1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!
  2. We're giving away over $850 in prizes this month -- enter now for your chance to win!
    Dismiss Notice

Discharging weapons on school grounds; proposal to amend ORS 166.370

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by dallen1x, Dec 23, 2012.

  1. dallen1x

    dallen1x Wil_Val, OR Active Member

    Likes Received:
    My interpretation of ORS 166.370(3) is that persons authorized by sub-sections a. (LEOs), b. (assisting police), c. (active military or reserve), d. (CWL holders), e. (by agency in charge of building) & f (employee of Dept of Ag) are allowed to carry a firearm on school grounds.

    My interpretation of ORS 166.370(5) is that even if you have a CWL, you are not allowed to discharge your firearm on school grounds, even in self-defense or in the defense of a third person. If you do, you can be convicted of a Class C felony. This is because a person with a CWL is not listed as one of the authorized reasons within 166.370(5)(b)

    I propose that ORS 166.370 be amended.

    Description; not to be included within the ORS.
    Amends the Section of ORS 166.370 relating to those individuals allowed to discharge a weapon on school grounds to directly coincide with the individuals currently authorized by ORS 166.370 to carry a weapon on school grounds. Institutes an affirmative defense exemption for persons allowed to discharge a weapon on school grounds. Institutes the levels of responsibility that an individual will be held to with regards to the discharge of a weapon on school grounds. Stipulates that the actions that a person takes, in the course of self-defense or to defend a third person(s), against another person or persons who are in the act or believed to be in the act of illegally “using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person” are justified.

    Amendments or additions to be made to ORS 166.370.
    5(b)(D) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun;
    5(b)(E) A person who is authorized by the officer or agency that controls the public building to possess a firearm or dangerous weapon in that public building;
    5(b)(F) A person summoned by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest or preserving the peace, while the summoned person is engaged in assisting the officer.

    (6) The exceptions listed in subsection (5)(b) of this section constitute affirmative defenses to a charge of violating subsection (5)(a) of this section except when the act can be found to be careless or reckless and causes the injury or death of more persons than are believed to be threatened by unlawful deadly force, not to include the injury or death of a person or persons who are performing or thought to be performing acts as described in ORS 161.219(3).
  2. pokerace

    pokerace Newberg Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    send it to OFF and see what Kevin thinks.
  3. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Likes Received:
    I think what some people forget is that if you are in "violation" of a particlar "crime" (as listed in the law) you are not automatically shoved through the door, convicted, sentenced, and shipped off to endure it. The State has to convince a jury of your peers to find you guilty, a jury that with a decent lawyer (see OJ Simpson) can be convinced to empathize with you on a multitude of issues.

    If you are on the up & up and legitimately discharge your firearm on "school property" in defense of life and/or limb of yourself (or others), and the DA actually decides to prosecute you... I would wager a jury would find you "not guilty" of a "crime".

    But I agree, tweaking that statute would help alleviate a potential problem from the get-go.
    fd15k and (deleted member) like this.
  4. PMKN_PI

    PMKN_PI Milwaukie, Oregon, United States Active Member

    Likes Received:
    Only a sick prosecutor with the morals of a child molester would try to convict a CWL holder who saved children's lives of a felony.
  5. dallen1x

    dallen1x Wil_Val, OR Active Member

    Likes Received:
    Stomper & PMKN_PI ---- Yes and yes.
    But...I get a little worried when we hear that "Our legal system is broken but it's the best we've got." or "A DAs job is to prosecute and convict according to the law." Imagine you're at your kids basketball game, one bad guy down, no other injuries caused by you and just one parent upset that you fired. The DA is going to look at you and say "I have to follow the law". Costs for your defense go through the roof whether you can afford it or not.
    I tried to write Sec. 6 so that a defender is allowed to 'defend' but they must not increase the body count by friendly fire, not including the bad guy(s). I've sent this to OFF, OSSA and my State Rep (R) & Sen (R).