Appeals court rules against gun owners...again.

[edhill]

https://www.oregonfirearms.org/

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A137804.htm


The Oregon Court of Appeals has once again ruled against gun owners.

In a case funded by the Oregon FIrearms Educational Foundation, Jane Doe Vs Medford School District, the court ruled that Oregon's preemption statute does not protect employees from gun restrictions imposed on them by state employers.

This case, which got international attention, pitted a Medford school teacher against her employer. When it was learned that the teacher, Shirley Katz, possessed a concealed handgun license, her school and school district began a campaign of abuse and threats against her. We agreed to take her case to court.

After the Circuit Court ruled that the school could, in fact, create rules to prevent her from possessing a self-defense firearm, we appealed. The Court's decision can be seen here.

It's interesting that the Court continues to use and misunderstand the case of Starrett vs City of Portland, another case funded by OFEF. In their decision they state "In Starrett, the City of Portland leased Pioneer Square to a privately owned company, Entercom, which owned and operated a number of radio stations in the area. Id. at 536. Entercom leased the property in order to host a New Year's Eve celebration. "

This is exactly the opposite of what happened. In fact, Entercom radio did not "lease" space from the city. The city PAID Entercom radio to run a City party on City property with taxpayer money. So once again, the Courts reach a conclusion based on incorrect former conclusions.

Read More

 

[dario541]

When this countrywas founded, the "Fathers" decided that there should be 3 distinct divisions of government-Executive, Legislative and Judicial. These were supposed to balance each other out to protect the INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS! However, during the reign of Franklin Roosevelt, the judges decided that they had better "toe the line" and today they are part of the problem-NOT the solution! As far as I can see, these so-called judges serve their "Masters" which are the other 2 branches of government.
To quote the Declaration of Independence: "He (King George) has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their Offices and the Amount and payment of their salaries."
"There is nothing new under the sun!" So, don't count on getting a fair shake from judges. They do not consider that protecting our Rights is their function. 99 percent of the time they will side with the government over the people.

 

[gunnoob75]

Well, let's do something then.

 

[Captain Question]

Or, alternatively (and more correctly) viewed, the Oregon Court of Appeals properly interpreted the law and ruled in favor of property owners and employers and against people who break the rules.

But maybe the Supreme Court will decide on a different policy someday.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Okay Cap't, so what is more important for the court to recognize,...
The U.S. and Oregon State Constitution, or an administrative rule.

Your freedoms aren't protected by anything other than The Constitution, first the US and then the state. As such it should be the court's first frame of reference, not the last.

Courts are playing politics, further centralizing power.
Beware the subtleties of today's tyranny.

 

[Gunner3456]

How many times have I asked: "If my constitutional rights aren't valid on public property, then where are they valid? Only at home in my closet?"

Next they are going to tell me that since I'm on public property I have no right to free speech? No freedom to peacefully assemble because they made a new "rule?"

This is all BS.

 

[56kninja]

How many times have I asked: "If my constitutional rights aren't valid on public property, then where are they valid? Only at home in my closet?"

Next they are going to tell me that since I'm on public property I have no right to free speech? No freedom to peacefully assemble because they made a new "rule?"

This is all BS.

But if your employer doesn't like you smoking in building (Assume the liberals haven't enforced this opressive law yet) isn't it their right to say, "You have to take that outside?"

Same with guns. If they don't want guns in the building, while you're working, that's their right to make that choice.

 

[Captain Question]

How many times have I asked: "If my constitutional rights aren't valid on public property, then where are they valid? Only at home in my closet?"

Next they are going to tell me that since I'm on public property I have no right to free speech? No freedom to peacefully assemble because they made a new "rule?"

This is all BS.

Meh.

You don't want to enforce your rights, you don't get to complain when they're infringed. Simple, that.

Okay Cap't, so what is more important for the court to recognize,...
The U.S. and Oregon State Constitution, or an administrative rule.

Your freedoms aren't protected by anything other than The Constitution, first the US and then the state. As such it should be the court's first frame of reference, not the last.

Courts are playing politics, further centralizing power.
Beware the subtleties of today's tyranny.

I'll remember you said that if and when you ever complain about an "activist" court going against something the legislature wrote.

As the Court of Appeals will tell you, if you ask, it is not their job to set policy - that is the job of the Supreme Court. And as the Supreme Court will tell you, if you ask, it is that court's preference that the Court of Appeals interpret the law as established in statute and case law, and then let the matter go up to the Supreme Court for final adjudication.

And, quite frankly, the Constitution is a piece of paper. It serves the same protection purpose of, oh, say a restraining order. If you've noticed the news out of Coquille lately, you know how well pieces of paper protect.

The legislature wrote the law. The court enforced the law as written. If you're not liking that - and I can understand why - then you need to get the LEGISLATURE to change the law, rather than try and do what most Liberals prefer to do and use the courts to legislate their agenda.

But I suppose it's different depending on whose ox is being gored, eh? That "separation of powers" only applies when the courts are doing something you disapprove of?

Finally, since you brought it up, would you show me in the Oregon or US constitution where someone has any sort of guaranteed right to bear concealed arms? Concealed arms have long been a concern of the State, and regulating them - and where they may be carried - may well be a reasonable restriction on a right that deserves heightened scrutiny. It would have been a far more interesting case if she had been openly carrying, since many of those contemporary-to-the-Constitution writings about concealed arms would not have applied.

But that's just my two internet cents' worth.

 

[Gunner3456]

But if your employer doesn't like you smoking in building (Assume the liberals haven't enforced this opressive law yet) isn't it their right to say, "You have to take that outside?"

Same with guns. If they don't want guns in the building, while you're working, that's their right to make that choice.

The constitution guarantees private property rights. A private property owner or the lessee has a constitutional right to make those rules - no guns.

Public property such as a school belongs to all of us. It's my property too.

I ask again. If my constitutional rights aren't valid on public property, where are they valid?

 

[Gunner3456]

-snip-

Finally, since you brought it up, would you show me in the Oregon or US constitution where someone has any sort of guaranteed right to bear concealed arms? - snip-

Oregon Constitution on the right to keep and bear arms

Article I, Bill of Rights

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power.

The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.

-------------------------------

U.S. Constitution on the right to keep and bear arms.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Source: Bill of Rights, Second Amendment (ratified 1791, and still the Law of the Land)

 

[Captain Question]

Oregon Constitution on the right to keep and bear arms

Article I, Bill of Rights

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power.

The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.

-------------------------------

U.S. Constitution on the right to keep and bear arms.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Source: Bill of Rights, Second Amendment (ratified 1791, and still the Law of the Land)

Nope. Looked hard. Looked several times. Even got out my reading glasses 'cause of my aging eyes and looked yet again.

I don't see the word "concealed" in there anywhere. You're going to have to put it in a bigger font for me, please.

The constitution guarantees private property rights. A private property owner or the lessee has a constitutional right to make those rules - no guns.

Public property such as a school belongs to all of us. It's my property too.

I ask again. If my constitutional rights aren't valid on public property, where are they valid?

Oh really? It's your property?

Tell ya what - let's try a little experiment to see who's right.

Grab your sleeping bag and head on down to the nearest of "your" schools.

Tell them you're going to spend the night there, much as you could in "your" living room.

Then come back tomorrow morning and tell us how the night staying in "your" school works out for you.

In that place the rest of us live, which I fondly refer to as "the real world," you've elected people to manage the property that's owned by "everybody," which includes "yourself." If you don't like the rules they make and set (and I can't imagine that I would like them) then elect a new batch of rulemakers. Or, heaven forbid, run for the position yourself and make some good rules for the rest of us.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Legislature(s) write and pass bills all the time that are unconstitutional. They get challenged in court(s). When the court follows constitutional law the bad law gets thrown out.
That isn't what was done here. It was OUR ox getting gored here, not just mine.

 

[Jerry]

The same thing happened here in Washinton State. It was a King County case - Cherry v. King County. Bus driver caught with concealed pistol on the job.

 

[56kninja]

The constitution guarantees private property rights. A private property owner or the lessee has a constitutional right to make those rules - no guns.

Public property such as a school belongs to all of us. It's my property too.

I ask again. If my constitutional rights aren't valid on public property, where are they valid?

I actually think it would be great if teachers were able to carry concealed in their work. Provided of course, that there were strict regulations.. That maintain the gun be on their person at all times, (not in a car or a purse).

I don't really see the point of this policy though. When I was in high school (2 years ago) we regularly saw armed officers that weren't fit. It wouldn't be hard for a person to push them over and grab the officer's gun. Especially a teenager full of rage. Add the fact that they regularly walked through crowded areas, and you wouldn't really need to push them over.


But, I guess you're rights are valid everywhere that isn't a school or federal building. At least that's how the courts have ruled. Not that I agree with that, but that is the case at this moment.

 

[Whitman]

I really like the sleeping bag analogy, Captain.

It's a plain and simple "real world" fact -- and a good thing -- that individuals do not have an unconditional right to go onto all public property. Some publicly-owned land must be restricted for national security purposes. Public schools, especially, should and do restrict people from entering when they have no good reason for being there.

Whether people who do have a good reason to be at a public school ought to be allowed to exercise their right to bear arms in a non-disruptive manner is another question, one best left to the policy makers in the legislature. Had the person in this case been openly carrying, I believe the Oregon Court of Appeals would have reached the same conclusion, but the analysis, as you noted, would be quite different.

 

[Karma]

This is a interesting topic. First of all, I guess I don't see carrying concealed as a reasonable restriction on our second amendment right. I know that is the way the legal system sees it at the point, but I think it is because people have been sleeping for far too long. If we keep allowing so called "reasonable restrictions" on our rights, we will no longer have rights. Only privileges afforded to us by the government. At least until they decide to take those privileges away! I guess I don't see a circumstance where a RIGHT should require a license from the government to be exercised. That would constitute a infringement of our rights in my book. The fact is that the federal government as well as state governments have way overstepped their authority given to them by the constitution for a long time in my humble opinion.

Oh, by the way, if you can't carry concealed on public grounds, where the **** are you supposed to concealed carry? If I am not mistaken, there are a lot of public owned areas! No you can't live in the middle of a public road, but you sure as **** should be able to carry your weapon there. There is a major difference between the two, so the analogy of sleeping in a school is ridiculous! LOL. By that logic, we wouldn't be allowed to peacefully assemble (another of our RIGHTS) in a public place such as the capital building. Maybe we should just be required to exercise that right only behind closed doors too!

How would we deal with it if the government decided to put a license in place to exercise freedom of speech? Maybe they could say that you could only speak in public concerning politics, but you had to have a license to speak behind closed doors about politics. It could be a concealed opinion license. Would that be reasonable? **** no it wouldn't. Alaska has it right in my opinion. If you can own a gun, you can carry the damn thing how you see fit.

Honestly, what is the reason to require a license for CHL's? Do you think it cuts down on criminal activity? LOL. Is a criminal that is getting ready to commit armed robbery going to stress about getting busted for carrying concealed? Maybe he will open carry into the building he is going to rob so he can keep from violating that law, even though he is probably going to violate 15 others. It is a joke.

Remember, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".

 

[ejpolson]

But if your employer doesn't like you smoking in building (Assume the liberals haven't enforced this opressive law yet) isn't it their right to say, "You have to take that outside?"

Same with guns. If they don't want guns in the building, while you're working, that's their right to make that choice.

The courts clearly got it wrong. Oregon Administrative Rules are supposed to remain in line with Oregon Revised Statutes. As far as Starrett vs City of Portland, it has no bearing. The City of Portland was also wrong in their decission as ORS 166.180 states that regulations concerning firearms are "vested solely in the Legislative Assembly". It further states that "Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void." There is no wiggle room here. This, of course, does not apply to privately held properties or businesses. They mad do as they wish.

Further, ORS 166.370(1) (the statute that schools like to cite as aurhority for banning handguns) states "Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony." Section (3) states that this does NOT apply to "(d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun." so you can see that the decission made by the courts was clearly in error as was the person submitting the comment above.

Any decission by courts that is not based on prevailing law cannot be tollerated. This decission is clearly based on false premise and political motivation. We cannot allow this to continue. It is clear that we must take action to ensure that rules and laws are properly enacted, followed and enforced. To do otherwise is a submission to tyrany and surrender of rights.

Take a look at my stand at Open letter to Congress

 

[Gunner3456]

I'm utterly dismayed by some answers. The constitution is supposed to trump all other laws including court rulings. If courts rule against the constitution, there should be some action taken to change our leadership.

I don't understand what part of "shall not be infringed" people don't understand. Incrementally my right to keep and bear is being infringed. I keep the legislated law by having a CCW, but I still think it's an "infringement" of my constitutional rights.

 

[ejpolson]

Gunner is right. The Constitution of the United States says "to keep and bear arms..." When you "bear" something, you have it on your person. Websters defines (one of many) bear as "to be equiped or furnished with". While there is nothing explicit about concealed or hidden weapons, it is implicit that we should carry arms at all times allowable/practical.

I provided the ORS above, and the Second Ammendment is well known to all of us, so why should there be any doubt about our right? There is NOTHING ambigious about the meaning of the law as it is clearly written. States have enacted laws governing concealed carry solely because of a "declared ambiguity" in the federal law... yet there is no ambiguity in the law. It's simple and clear and finally recognized as an individual right. If you have any questions about your right to carry, perhaps you should spend a little time with the federalist papers and your ORS. It's actually pretty good reading...

 

[sbryson21]

Nope. Looked hard. Looked several times. Even got out my reading glasses 'cause of my aging eyes and looked yet again.

I don't see the word "concealed" in there anywhere. You're going to have to put it in a bigger font for me, please.



Oh really? It's your property?

Tell ya what - let's try a little experiment to see who's right.

Grab your sleeping bag and head on down to the nearest of "your" schools.

Tell them you're going to spend the night there, much as you could in "your" living room.

Then come back tomorrow morning and tell us how the night staying in "your" school works out for you.

In that place the rest of us live, which I fondly refer to as "the real world," you've elected people to manage the property that's owned by "everybody," which includes "yourself." If you don't like the rules they make and set (and I can't imagine that I would like them) then elect a new batch of rulemakers. Or, heaven forbid, run for the position yourself and make some good rules for the rest of us.

Wow. Captain, what do you think the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS means exactly??? Do you think that they meant only sometimes? Or they meant only when your on your own property? Now THERE'S something that maybe you should put your glasses on and look hard for because I don't see that. Am I not using my 2nd amendment right when I conceal carry?? Is that what you're saying here? Does the 2nd amendment ONLY cover open carry? Does it only cover having firearms on your own property?? See, again, maybe I'M the one that needs glasses now because I just don't see that anywhere... What I see is pretty simple and direct, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Hey Captain, when did this discussion turn into if we can sleep on public land?? I believe the discussion was do we have a constitutional right to carry a firearm on public land? I believe the question has already been raised but here it is again, with your line of thinking do you believe that all constitutional rights dissipate when you go on public land?? Do, for example, the 1st and 2nd amendments just go out the window because, oh, now i'm on public land??? That's the point that's being made here, not whether or not I can set up my couch and big screen in the lunchroom cafeteria.