limitation is a 'ban' and the 'first step towards repealing the 2nd amendment' and other Chicken Little nonsense that is on par with the yahoos who whine and rant that raising the minimum wage will signal Armageddon. With about the same legitimacy and credibility. Want to own a few guns, go right ahead. No one needs a personal arsenal, no one needs personally owned nukes and no one NEEDS to carry a gun in a school unless they are a duly trained and employed security person. PERIOD. Ah well....

Worried Parent September 21, 2007 12:13 pm (Pacific time)

How will Ginny Burdick guarantee that our children will not be "fish in a barrel" in her Utopian "gun free" zones? Will her legislation mandate fences, limited entry points, armed security, magnetometers, and X-Ray machines as we have at airports, or is her desire merely to hassle the "peasants"? Is she just facilitating a target rich environment for criminals and terrorists? You really have to question her motives here, without all the emotional baggage that any mention of "guns" brings. If Ginny Burdick really wants to keep our children safe at school, why not legislation to mandate airport-like security in schools? Have you noticed how spree-killings only ever occur in "gun free" zones? Expecting a homicidal murderer to care about a "gun free" zone sign is like expecting a car bomber to worry about parking in a handicapped spot.

WEM September 21, 2007 11:32 am (Pacific time)

The teacher in question is fabricating her story about her ex-husband. He is not a threat to her. Please check her story. There is no truth to it. It appears that she is the actual threat and should not being carrying a gun at all. She needs psychotherapy.

Lisa Hemp September 21, 2007 9:16 am (Pacific time)

Iam a member of the Citizens Committe for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and very liberal myself. They are not a "right wing" group as you report. Their advisory board s both democracts and republicans on it. Your story was very biased and slanted!

EazyMoney September 21, 2007 7:59 am (Pacific time)

I think anyone who can legally carry a concealed firearm should be able to do so. Two people were shot this morning at Deleware University. Why does our government insist we be a nation of victims?

[Return to Top]