4J School District Contemplates Prohibiting Licensed Concealed Carry on School Property

[Nick Burkhardt]

Malls, stores, and restauraunts, those are privately owned buildings.

The new CHL signage prohibition only applies to buildings we pay taxes on, public owned buildings.


I "think" I see now how they got around the states preemption law....

The new CHL signage prohibition only applies to schools who's boards have voted to make the kids victims and put up signs, and the Oregon Capitol building only. They did not get other buildings.

 

[saxon]

violating the law since October 11th, 2011

Concealed carry law leads to controversy for Oregon colleges, universities | The Maneater

The Oregon Court of Appeals overturned a policy, thereby allowing college students to carry concealed weapons at all seven of its public universities Wedn

themaneater.com

Concealed carry law leads to controversy for Oregon colleges, universities

The Oregon Court of Appeals overturned a policy, thereby allowing college students to carry concealed weapons at all seven of its public universities Wednesday, Sept. 28. According to Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, the Oregon Revised Statute's passage was a result of United States Marine and student Jeff Maxwell's arrest for carrying a small

this would apply to all publicly funded School's

 

[Koda]

The new CHL signage prohibition only applies to schools who's boards have voted to make the kids victims and put up signs, and the Oregon Capitol building only. They did not get other buildings.

I will have to (re) check that out, thank you. My last understanding is it applied to all public buildings.

side note: its a big deal to me since I have kids in school, but it will be interesting to learn if say public libraries and other public buildings are still ok to carry with a CHL.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Yeah, there was a lot of gutting and stuffing of bills at the end of the 2021 session.

Senate Bill 554 banned guns in the state Capitol and the terminal of Portland International Airport, whether or not a person has a CHL. And they gave public schools, colleges and universities the option to implement their own bans.

According to this OPB article A separate provision of state law, unimpacted by the bill, allows lawfully possessed guns on school grounds as long as they are unloaded and locked in a vehicle, regardless of a school board's actions.

Oregon lets schools ban guns on campus, but few districts have made that choice

Eight months after lawmakers granted schools the ability to issue blanket gun prohibitions, only about 13% of public school districts have put the policy change into place. More are in the process.

www.opb.org

I am not sure what separate provision of state law they are referring to.

 

[Provincial]

I believe that courthouses have also been gun-free zones in Oregon for a long time. In the Bruen Decision, the Supreme Court listed four places that could be gun-free zones, and courthouses were one of them. In the video posted upthread, he mentions that the reasoning used by the Court was that courthouse bailiffs are armed, so they defend everyone in the building. This leads to the question: "If previous a Court ruling says that the police have no duty to protect any particular person, is the duty of the bailiff different?" The same goes for schools, in that they are treated just the same way, and should have the duty to protect anyone within their gun-free zone?

I think the polling place zone is a response to intimidation of voters at polling places. There was an incident in Pennsylvania some time ago where black activists were threatening voters to vote a certain way, and officials belonging to the Party they supported refused to prosecute them!

I feel that any privately-owned "public place" should be liable for injury/death/mental trauma if they ban CCW (or lawful personal defense arms) on their premises. That would prevent the "insurance company made me do it" defense.

 

[Reperio]

I feel that any privately-owned "public place" should be liable for injury/death/mental trauma if they ban CCW (or lawful personal defense arms) on their premises. That would prevent the "insurance company made me do it" defense.

So they need to bend to your will? How about not going there if you have a problem with their policies? The list of businesses I will never visit again due to them enforcing "corona" masks is long.

And "mental trauma", seriously? Based on that, I would expect you are in favor of holding the bartender responsible for monitoring grown adults for consumption limits, and a failure to do so results in them being charged if said unmonitored grown adult kills someone while driving.

How about someone sues McDonalds for making them fat. . . of wait, a group of people already did that.

 

[Provincial]

More like, if you want to defend yourself, we deny you the right to access food, clothing, medicine, and other basics of life. It's not like these places are country clubs, where you don't need them to live. Oh, wait! Country clubs are where people network to get rich(er), so they have limits on excluding people. My bad.

Maybe it should be like refusing to bake a cake for a particular customer. That makes sense.

 

[Provincial]

I don't see where making people responsible for actions that lead to death, bodily injury, or lifetime distress is unreasonable. There are lots of instances of this already.

Besides, personal injury lawyers have to eat, too.

 

[Stomper]

If you skip to the 4 minute mark in the video the lawyer lists the only four places that can Constitutionally be considered "Sensitive Places" where firearms may be banned:

Government Courthouses
Government Legislative Chambers i.e.The State Capitol Building
Polling Places
and Schools.

No Oregon has not become "signage state" for public buildings. Signs or policies do not mean $#!^ if you have an Oregon CHL. Further more, our win in the DC case where DC is trying to ban carry on the subway and buses does not bode well for Portland Metro who has long dreamed of banning guns on the MAX lines, Expo Center and the Zoo.

in order for a public school to lawfully prohibit CHLs they have to post a sign, otherwise your free to carry.

Just to further clarify about schools (as mentioned in the above posted video)…. it only pertained to the students, not mature (and accountable) adults.

 

[American123]

So they need to bend to your will? How about not going there if you have a problem with their policies? The list of businesses I will never visit again due to them enforcing "corona" masks is long.

And "mental trauma", seriously? Based on that, I would expect you are in favor of holding the bartender responsible for monitoring grown adults for consumption limits, and a failure to do so results in them being charged if said unmonitored grown adult kills someone while driving.

How about someone sues McDonalds for making them fat. . . of wait, a group of people already did that.

The flaw in that argument is for example, if all the grocery stores in 100 miles banded together and banned firearms on their premises. That would in effect nearly prevent a person from living without relinquishing at least one of their rights acknowledged by the constitution. Can businesses also ban Burqkas? I see no difference - if infringing on one civil right is acceptable than why not others.

The collaboration of government and private businesses to deny citizens rights under the guise of "property rights" is problematic to say the least.

The government can tax the public to build a sports stadium, then rent out the stadium to a private entity and the private entity can ban guns under "property rights" even though it was public tax dollars that paid for the venue.

 

[Reperio]

The flaw in that argument is for example, if all the grocery stores in 100 miles banded together and banned firearms on their premises. That would in effect nearly prevent a person from living without relinquishing at least one of their rights acknowledged by the constitution. Can businesses also ban Burqkas? I see no difference - if infringing on one civil right is acceptable than why not others.

The collaboration of government and private businesses to deny citizens rights under the guise of "property rights" is problematic to say the least.

The government can tax the public to build a sports stadium, then rent out the stadium to a private entity and the private entity can ban guns under "property rights" even though it was public tax dollars that paid for the venue.

This is why they have metal detectors and scanners at stadiums and concert venues. In the unlikely event that your scenario played out, it is equally likely that they could, and would, be compelled to put in place the same tools of prevention.

A burqka and firearms are not in the same category at all.

 

[American123]

This is why they have metal detectors and scanners at stadiums and concert venues. In the unlikely event that your scenario played out, it is equally likely that they could, and would, be compelled to put in place the same tools of prevention.

A burqka and firearms are not in the same category at all.

A civil right is a civil right. If someone wants to ban them they don't need to justify their reason for doing do. Sidestepping the issue is not an argument position.