No guns at University of Oregon or Oregon State University ??

[srxfan]

Oregon is still a preemptively state, and the government hasn't given the school the authority to regulate firearms for CHL. This was in the news years ago, the schools solution was to whack you with your grades.

Unfortunately, with the imminent passage of SB 554, the state will no longer force preemption on public schools / universities in regards to concealed carry. If those schools decide to ban concealed carry (very likely), it will be a felony crime.

Language in the bill:

166.370. (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.

There is a separate bill to remove state preemption on cities and counties as well, for things like semi-auto rifle bans, mag caps, etc.

 

[GrayGoose]

After SB 554, there will be less need to renew CHLs.

 

[CountryGent]

Both of those campuses are integrated into their respective cities.

This actually really concerns me. Before the pandemic we'd visit Eugene from time to time. Sometimes we'd drive through there for night life, medical care or for me to go hunting/fishing with one of my brothers. We'll be heading up there this coming weekend for shenanigans.

So, after passage of the SB nonsense, someone blows through a part of town that is UofO-related and, boom, felon?! Total crap.

 

[nammac]

After SB 554, there will be less need to renew CHLs.

Agreed, if there's no preemption, then there's really no need to gain permission, just go covert...

 

[Gbirk]

This actually really concerns me. Before the pandemic we'd visit Eugene from time to time. Sometimes we'd drive through there for night life, medical care or for me to go hunting/fishing with one of my brothers. We'll be heading up there this coming weekend for shenanigans.

So, after passage of the SB nonsense, someone blows through a part of town that is UofO-related and, boom, felon?! Total crap.

I believe SB 554 was amended to NOT include property outside the building now, but man is it hard to swallow when so many other states are moving towards permit-less carry.

Born and raised here in Oregon. Hard to stay with the government so antagonistic towards my beliefs.

 

[nammac]

I believe SB 554 was amended to NOT include property outside the building now, but man is it hard to swallow when so many other states are moving towards permit-less carry.

Born and raised here in Oregon. Hard to stay with the government so antagonistic towards my beliefs.

That's what happens when Potland, Salem and Eugene control state elections. Anyone living outside those socialist strongholds is scr3wed because their vote doesn't really count. Perhaps a state version of the Electorate College is in order, so voices outside those socialist strongholds aren't silenced...

 

[CountryGent]

I believe SB 554 was amended to NOT include property outside the building now, but man is it hard to swallow when so many other states are moving towards permit-less carry.

Born and raised here in Oregon. Hard to stay with the government so antagonistic towards my beliefs.

Thanks for letting me know on the amendment. Still utter crapola, of course, but at least driving through certain parts of town with an unloaded hunting rifle won't result in jail time and loss of one's rights.

Same with born and raised here. I'd stack the natural beauty of Oregon up against any other place on this planet, bar none. But, man alive, the .gov here is just beyond insane.

That's what happens when Potland, Salem and Eugene control state elections. Anyone living outside those socialist strongholds is scr3wed because their vote doesn't really count. Perhaps a state version of the Electorate College is in order, so voices outside those socialist strongholds aren't silenced...

I simply could not agree more on all points. Funny you should mention it about a state-level Electoral College; wife and I kicked that around, as a mental exercise, not long ago. Won't happen of course, but some voice for the huge swaths of rural Oregon would be a nice change. Instead those of us outside the big metro areas get hosed year in and year out.

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

I believe SB 554 was amended to NOT include property outside the building now ....

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to me to have been amended. The "adjacent grounds" language is still in the bill linked by OLIS (section 2b):

The grounds adjacent to a building described in paragraph (a) of this subsection;

SB554 2021 Regular Session - Oregon Legislative Information System

olis.oregonlegislature.gov

 

[Gbirk]

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to me to have been amended. The "adjacent grounds" language is still in the bill linked by OLIS (section 2b):

SB554 2021 Regular Session - Oregon Legislative Information System

olis.oregonlegislature.gov

This seems to indicate it was amended to remove that language.

SB554 2021 Regular Session - Oregon Legislative Information System

olis.oregonlegislature.gov

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

This seems to indicate it was amended to remove that language.

SB554 2021 Regular Session - Oregon Legislative Information System

olis.oregonlegislature.gov

View attachment 851857

I'm not seeing it. Sure, parking lots, garages, and locked containers at the airport are excluded, but all other ill-defined, unmarked "adjacent grounds" are fair game, and hence a veritable minefield for CHL holders.

 

[nammac]

I'm not seeing it. Sure, parking lots, garages, and locked containers at the airport are excluded, but all other ill-defined, unmarked "adjacent grounds" are fair game, and hence a veritable minefield for CHL holders.

That's their intent, to create a minefield that's impossible to navigate. Step foot in the wrong area and wham, chrome bracelets and made an example of... Sad... And sorry at the same time...

 

[Pete F]

Try walking through PDX without stepping on City, parks or school property. Ever played Frogger?

 

[Gbirk]

That's their intent, to create a minefield that's impossible to navigate. Step foot in the wrong area and wham, chrome bracelets and made an example of... Sad... And sorry at the same time...

Logic and honesty left the capitol years ago. This is about hate for people who disagree with you.

 

[Koda]

Looks like U of O has a "no guns" policy, except "on duty law enforcement": https://police.uoregon.edu/personal-protection-devices-uo
And Oregon State says no if you're attending school, attending an event, etc. https://policy.oregonstate.edu/policy/firearms

HOW?

Way late to the party my friend. The irony of asking "how" on a policy in effect for many years while we are about to ram thru another gun free zone law that will make getting caught packing way more than just getting kicked out of college, does not escape me.

 

[55JD]

This could be stopped if the Republicans would walk out.

I hope you and everyone you know has phoned and emailed their offices. It's not enough for them to "oppose" the bill— they can do that all they want (for show) but the antis have the votes—- they need to walk out. That's the only way to stop it.

 

[nammac]

This could be stopped if the Republicans would walk out.

I hope you and everyone you know has phoned and emailed their offices. It's not enough for them to "oppose" the bill— they can do that all they want (for show) but the antis have the votes—- they need to walk out. That's the only way to stop it.

While I agree, we've already seen that's not happening this legislative season in Oregon, six republicans have sided with the super-majority in infringing on Oregonian's rights... Sigh...

 

[pharmseller]

Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Walther P-22 and a Glock 19.

 

[GrayGoose]

This will for sure eliminate any future school shootings, because those law-abiding peaceful assassins always follow and obey all laws, right?
/sarc
Leftist mentality... when "common sense" is far too uncommon.

 

[RevLIT]

I was coming here to seek clarification on the preemptive part of the CHL laws. Since that seems to be where this conversation went I will ask here.
Currently, it is my understanding that a public (gov) entity cannot restrict CHL holders from carrying on their property. That is correct? I am fairly new to CHL, so I still wonder sometimes when I am out and about. Living in Corvallis it is hard to avoid OSU. I was just down there yesterday. Seems like their policy currently only applies to their own students and cannot legally be applied to concealed carry on their property. That is, if I am reading the simply written law correctly.

Obviously private property owners can restrict access however they want, though I have yet to see a business post "no firearms".

Looking at SB554, I don't see any scheduled votes. It seems like a really foolish idea. Has there been any trouble in Oregon with CHL holders that I am unaware of? Complying with this proposed law seems more dangerous than just letting things be. In a holster, a firearm has no chance of firing. Concealed it has nearly no chance of being taken. If to comply with the law, people are handling their firearms throughout the day to lock them in safes (or worse throwing them in the glove compartment), those are added chances for something bad to happen. More than this, I hate laws that seemed to be aimed at turning law abiding citizens into felons. It is particularly insulting living in a town that allows all kinds of lawlessness to go unchecked and unpunished.

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

F'm i carry there when i go to football games