Teacher in San Diego arrested for having a .380 on campus

[Jeepergeo]

Watching the footage of motorists being searched at gun point on Hwy 38, and hearing the events that took place in Torrance, and hearing about a RoboCop gone bad...is there any wonder why more and more people are buying firearms?

I suspect there will be more cases with similarities to this teacher case, where good people, with self protection in mind, decide to break the law and carry when and where they are clearly prohibited from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. And there will be an endless line of LEOs more than willing to bust said folks for doing so. Folks that choose to do so, do so at considerable personal risk.

It is too early to know exactly what was up with this teacher, so I'm waiting to hear more facts (not "news", but "facts"). Unfortunately, this guy's life is likely changed forever. whether or not he was a good teacher or permitted to carry outside of the school zone.

[paul0660]

permitted to carry outside of the school zone.

as has been noted:

He was in San Diego county so probably did not have a LTC;
LTC holders can carry in the school zone AND on school property;
School policy probably prohibits possessing on school property, not a violation of the law, violation of a condition of employment.

[rootuser]

Originally Posted by safewaysecurity

It is NOT illegal to find someone not guilty even if the evidence points otherwise. It's called Jury Nullification and it's been around since the founding of this country. The Jury decides the facts. The jury has the power and the right to do this. I WILL NOT convict someone because of some dumb law passed by the legislature. These laws are unconstitutional and the Constitution is the law of the land to me, not the California penal code.

I'm not suggesting it's illegal. I have never stated as such. Thus, why the LAPD got off in the first Rodney King verdict. Thus why several KKK members were found not guilty in the South during the Jim Crow era. Thus why several people have been put on death row, even when the examined evidence later shows they did not in fact commit the crime (and it was clear to the jury, not a DNA kind of thing). Usually appeal catches the guilty verdicts, but verdicts of not guilty are difficult to retry. Sometimes it means the Federal Government has to step in, as in Rodney King.

The constitution is clear, a jury is to be impartial, and it is not required to be a jury of peers. To me impartial would mean impartial to the defendant, impartial to the prosecution and impartial to the law, equally, not one way or the other. What you are suggesting goes counter to the constitution in my opinion, however legal it may be. I don't expect to change your mind, I just think our framers believed that jurors would act impartially and not let their feelings get in the way.

What breaks the whole system (and this is where I will agree with you) is the idea of mandatory jail time for crimes. So a jury feels boxed in. I would find the teacher guilty of carrying a concealed weapon on school grounds (he was by point of fact guilty) IF I thought the judge would let him off with probation or the like. If I found out there was some mandatory jail time, say a year in jail, or it made him a felon or the like, I would struggle with my oath as a juror and my desire to follow the constitution, vs the fact that if i do my duty, I may be sending a man off to a punishment not deserved. This is of course the reason jury nullification exists. While as a juror it's not my job to worry about jail time or the like, the truth is, it's a heavy burden to send a man you think broke a stupid law off to jail. Again, not an excuse to violate my oath, but it definately gives pause.

[Rusty_Rebar]

Originally Posted by arrix

I'm guessing he didn't have a ccw permit?

If he did, this would not have been illegal.

[Kid Stanislaus]

Originally Posted by Liberals_for_Liberty

"when laws become unlawful, it's time to revolt"

There is no lawful way to bear arms outside of your home in California... That's half of the second amendment straight trampled. Our laws are already unlawful.

I don't know what part of CA you are living in but I've been pack'n my roscoe for a couple of years now with an LTC. If at all possible, move to a county that is gun friendly.

[paul0660]

Originally Posted by Rusty_Rebar

If he did, this would not have been illegal.

Actually, the news story (which may not be very accurate) says he was reported to be storing ammunition on campus. Even with the LTC exception to carrying ammo onto campus in 12316, storing it is likely a violation.

[Kid Stanislaus]

Originally Posted by A-J

When did those become illegal?

As soon as you step onto the grounds of a K-12 school. Its a felonly.

EDIT: Refers to carrying a knife on school grounds.

[Gapmaster]

Maybe he didn't conceal it because he wanted it to be seen because he's willing to fight the battle to make a point. He may not be as stupid as some here might suggest. Just sayin

[paul0660]

Originally Posted by Gapmaster

Maybe he didn't conceal it because he wanted it to be seen because he's willing to fight the battle to make a point. He may not be as stupid as some here might suggest. Just sayin

THAT would be STOOPIDER.

[biscuitbarrel]

Let's start writing to our respective school districts and tell them we support armed teachers.

[DrDavid]

1) Get CCW
2) KEEP IT CONCEALED!!!!

I get away with talking about it as I'm self-employed. I'm not firing myself.. But, you'd better believe that if I was working for someone anti-gun, it'd be concealed, and VERY well.. Also, while I'll talk about my gun online, I will *never* discuss it in public. Even if I'm in at Walmart buying ammo, or in a gun store. Concealed means concealed!

Bonehead teacher... Way to get a felony charge for no useful purpose.

[YubaRiver]

Originally Posted by DrDavid

1)

Bonehead teacher... Way to get a felony charge for no useful purpose.

Felony = legal discrimination when job and house hunting, no more voting,
no more 2A, no more government safety net or jobs, etc.

Seems like they are handing out felony convictions like lolipops. No wonder we
jail more citizens than any other country in the world. The idea we are a free
country is BS. The top paying state jobs belong to prison employees.

The teacher probably thought he would be judged fairly, not abused with
zero tolerance foolishness.

A pocket knife. They are not covered by CCW you know.
How did we fall so fast.

[Aces and 8s]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

...That is strongly anti-gun.

-Brandon

Teachers Unions sure love those pedophile teachers though!!!!

[DrDavid]

Originally Posted by YubaRiver

Felony = legal discrimination when job and house hunting, no more voting,
no more 2A, no more government safety net or jobs, etc.

Seems like they are handing out felony convictions like lolipops. No wonder we
jail more citizens than any other country in the world. The idea we are a free
country is BS. The top paying state jobs belong to prison employees.

The teacher probably thought he would be judged fairly, not abused with
zero tolerance foolishness.

A pocket knife. They are not covered by CCW you know.
How did we fall so fast.

Yup.. This country is jail crazy. We have more people in jail than China. Not per population, but as a raw absolute number. We jail more than China. Period. Pathetic.

[Liberals_for_Liberty]

Originally Posted by Kid Stanislaus

I don't know what part of CA you are living in but I've been pack'n my roscoe for a couple of years now with an LTC. If at all possible, move to a county that is gun friendly.

San Diego. Moving isn't much of an option. I haven't even bothered to apply for a CCW permit, because it doesn't seem "for personal protection" is a valid reason.

[P.Charm]

Originally Posted by Liberals_for_Liberty

San Diego. Moving isn't much of an option. I haven't even bothered to apply for a CCW permit, because it doesn't seem "for personal protection" is a valid reason.

same here. but if we ever get the shal issue green light, I'll be in line for mine.

[Liberals_for_Liberty]

Originally Posted by P.Charm

same here. but if we ever get the shal issue green light, I'll be in line for mine.

Right there with ya. Bring a book, it'll be a long one.

[IPSICK]

Wow, the anti-gun is strong in this thread.

Many of you are saying he should have had an LTC, but it sounds like it would have been difficult to get it in his county.

Sounds like his rights were already violated prior to his breakage of the law.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by Aces and 8s

Teachers Unions sure love those pedophile teachers though!!!!

Gunnies are below pedophiles on their weirdo-meter. This is what we need to change - the perception.

[MaHoTex]

Dang, that sucks. This is a perfect case where he should have STFU. He hosed himself.

[bergmen]

Originally Posted by Atlantaboi2012

Its California remember?... you have no rights

Correct, we only have lefts.

Dan

[aliphian]

He may have broken a "law" but I don't think he did anything wrong. I'm glad to see an educator that isn't terrified of the word "gun".

[ojisan]

Originally Posted by Fellblade

I do have jury duty coming up, but I'm sure the prosecutor would kick me off.
Them: "Do you own any guns?"
Me: "Yes"
Them: "Thank you for your service, you're dismissed"

Maybe...but the Courts seem desperate for good jurors.
I was on an Attempted Murder case as a juror.
Since I am a previous multiple violent crime victim, I was sure that I would be kicked off.
I was questioned about many things but never asked about this (or gun ownership).
At the end of the attornies questioning, the Judge asked all members of the prospective jury to raise their hand if they had been a violent crime victim.
I was surprised, eight of us had.
The Judge then asked us if we could listen to the facts of the case with an open mind and fairly decide if the Defendant was guilty or not.
We agreed to do so and all of us were kept on the jury.

[myk]

Loose lips sinks ships and all that other stuff. Look, even when you "think" you're keeping a secret at a small community microcosm like work, or school, chances are there's at least ONE person that knows or suspects what you're hiding. Now, if you tell JUST ONE person you've geometrically increased the odds of your secret becoming open knowledge.

That being said, I don't blame the teacher for breaking a law for the idea of protection, but telling anyone at work, let alone a school, that he HAS a gun or that he's even INTO guns was clearly a mistake.

This is the just the beginning of the nightmare for this guy, as San Diego is sure to crucify and make an example out of this case...

[rootuser]

Originally Posted by myk

Loose lips sinks ships and all that other stuff. Look, even when you "think" you're keeping a secret at a small community microcosm like work, or school, chances are there's at least ONE person that knows or suspects what you're hiding. Now, if you tell JUST ONE person you've geometrically increased the odds of your secret becoming open knowledge.

That being said, I don't blame the teacher for breaking a law for the idea of protection, but telling anyone at work, let alone a school, that he HAS a gun or that he's even INTO guns was clearly a mistake.

This is the just the beginning of the nightmare for this guy, as San Diego is sure to crucify and make an example out of this case...

I think you're right. He should have kept his mouth shut.

If he wanted to make a point about it (civil disobedience) he should have stated it.

It just looks bad right now and sometimes perception is reality.

[myk]

Originally Posted by rootuser

I think you're right. He should have kept his mouth shut.

If he wanted to make a point about it (civil disobedience) he should have stated it.

It just looks bad right now and sometimes perception is reality.

That's an interesting point right there. Let's say he called up every available media outlet and made it clearly, publicly known that he was going to carry-for-protest. Would he have been arrested, fired, persecuted, etc, out right?

[safewaysecurity]

Originally Posted by rootuser

I'm not suggesting it's illegal. I have never stated as such. Thus, why the LAPD got off in the first Rodney King verdict. Thus why several KKK members were found not guilty in the South during the Jim Crow era. Thus why several people have been put on death row, even when the examined evidence later shows they did not in fact commit the crime (and it was clear to the jury, not a DNA kind of thing). Usually appeal catches the guilty verdicts, but verdicts of not guilty are difficult to retry. Sometimes it means the Federal Government has to step in, as in Rodney King.

The constitution is clear, a jury is to be impartial, and it is not required to be a jury of peers. To me impartial would mean impartial to the defendant, impartial to the prosecution and impartial to the law, equally, not one way or the other. What you are suggesting goes counter to the constitution in my opinion, however legal it may be. I don't expect to change your mind, I just think our framers believed that jurors would act impartially and not let their feelings get in the way.

What breaks the whole system (and this is where I will agree with you) is the idea of mandatory jail time for crimes. So a jury feels boxed in. I would find the teacher guilty of carrying a concealed weapon on school grounds (he was by point of fact guilty) IF I thought the judge would let him off with probation or the like. If I found out there was some mandatory jail time, say a year in jail, or it made him a felon or the like, I would struggle with my oath as a juror and my desire to follow the constitution, vs the fact that if i do my duty, I may be sending a man off to a punishment not deserved. This is of course the reason jury nullification exists. While as a juror it's not my job to worry about jail time or the like, the truth is, it's a heavy burden to send a man you think broke a stupid law off to jail. Again, not an excuse to violate my oath, but it definately gives pause.

Pretty sure the founders wouldn't respect any laws that infringed on the Second Amendment. I'm pretty sure our founding fathers would have overthrown the government many many decades ago. They overthrew the English government over a TEA TAX.

[rootuser]

Originally Posted by safewaysecurity

Pretty sure the founders wouldn't respect any laws that infringed on the Second Amendment. I'm pretty sure our founding fathers would have overthrown the government many many decades ago. They overthrew the English government over a TEA TAX.

You're right, I don't think this would have become law in the first place under our founding fathers. But I am not sure they would argue that jury nullification was the way to handle it. I feel confident that the framework gives us the ability to change the law when it doesn't meet the public interest and I would guess that is what the founders would have encouraged us to do. Use the process set forth and change it.

[rootuser]

Originally Posted by myk

That's an interesting point right there. Let's say he called up every available media outlet and made it clearly, publicly known that he was going to carry-for-protest. Would he have been arrested, fired, persecuted, etc, out right?

Interesting thought. He probably would have been arrested I would guess but I assume that would have been part of his civil disobedience and clear public support for the 2A. He would have known he was risking that and probably would have had a lot of supporters, but now it's not something we can even hope to use in CA to our advantage. It goes against everything we are working toward. Hidden, non-CCW, in a school, not as an act of disobedience, and his students found out about it. Its all 100% backwards. There is no way the public will support him now, and you take any kind of decision making power away from the arresting authorities because it WAS so far backward. If he had been making a statement, it might have been a cite and release situation rather than a full arrest (not sure what the latitude is on that).

[paul0660]

Wow, the anti-gun is strong in this thread.

I haven't read anything anti gun. Lots of anti-stupid, and the reverse.

[paul0660]

good people, with self protection in mind, decide to break the law and carry when and where they are clearly prohibited from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

LOTS of people do. And unless they drop it on the toilet stall floor or yak about it with eight graders, they get away with it.

[rootuser]

Originally Posted by paul0660

LOTS of people do. And unless they drop it on the toilet stall floor or yak about it with eight graders, they get away with it.

LOL good point.

[Farmertran]

Break the rules or die defenseless. What would you choose?

[Liberals_for_Liberty]

Originally Posted by Farmertran

Break the rules or die defenseless. What would you choose?

Certainly not talk about it... like for example in front of eighth graders... or say, the internet...

[JaeOne3345]

You'd be quite surprised what most kids think of the issue.

I teach intermediate level (junior high, 8th grade science).

My students know I compete/shoot.

Most of them asked me why I do not have a gun at school when we returned from winter break.

"They should let you have a gun, Mr. J. This hiding under the table stuff won't stop the guy."

Words from a 14 year old. Real talk.

I dunno why the hell he told anyone. School campuses are known to be real left/liberal/antigun.

[myk]

Originally Posted by Farmertran

Break the rules or die defenseless. What would you choose?

No one's advocating that people die defenseless or even break the rules. I'm pretty sure that most of us here are criticizing the teacher for running his frakking mouth.

Look, even if I was legally licensed to own and carry a full-auto M4A1 in my car and CCW the pistol of my choice on any piece of land in the country including schools, courthouses, wherever, I still wouldn't tell anyone about it, and certainly not the people that I'm working with, or in this case teaching...

[rootuser]

Originally Posted by JaeOne3345

You'd be quite surprised what most kids think of the issue.

I teach intermediate level (junior high, 8th grade science).

My students know I compete/shoot.

Most of them asked me why I do not have a gun at school when we returned from winter break.

"They should let you have a gun, Mr. J. This hiding under the table stuff won't stop the guy."

Words from a 14 year old. Real talk.

I dunno why the hell he told anyone. School campuses are known to be real left/liberal/antigun.

Good to see frank talk from our teens. Also appreciate you following the law and not bringing a gun to school. It's something we can change and I would support you protecting your classroom with safety, sanity and whatever means we determine is needed to stop the next mass murder in our schools.

[Doheny]

Originally Posted by JaeOne3345

You'd be quite surprised what most kids think of the issue.

I teach intermediate level (junior high, 8th grade science).

My students know I compete/shoot.

Most of them asked me why I do not have a gun at school when we returned from winter break.

"They should let you have a gun, Mr. J. This hiding under the table stuff won't stop the guy."

Words from a 14 year old. Real talk.

I dunno why the hell he told anyone. School campuses are known to be real left/liberal/antigun.

Good for you. No doubt your kids don't want to lose you in the middle of the year like those others just lost their teacher.

Him telling his kids he was packing was a bit much.

[OldBlueMan]

Originally Posted by P.Charm

he shouldn't have told his students and just carried on with his job.

^^ This

Whether his actions were right or wrong, allowing it to be such common knowledge that all the kids knew about it is the same as open carrying the weapon, and in a 'gun free' zone no less...

[IPSICK]

Originally Posted by paul0660

I haven't read anything anti gun. Lots of anti-stupid, and the reverse.

The only stupid thing he did in my opinion is tell his students.

Many lawbreakers in the Civil Rights Movement too as well as Heller. Were they all stupid?