Patterico's Pontifications

10/5/2015

Yes, That Oregon Campus Was a Gun-Free Zone

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:34 am

As I noted the other day, the recent Oregon shooting was in a gun-free zone — a fact omitted by Barack Obama in his admittedly “policitized” remarks on the subject:

Notably, the fact that the shooting happened in a “gun-free zone” — as these mass shootings almost always do — was not mentioned.

Leftists now claim that the campus was not actually a gun-free zone. What they ignore is that virtually everyone who might have been carrying a gun thought it was. And if everyone believes a campus is a “gun-free zone,” then guess what? It is.

Details in the extended entry.

Here’s the Guardian, citing a pro-gun-control spokesman:

What is clear, Erika Soto Lamb, communications director at Everytown for Gun Safety, wrote in an email, is that “Oregon law actually forces colleges to allow guns on campus grounds”.

Oregon is one of fewer than a dozen states, along with more conservative counterparts like Mississippi and Utah, which allow concealed carry on college campuses.

At Umpqua Community College, the site of Thursday’s tragedy, the policy change came in a meeting of the board of directors on 9 November 2011. According to the minutes, the Oregon Community College Association legal counsel “spoke about the gun law changes which affect the ability to carry a concealed weapon on campus”.

As a result, the counsel noted: “If you have a concealed weapon card, the policy of the board may not restrict a person from carrying a weapon.”

Umpqua’s policy soon changed to allow guns on campus, although “at the time of the shooting, Umpqua Community College had as strong a policy as Oregon law permits”, Lamb said.

Here’s the problem: if that was the law, nobody seemed to know it. Here’s the college president claiming the campus is a gun-free zone:

At 3:07 she says: “We have a ‘no guns on campus’ policy.” And as the Federalist noted, the 2015 Student Code of Conduct states:

Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited.

Lefties argue that the phrase “except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations” means that the state law cited by the Guardian trumps. Here’s the problem: if guns were permitted on campus, that information had not made its way to the college’s president, or to the people who wrote the college’s Student Code of Conduct. Either that, or it had — and those individuals were actively trying to mislead students. Either way, students were misled into believing that the campus was a gun-free zone. And so, de facto, it was.

Lefties cite interviews with student John Parker, who said he had a gun but was too far away to do anything. Lefties demand to know: how did Mr. Parker, the guy with the gun, know the policy? As NBC News has reported, he didn’t:

Parker said he had no idea what the UCC policy is on concealed carry and hadn’t bothered to check.

“I don’t care what the policy is,” he said. “I know what the law is.”

In knowing the law, Parker is evidently the exception and not the rule. Kevin Starrett, the executive director of the Oregon Firearms Education Foundation, told NBC News that (as you might guess) most students are confused by policies that defy the law:

Much of the remaining confusion about whether licensed concealed carry is allowed, Starrett said, arises from the fact that many schools, fair boards and other entities continue to post signs and adopt policies either stating or strongly implying that guns are not allowed.

. . . .

Regarding UCC’s policy on concealed carry, Starrett said, that may explain why gun control advocates could have gotten the impression that it was a “gun-free zone,” despite law to the contrary.

Umpqua Community College says “possession, use, or threatened use of firearms … except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited,” according to its website.

Starrett said arguments — which his group has encountered in the past — that state statute doesn’t expressly allow guns on school campuses are incorrect. “Most students see the rules and they just think that’s what it means and they obey them,” he said.

By the way, Starrett says that the court ruling cited in the Guardian piece doesn’t directly “address” Umpqua Community College:

Starrett told NBC News Friday that while the court’s ruling didn’t directly address community colleges like UCC, “It’s doubtful that community colleges could make the case that they have the right to do it (ban guns on campus).”

So in the end, students probably do have the right to carry guns at Umpqua and schools like it in Oregon. But almost nobody knew this. Students were told they couldn’t. The college president thought they couldn’t. The one guy they have found who had a gun on campus didn’t even check the policy. In knowing state and federal law on the subject, he is clearly an unusual case.

And so, in effect, this college was a gun-free zone.

Again, for whatever reason, mass shootings almost always happen in gun-free zones. This one does not buck that trend — no matter how much leftists try to rewrite history.

134 Responses to “Yes, That Oregon Campus Was a Gun-Free Zone”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  2. The college president knew. “We have a no-guns policy” could be spun as a statement of intent or value judgment. It’s when she skipped the question of penalty that revealed it – she can’t say what the penalty is because there isn’t one. That would make it a clear violation of the law.

    Jason Boisvert (aedb59)

  3. Thereby inviting government-armed terrorists and drug cartels to murder low risk targets, especially law-abiding Christians. I wonder if there will be a Russian coalition that will intervene to save us from ourselves, or will they just walk past and mock the endangered Homo liberalis.

    n.n (9e771a)

  4. I think it’s important not to play the leftist word games. It doesn’t matter if students thought they couldn’t carry, the law says that campus is not a gun-free zone.

    There are any number of policies on every campus that students are unaware of, and they have a duty to make themselves aware.

    (A surprising example: at the last university I taught, I was not allowed to punish students for cheating without the approval of the Dean of Students, who was required to give the students a hearing. Not even a zero on quiz or a homework assignment without the Dean’s permission and the opportunity for a student to have a hearing. Almost no student and hardly any of the faculty were aware of this policy.)

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  5. “In knowing the law, Parker is evidently the exception and not the rule.”

    – Patterico

    “Evidently” by what evidence? Kevin Starrett’s speculation about what “most students” think? Is there any indication that actual students on this campus thought they couldn’t legally carry guns on campus if they wanted to? And how is it “misleading students” to say that carrying guns on campus is prohibited “except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations”? That is an accurate statement, isn’t it?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  6. moms need to demand action

    chop chop moms

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  7. A surprising example: at the last university I taught…

    Not so surprising. Apparently, liability for causing a diverse spectrum of grievances is a real concern. Frankly, I’m surprised that our civilization can still feed itself without outside adult supervision.

    n.n (9e771a)

  8. Students can legally carry a gun on campus if they have a Concealed carry permit
    but the school prohibited firearms from the actual buildings.. which is legal
    under Oregon law.

    samantha (e92ada)

  9. this is a star wars t-shirt for fat girls

    i love it!

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  10. She’s not fat you sexist dog, she’s pleasingly thick.

    Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  11. the point Mr. Hoagie is she has lots of different ways she can conceal her handgun under her shirt when she goes to community college and she looks absolutely fantastic doing it

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  12. Is there any indication that actual students on this campus thought they couldn’t legally carry guns on campus if they wanted to?
    Leviticus (f9a067) — 10/5/2015 @ 8:14 am

    You have a point if you assume college students do not read their school’s student conduct code or listen to what the college president says.

    You can do better.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  13. Well, I guess it is true–A private citizen with a gun ended the Oregon shootings:

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/us/oregon-umpqua-community-college-shooting/index.html

    Chris Harper-Mercer, the shooter behind the deadly rampage at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, apparently committed suicide after exchanging gunfire with officers, Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin said Saturday.

    From what I recall, is actually quite rare that these murders (and gun law violators) are killed by police (even if the police actively are shooting, they seem to miss their intended targets much of the time–It is not an easy situation in any case), most commit suicide instead. Most seem to end their lives when there is “any” armed opposition.

    BfC (5517e8)

  14. I would be willing to bet cold, hard cash that if the administration of the college *knew* that Mr. Parker was carrying concealed before last week, legally according to the law but against the college policy, they would have taken drastic steps to have him punished.

    If they try the same thing now, they’ll just look like idiots. (That’s not to say they won’t, just to say they’d be idiots to try)

    Georg Felis (40c1b3)

  15. You have a point if you assume college students do not read their school’s student conduct code or listen to what the college president says.

    Albeit this now goes back 35 years, I never read my college’s code of conduct, and the only time I ever listened to the university president was at matriculation and commencement. Twice in four years.

    kishnevi (9cb6b5)

  16. Seems odd, BfC that after several days of hearing the cops shot him now unexpectedly he committed suicide.

    Plus this from your link:

    Mercer said he was unaware his son had firearms.

    “I had no idea he had any guns. I have no idea that he had any guns whatsoever,” Mercer said. “And I’m a great believer you don’t buy guns, don’t buy guns, you don’t buy guns.”

    Boy, that Sure sounds like every conservative Republican I’ve ever known.

    Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  17. The fact that a muslim, immigrant terrorist was able to shoot people on campus proves this was not a gun-free-zone. Therefore the leftists are correct, the campus was not a gun-free-zone.

    Jim (defd88)

  18. @MD in Philly:You have a point if you assume college students do not read their school’s student conduct code or listen to what the college president says.

    Students in general do not listen to what the college president says and do not even usually know their name, and students in general have no idea what is in the conduct code.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  19. I am not sure it is “odd”… Just the “fog of war”. Lots of bullets flying around and leaving holes in bodies/things. It would take a full medical/police investigation to figure out who/what made any one particular wound. I don’t think it is a conspiracy in this case.

    If you want to look at something that appears to be fishy many months after 9 “bikers” were killed in Waco:

    http://www.itemonline.com/news/most-bikers-charged-in-waco-shooting-taken-off-gps-monitors/article_da233184-6adc-11e5-9997-2398e3815850.html

    Investigators have not yet offered details about who shot who or whether police officers fatally shot anyone, though reports reviewed by The Associated Press indicate police bullets did hit at least one biker.

    As I understand, the Oregon shooter was living with his mother–And the parents divorced some time around 2006.

    http://www.salon.com/2015/10/05/oregon_shooters_mother_was_an_avid_gun_enthusiast_who_stockpiled_weapons_for_fear_of_confiscation/

    The 26-year-old man who walked into a writing class last Thursday armed with six guns, spare ammunition magazines and body armor to carry out the latest American mass shooting, had even more weaponry stockpiled in the home he shared with his mother. In total, law enforcement officials confiscated 14 guns belonging to Christopher Harper-Mercer or his mother, Laurel Harper.

    So, why would his long gone father know about the guns. And why is that an issue when the mother obviously knew about the guns (some/may were hers)–If you are looking for a “responsible’ adult.

    I am not sure you are being sarcastic or not… About the father’s knowledge:

    Harper-Mercer’s father, Ian Mercer, said he hadn’t seen his son since he left California in 2013 and had no idea that his son and ex-wife owned so many guns.

    “How was he able to compile that kind of arsenal?” Mercer asked during a CNN interview this weekend. “If Chris had not been able to get hold of 13 guns, this wouldn’t have happened” Mercer said.

    Mercer, who said he had never held a gun, clearly differed with his ex-wife on gun ownership: “Even people that believe in the right to bear arms, what right do you have to take people’s lives? That’s what guns are, the killers. Simple as that. Simple as that. It’s black and white. What do you want a gun for?”

    So–A Brit living in California who never held a gun–Does not sound “Republican” to me.

    Sorry if my Sarc detector is broken here.

    BfC (5517e8)

  20. “You have a point if you assume college students do not read their school’s student conduct code or listen to what the college president says.”

    – MD in Philly

    The code of conduct that says “Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited.”

    I know Patterico didn’t bold that part, but it’s right there in plain English. So you assume that college students read their code of conduct, but not the laws of the state in which they reside?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  21. Generally, when I see the word “except,” I assume that an exception of some sort follows.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  22. The trouble with cops is that when they show up at the scene, if there isn’t a family dog to shoot first, they are unsure how to proceed.

    Gazzer (7baf28)

  23. Old and slow. And far be it for me to speak ill of the dead. But seriouslyn

    Steve57 (79555d)

  24. Because everyone there is a lawyer, right Leviticus?

    JD (34f761)

  25. In no other area would anyone here be arguing that a population’s ignorance of a law somehow nullifies that law.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  26. It’s not ignorance, there are people in positions of power and authority over them claiming that it is against their policies.

    JD (34f761)

  27. But the actual policies make clear exception for state law.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  28. Don’t get me wrong – I acknowledge the possibility that people on these campuses could have been told by administrators that there was a “no guns” policy. But A) that doesn’t mean that there was a “no guns” policy, and B) that doesn’t mean that the student body acted as though there was a “no guns” policy. My campus had a “no alcohol” policy; there was plenty of alcohol.

    I’m not arguing that there were, were not, should, or should not have been armed students on that campus, so much as arguing with Patterico’s chain of inference.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  29. Again, how many community college students study a book of rules and regulations as compared to the public statements of the head of the institution ?

    JD (34f761)

  30. @JD:It’s not ignorance, there are people in positions of power and authority over them claiming that it is against their policies.

    Shall I make a list of all the things college students do that the people in authority over them tell them not to do?

    Shall I make a list of all the things college students aren’t aware of that the people in authority over them tell them they should be aware of?

    This line of argument is going to shoot the gun-rights cause in the foot. So maybe let’s not double-down on what we know to be factually untrue.

    Remember how indignant we were at Politifact for rating Carly Fiorina “mostly false” for factually and accurately describing her own career?

    Do we care about what is true here, or are we only trying to score points on Team Blue by working the refs?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  31. “expressly authorized” is the joker in this regulation. Unless the state law specifically authorizes school campuses for concealed carry or does not include the schools in a list of authorized areas for concealed carry, the school can argue that they have the right to ban the “possession, use, or threatened use” since the law does not expressly authorize the contrary. Does anyone know if there are specifics on this?

    Leon (6b60c0)

  32. @Leon: The relevant section of Oregon law authorizes concealed carry in public buildings.

    (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
    (a) A sheriff, police officer, other duly appointed peace officers or a corrections officer while acting within the scope of employment.
    (b) 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.
    (c) An active or reserve member of the military forces of this state or the United States, when engaged in the performance of duty.
    (d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) and 166.292 (Procedure for issuing) to carry a concealed handgun.
    (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.
    (f) An employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, acting within the scope of employment, who possesses a firearm in the course of the lawful taking of wildlife.
    (g) Possession of a firearm on school property if the firearm:
    (A) Is possessed by a person who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing the firearm; and
    (B) Is unloaded and locked in a motor vehicle.
    (4) The exceptions listed in subsection (3)(b) to (g) of this section constitute affirmative defenses to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  33. Leon took the legs out under me. That’s the name I gave my unborn child. Me and my wife both. We agreed..

    Like its Leon’s fault

    Steve57 (79555d)

  34. Oregon law provides that persons with concealed weapon permits may carry on campus, but apparently it doesn’t sit well with college Presidents or employees:

    John Parker, a 36-year-old Army veteran studying to become a drug and alcohol counselor, is among the UCC students who hold weapons permits and bring guns to campus. He had his gun and his license with him on campus Thursday when the shooting took place.

    He was in the college’s veterans center, just a few buildings away from Synder Hall, with some other students who were similarly permitted and armed, he told The Oregonian/OregonLive.

    A college employee talked them out of leaving to try to use their guns to save others. The active shooter could have taken them down first. Law enforcement officers already on the scene would not have known their guns would be used to defend students and instructors, not hurt them, he said.

    “If we would have run across the field, we would have been targets,” he said. “We made a good choice at the time.”
    ***
    Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Federation, says too many colleges and other public agencies try to mislead people from thinking all guns are banned, despite the clear laws to the contrary.

    DRJ (521990)

  35. (g) Possession of a firearm on school property if the firearm:
    (A) Is possessed by a person who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing the firearm; and
    (B) Is unloaded and locked in a motor vehicle.

    So you can have a gun on campus, as long as it is useless and unavailable.

    kishnevi (31ba4e)

  36. @kishneci:So you can have a gun on campus, as long as it is useless and unavailable.

    If you have a concealed carry permit you can carry a gun into a public building in Oregon.

    (d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) and 166.292 (Procedure for issuing) to carry a concealed handgun.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  37. @kishnevi:So you can have a gun on campus, as long as it is useless and unavailable.

    False. That section of the law if for people without concealed carry permits who bring a firearm to a school–like those high school students who go hunting and get arrested for a long gun in their pickup.

    Oregon law allows concealed carry holders to carry in public buildings including schools and universities and does not require them to keep firearms unloaded and locked in a vehicle.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  38. @DRJ: You got some gold hiding in the asterisks you put in:

    Public colleges have no grounds to restrict concealed weapons permit-holders’ rights, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  39. I don’t get your Fiorina point, Gabriel. It is unquestioned that though the law may allow carry, that campus official and administrators, at the very least, try to give the impression otherwise, if not outright mislead as to the law.

    JD (34f761)

  40. yes, and how hard is it still to get a hand gun in DC, six years later,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  41. I thought we had already established that, Gabriel. I quoted the points I wanted to make and I provided a link so people could read the article for themselves. I’m glad you found something of interest.

    DRJ (521990)

  42. JD, wouldn’t the holder of a CC permit be presumed to know where they can and can not carry pursuant to that permit?

    But “no weapons unless you have a CC permit” is not far from a gun free zone.

    kishnevi (9cb6b5)

  43. @kishnevi:But “no weapons unless you have a CC permit” is not far from a gun free zone.

    Goalpost shifting. The argument has always been that gun-free zones prevent law-abiding use of weapons in defense of others. There was no such obstacle in this case. There were people legally carrying guns on this campus that day. Look at what Patterico said about it:

    Notably, the fact that the shooting happened in a “gun-free zone”

    But it wasn’t, and “leftists” are perfectly correct to point this out.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  44. @JD:I don’t get your Fiorina point, Gabriel. It is unquestioned that though the law may allow carry, that campus official and administrators, at the very least, try to give the impression otherwise, if not outright mislead as to the law.

    But that is totally different from where we were at the beginning:

    As I noted the other day, the recent Oregon shooting was in a gun-free zone

    Well, it wasn’t. And he goes further to accuse those who point this out of “try(ing) to rewrite history.”

    That’s the connection with Fiorina. The campus was NOT a gun-free zone and there were people legally carrying there.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  45. I still don’t get how what I said, that you previously quoted, has anything to do with the outright overt lies told about Fiorina.

    JD (fc283b)

  46. Kishnevi – yes, I think it is incumbent on them to know as a holder. Having said that, it is also reasonable for them to be reasonably confused or to question whether or not it applies when the Head of the university says that it is a gun free zone.

    JD (fc283b)

  47. @JD:I still don’t get how what I said,

    Try reviewing what I said first:

    Remember how indignant we were at Politifact for rating Carly Fiorina “mostly false” for factually and accurately describing her own career?

    “Leftists” are pointing out that Umpqua Community College was not a gun-free zone, and commenters here, as well as our host, are saying that is false. But it is not false.

    That is the connection. Whatever else is being said about Fiorina is not what I was talking about.

    Cleared up?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  48. @JD:it is also reasonable for them to be reasonably confused or to question whether or not it applies when the Head of the university says that it is a gun free zone.

    They don’t seem to have any problem with that when it’s alcohol or weed. The university officials say thousands of things that students pay no attention to.

    The concealed carriers on that campus knew what the law really said though.

    Quoted by Patterico:

    Parker said he had no idea what the UCC policy is on concealed carry and hadn’t bothered to check.

    “I don’t care what the policy is,” he said. “I know what the law is.”

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  49. Nope. Not at all cleared up for me. You are now quoting someone else. Initially you used a quote from me to introduce your Fiorina point.

    JD (fc283b)

  50. This is gonna end up as an epistemology discussion, rather than a gun-control thread. Which is fine with me, I guess.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  51. A gun free zone is a state of mind.

    Where weapons are not allowed, it is a good idea to carry weapons. — John Norman

    Where weapons are needed, it is a better idea not to go there. — nk

    nk (dbc370)

  52. I don’t really get the comparison to alcohol either. One is a minor local/state violation. The other has the potential to be a federal crime and felony.

    JD (fc283b)

  53. “A gun free zone is a state of mind.”

    – nk

    It has to be a collective state of mind, though. I’m not contesting the validity of Patterico’s reasoning, so much as its soundness.

    Okay, sure:

    If no student is allowed to have a gun on campus, and no student has on campus what he/she is not allowed to have on campus, then no student will have a gun on campus.

    But there’s little evidence to support either premise, and some evidence against the first, and plenty of evidence against the second.

    And that is setting aside that there are far more people on campus than just students, as far as determining a “gun free campus” is concerned.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  54. “I don’t really get the comparison to alcohol either. One is a minor local/state violation. The other has the potential to be a federal crime and felony.”

    – JD

    We could change the comparison to harder drugs, then – MDMA and cocaine, for starters.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  55. > So you assume that college students read their code of conduct, but not the laws of the state in which they reside?

    I think it’s a safe assumption that most students do not read the laws of the state in which they reside, in part because I think it’s a safe assumption that most *people* don’t.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  56. You, of all people, Leviticus, who on more than one occasion has maintained that the law is force, should know that coercion need not blatant but can be subtle and disguised.

    nk (dbc370)

  57. need not *be* blatant

    nk (dbc370)

  58. “There were people legally carrying guns on this campus that day.:

    Who? One student who couldn’t get to the gun in time?

    Some colleges have implement consent laws that are arguably unconstitutional. The accused in those institutions are affected by that policy unless they challenge it in court.

    This college apparently didn’t even allow it security guard to carry gun. For all intents purposes, it was a gun free zone. The administration made a conscious effort to limit firearms on school grounds. The ones who carried the guns in to school that day either didn’t know school policy or felt state law SHOULD trump school policy without checking with anyone. And schools often have signs posted that specifically forbid firearms and smoking.

    Law enforcement can stop crime if they’re alerted on time or happen to be at the right moment. The fact that they sometimes fail to do so isn’t an argument for less law enforcement. Mercer executed people who were lined up, a trained security guard could have taken him out.

    lee (c2f501)

  59. So perhaps the campus was not technically a gun-free zone but either the administration was too stupid to know that or duplicitous enough to try and lead students to think so.

    And they got a bunch of people killed.

    Any liability lawyers out there thinking about looking for a payday?

    WarEagle82 (44dbd0)

  60. Does gun free mean knife free?
    As kids we used to have contests throwing old Military knives – longest throw that stuck in the red elm tree.
    You could do some damage in a classroom. Or peel an apple at lunch.

    mg (31009b)

  61. I wonder if this is like how the State (and the State as in the general sense of Government and not Oregon specifically) decides to ignore the laws like immigration or gun permit issues or open records laws. Where the people in charge decide to ignore the laws they hate and only trump the laws they love. That whole nullification thing that those of us who are libertarian (little L type) and conservative have talked about with regards to the other laws the State likes to pass which infringe on liberty. That this is the opposite where the statists and oppressors decided to ignore the laws that give people the freedom, since freedom is scary.

    Nullification works both ways and notice when you talk about nullification the left gets their hackles up and scream that nullification is evil and those that talk about it are traitors that need to be hung from the gallows. If not a joke and where the federal government just needs to go in hard with its full executive branch force to make nullification null and void.

    Charles (3cf0f0)

  62. “You, of all people, Leviticus, who on more than one occasion has maintained that the law is force, should know that coercion need not blatant but can be subtle and disguised.”

    – nk

    How many divisions does this Pope University President have, again?

    I understand your point, but not all force is created equal.

    Leviticus (48a857)

  63. just like the Beck decision, it was rarely enforced, and ultimately superceded,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  64. to Bungalow Bill
    happiness is a warm gun
    not Rocky Racoon

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  65. mg@61
    The school code of conduct includes non-guns as potential weapons. See the paragraph included in the OP, just under the video embed.

    kishnevi (9cb6b5)

  66. People who go to community colleges are, by and large, people trying to hang on to their last chance of a shred of the American dream by their fingernails. Sure, most of them are fooling themselves but they don’t know it. They’re relatively easy to herd with the fear of expulsion and/or loss of financial assistance. Especially when it involves something made into a semi-taboo by “the mainstream”. Such as guns.

    nk (dbc370)

  67. So, pass another one or two of the meaningless laws that make lefties feel good for a few months until the next psychotic left-winger goes off the deep end and does this heinous sh*t all over again. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  68. Any liability lawyers out there thinking about looking for a payday?
    In a very limited way. You would have to show that someone who would have been able to stop the gunman with a gun of their own was present and in a position where shooting the gunman was feasible, but did not have a gun with them as a direct result of the school claiming to have a “gun free” policy.
    A more certain angle would make the school liable because it did not provide proper security, just an unarmed guard.

    kishnevi (31ba4e)

  69. I think the bottom line is somewhere around the point of what the shooter thought. It sounds like a lot of people believe the school, all schools, to be “gun-free zones” even if it is not really the case. If the shooter held such a belief, and choose the school because he would not face any armed opposition, then the technicality of it being truly a GFZ, is immaterial.

    I found it interesting that the handbook item about firearms chose to list many items that are not really firearms and not considered as such when “armed with a firearm” is part of an offense. I saw a video on TV a few days back to show how to resist an attacker in these situations, and striking with chairs, book, computers, anything to inflict injury was a viable course of action; I saw nothing in the snippet from the student manual here making eception for self-defense.

    Note to nk @67: I disagree with your assessment of CC students. Many of us attended to get our general education units at a much lower cost than the University would have charged. At least that was the case in 1964-65.

    Gramps, the original (bc022b)

  70. Yeah, I know a lot of people like that. It’s even more common now with the costs of college tuition. I do not claim that they’re losers, just that they’re not privileged frat boys and that they have a goal. My cynicism is towards the state of our country these days, not the people trying to survive in it.

    nk (dbc370)

  71. Gramps, it still is the case.
    UF tuition per credit hour for instate undergraduate students
    $212.71
    Broward Community College (my local), the same category of student is charged $113.50

    Add to that most students commute from home at BCC, so do not oay for living quarters and meals like they would at UF, and many are already in the work force at some level. Commuting and parking costs are present, of course, but I doubt a oarking space costs as much as a dorm room.

    The disadvantages to BCC are all in academics, focusing on the fact that almost all of its programs are either vocational or only two year (Associate degree), and the faculty can be second rate.

    kishnevi (31ba4e)

  72. since I mentioned it, it’s only fair that I include this,

    http://www.dailypundit.com/?p=108092

    narciso (ee1f88)

  73. @kishnevi, Gramps:

    The community college AA is actually, I think, wise for students to pursue. It doesn’t cost as much as two years at a university, and when you transfer they can’t deny all your credits, which universities love to do.

    Further students don’t have to live on campus and they can more easily accommodate work. In addition I think it’s an easier transition to the responsibility of being a full-time student on one’s own. I think I will encourage my son to do it, though my wife is dead-set on his going straight to Harvard. (He’s 3, so I think I have time to persuade her to see it my way.)

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  74. Also, if you find out your student isn’t cut out for college–most of them aren’t–they didn’t rack up bunch of debt and they have plenty of time to try something else.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  75. #ManPrimeval Knows a Sheeps Foot blade, how to use it.

    Steve57 (3d86d9)

  76. I am just trying to catch up on this story–tell me, when was the last time that a shooting like this occurred in a “carry them if you got ’em” zone?????

    bald01 (f38852)

  77. I follow your site from Australia, and I am usually in complete agreement with your posts, and usually find your commenters to be suprisingly erudite . . .

    But anytime guns come up, all you guys just lose your shit. Really, 70+ comments arguing about whether the school was really a gun-free zone or not? Honestly, do you really think it would have made any difference at all? No-one made any attempts to stop him before he got in to a classroom, because on my reading of it, he hadn’t actually done anything illegal until he started shooting people. So having an armed security guard – pointless.

    Having students and/or teachers armed with guns in the classroom? Again, all the research your armed forces have done show that the majority of normal people freeze in such a situation, and even if they manage to reach their gun (where does a student seated in a classroom keep their gun – clipped to their belt, in their desk, in their bag??) again, all the research shows the majority of people are friggin’ awful shots! How many articles have I read here about how hopelessly inaccurate your police are when they are the only ones with the guns, let alone attempting to shoot when under fire or directly confronting an armed opponent with their gun out? And you think untrained, or range-trained civilians will do better? More people with guns in this situation equals more dead people, either shot by each other or by the police when they turn up.

    No-one here has even glanced towards the elephant in the room. Your country is seriously fucked up. No other Western country has your murder rates, by any cause; nothing even comes close. Just for our edification and despair, its not just murders – at last glance your suicide rate by gun was an order of magnitude greater than your homicide rate by gun.

    The only purpose of hand guns is to kill people. The only purpose of assault rifles (distinguished by rate of fire and a magazine) is to kill people. This guy was clearly a whack job; but your country throws up whack-jobs like no other. Want to keep your guns – fine. All of you can accept collective responsibility for these massacres. You live in a democracy; you directly elect your president, and congressman and senators. Your fault. Deal with it.

    awfulpod (9f6eaa)

  78. The relevant section of Oregon law authorizes concealed carry in public buildings.

    This is false, Gabriel. The court decision cited by the Guardian — the one that held that a rule banning firearms from the grounds of public universities exceeded the scope of the authority of the State Board of Higher Education — states quite specifically as follows:

    ORS 166.370(1) criminalizes as a Class C felony the possession of a firearm in a public building. ORS 166.370(3) provides an exception for “[a] person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.” That exception, petitioner contends, demonstrates the legislature’s intention to expressly authorize persons with concealed handgun permits to carry firearms in public buildings, including buildings on state college and university campuses. We reject the contention that a statutory exception to criminal sanctions for the possession of a handgun in public buildings indicates an intention to require public educational institutions to permit concealed handguns.

    I.e. it is false to say that the criminal statute authorizes concealed carry in campus buildings. The Guardian article cited by the lefties bolsters this conclusion, stating:

    At issue was a state law declaring that only the state legislature could regulate the use, sale and possession of firearms. The following year, the Oregon state board of higher education approved a policy that banned guns from being brought inside campus buildings. However, the status of campus gun regulations has yet to be fully settled in the courts.

    We are told in this comments section that students generally ignore the student code of conduct and statements of the university president and simply follow state law. But how are they to know what state law says? Gabriel, who is not a dumb guy, misstated the state law on this issue. What’s more, I challenge anyone to go read that court decision and give me a detailed precis of the arguments that were raised, and which were rejected and which were accepted, and precisely why the argument that they accepted was accepted.

    Meanwhile, we’re told that, hey, that guy they interviewed who had a gun — he knew state law! “The concealed carriers on that campus knew what the law really said though,” says Gabriel. Uh, no, he didn’t. He claimed that he had the right to carry a gun because of the Second Amendment and similar provisions in the Oregon Constitution. But the court decision said nothing about either. In fact, the court plainly said “[w]e . . . do not address whether [the rule] violates the Second Amendment.”

    The guy who had the gun on campus? He thinks he knows the law, but he doesn’t.

    We’re told that students never read codes of conduct or listen to college presidents. But if you’re thinking of bringing a gun on campus, but you’re not sure if you’re allowed to, what are you going to do? I suppose you might try to research the law on your own, and hope you’re right, knowing that if you’re wrong you could be disciplined, expelled, and perhaps prosecuted. I suppose you could consult a lawyer. Or . . .

    Or, you could do what I assume most people would do: ask an official. And if every official out there is telling you it’s a gun-free zone, then guess what? It is, de facto, a gun-free zone.

    We’re also told that students are banned from having alcohol, but very very often have alcohol anyway. This argument assumes that bans on guns are treated as cavalierly as bans on alcohol. I wonder if the people making this argument believe that college officials treat the two in the same way — and whether they think students believe that college officials would treat the two in the same way.

    You can claim that I am playing word games, but I think I am stating reality. If you want to contradict me, feel free — but if you do, you need to stop making arguments that show you have not read, and do not understand, the applicable precedent.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  79. @77

    How about this short list from Buzzfeed of all people

    The last one in Oregon was in 2012 at a shopping mall in December of that year. Stopped by a few folks with guns.

    Charles (3cf0f0)

  80. “Evidently” by what evidence? Kevin Starrett’s speculation about what “most students” think? Is there any indication that actual students on this campus thought they couldn’t legally carry guns on campus if they wanted to?

    It’s true that I have not conducted a survey. I just have this weird idea that when a student code of conduct says (in effect) no guns, and the college president says the same thing, that people who ask officials if they can have guns are going to be told no.

    Again: you can say that the student code of conduct says “except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations.” OK, Leviticus. Here we go. Under the case I linked, is possession of guns at a community college in Oregon “expressly authorized by law”? In answering the question, please answer the following:

    1. What body is responsible for passing the regulations applicable to community colleges in Oregon? If you say “State Board of Higher Education” I will ask for a citation, since the fellow who brought the lawsuit himself says “the court’s ruling didn’t directly address community colleges like UCC” (that’s quoted from the NBC News article in the post).

    2. What authority does that body have to pass a regulation regarding firearms possession at community colleges?

    3. In the absence of a regulation, what does Oregon state law say about the possession of guns on a community college campus:

    a. Inside a building?

    b. Outside a building?

    4. What is the basis for your answer to question 3?

    5. Taking into account your articulated basis for answering question 3, would you say that this basis is one that shows that possession of firearms at a community college is “expressly” authorized by state law?

    6. If it’s not “express” then is the code of conduct at odds with state law?

    Imagine a student answering these questions, knowing that if he gets them wrong, he could be expelled or arrested.

    Now tell me that this is not a gun-free zone.

    Dude.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  81. We should all be lawyers. Or line them up first.

    JD (3898b3)

  82. One or the other, right? Murica

    Leviticus (48a857)

  83. Patterico: why don’t you ask those questions of John Parker, the actual student on the campus you’re asking me about? Again, you say that Mr. Parker is “evidently the exception and not the rule.” By what evidence?

    Leviticus (48a857)

  84. If you re-read my comments, you will see that NBC News effectively did ask him those questions, and he did not know.

    As for the issue of “by what evidence,” I have laid out my argument. It is what it is.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  85. Patterico. I love your blog. Those that you and I oppose politically, logically and rationally, have no interest in debate, logic or reason. None. 2 or 3 things are at work. 1)They have been trained from kindergarten to be liberal mindless drones. 2) They don’t care about good vs evil, they care about winning and their own un-earned ego’s. 3) They lack morality. They believe the are entitled in life.
    Lastly, the CONSTITUTION and heretofore, normal American Patriotism is FOREIGN to them.
    No pun intended.

    GUS (7cc192)

  86. Let’s see if I can get this right.
    If I guess right and do what I want, I can have a loaded gun with me in the classroom.
    If I guess wrong and do what I want, I will be imprisoned and banned from ever owning a gun again.
    If I’m a sane person, I consider that very high-stakes poker.
    Me, I’m risk-averse. Others aren’t as risk-averse as me.
    And one who isn’t as risk-averse, is doing a clinical evaluation instead of a real-world evaluation.

    John Hitchcock (ee44df)

  87. John Hitchcock. It is completely legal under the U.S.CONSTITUTION to own and possess a gun.
    Liberals have sought FOREVER to abridge that RIGHT.
    If you are carrying a firearm in class at HITCHCOCK COMMUNITY COLLEGE, there are only 2 possibilities. 1) You are carrying legally or 2) you are carrying ILLEGALLY. So, IF, morons, libs and idiots decide and BELIEVE that HITCHCOCK COMMUNITY COLLEGE should be a GUN FREE ZONE, only one possibility REMAINS. Anyone with a gun THERE is a criminal. Law abiding people, with concealed carry permits, have gone through the process of LEGALLY ARMING themselves. CRIMINALS by DEFINITION, do not obey LAWS.
    Maybe UMQUA COMMUNITY COLLEGE could have saved 9 plus lives and numerous wounded victims, by posting. MURDER FREE ZONE signs.

    GUS (7cc192)

  88. Patterico: why don’t you ask those questions of John Parker, the actual student on the campus you’re asking me about?

    Leviticus,

    Would it be unfair of me to suggest that you, with your legal training, apparently can’t give a definitive answer to these very complex questions — and that this suggests that students at a community college could not be expected to give correct answers either . . . meaning they might well rely on authorities’ advice?

    I don’t want to be unfair, and I mean that — but that’s how it looks from here.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  89. I am trained in the handling, shooting and target practice of a handgun. I am a military Veteran, and have served the UNITED STATES military forces, including passing many gun and weapons level requirements and target shooting tests.
    I go to my College after serving THE UNITED STATES, and LIBERAL COLLEGE ADMINISTRATORS and TEACHERS have decided that, MY COLLEGE is BEST SUITED by NOT ALLOWING WEAPONS or FIRE-ARMS.
    Who does this POLICY EITHER HELP OR BENEFIT????
    Does a GUN FREE ZONE equal a STOP IN THE NAME OF THE LAW ZONE???
    Does a GUN FREE ZONE equal a RAPE IS ILLEGAL ZONE????

    Get a clue MORONS.

    A FREAK who can’t get a girlfriend SHOOTS UP CAMPUS after Barney Fife Obama’s SECURITY APPARATUS leaves the STUDENTS at risk. And LIBTARDS blame the NRA.

    WOW.

    GUS (7cc192)

  90. CAPSLOCK IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. AND REPETITIVE USE OF SENTENCE-ENDING PUNCTUATION IS NOT YOUR FRIEND, EITHER.

    John Hitchcock (ee44df)

  91. Sorry John. Apparently conversation, debate and rejoinder are not your friend either. Bye.

    GUS (7cc192)

  92. Yes Johnny, if I had used the HITCHCOCK approved punctuation, you would have “replied” and won the intellectual battle. What a pathetic wimp.

    GUS (7cc192)

  93. The only purpose of hand guns is to kill people. The only purpose of assault rifles (distinguished by rate of fire and a magazine) is to kill people.

    if you’re going to comment on an issue, it would be helpful if you actually knew WTF you were talking about.

    since you don’t, as demonstrated by the idiocy quoted above, you can either educate yourself or STFU.

    your fault. deal with it.

    redc1c4 (b23b93)

  94. Very good points redc1c4. My 2 police officer brothers HANDGUNS are for the purpose of KILLING PEOPLE.

    Thank you redc1c4. Logic.

    GUS (7cc192)

  95. Johnny Hitchcock. I said goodbye already. You have no ability to say anything intelligent. Go play with yourself clown boy.

    GUS (7cc192)

  96. JOHNNY HITCHCOCK ALL CAPS!!! Debate that sissy boy!

    GUS (7cc192)

  97. referencing awfulpod’s assertions:
    “Having students and/or teachers armed with guns in the classroom? …again, all the research shows the majority of people are friggin’ awful shots!

    The issue is not whether people actually can take the assailant down. First and foremost, the issue is whether a would-be assailant thinks there may be guns in an area he is going to do his deed at all. As someone else in this thread said, does the shooter think the area is a gun free zone? If yes then he has free reign. If no, then it is likely that the shooting skill of any given person will be tested since he won’t show up to find out.

    We have overwhelming evidence that demonstrates that gunmen seek out GFZs (or in this case, a building that is THOUGHT to be a gun free zone full of unarmed future-victims.

    “Your country is seriously fucked up. No other Western country has your murder rates, by any cause; nothing even comes close. “

    This is one of the most oft asserted and yet easily debunked claim that the anti-gun types make. John Lott has done extensive research in this area and has proven that:

    a.) Looking at the 15 European states, the US ranked 8th in mass public shootings. Furthermore, the US ranks 9th in the frequency of mass public shootings.

    b.) The US has a huge problem with gangs, most recently Mexican drug gangs. Most countries (until the Syrian “refugee” onslaught) have not had to deal with porous borders like the US does. This is not an issue of “democracy” except to the extent that a lot of ignorant people have elected politicians who are anti-law and order. In fact, as we have seen over the last few years, the Obama administration is actively working against local police and border patrol which gives rise to more crime than we would otherwise have if we didn’t have an agitator in the WH. Obama has also been actively fueling hatred against white Christians. This most recent mass murder can be traced directly to the administration’s hate-mongering.

    c.) Adjusted for population differential, Australia’s mass murder rate is 3 times that of the US.

    The only purpose of hand guns is to kill people.

    Shallow argument at best. I could just as easily say that the only INTENDED purpose of a hand gun is to defend oneself. The fact that posted gun free zones are victim kill zones while places that might have armed civilians are not sites of mass murders, should tell us something. The notion that “the only purpose of hand gun is to kill people” is an outright falsehood. The honest phrase would be, “the main purpose of a hand gun is to prevent bad guys from killing innocent people.” An miraculously, handguns do this job very well without killing anyone.

    Want to keep your guns – fine. All of you can accept collective responsibility for these massacres.

    The reality is that a supportable argument can be made that MORE guns = LESS massacres. So to the extent that we have collective responsibility, it would be my contention that we don’t do enough to outlaw “gun free zones”. Crazy people need to know that it is possible that no matter where he goes, he is surrounded (or has to assume he is surrounded) by people with CC permits.

    Beeblebrocs (117649)

  98. Beyond the veterans’ community, however, other students said they were convinced the campus was in fact gun-free, citing the school’s code of conduct and the broader culture among the roughly 3,000 full-time students.

    Even this Raw Story hack job admits that.

    There’s your evidence — from a leftist Web site.

    Patterico (586221)

  99. @awfulpod

    Um, no, there are way more gun homicides here than gun suicides. America isn’t even in the top 80 of countries with highest homicide rate (we have 10 times the population of even mid sized nations and a porous border). And America has a lower suicide than at least 50 countries, which include Korea and Japan, where gun ownership is nearly impossible. What studies are you citing?

    These mass shootings almost always take time. They’re not drive by shootings. Mercer lined people up and took his time executing them after verifying their religion. It’s asinine to think an armed security guard on premise wouldn’t have made a difference. A security guard stopped an Islamist from shooting up an Mohammed cartoon exhibit just this year.

    I’ve heard of an ABC experiment that apparently demonstrated that most people are lousy shots. But (if I’m not mistaken) most of the subjects weren’t legal gun owners. They never handled a weapon. And yet, some of them still managed to hit the assailant.

    Australia is a ethnically homogeneous nation with a clear cut immigration policy. America is a economic giant that attracts the underbellies of societies and it shares a border with Mexico. Apples and Oranges. People here use guns for home defense and sporadic riots all the time.

    lee (c2f501)

  100. I look forward to Gabriel’s and Leviticus’s responses to my comments above.

    (Leviticus has not really responded, having just sort of sloughed off the questions, but I would love to see an actual response, since I spent some time grappling with this issue and, I think, made some well-taken points.)

    Patterico (586221)

  101. my wife and i have handguns for hunting, silhouette shooting, other competitions and for personal defense.

    only the last MAY involve shooting humans, since they are not the only threat in the world.

    just because some of you don’t know anything about weapons doesn’t mean you’re experts, any more than it means you should be taken seriously, just because you spout nonsense on a subject you lack knowledge of.

    redc1c4 (b23b93)

  102. oh yeah… we also have a few that we acquired for their historical nature, to preserve their history, and that of their previous owners.

    redc1c4 (b23b93)

  103. PS: the only way to legally purchase an “assault weapon” here in the US is through the requirements of the National Firearms Act, and such weapons are incredibly expensive, since manufacture of them for the civilian market ceased in 1986, thus limiting the pool of available weapons for purchase/transfer.

    only governments can buy new ones, such as police departments, and, here in #Failifornia, only movie prop houses and law enforcement agencies can legally acquire them.

    as i said above, if all you can spew is inaccurate, uneducated guavno, do not expect to be taken seriously by those of us who actually have knowledge of the issue at hand.

    HTH.
    HAND.

    redc1c4 (b23b93)

  104. I was remiss in August, failing to mention the Battle of Vella Gulf (CG-72). A gunnery officer on the HORNET panicked and jammed half the triple A battery at the outset of the Battle of Santa Cruz.

    Yeah, I didn’t want to be that guy.

    But Fred Moosbrugger at Vella Gulf.

    Steve57 (3d86d9)

  105. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Moosbrugger_(DD-980)

    ttps://m.facebook.com/VellaGulfCG72/photos/a.656993254347148.1073741827.656795784366895/656993191013821/?type=3&source=44&refid=17

    And no I am not drunk.

    Steve57 (3d86d9)

  106. @ Lee
    re suicide rates – g’day. I couldn’t find the article I was quoting from, so here’s one from 2014. Suicide by gun + 64% of all gun deaths in 2012, increased from 56% in 2006. Google it, its very well known.

    The security guard you are talking about in Garland was actually an off-duty cop moonlighting, backed up by SWAT. There were two Islamist terrorists, who walked up carrying at least one AK-47 (reports say 3 handguns and 3 assault rifles with 1500 rounds of ammo, carrying at least two backpacks) and wearing body armour. Pretty obvious . . .

    Australia has a very weird immigration policy, and we are not ethnically homogenous. Frequent studies by the MSM say we are a highly racist country! Lucky us. We also take more “refugees” than the US by head of population, and have Indonesia, the most populous Islamic country on earth, which is becoming increasingly taken over by islamic tenets, a short boat ride away. We also have cradle to grave social support, more fool us.

    awfulpod (fa6869)

  107. A Gun Free Zone is a designated killing ground. Life and limb are at risk, and all present forfeit effective means to protect themselves and their families from extreme violence and possibly indiscriminate mass slaughter. Abandon reason all those who enter.

    ropelight (3ad0ad)

  108. Patterico:there is nothing in state law that expressly authorized guns on campus — particularly in buildings

    I posted the link to Oregon law already in the comments on the last one. I will repost it–agina–there. Maybe you missed it, or didn’t bother to follow the link. I’d hate to think you saw it and ignored it. I hope you will update this post.

    Oregon law explicitly allows concealed carry in public buildings. The header explains that people are not allowed to carry firearms in public buildings except for those listed in 2b, and 2b includes people with concealed carry permits, and not only that, allows concealed carry as an affirmative defense to being charged under this law.

    Please revise and correct your remarks. It would go the extra mile to acknowledge that I posted this before and you didn’t follow it up.

    166.370¹
    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.

    (2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person who intentionally possesses:

    (A) A firearm in a court facility is guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C felony. A person who intentionally possesses a firearm in a court facility shall surrender the firearm to a law enforcement officer.

    (B) A weapon, other than a firearm, in a court facility may be required to surrender the weapon to a law enforcement officer or to immediately remove it from the court facility. A person who fails to comply with this subparagraph is guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C felony.

    (b) The presiding judge of a judicial district may enter an order permitting the possession of specified weapons in a court facility.

    (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:

    (a) A sheriff, police officer, other duly appointed peace officers or a corrections officer while acting within the scope of employment.

    (b) 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.

    (c) An active or reserve member of the military forces of this state or the United States, when engaged in the performance of duty.

    (d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) and 166.292 (Procedure for issuing) to carry a concealed handgun.

    (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.

    (f) An employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, acting within the scope of employment, who possesses a firearm in the course of the lawful taking of wildlife.

    (g) Possession of a firearm on school property if the firearm:

    (A) Is possessed by a person who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing the firearm; and

    (B) Is unloaded and locked in a motor vehicle.

    (4) The exceptions listed in subsection (3)(b) to (g) of this section constitute affirmative defenses to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  109. 109.Patterico:there is nothing in state law that expressly authorized guns on campus — particularly in buildings

    I keep seeing this ridiculous nonsense about guns on campus but not in buildings. What is a guy supposed to do check his gun at the door? BTW, I know of no CC permit that states “except in buildings” nor does the Constitution state “except in buildings”.

    Seams like another example of why lawyers shouldn’t be allowed near the law. All they do is muddy it up.

    Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  110. Gabriel, you are just repeating yourself and talking past me. Please read the court decision and reflect on the language I quoted before commenting further.

    Patterico (114097)

  111. “Would it be unfair of me to suggest that you, with your legal training, apparently can’t give a definitive answer to these very complex questions — and that this suggests that students at a community college could not be expected to give correct answers either . . . meaning they might well rely on authorities’ advice?”

    – Patterico

    They might, sure. They might not. John Parker didn’t. Others might not have either. These are complex legal questions, yes – but there is no indication that these students would approach them as legal questions, or as administrative questions for that matter.

    Everybody wants to brush off the alcohol analogy. Again: use hard drugs instead. Very clearly prohibited, very clearly illegal, carrying very serious academic and legal consequences (in some instances), and very common on college campuses.

    I don’t think you’re playing word games. I think you are trying to make a motion for summary judgment when there are disputed issues of material fact.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  112. Strike that, poorly phrased…

    Colonel Haiku (33489e)

  113. CAN’T we ALL just get ALONG!?!?!?!?

    Colonel Haiku (33489e)

  114. this whole shooting thing is so last week

    this morning everyone was talking about the pilot that died, which isn’t even a particularly interesting topic I don’t think

    putin is interesting, and the pacific trade scam, and this kevin mccarthy momo is too stupid to follow a recipe for toast, and it’s a gloomy tuesday here in the city of the shoulders that are broad

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  115. Everybody wants to brush off the alcohol analogy. Again: use hard drugs instead. Very clearly prohibited, very clearly illegal, carrying very serious academic and legal consequences (in some instances), and very common on college campuses.

    I did address it so it’s not “everybody.”

    OK. So let’s pretend there was some possible life-saving benefit of having hard drugs like heroin in the possession of many students. Like a guy is convulsing in the quad and everyone knows a tiny microdose of heroin on his lips would save his life. But nobody has the heroin. Turns out it’s against the student code of conduct to have heroin and the president has declared the campus a drug-free zone, and a leftist Web site interviews students finding some who possess heroin, but most students outside a small coterie of drug aficionados saying they assumed it was a drug-free school.

    Would someone be justified in pointing to the anti-drug policies of the school as contributing to the scenario in which nobody in the immediate vicinity had heroin? Your argument is no, because hey, some students have it!

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  116. Please don’t shift the goalposts to whether there is a state law allowing it. Your current argument is, even assuming actual laws against it (as there are with drugs), students ignore the law, so the campus policies don’t matter. Stick with that argument.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  117. “Would someone be justified in pointing to the anti-drug policies of the school as contributing to the scenario in which nobody in the immediate vicinity had heroin?”

    – Patterico

    Yes, they would.

    Would they be justified in calling the campus “a heroin-free zone”?

    No, they would not.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  118. You and I both know that “gun-free zone” is a term of art used describe policies whose intent is to ban all guns from an area. The fact that there is always someone who defies a policy does not mean the policy is not there, or that it has no effect.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  119. Your argument really boils down to saying the policy doesn’t matter because some defy it?

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  120. And why are you still talking around the points I raised about your repeatedly advanced assertion that the Student Code of Conduct provides a loophole? I think my questions above show that it does not.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  121. @Patterico: Okay, I read the court decision. All it says is that the cocnealed carry exception is not sufficient in itself to trump the policy, but taken together with anotehr state law it is. I expect you will revise and correct your post.

    2 In this administrative rule challenge, ORS 183.400(1), petitioner Oregon
    3 Firearms Educational Foundation seeks the invalidation of an administrative rule of the
    4 Oregon State Board of Higher Education and the Oregon University System
    5 (respondents) that imposes sanctions on persons who possess or use firearms on
    6 university property. Petitioner contends that the rule exceeds respondents’ statutory
    7 authority, that it is preempted by ORS 166.170, and that it violates the Second
    8 Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that the rule is preempted
    9 and therefore do not address whether it also violates the Second Amendment.
    10 Accordingly, we conclude that the rule is invalid.

    Huh, seems to back me 100%.

    We explained that resort to legislative history “reveals no clear
    8
    1 indication as to the legislature’s intentions,” but confirms “that the focus of the legislature
    2 was on avoiding a patchwork quilt of local government laws inconsistently regulating the
    3 use of firearms.” Id. (emphasis in original). Considering that history, as well as the
    4 relevant canons of construction, we concluded that, “consistently with what the
    5 legislative history suggests, the legislature intended the preemptive effect of ORS
    6 166.170(1) to be limited to the lawmaking authority of local governments.” 232 Or App
    7 at 60 (emphasis added). We concluded that the school district’s policy was not the
    8 exercise of that sort of “authority to regulate” and that, therefore, it was not preempted by
    9 ORS 166.170(1). Id. at 61.
    10 Thus, our opinion in Doe reconciled the two subsections to the extent
    11 necessary to address whether the school district’s policy was preempted by either
    12 subsection. The answer was “no,” because the school district’s policy was not an
    13 “ordinance” within the meaning of ORS 166.170(2) and was not the sort of exercise of
    14 “authority to regulate” preempted by ORS 166.170(1).

    So the court says that the policy can’t trump the legislature, which backs me 100%.

    1 Although the State Board of Higher Education is an arm of the state, it is
    2 not the Legislative Assembly. And while, as noted, the State Board of Higher Education
    3 has general authority to control and manage its property, ORS 351.060, and to enact
    4 administrative rules, ORS 351.070(4)(b), no argument can be reasonably made that OAR
    5 580-022-0045(3)–which regulates the very subject expressly preempted by ORS
    6 166.170(1)–was “expressly authorized” by the Legislative Assembly. See ORS
    7 166.170(1). Therefore, we conclude that OAR 580-022-0045(3) is an exercise of an
    8 “authority to regulate” firearms that is not expressly authorized by the Legislative
    Assembly, and that it is preempted by ORS 166.170(1).1
    9 Accordingly, the rule exceeds
    10 the agency’s authority, ORS 183.400(4)(b), and is invalid.
    11 OAR 580-022-0045(3) held invalid.

    Huh, seems to back me 100%.

    So I anticipate a correction, sir. Posting it in the other thread as well.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  122. @Patterico: It is perfectly legitimate to point out that the college did its best to convince students that it had the authority to ban weapons, and to argue that this enabled the mass shooting.

    It is not legitimate to say that it is somehow false to point out that Oregon law allows concealed carry on campus regardless of what signs are posted.

    The college president can post signs saying she is Marie of Roumania if she likes, but that won’t make the campus a monarchy.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  123. A LONG what, Haiku?

    nk (dbc370)

  124. @80– Clackamas Mall was December 2012. Stopped (maybe) by an armed citizen who confronted the shooter after to other persons had been shot. The “stopper” did not fire due to people down-range, but the shooter took to a position of cover and killed himself.

    Volokof (sp?) addresses this in a post where he lists several incidents of mass shootings, or potential mass shooting, that are stopped by armed civilians. Our host links to it in his more recent offering (10/6/15). His explanation as to his approach to the Clackamas event shows why he is a guy we should pay attention to. The “maybe” in my first paragraph is well explained at the Volokof link.

    Gramps (bc022b)

  125. “Your argument really boils down to saying the policy doesn’t matter because some defy it?”

    – Patterico

    When your ultimate point is that adherence to a policy caused a bunch of deaths, then the empirical reality of defiance of that policy seems like a pretty natural rejoinder.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  126. this gun-free zone thing’s been done to death i think

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  127. Gabriel,

    You really, really should have taken me up on my suggestion that you read the particular part of the decision that I asked you to read. Now you have gone and embarrassed yourself badly– and I am about to make it clear just how badly.

    The section of the decision I asked you to read, pages 4-5, reads in relevant part:

    Petitioner next contends that the State Board of Higher Education exceeded its authority by enacting OAR 580-022-0045(3) because the rule is inconsistent with state law, specifically ORS 166.370, which petitioner contends expressly permits individuals with concealed handgun licenses to carry firearms on college and university campuses.

    First, we note that OAR 580-022-0045(3) states that the possession of handguns on institutional property is prohibited, unless “expressly authorized by law.” If, as petitioner contends, the possession of handguns on public university campuses is expressly authorized by law, then OAR 580-022-0045 would not be inconsistent with that provision. We proceed with the question whether state law expressly authorizes the possession of firearms on public university campuses.

    ORS 166.370(1) criminalizes as a Class C felony the possession of a firearm in a public building. ORS 166.370(3) provides an exception for “[a] person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.” That exception, petitioner contends, demonstrates the legislature’s intention to expressly authorize persons with concealed handgun permits to carry firearms in public buildings, including buildings on state college and university campuses.

    Before we go any further, l want to note that the argument advanced by the petitioner here is precisely the argument you made in a previous comment. I now quote your comment:

    Oregon law explicitly allows concealed carry in public buildings. The header explains that people are not allowed to carry firearms in public buildings except for those listed in 2b, and 2b includes people with concealed carry permits, and not only that, allows concealed carry as an affirmative defense to being charged under this law.

    What you are arguing here is that, while there are criminal sanctions for possession of a handgun in a public building, there is a statutory exception to that law (for concealed carry permit holders), which (you believe) shows the legislature expressly authorized possession of concealed handguns in buildings on campus. And that argument — the very same one raised by the petitioner — is precisely what the court squarely rejected in the next paragraph:

    We reject the contention that a statutory exception to criminal sanctions for the possession of a handgun in public buildings indicates an intention to require public educational institutions to permit concealed handguns. ORS 166.370 does not speak to the State Board of Higher Education’s authority to adopt a policy to exclude handguns from its institutional facilities. OAR 580-022-0045(3) therefore is not inconsistent with the statute.

    (The operative part of the opinion holds for the petitioner on different grounds: that the legislature pre-empted the State Board of Education’s authority, leaving us with a statute that, again, according to the court’s quote above, did not require public colleges to allow guns inside buildings.)

    In short, Gabriel, you are wrong as wrong can be. The court quite clearly said the legislature did not intend to permit concealed handguns in public buildings on campuses.

    What is especially irritating to me is that I have given you the link, given you the page number, quoted the language for you multiple times, and yet you have pigheadedly stuck to an interpretation of what the court said that I had disproved. I have now taken the time in this comment to quote all of the language, in context, and place it side by side with your flawed analysis so that all readers can see how badly wrong you are.

    You have expended a great deal of time and effort spreading misinformation and demanding corrections from me in a high-handed manner, all the while ignoring my repeated entreaties to look at the specific passage that I just quoted at length.

    You are the one who owes a retraction and correction. As you did, I will place this comment in both threads, not in an effort to shame you in two comment threads (although you have richly earned the shaming), but rather in an effort to stop the torrent of misinformation you have been spewing on both threads.

    Patterico (114097)

  128. @Patterico:You are the one who owes a retraction and correction.

    I cited much more of the opinion than the small snippet you selected. The court ruled that the universities have no authority to override the concealed carry law because of ANOTHER law that I cited and you didn’t:

    166.170¹
    State preemption

    (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.

    The court ruling goes on to say:

    1 Although the State Board of Higher Education is an arm of the state, it is
    2 not the Legislative Assembly.
    And while, as noted, the State Board of Higher Education
    3 has general authority to control and manage its property, ORS 351.060, and to enact
    4 administrative rules, ORS 351.070(4)(b), no argument can be reasonably made that OAR
    5 580-022-0045(3)–which regulates the very subject expressly preempted by ORS
    6 166.170(1)–was “expressly authorized” by the Legislative Assembly. See ORS
    7 166.170(1). Therefore, we conclude that OAR 580-022-0045(3) is an exercise of an
    8 “authority to regulate” firearms that is not expressly authorized by the Legislative
    Assembly, and that it is preempted by ORS 166.170(1).1
    9 Accordingly, the rule exceeds
    10 the agency’s authority, ORS 183.400(4)(b), and is invalid.
    11 OAR 580-022-0045(3) held invalid.

    It’s very clear, Patterico. I think I read this more closely and correctly than you did, and I think you should calm down a bit. I am not a troll or a “spewer” of disinformation.

    Posting again in the other thread.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  129. @Patterico:all the while ignoring my repeated entreaties to look at the specific passage that I just quoted at length.

    I cited it several times, at greater length than you, and cited the other law they used to overturn the rule. You can’t pretend those posts didn;t happened, they’re time-stamped and there for all to read what I wrote and when.

    The court quite clearly said the legislature did not intend to permit concealed handguns in public buildings on campuses.

    They said no such thing. They said that the intent was not entailed by the language. They did not say there was no such intent or could not be such intent. Read carefully:

    “We reject the contention that a statutory exception to criminal sanctions for the possession of a handgun in public buildings indicates an intention to require public educational institutions to permit concealed handguns. ORS 166.370 does not speak to the State Board of Higher Education’s authority to adopt a policy to exclude handguns from its institutional facilities.”

    Calm down, stop assuming bad intentions on my part, okay?

    Posted in the other thread.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  130. @Patterico: Because of the preemptive law, the Legislature has final say on handguns in buildings. The law on the books that allows concealed carry in public buildings was not overturned by the ruling and it stands, even though it was not sufficient in itself to preempt the university policy.

    That’s quite simply what the entire court decision says, as opposed to the snippet you quote where they say the “firearms in public buildings” law is not enough, in itself.

    7 Thus, as this court interpreted the subsections in Starrett, they work together: ORS
    8 166.170(1) states a general preemption; ORS 166.170(2) expressly prohibits the
    9 regulation of activities involving firearms unless the legislature has expressly authorized
    10 it.

    The court ruled that the university may not preempt the Legislature and the Legislature said, in a different law, never repealed or affected by this ruling, that concealed carry is explictly legal in public buildings.

    Posted in the other thread.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  131. @Patterico: Here’s some recent links where Oregon sheriffs explain where you cannot carry concealed. They both say the same thing that 166.370 says:

    Oregon law provides a few limits on where a person with a Concealed Handgun License can carry a firearm, and federal laws contain a few more prohibitions. Be aware that even if you have a Concealed Handgun License, you cannot carry a firearm on any of the following properties:

    Federal facilities – federal courthouses, social security offices, in secured areas of airports, and on airplanes
    National forests marked or posted by signs prohibiting all firearms
    Tribal reservations or Tribal property – you may not carry a firearm concealed without the written permission of the tribal council; this may also apply to certain casinos on Tribal lands. Contact the Tribal Police for more information 541-278-0550.
    Courts – in a courtroom, jury room, judge’s chambers or adjacent areas that the presiding judge determines should be free of firearms to ensure the safety of the litigants, court personnel, witnesses and others
    Private property, business or facility where the owner prohibits firearms possession.

    The list does not include universities or colleges and the only public buildings mentioned are courts, as in the statute, and Federal facilities, governed by Federal law.

    Posted in the other thread.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  132. Calm down, stop assuming bad intentions on my part, okay?

    I am not alleging bad intentions. I am pointing out that you have a know-it-all attitude that makes it difficult for you to listen and understand, and easy for you to demand corrections and issue pronouncements.

    It’s very clear, Patterico. I think I read this more closely and correctly than you did

    It’s very clear, yes. The legislature pre-empted the State Board. I have never said otherwise. Indeed, I have said they did. So you can stop proving what I already know.

    But although you think you read this more closely and carefully, you did not.

    Pretend for a moment that you’re not the brightest guy in the room and that you actually have something to learn from me.

    Because of the preemptive law, the Legislature has final say on handguns in buildings.

    Here’s the important part, Gabriel:

    And what did the Legislature say about handguns in buildings?

    You have an argument, based on the concealed carry statute, that the legislature said carrying firearms in buildings is A-OK.

    Summarize for me what pages 4-5 of the opinion say about that argument of yours. I don’t care about the State Board’s rule. Pretend it doesn’t exist. What did the court say about the legislature’s intent, based on the concealed carry statute, vis a vis public buildings on school campuses? Give me that superior Gabriel Hanna learning — and don’t whine about my tone, because you have forfeited any right to expect patience from me, given your own tone in several comments in both of the threads. Summarize pages 4-5 on that issue.

    I am closing this thread because I am tired of your arguing this in two places. You argue it in the other thread. Apologies to those who wanted to comment here, but I cannot have an utter waste of my time doubled through the machination of Gabriel’s leaving incorrect comments on two different threads.

    Patterico (fecd9b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.9026 secs.