Appeals court rules against gun owners...again.

[Gunner3456]

Again, let's remember that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which is part of our Constitution.

The Bill of Rights means the Rights of The People. It was written solely to limit the power of government. It was written to give power to the people.

These are our Rights which the government has no lawful authority to infringe upon.

The Bill of Rights actually says that any power not expressly given to the government in that Bill remains with the people.

Little by little, incrementally, we are allowing our Rights which were given to us by our Founders to be eroded while the government assumes powers which are forbidden to it by the Constitution.

 

[ZachS]

So, do y'all think the Constitution gives you the right to, say, sit yourself down at a table in an elementary school cafeteria during lunch and clean your AR's?

 

[Captain Question]

Again, let's remember that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which is part of our Constitution.

The Bill of Rights means the Rights of The People. It was written solely to limit the power of government. It was written to give power to the people.

These are our Rights which the government has no lawful authority to infringe upon.

The Bill of Rights actually says that any power not expressly given to the government in that Bill remains with the people.

Little by little, incrementally, we are allowing our Rights which were given to us by our Founders to be eroded while the government assumes powers which are forbidden to it by the Constitution.

Well....not really.

A more accurate educational moment would be that the Second Amendment has not been incorporated against the states, and therefore does not apply to state action.* And a closer reading of the Tenth Amendment is that the powers are reserved to the people OR THE STATES.

*hopefully the 7th Circuit case currently heading upstream will fix that.

And so long as you fail, neglect, or refuse to exercise your rights...well, you fail, neglect, or refuse to exercise your rights. But that's a problem belonging to the failures, neglectful, or refusers.

 

[Gunner3456]

Well....not really.

A more accurate educational moment would be that the Second Amendment has not been incorporated against the states, and therefore does not apply to state action.* And a closer reading of the Tenth Amendment is that the powers are reserved to the people OR THE STATES.

OK, so then, let's defer to the State of Oregon Constitution if it's "or the state."

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.

*hopefully the 7th Circuit case currently heading upstream will fix that.

And so long as you fail, neglect, or refuse to exercise your rights...well, you fail, neglect, or refuse to exercise your rights. But that's a problem belonging to the failures, neglectful, or refusers.

There is no wiggle room. Both the Federal and State Constitutions guarantee me the right to bear arms, and neither limits how I may do it.

Also, the State may not make a law including an article it its constitution which violates the Federal Constitution. That's one of the reasons the States insisted on limiting the power of the Feds.

 

[Whitman]

The Oregon Court of Appeals, in this case, did not conduct a constitutional analysis because the Appellant did not argue her case based on the constitution (state or federal). The question before the court was whether Oregon's firearm preemption statutes (ORS 166.170(1) and (2)), which proscribe local enactment of ordinances regulating firearms, also apply to school districts' regulations pertaining to their employees.

As I read it, the court got it right on that narrow question, which was the only question before it. The legislature did not intend to prevent school districts from regulating firearms possession by their employees. Rather, it intended to prevent local governments from enacting a patchwork of laws that would make compliance far too onerous for law abiding citizens. Had the court gone so far as to address constitutional issues not properly preserved at the lower court and presented upon appeal, such action would be accurately characterized as "activist."

 

[Gunner3456]

The Oregon Court of Appeals, in this case, did not conduct a constitutional analysis because the Appellant did not argue her case based on the constitution (state or federal). The question before the court was whether Oregon's firearm preemption statutes (ORS 166.170(1) and (2)), which proscribe local enactment of ordinances regulating firearms, also apply to school districts' regulations pertaining to their employees.

As I read it, the court got it right on that narrow question, which was the only question before it. The legislature did not intend to prevent school districts from regulating firearms possession by their employees. Rather, it intended to prevent local governments from enacting a patchwork of laws that would make compliance far too onerous for law abiding citizens. Had the court gone so far as to address constitutional issues not properly preserved at the lower court and presented upon appeal, such action would be accurately characterized as "activist."

A competent attorney will at the trial level make and preserve every possible "in the alternative" argument which has a reasonable chance of prevailing.

Failing to do so imho borders on malpractice or in the alternative displays incompetence. Many attorneys are so cocksure of prevailing at the trial level, especially if it's a bench trial based solely on a matter of law, that they will fail to preserve alternative arguments.

When they do that they screw their client because as you point out, they lose the right to make the argument later on appeal. You correctly state that the appellate court will address only what was argued at trial.

Just because an attorney blows it doesn't mean the matter is forever settled or even as you again pointed out, that it has even been addressed.

 

[Captain Question]

Well, wasn't that an interesting computer glitch. Let's put these back in order, shall we?

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.

My, my, my, so many questions bordering on hysteria. Still, let's see about some answers:

No. No. No. No. No. Maybe. No.

It was an analogy. Go look it up.

No, it wasn't. It was a discussion on a Court of Appeals case that related to an employment issue.

No.

Maybe. The Supreme Court has said that reasonable restrictions, subject to a "heightened scrutiny" of examination, are acceptable on rights.

And in closing, "you're wrong."

Did you even read the case?

A competent attorney will at the trial level make and preserve every possible "in the alternative" argument which has a reasonable chance of prevailing.

Failing to do so imho borders on malpractice or in the alternative displays incompetence. Many attorneys are so cocksure of prevailing at the trial level, especially if it's a bench trial based solely on a matter of law, that they will fail to preserve alternative arguments.

When they do that they screw their client because as you point out, they lose the right to make the argument later on appeal. You correctly state that the appellate court will address only what was argued at trial.

Just because an attorney blows it doesn't mean the matter is forever settled or even as you again pointed out, that it has even been addressed.

PM me with your Bar number and we can discuss the issue.

If you don't have a Bar number, then you might want to back off from your assertions as to what constitutes malpractice.

Just sayin'.

 

[Gunner3456]

PM me with your Bar number and we can discuss the issue.

If you don't have a Bar number, then you might want to back off from your assertions as to what constitutes malpractice.

Just sayin'.

Just for giggles, I note that you didn't ask me to PM you my Bar number.

Also, since attorneys must first and foremost be wordsmiths by nature, please point out to me where he asserted that anything at all constitutes malpractice?

 

[Captain Question]

Just for giggles, I note that you didn't ask me to PM you my Bar number.

Also, since attorneys must first and foremost be wordsmiths by nature, please point out to me where he asserted that anything at all constitutes malpractice?

I'll blame the computer for that. I've got no idea how the request ended up connected to the other comments. But that's fixed.

Which takes me back to you, and "PM me your Bar number and we can discuss it."

And for the record, note the difference in response. Gunner is wrong, but at least thoughtful and not hysterical sounding, and therefore deserves a thoughtful response. Blatherers....less so.

 

[Gunner3456]

I'll blame the computer for that.

Go ahead. I'll blame it on malpractice.

I've got no idea how the request ended up connected to the other comments. But that's fixed.

Too late. You failed to preserve the argument. It's not admissible.

Which takes me back to you, and "PM me your Bar number and we can discuss it."

Sorry, you are allowed to depose a witness once only.

The number of my favorite bar is 555-555-5555.

And for the record, note the difference in response. Gunner is wrong, but at least thoughtful and not hysterical sounding, and therefore deserves a thoughtful response.

So where's my response? What am I paying you $200 an hour for here?

Please point out to me where I was "wrong?" At least I properly preserve evidence and arguments. You are "caught."

 

[madderg]

I will pick up a new scanner tomorrow, and get this file scanned in. Back when this law was written I was a training officer for a security company as well as a NRA pistol instructor, In Marion County The sheriffs dept. and the district attorney, Dale Penn tried to rail road the same garbage. In correspondence with them I got no satisfactory answers and went to Kevin Mannix who I just recently worked on a senate bill with. He agreed with me and went to the legislative committee that made the law for clarification. In short, a person with a CCH has the same exemption as a law enforcement officer on school grounds, either all exemptions are recognized or none. The courts can not abridge the law of the state or nation.

 

[sbryson21]

I would actually call it emphatic, not hysterical, first of all. Second of all, I believe we are all already discussing the topic, no need for PM's or law degrees on this one (Dang that 1st amendment ). Third, no I have not read this specific case but the start of this whole conversation was based on a much broader discussion of the gov't overstepping its boundaries on citizens private rights guaranteed in the constitution.

 

[Gunner3456]

One thing I know for sure. When it comes to trials, 50% of all attorneys LOSE.

They are wrong 50% of the time!!

Dang, I'm glad they aren't airline pilots.

 

[timbernet]

This case directly affects me... I work in the school system, though I hardly ever work near kids (think district level - Information Technology).... I was hoping the appeal would go the OTHER way and our policy would change.

I know many people who would carry at work given the chance.... instead, we are all sitting ducks for the next crazed shooter out there.

Oh well.... after awhile I will find work at some gun friendly location.... at least I have a job and it pays well enough I can buy toys

 

[edhill]

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.

But it's not there building. It's mine and yours.

 

[braves765]

166.360 Definitions for ORS 166.360 to 166.380. As used in ORS 166.360 to 166.380, unless the context requires otherwise:
(4) "Public building" means a hospital, a capitol building, a public or private school, as defined in ORS 339.315, a college or university, a city hall or the residence of any state official elected by the state at large, and the grounds adjacent to each such building. The term also includes that portion of any other building occupied by an agency of the state or a municipal corporation, as defined in ORS 297.405, other than a court facility.

166.370 Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging firearm at school. (1) 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.
Exception:
d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.'


Pretty clear to me..

 

[Gunner3456]

I would actually call it emphatic, not hysterical, first of all. Second of all, I believe we are all already discussing the topic, no need for PM's or law degrees on this one (Dang that 1st amendment ). Third, no I have not read this specific case but the start of this whole conversation was based on a much broader discussion of the gov't overstepping its boundaries on citizens private rights guaranteed in the constitution.

There's an old lawyer joke. It's just a JOKE!

A guy walks into a butcher shop to buy a pound of brains. They have medical doctor brains for $5 a pound. They have college professor brains for $5 a pound. Then they have lawyer brains for $200 a pound.

"$200 a pound? Why are lawyer brains so expensive?" the man asks.

The butcher answers, "Do you know how many lawyers we have to kill to get a pound of brains?"

 

[Karma]

.

If you don't have a Bar number, then you might want to back off from your assertions as to what constitutes malpractice.

Just sayin'.

I guess I am confused. Here is the statement that he made regarding malpractice. "Failing to do so imho borders on malpractice." I am pretty sure that "imho" is "in my humble opinion". Last I knew, a person was entitled to their own opinion without a bar number. Thanks to many lawyers, that seems to be rapidly changing!

Just sayin'.

 

[sbryson21]

If you ask me, and this is just my opinion here , this is on par for a big problem in our country right now with our leaders. They all have this same 'lawyer' mentality of "you little people are just too stupid to understand the complexities of how the country should be ran and what the constitution ACTUALLY literallly means, so please just sit down and shut up and let us elites handle your life for you." When in all truth, i believe the constitution was made very clear and straight to the point (until you had the upper 'elites' get there grubby hands on it and distort it for their gain). This country was founded on the power goes to the people through small, localized gov't. This just goes to show what happens when they continue to take, bit by bit, our liberties and expand into this monsterous gov't that we're getting. I for one think it's time we take it back because, personally, I am flat out sick of someone else telling me I'm too stupid to know how to run my own life and when/where I can protect myself...... I'll now step down from my soap box

 

[ZachS]

166.360 Definitions for ORS 166.360 to 166.380. As used in ORS 166.360 to 166.380, unless the context requires otherwise:
(4) “Public building” means a hospital, a capitol building, a public or private school, as defined in ORS 339.315, a college or university, a city hall or the residence of any state official elected by the state at large, and the grounds adjacent to each such building. The term also includes that portion of any other building occupied by an agency of the state or a municipal corporation, as defined in ORS 297.405, other than a court facility.

166.370 Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging firearm at school. (1) 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.
Exception:
d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.'


Pretty clear to me..

Yep, having a CHL is clearly a defense to criminal charges under 166.370. This statute has nothing to do with a school district's internal employee policies, which were the policies at issue in this case.