James E. Leuenberger
Attorney & Counselor At Law

Current Projects State v. David Abram.   Judgment Dismissal   State Motion to Dismiss - all charges Claims LLC v Jackson County
  Appeal Brief
Matthew Rinehart
  Acquitted of Sex Abuse
Armando Garcia
  Acquitted of Rape
Josiah Telles
  Acquitted of Sexual Abuse
Cougar Victims vs Oregon Jane Doe (Shirley Katz)
  vs Medford Schools
The Curious Matter
  of Jerome Daily
Recent Works
Politics My Philosophy My Petition
E-Mail Me

5200 SW Meadows Rd Ste 150
PO Box 1684
Lake Oswego OR 97035-1684

(503) 679-8473
 


     Jane Doe vs Medford School District 549C


Below I have copied my response to Burdick's editorial. (They will never run it.)

Kevin Starrett, Director Oregon Firearms Federation responds.
My question is, if she can't be trusted in school, where can she be trusted? Aren't there kids in malls, and supermarkets? Doesn't she have kids at home?

As the director of the "extremist" organization Ginny Burdick references in her editorial on Sept 16th, ("Armed teachers?") I must respond to some of her assertions.

Burdick begins her objections to teachers being armed by questioning whether a teacher can safely conceal her firearm. This ignores the reality that thousands of Oregonians do this very thing successfully every day. It's simply not that difficult.

Burdick goes on to spin her fantasy scenario. What if the husband walks in? What if he has a gun? What if he grabs a child as a shield? Have the children been trained to "get under their desks if there is a gunfight in the classroom?"

The better, more rational question is; what if all these things happen under the current (illegal) rules, as they have from coast to coast with the well known and deadly results? For some reason Burdick prefers the status quo ( where teachers and students are totally at the mercy of the deranged) to the possibility that a trusted person could respond. Burdick's long career of promoting victim disarmament proves this.

Burdick continues by stating that law enforcement (the only people she believes should be allowed to protect themselves) get "hundreds of hours of training" to deal with the scenario she invents, when in fact, training varies widely from department to department, and past experience has shown that none of that is a guaranteed indicator of how a situation will turn out. Numerous "highly trained" swat teams waited outside while children and teachers were gunned down in Columbine. At Virginia Tech, there was no police response to protect students even AFTER two were killed.

Burdick states "If the lawsuit is successful, many more teachers like her will be taking loaded guns into classrooms. Parents and visitors will be able to do so, too."

This is not true. Parents and visitors can, and do, take loaded firearms to school every day, legally. Otherwise there would be no need for Burdick to repeatedly introduce bills to strip people of this right. The fact is, licensed teachers carry guns to school all the time. I know, they tell me. And the fact that it never comes up is more proof that it can be done safely and discreetly.

While I know of no incident where a teacher's gun has caused a problem in a classroom, we are all aware of the "highly trained" DEA agent who shot himself in the foot at a classroom demonstration, after telling the kids that "no one" but he was qualified to handle a Glock.

Burdick does make one accurate claim. She says "The gun lobby is relentless in pushing its agenda" That's true. And as long as people like Burdick make a lifelong pursuit of making innocent women helpless victims, we will fight to keep them safe.

Kevin Starrett Director Oregon Firearms Federation 503-263-5830 Oregon Firearms off@oregonfirearms.org


© 2002-2014 James E. Leuenberger