OSU students plan gun-rights events

Discussion in 'General Firearm Discussion' started by billc, Apr 8, 2009.

  1. billc

    billc
    Albany
    Member

    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    12
    From tonights Albany Democrat Herald
    A student group at Oregon State University plans to promote gun rights with activities next week, including a rally for the right of concealed handgun license holders to be armed on campus.

    The rally, featuring Portland radio commentator Lars Larson, is set for 5 p.m. April 16 in the quad on campus.
     
  2. korntera

    korntera
    Oregon
    Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    16
    Didn't this get addressed with the WOU case? State law says that ONLY the state can make rulings regarding possesion of firearms so a school can not say a CHL holder cannot carry. I am glad they are protesting but isthat the main thing it is based on?
     
  3. fingolfen

    fingolfen
    Oregon
    Member

    Messages:
    749
    Likes Received:
    3
    The WOU case still hasn't actually gone to trail as far as I know...
     
  4. korntera

    korntera
    Oregon
    Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    16
    But they did drop all charges and say that it was a faulty arrest right? Unless he is suing the police department for damages what is there to go to trial? All charges against him got dropped.
     
  5. USMC1911

    USMC1911
    Salem
    Active Member

    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    115
    Yup did drop the charges but he is still kicked out for doing nothing wrong. I think the rally is geared to school policy not state "law".
     
  6. OcelotZ3

    OcelotZ3
    Corvallis
    Active Member

    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    68
    Unfortunately for them, bad timing given the recent shootings.
     
  7. wakejoe

    wakejoe
    Beaverton, OR
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    138
    It's never bad timing.

    Good on them for holding strong.
     
  8. Hallofo

    Hallofo
    Springtucky, OR
    New Member

    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    While the person in question may have been well within his rights and the law; (sadly, not always the same thing) there is little to prevent the school from making his life as hard as possible.

    If nothing else, even with all charges being dropped and everything "going away" the school has still won a victory. It has demonstrated the willingness and ability to significantly inconvenience and harass a law-abiding citizen acting within the confines of the law; simply for being a responsible gun owner that has chosen to take personal responsibility for his safety and the safety of others.

    I think the "timing" aspect is moot. How many people do you think would have been killed if just ONE person was carrying? One side could argue: "zero, if guns were illegal, then he would not have been able to get one" [yeah, right...] The other side could argue "zero, or maybe one. He would have been shot himself by the person(s) with a CHL and been prevented from slaughtering another dozen innocent people unopposed". Neither side is really going to change the others mind, we can only hope the people that believe in personal protection instead of reliance on Federal and State agencies will be elected to lead.
     
  9. OcelotZ3

    OcelotZ3
    Corvallis
    Active Member

    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    68
    Timing is moot? I don't think so.

    "One side could argue..." Yeah, they could. The "other" side can argue to the extreme other end, too. So what.

    The 3 police officers killed in Philadelphia were all carrying at the time.
     
  10. Hallofo

    Hallofo
    Springtucky, OR
    New Member

    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are absolutely correct; carrying a gun is not an instant "I Win!" button for all Bad Things. However, not carrying and being completely dependent upon the Police and the goodwill of others is not exactly the most tactically sound course either. This is not said to put down LEO's, it’s just a simple admission that they cannot be everywhere all the time, and that in a lot of situations an armed civilian (or 3, or 3) can make the difference between a CNN headline and a blurb on page 5.
     
  11. OcelotZ3

    OcelotZ3
    Corvallis
    Active Member

    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    68
    No problem there... I have a CHL.

    But people need to be realistic about things and not make statements such as "(it's a possibility) no one would have been killed", etc. Conjecture can easily be parried by conjecture in the other direction.

    We should be making reasonable, well-made & researched arguments.
     
  12. Hallofo

    Hallofo
    Springtucky, OR
    New Member

    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree Ocelot, but pretty much anything said after the fact is conjecture and opinion. Taking apart incidents piece by piece can be useful, if only to better prepare someone for "the next one".

    However, I still believe it is a valid point to argue that casualties could have been minimized or non-existent had someone been armed (other than the assailant). By carrying; open or concealed, one makes this argument by action in that IF something were to happen, there WOULD be someone else there with a firearm.
     

Share This Page