Newberg School District's Illegal Gun Rules

[simpleguy]

Well I live in Newberg and my daughter goes to one of the elementary schools. I carry occasionally when I drop her off or pick her up and at most sporting events that I attend. Although I do not carry when I am volunteering at the school for special events or if I am inside the building for longer periods of time.

I wrote an e-mail to the superintendant and cc'd the school board members as well and the response I received was less than acceptable in my mind;

"Thank you for writing me of your concern."

Really? That is all you have to say on the topic? Very weak...

I encourage anyone to write in and give your opinion, especially anyone that lives within the school district boundaries. If we all stay quite nothing will happen and those with less common sense will prevail!

I too carry at my daughter's school all the time, but if I volunteered, I probably would not.


What I find sad is the system is set up in such a way that they can be in the wrong, but drain the financial life out of you while proving you were right in the first place. I have been listening to the ProArms Podcast about the Gun Rights Policy Conference held in Chicago this year.

They noted a law they helped get passed that had financial ramifications of trying to usurp law......here's the gist.....
1. $50-100k fine and being liable by losing your job and possibly personally so.
2. Not being able to use public funds to persue unlawful litigation.
3. Being liable for the legal fees of those who've had to defend themselves from said illegal acts.

I may be off on a few of the particulars, but you get the point, there's teeth in this law that actually bite back if they're persuing illegal acts.

 

[civilian75]

Newberg, speak with you vote. Kick the wench out of there!

 

[drew]

I too carry at my daughter's school all the time, but if I volunteered, I probably would not.


What I find sad is the system is set up in such a way that they can be in the wrong, but drain the financial life out of you while proving you were right in the first place. I have been listening to the ProArms Podcast about the Gun Rights Policy Conference held in Chicago this year.

They noted a law they helped get passed that had financial ramifications of trying to usurp law......here's the gist.....
1. $50-100k fine and being liable by losing your job and possibly personally so.
2. Not being able to use public funds to persue unlawful litigation.
3. Being liable for the legal fees of those who've had to defend themselves from said illegal acts.

I may be off on a few of the particulars, but you get the point, there's teeth in this law that actually bite back if they're persuing illegal acts.

Sounds like what Florida did. Smaller fine but it definitely has teeth.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

790.33 Field of regulation of firearms and ammunition preempted.
...
(3) PROHIBITIONS; PENALTIES.—
(a) Any person, county, agency, municipality, district, or other entity that violates the Legislature’s occupation of the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, as declared in subsection (1), by enacting or causing to be enforced any local ordinance or administrative rule or regulation impinging upon such exclusive occupation of the field shall be liable as set forth herein.
(b) If any county, city, town, or other local government violates this section, the court shall declare the improper ordinance, regulation, or rule invalid and issue a permanent injunction against the local government prohibiting it from enforcing such ordinance, regulation, or rule. It is no defense that in enacting the ordinance, regulation, or rule the local government was acting in good faith or upon advice of counsel.
(c) If the court determines that a violation was knowing and willful, the court shall assess a civil fine of up to $5,000 against the elected or appointed local government official or officials or administrative agency head under whose jurisdiction the violation occurred.
(d) Except as required by applicable law, public funds may not be used to defend or reimburse the unlawful conduct of any person found to have knowingly and willfully violated this section.
(e) A knowing and willful violation of any provision of this section by a person acting in an official capacity for any entity enacting or causing to be enforced a local ordinance or administrative rule or regulation prohibited under paragraph (a) or otherwise under color of law shall be cause for termination of employment or contract or removal from office by the Governor.
(f) A person or an organization whose membership is adversely affected by any ordinance, regulation, measure, directive, rule, enactment, order, or policy promulgated or caused to be enforced in violation of this section may file suit against any county, agency, municipality, district, or other entity in any court of this state having jurisdiction over any defendant to the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief and for actual damages, as limited herein, caused by the violation. A court shall award the prevailing plaintiff in any such suit:
1. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with the laws of this state, including a contingency fee multiplier, as authorized by law; and
2. The actual damages incurred, but not more than $100,000.
Interest on the sums awarded pursuant to this subsection shall accrue at the legal rate from the date on which suit was filed.

 

[Asp]

Asp, they can ask, but as long as you otherwise have a legal right to be there, they have no standing for making that the only reason for removing you. Of course, I'm not going to test that.

Do you have an ORS for that?
I want to just, so I can print that out.

Or ,probably escorted out by the policia.
And detained ,held until you can show them where they are wrong,guns taken
You get the picture.
If it's one of the schools that have a patrol officer on the campus,I would bet he would get backup and take you a$$ down,brother.
I would bet most LEOs don't know it's legal with a permit.

Oh, by no means am I saying go ahead it's without discrimination.
Of course, most people are uneducated on the issue, and it's worse with open carry (when it shouldn't be a problem).

What is the point in discriminating against people who are actually following the law (i.e. lawfully carrying)?

 

[simpleguy]

Sounds like what Florida did. Smaller fine but it definitely has teeth.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

790.33 Field of regulation of firearms and ammunition preempted.
...
(3) PROHIBITIONS; PENALTIES.—
(a) Any person, county, agency, municipality, district, or other entity that violates the Legislature's occupation of the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, as declared in subsection (1), by enacting or causing to be enforced any local ordinance or administrative rule or regulation impinging upon such exclusive occupation of the field shall be liable as set forth herein.
(b) If any county, city, town, or other local government violates this section, the court shall declare the improper ordinance, regulation, or rule invalid and issue a permanent injunction against the local government prohibiting it from enforcing such ordinance, regulation, or rule. It is no defense that in enacting the ordinance, regulation, or rule the local government was acting in good faith or upon advice of counsel.
(c) If the court determines that a violation was knowing and willful, the court shall assess a civil fine of up to $5,000 against the elected or appointed local government official or officials or administrative agency head under whose jurisdiction the violation occurred.
(d) Except as required by applicable law, public funds may not be used to defend or reimburse the unlawful conduct of any person found to have knowingly and willfully violated this section.
(e) A knowing and willful violation of any provision of this section by a person acting in an official capacity for any entity enacting or causing to be enforced a local ordinance or administrative rule or regulation prohibited under paragraph (a) or otherwise under color of law shall be cause for termination of employment or contract or removal from office by the Governor.
(f) A person or an organization whose membership is adversely affected by any ordinance, regulation, measure, directive, rule, enactment, order, or policy promulgated or caused to be enforced in violation of this section may file suit against any county, agency, municipality, district, or other entity in any court of this state having jurisdiction over any defendant to the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief and for actual damages, as limited herein, caused by the violation. A court shall award the prevailing plaintiff in any such suit:
1. Reasonable attorney's fees and costs in accordance with the laws of this state, including a contingency fee multiplier, as authorized by law; and
2. The actual damages incurred, but not more than $100,000.
Interest on the sums awarded pursuant to this subsection shall accrue at the legal rate from the date on which suit was filed.

Yep, this is exactly what I was getting at! Thanks for the link!

 

[aflineman]

I find it funny that the schools get upset when a person carries a firearm on campus with a ccw. The ORS also covers the exemption of an officer from prosecution in the same statute that exempts the CCW holder. Yet they do not bat an eye when an officer shows up armed to investigate their complaint.

 

[Mark W.]

Thats because the Police are here to serve and protect. As this photo from their recruitment page on the Portland Police web site clearly shows.

<broken link removed>

 

[pokerace]

Letter i wrote to Newberg Graphic. Aso sent it to all board members that had an updated email addresws.

To whom it may concern;
In regard to the Newberg School District illegally banning holders of CHLs from carrying guns on campuses, I have a few thoughts on the subject. First, it has already been discussed the potential costs to the school district which of course means the taxpayers who fund the school district, should someone file suit to compel the school district to obey state law. So too has been discussed at length the benefits of CHL holders being allowed to practice the law-abiding activity of self-protection and possibly the protection of others.
So what is left to discuss is the obvious arrogance of the Newberg School District and school board members to impose their will upon the taxpayers and citizens in violation of the law. One question that has yet to be answered is why the district and board members feel compelled to do this. What are the reasons? I believe it is a fair question to ask. I equally believe that they have a real responsibility to provide those reasons. By not doing so it is evident they know their reasons won’t stand up to scrutiny.
To hide behind an unlawful rule to promote an unlawful agenda at the expense of others is indicative of the cowardice and tyrannical behavior of those in power who desire to suppress the will and freedoms of the peoples that are subject to their agendas. I would encourage the leaders in the district and the board members to show some backbone and stand up and explain their position and why they have chosen to support and defend an unlawful rule. Unless you are at least willing to do that, you are unworthy of your position and should step down immediately so as to allow real leaders with courage to stand in your place of leadership.
Sincerely,

 

[mjbskwim]

I believe the only way y'all will deal with this in an effective manner is to either open carry or CC at one of the meetings.
About 10 of you carrying and printing a little.Then they would have to deal with it.

But you better have a lawyer with you and all the state laws regarding .
Otherwise she won't back down.Her kind don't really care about the laws,just their beliefs.

And also remember,this is someone who is teaching your children.Teaching them the Constitution means nothing anymore .
Just what SHE believes

 

[pokerace]

A reply from Paula Radich <[email protected]> concerning the letter I wrote.


Board Policy KG is not in violation of current state or federal law. The policy does not ban weapons on school district property and does not mention weapons. There is no reason for the Board of Directors to amend this policy.

What is in question is Administrative Regulation KG-AR. This regulation does not require Board action. KG-AR was amended by the superintendent and is in compliance with current federal and state law.

 

[drew]

I took a look at KG-AR. It was readopted 11/03. So now if you violate a law, you violate their regulation. Nothing like some redundancy.

http://policy.osba.org/newberg/KL/KG R D1.PDF

Use or possession of unlawful firearms, knives or other weapons;

 

[RW-Ore]

OK I have had a few rum and cokes maybe you can tell me what she said pokerace ?

 

[pokerace]

OK I have had a few rum and cokes maybe you can tell me what she said pokerace ?

I can't figure it out!!!! Kim said about the same thing you did..It is the political two step.

 

[Hawaiian]

Ask her if she is setting an example of what she is teaching our children. You only have to comply the laws that you agree with.
Or maybe it is that Board Members are above the law?

 

[Mark W.]

So they are only talking about UNLAWFUL FIREARMS.. so none registered sawed off shotguns non registered Short barreled rifles, Non registered full automatics etc.

No problem. All I own are legal and lawful firearms

 

[drew]

So they are only talking about UNLAWFUL FIREARMS.. so none registered sawed off shotguns non registered Short barreled rifles, Non registered full automatics etc.

No problem. All I own are legal and lawful firearms

They are now. I guess I can't file off the serial numbers and take them on school property.

 

[pokerace]

I took a look at KG-AR. It was readopted 11/03. So now if you violate a law, you violate their regulation. Nothing like some redundancy.

http://policy.osba.org/newberg/KL/KG R D1.PDF

readopted 11/03 this is shortly after the time Rep. Kim Thatcher first contacted them..

I got the first email from Kim on 10/26/11.

update from Paula Radich

The only change was the addition of the word "unlawful". The revised regulations were posted last week. The district contracts with a third party to post changes in policy or regulations. Generally, it takes several days for updates to appear.

 

[mjbskwim]

Thats because the Police are here to serve and protect. As this photo from their recruitment page on the Portland Police web site clearly shows.

<broken link removed>

Why Join?
The public depends on law enforcement officers to protect the lives and property of civilians. We work and live by a set of values: integrity, compassion, accountability, respect, excellence and service. Law enforcement officers serve as the first and last line of defense against any criminal action. We help keep the streets safe by putting the bad guys behind bars. We mentor kids and help keep them out of gangs. We improve peoples' lives by pushing criminals out of their neighborhoods and making them safe. You get to help people every day; they trust, depend and look up to you. Compared to working as a Portland Police Officer, all other jobs seem ordinary.

Hmmm,not sure about this part.

You get to help people every day;they trust, depend and look up to you.

 

[longcolt]

Sounds to me like the word "unlawful" excludes those that have concealed carry permits. so you are good to go if you have a valid legal carry permit.

 

[pokerace]

Sounds to me like the word "unlawful" excludes those that have concealed carry permits. so you are good to go if you have a valid legal carry permit.

take a look at the quote..