Patterico's Pontifications

10/6/2015

Volokh on Mass Shootings Stopped by . . . You’ll Never Guess!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:51 am



Eugene Volokh has a giant list of would-be mass shooters stopped in their tracks by (you’ll never guess) . . . people with guns. Number seven blew my mind. (Not really; I’m just practicing my BuzzFeed-style clickbait phrases. This one weird trick prevented a mass shooting!) In all seriousness, though, here is number seven:

7. In Colorado Springs, Colo., in 2007, Matthew Murray killed four people at a church. He was then shot several times by Jeanne Assam, a church member, volunteer security guard and former police officer (she had been dismissed by a police department 10 years before, and to my knowledge hadn’t worked as a police officer since). Murray, knocked down and badly wounded, killed himself; it is again not clear whether he would have killed more people had he not been wounded, but my guess is that he would have (UPDATE: he apparently went to the church with more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition).

That’s a lot of rounds of ammunition. Volokh also notes:

Many mass shootings happen in supposedly “gun-free” zones (such as schools, universities or private property posted with a no-guns sign), in which gun carrying isn’t allowed.

Indeed. As I have noted, the Oregon community college was a de facto gun-free zone — and any argument that the student code of conduct allowed guns ignores several facts:

1. Even the hacks at Raw Story admitted: “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.”

2. The university president thought it was a gun-free campus (watch the video at 3:07). Why wouldn’t the students?

3. The folks who point to the language in the student code of conduct stating “except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations” as a loophole ignore the fact that there is nothing in state law that expressly authorized guns on campus — particularly in buildings. That court decision we heard so much about — the one that invalidated one regulation on narrow grounds of pre-emption — “didn’t directly address community colleges like UCC” even according to the plaintiff. What’s more, the decision itself says that a concealed carry permit does not constitute authorization to carry a firearm on campus — in particular in campus buildings — saying: “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.” (This has confused many people who have read news stories but not the court’s decision.) And the Guardian has written that: “The following year [after the court decision], the Oregon state board of higher education approved a policy that banned guns from being brought inside campus buildings.” You’d have to look pretty hard to find anything “express” in the court decision. Simplistic citations to the concealed carry law cause people to say wrong things that are at odds with the language of the court decision itself.

So you’re left with the following:

  • A bevy of anecdotes from Volokh in which people stopped mass shootings with guns;
  • A clear policy at Umpqua that guns were prohibited on campus.

It’s a shame. And it will keep happening as long as the leftists respond to every such shooting with a call to confiscate firearms outright.

It’s the ultimate in leftist thought: policy based on FEEEELZ, and the facts be damned.

P.S. As for Vox (see last link) saying we need to confiscate guns to bring us to European levels of mass gun violence: I don’t think we want European levels of mass gun violence. Adjusted for population, they are worse.

240 Responses to “Volokh on Mass Shootings Stopped by . . . You’ll Never Guess!”

  1. Ding. Insomnia sucks.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  2. Conservatives have a winning issue with the 2nd amendment, the problem is republicans fail to run with it.

    mg (31009b)

  3. But, bbut that would mean the MSM and MomJeansOgabe are, well, lying?!

    What possible reason could there be to disarm us?

    DNF (51a50d)

  4. OT: We already know the middle classes are using credit to buy groceries, now the wealthy are dipping into their retirement funds.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-05/worlds-largest-sovereign-wealth-fund-forced-begin-liquidating-assets

    Unexpectedly.

    DNF (51a50d)

  5. any government that wants to disarm you is getting ready to do something they know you’d shoot them for trying to do to you…

    redc1c4 (4a39ef)

  6. I think you missed Volokh’s conclusion:

    “Mass shootings . . . on average account for much less than 1 percent of the U.S. homicide rate and are unusually hard to stop through gun control laws (since the killer is bent on committing a publicly visible murder and is thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law, or by the prospect of encountering an armed bystander)” (emphasis added by me)

    awfulpod (fa6869)

  7. In reading the VOX article linked at by the OP there was an interesting shift of the goal posts by the author. Went from talking about gun crimes to gun suicides. Wait a minute. I thought that the left believed in the r the right to die? Isn’t that why Moonbeam Brown just signed the right to die legislation? Also, of interest is the willful ignorance of the historical record. Consider that in 2001 an anti-abortion nutter in Oz went into an abortion clinc and shot the place up, the 2002 Monash University mass shootings, the 2011 migrant camp shootings outside of Sydney, then there was the mass shootings by the biker gangs trying to gain control of the drug and prostitution trade in Sydney in the last 20 years. Oh and the two mass shootings that are tied to terror attacks in Australia in 2014 and 2015. The Sydney Ice Cream shop and then the same day as the Oregon shop a Police station was gunned at by an immigrant to the country.
    The author either wilfully ignores these or doesn’t know about them and hopes his readers don’t know either. I lean towards door A and a little bit of door c.

    I have noticed this though in the discussions about gun control. For a while it was all about the UK until it was found that the UK Home Office (Think DHS and DOJ wrapped together) has been fudging crime stats for decades. Then it went to Canada and the idea of registration. Until the latest government said that the registration databse never worked and it was a worst money pit than the ACA website. It also didn’t help that with all thier laws the same number of mass shootings have happened after and they happened before. So it shifted to Oz and the writers and social philosophy types have been trying to push this idea that it’s been shooting free since 1996 and that we just take these few steps. Of course the true utopian land supposedly has been Japan for the more hard core left. Where policing and society is structured differently. That there is no such thing as the bill of rights and the state is overwhelmingly in charge. Of course it also helps that since the 1800s the Japanese have had access to firearms as easily as it is in the US and the only mass shootings (if you don’t count the Yakuza attacks) is in 20s or 30s (memory is failing me ) which lead to a massive crack down on ownership even further since then. Still they have shootings and they have gun crime but most of its tied to organized crime elements or terrorism. There is no utopia of gun free crime in this world. Contrary to what the left wants to believe.

    Charles (3cf0f0)

  8. Let the bloodbath begin!

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/215922/

    Colonel Haiku (33489e)

  9. Much of the Vox article is based on preventing suicides, yet your Governor just signed into law a bill to help people commit suicide.

    The Dana who noticed (f6a568)

  10. @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)

  11. Hey Steve57, Colonel Haiku has provided a link to real decimation in #9. And it’s the good kind where leftists are decimated by their own.

    Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  12. Gabriel,

    The problem is when you have folks on leadership that have made an honest effort at nullification of a law they hate and don’t inform the population. Then it doesn’t matter what is written or how it is adjudicated. Ignorance will prevail. Add in the almost constant mantra of how public schools (which at all levels are public buildings) are to be considered gun free zones by federal statue. Then a reasonable man test would say that 9/10ths of the population believes that a community college like the one in question is a gun free zone.

    Also going back to nullification of laws that folks don’t like. The school’s own student handbook said that weapons and guns specifically weren’t allowed on the campus and that disiplinary actions including arrest by local law enforcement would occur.

    This is common action by actors for the State (again the State as in Government not the State as in Oregon specific). Where they don’t like a law or rule, will chose to ignore it or write a policy contrary to the law. All with the statement creating either ignorance or confusion as to what is or isn’t legal. The hope as well is that a challenger won’t have deep pockets and the idea of “Don’t fight city hall” will prevail.

    The college president has expressed in public statements that the law as written will be damned. That the college is a gun free zone and so it shall remain that she doesn’t have time for your shade tree lawyering and sure as hell doesn’t have time for unelected judges in a state supreme court.

    Charles (a45a93)

  13. Gabriel, I read your comment, told you that you were wrong, and cited you the court decision saying you were wrong with a quote. Perhaps you missed it. Please correct your remarks after you re-read the other thread. I would appreciate an acknowledgment that the 2011 decision addressed your argument squarely and rejected it. Repeating your argument as if I had not disproven it with a link and quote does not advance the discussion. Acting as though I missed it when I specifically addressed it is very annoying. The tone on top of all that is just the icing on the cake.

    Patterico (114097)

  14. For my part, I will read the end of the other thread and see if you answered my response in the last few hours. (If you did, I will be even more at a loss as to why you would claim I never saw it.)

    Patterico (114097)

  15. I see you left a comment on that thread that is similar in substance to the above. You have blown right past the evidence I offered, which includes a link to, and quote from, the 2011 decision, which directly considers your argument and rejects it. Not one word from you about that argument, just an arrogantly worded repetition of your precious citation, refuted by the court, coupled with a demand that I “correct” myself. You have utterly missed the point.

    As I said in the previous thread, please read the court decision and reflect on the quotation from that decision before commenting further. Both the link and relevant quote are in the body of the post above.

    Patterico (114097)

  16. Shorter version: the court says you’re wrong, Gabriel. Don’t just repeat stuff. Address *that*.

    Patterico (114097)

  17. Bottom of page 4 to top of page 5 at this link. This is the law as it stands in Oregon — and the State Board of Higher Education (as I noted in the previous thread) has since seized on that language to ban guns inside campus buildings. This fact undercuts the argument for the Student Code of Conduct giving an escape clause with its “expressly authorized” language.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  18. If anyone looks at social media right now, there are tons and tons of posts about gun control. My favorite is the one saying that guns have never stopped a mass murder. I know perfectly well that if I cite Volokh, things will degenerate.

    Patterico rightly points out that this is all about the feelz.

    I would go further.

    It’s about how the person feels about themselves, taking that position. Seriously. This is yet more narcissism mixed with superiority.

    If gun confiscation happens, nk, they are coming for you next.

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/outside-americas-knives-are-often-weapon-choice-homicides-180949953/

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  19. Incidentally, Gabriel, I might agree with you as to whether the court’s analysis is sound on this topic, but that’s not the issue here. You made an assertion about what Oregon law actually says, and the decision contradicts you.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  20. Obama’s open “let’s politicize this” attitude has emboldened the lefties. They now talk openly of confiscation.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  21. That’s right, Patterico. I hear it every day now, complete with holier than thou smugness…without any kind of information. Other than narcissism and bumper stickers.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  22. you can’t open the floodgates to a bunch of filthy syrian terrorists and then take away everyone’s guns

    that’s would be so unfair to people who don’t want to be killed by filthy syrian terrorists

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  23. Patterico,

    Confiscation was done once in New Orleans. Remember? There is video of NOPD wrestling down an 80yr old woman to take her unloaded pistol from her. Additionally there is other video of NOPD and Louisiana State Police tazering a group of folks who were in thier own homes post storm trying to clean up and where armed against looters. The excuse offered was that these folks were under mandatory evacuation and laws don’t exist. There is all manner of video about confiscation and NOLA on the youtube. Some are better than others.

    Charles (a45a93)

  24. @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)

  25. It’s the ultimate in leftist thought: policy based on FEEEELZ, and the facts be damned.

    And when liberals start spending as much time fretting about the effects of a dumbed-down, anything-goes, self-entitled culture — fostered by their foolish, blind liberalism — then, and only then, can they open their big mouths about guns and weaponry.

    Plus, they need to stop believing the baloney that their liberalism inculcates compassion and humaneness in a society.

    Mark (f713e4)

  26. @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)

  27. It’s a shame. And it will keep happening as long as the leftists respond to every such shooting with a call to confiscate firearms outright.

    My response to people who argue for confiscation of firearms is as follows: Given that pretty much no police chief or sheriff wants to be tasked with that initiative, I propose that all progressives for gun confiscation be formed into a volunteer posse comitatus and sent out to enforce the confiscation laws while police and sheriffs be left to worry about their regular duties.

    JVW (ba78f9)

  28. Strangely, I think both sides would like that.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  29. Like it, felipe, I’d look forward to it.

    Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  30. @Patterico:

    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.

    This is what court decision upheld. It ruled that universities are not the legislature and have no power to regulate firearms.

    The legislature does, and ORS 166.370 explicitly allows concealed carry in public buildings.

    So the court rules that the laws say what they say. I don’t think you and I have anything to argue about regarding that matter. People with concealed carry permits could legally carry on that campus.

    So, feel free to argue with anything you like, except that specific statement. Argue that the university officials lied, with the their speeches and signage. Not disputed. Argue that the gunman thought it was a gun free zone, and the students thought so to, because of the speeches and the signage.

    Argue anything except that the law in Oregon says that concealed carry is legal in public buildings and that a court ruled that only the legislature can change that, because those are the facts. Argue anything except that people who point out the facts are wrong about those facts. Argue that these facts don’t matter as much as the others if you like.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  31. Gabriel,

    You know what de facto means, right? Patterico’s point in both posts on this topic has been that the Umpqua CC campus was a de facto gun-free zone, which means it was a gun-free zone “in effect, whether by right or not.” What the law actually says matters but what people think it says matters, too. In this case, most people seemed to think this campus was a gun-free zone.

    DRJ (521990)

  32. Gabriel,
    Again the answer is that you have wilful ignorance on the part of the public. As well as you have federal statute that trumps state law. Specifically, title 18 us code chapter 44 section 921 paragraphs a and 25. Which bans weapons and specifically guns in certain defined property zones of which a public place defined as a school occupies. It doesn’t define at what level that school is just that a school zone as defined by the zoning boards shall not have a gun authorized in the zone. The US Supreme Court has ruled plenty of times that federal statues and laws supercede the states. So in that sense then the school is a gun free zone and you can keep waving that state law around, but the authority rides on the federal level to allow the government’s actors at the state level ban guns on thier grounds.

    Charles (a45a93)

  33. @DRJ:You know what de facto means, right?

    Yeah, it means that if the college president put up signs saying she was Marie of Roumania, then the campus was a de facto monarchy.

    Patterico’s point in both posts on this topic has been that the Umpqua CC campus was a de facto gun-free zone

    Oh no, he went farther than that. Don’t you start moving the goalposts. He said that the law was not clear and the court decision that upheld the law was not clear and that people who said that concealed carry was legal on that campus are people who ignore his clear links and carelessly cite decisions they don’t understand and are leftists trying to rewrite history.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  34. @Charles:title 18 us code chapter 44 section 921 paragraphs a and 25.

    Which defines “school” as “The term “school” means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.”

    Not a university. Sorry, the law is clear. I know people lied about the law. I had hoped not to find any of those people here.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  35. The verbal gymnastics of the commenters here regarding “gun-free zone” are all to avoid conceding a point. Y’all can fall back on straining at gnats, swallowing camels, and going with your gut if you like.

    I will not. The law says what it says. The facts are what they are. They’re not even that relevant. So what if concealed carry is legal on that campus? Second Amendment is still a right. The victims were still unarmed. The signage didn’t make the gunman leave his guns at home. The university still lied about the legality of weapons on its campus.

    Why can’t you just concede that what is true is true and move on to another relevant argument?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  36. i left my baby

    in a gun-free zone

    i left her there safe yeah i left her alone

    now i can’t find my baby

    she don’t answer her phone

    and i’m starting to worry

    where my baby gone

    i went back to our home yeah and I turned on the news

    and now i’m way beyond worry

    i got the gun-free zone blues

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  37. Yeah, it means that if the college president put up signs saying she was Marie of Roumania, and most people on campus believed it, then the campus was a de facto monarchy.

    FTFY!

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  38. “The verbal gymnastics of the commenters here regarding “gun-free zone” are all to avoid conceding a point.”

    Said he, with a back-flip.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  39. Alright, no more picking on Gabriel!

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  40. @felipe:FTFY

    I accept the correction. If she says she’s Queen of Roumania, and everyone on campus believes her to be the Queen of Roumania, the campus is a de facto monarchy.

    We can’t, under any circumstances, allow the enemy to take that hill…

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  41. And I accept your point.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  42. Gabriel,

    We can agree that the law says what is says as written. Just not what it is taught, my own experience in the schools of Oregon post High school says they lie, stretch or omit the actual verbage more than they want to comply. My own mistakes about the GFZA of 1994 come from an incoming freshmen lecture at community college in La Grange. Where they made it clear that hunting season was not a valid reason to bring a gun on campus (since this was the late 90s and some either went before or right after classes) and that it was a federal crime and federal crimes can and do cause loss of federal dollars in the shape of grants and loans to a student. As well as expulsion and no guarantee towards readmitting the student post jail time.

    You can say all you want about the law and that it is written. Again the State and it’s Actors, in this case the school and it’s board and president, had chosen to nullify the state law. They chose to lie about the state law, they chose to violate the state law and they chose the ethical calculus that no one would bring harm to the region and no one would challenge the law because people are stupid about what laws are written and stricken from the public record.
    Most of us I would think agree that a gun free zone is stupid bit of feel good. That still doesn’t change the fact that the school enacted a policy against the law and bet on no one noticing. So why can’t you accept that the State failed to hold itself accountable to comply with the law? Why didn’t the State do a good job of informing those that consented to be governed as to what the law says? That is the other relevant argument here. The State failed to do its job in enforcement of the law. Again this is not that uncommon amongst the State and it’s Actors. Again whether it’s public records requests, sanctuary cities, tax rates changes, or even elimination of laws after the written elimination period. The State when given that inch will not yield the rest and at other times ignore that it has to yield even the inch.
    An unenforced law is as unjust as an immoral law or an illegal law is as unjust as an amoral one. The State that operates that way is as immoral or unjust as any despotic regime.

    Charles (a45a93)

  43. @Charles:We can agree that the law says what is says as written.

    Yes we can. Full stop. And we can agree further not to accuse those who point it out of lying or ignorance.

    They chose to lie about the state law, they chose to violate the state law and they chose the ethical calculus that no one would bring harm to the region and no one would challenge the law because people are stupid about what laws are written and stricken from the public record.
    Most of us I would think agree that a gun free zone is stupid bit of feel good. That still doesn’t change the fact that the school enacted a policy against the law and bet on no one noticing. So why can’t you accept that the State failed to hold itself accountable to comply with the law?

    I do accept that. The fact that I argue about one point does not mean I disagree about anything else. I am a Second Amendment absolutist. Enough people are in Oregon that they have the laws they do.

    Why didn’t the State do a good job of informing those that consented to be governed as to what the law says?

    Yes, the college lied about its powers and misinformed the citizens of their rights. And the state didn’t correct them, probably because there’s no procedure for that. But lying to citizens about their rights is par for the course where government is concerned.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  44. What is even worst though is that the State holds the upper hand with which to defend itself. Since if you and I both discover that the State has read the rule or law the wrong way then sue to have it comply. We are paying both ends of that suit, no matter what happens. For example, let’s say we want all the records of the LA Prosecution Offices court cases that involve one P. Marlowe Esq. They dither and ignore the request beyond the requirements of the law. We then sue because they are appear to be intentionally preventing records release. Our taxes paid in the city pay for the State coffers to have it defend itself, while we have to sacrifice to pay for the lawyers that will take us to court. The ruling goes against the State? Then we will have to go to the higher and higher authority of the State judicial side, all while they are not losing a dime since tax rates will increase to cover the costs or we see budget changes that will cut programs to make up for the holes at the expense of services which used to be offered. You want that road in front of your house fixed. Too bad not enough money for it. Again all while our own costs to keep the fight up rise as we climb the ladder of justice. Till the point that it becomes uneconomical for the average citizen to win. Even if we do win and get the records and get the costs back, the State still wins as well since they have to make up for those budget holes by again raising taxes or cutting services.
    So it is truly difficult to keep a lying and unethical State or its Actors in check unless you know the law and have deep pockets or know groups with deep pockets that can afford to challenge the State.

    Charles (a45a93)

  45. @Charles:Since if you and I both discover that the State has read the rule or law the wrong way then sue to have it comply. We are paying both ends of that suit, no matter what happens.

    Like when California refused to defend its constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

    There’s a principal-agent problem. People who are part of the government, elected or not, have their own interests and motivations.

    See this every year in Washington State. Voters elect the legislature. Legislature refuses to listen to voters. Voters pass initiative or referendum. Legislature passes laws to subvert initiative and referendum. Voters reelect the legislature.

    Plains apes are not fit for representative democracy. I think we should fill government offices by lot. If no one can make a career of politics, and no one can do anything to get themselves elected or reelected, I think government will stay closer to the values of the citizens.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  46. Despite what you see in movies, TV shows and comic books, the wild West was not wild. It was relatively non-violent. It wasn’t because everyone had a gun (most people kept their guns at home) but because justice was swift. Steal a horse and, within a week, you’d be lynched.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  47. What we can agree on is that another Muslim loser jihadi wannabe turd who couldn’t get laid murdered American college kids because they were Christians, then killed himself rather than face up to what he’s done.

    ropelight (3ad0ad)

  48. @ropelight it actually seems that the dude wasn’t a jihadist or Muslim. Rather he was, according to publish news sources, an atheist. That he murdered them because of religion was because he himself denied religion beyond it being a fantasy.

    Charles (a45a93)

  49. ” Rather he was, according to publish news sources, an atheist.”

    While I can believe that “publish news sources” report the shooter as an atheist, I wonder if he was, in fact, an atheist. I know plenty of atheists, and violence is not their style.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  50. An atheist who only shoots Christians in the head is a rather peculiar type of non-believer. I thought atheists were equally opposed to all varieties of theism equally. This sick murdering turd doesn’t quite measure up.

    ropelight (3ad0ad)

  51. Good point, ropelight.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  52. Yea not all of them know how to contain thier rage. Linky to a pastor beaten by an athesit

    Also, I had to enter this trope but with as often as Christianity has bee getting a bum rap about inhibiting the progress of society (see abortion and gay marriage). It doesn’t suprise me to have started with those self identified as Christians. Since that is the largest population in the region. Little harder to find the Buddhists, Jewish, Islamic, Pagans and etc.

    Charles (a45a93)

  53. Come to think of it, this ingrate came here, enjoyed all the benefits of our generous hospitality and then turned his own shortcomings into an excuse to murder innocent college kids.

    He’s a disgrace to the millions of immigrants who came before him looking for a better life and willing to work to contribute to the nation that gave them sanctuary. But this festering carbuncle on the ass of humanity repaid our kindness by murdering our children. Hell is too good for the likes of him and his ilk. We should have a complete moratorium on all immigration till we fully assimilate the new arrivals already here legally. Only then should we open our doors again.

    ropelight (3ad0ad)

  54. ropelight, don’t be coy. Tell us what you really think.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  55. I’d live to just that filipe, but I fear my eloquence might offend the gods.

    ropelight (3ad0ad)

  56. I just went outside with my machete to chop up a fallen palm frond blocking the driveway. While outside, the next door neighbor arrived with her visiting son along with his pretty wife and beautiful young daughter. Her son is a impressively bright and handsome young warrior in his early 20s soon to be on his way to Navy pilot school. I sang Into the air, junior bird-men… for him. He’d not heard it before.

    This is the America I grew up in and remember fondly, and he’s quite an obvious contrast to the sorry ass human ballast making the news these days. Just sayin’

    ropelight (3ad0ad)

  57. I don’t really know to whom you refer when you say until we “fully assimilate the new arrivals already here legally”. Because if you’re talking about Mexicans or other South Americans they even require government papers to be printed in Spanish. 69 million people here don’t speak English and that’s the leftist commies fault for stopping English Only. They wanted the immigrants dependent on others. Then they work here and send billions back home hurting our economy.

    Now if you’re talking about moslems according to their Hijram they are required not to assimilate but rather to infiltrate. Now the African immigrants and the Asian immigrants seem to be trying to assimilate but with all the road blocks thrown up in their faces by leftists it’s an up hill battle. And if you’re talking about white immigrants I ask, Who?

    Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  58. Cut me a little slack, will ya Hoagie? You know exactly who I’m talkin’ about: legal immigrants who work hard, make our country a better place, obey the law, keep their yards trimmed, pay their taxes, send their children to school and teach them to respect their elders, help women and children in distress, and show up in emergencies.

    People like you and me, the kind of people who made America what it was, and what it can be again.

    ropelight (3ad0ad)

  59. Mass shootings are really, really rare. Depending on the population size, one shooting can blow out the stats. In New Zealand, we’ve had two “spree killers” in the last 30 years. Those two incidents alone drive our rate up higher than the US rate.

    scrubone (c3104f)

  60. You don’t need any slack, ropelight you know that. If you’re just referring to legal immigrants who actually want to contribute to America I concur completely. Just makin’ sure. I agree 100% there should be a moratorium on all immigration legal and illegal.

    Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  61. i wanna go outside and sing songs for people

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  62. . I agree 100% there should be a moratorium on all immigration legal and illegal.

    Which would not stop immigration, merely make it 100% illegal immigration.

    For the same reason gun bans do not work.

    kishnevi (31ba4e)

  63. 1000 rounds is only a lot of ammunition if it’s pre-loaded in magazines. Otherwise, it’s a lot of trouble and bother. When I was shooting a lot more, .22’s because I’m cheap, I used this: http://www.amazon.com/Ulimate-Cliploader-Browning-Pistol-Magazine/dp/B00Y3UYNOW

    Gustav (340c67)

  64. Really kishnevi? Another bumper sticker? Actually legal immigration is by invitation or consent, illegal is by invasion. A moratorium on legal immigration would withdraw that invitation and deny that consent. It doesn’t mean they would come illegally does it?

    Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  65. Cool story, bro. But the fact is that the more guns in society the more deaths (murder, suicide, and accidents) will result. The social cost of private gun ownership is high.

    Gun owndership imposes a cost and it’s a cost the American people shouldn’t be forced to pay.

    Lemonista (1231f6)

  66. failmericans what don’t wanna pay the cost of “private gun ownership” can suck it i think

    suck it HARD

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  67. you want I can sing for you

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  68. It’s a social cost written into the social contract, bro.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  69. Listen here, faggot. We can change the social contract.

    Lemonista (c6ed14)

  70. except the most agregious violence, happens where legal firearms are most effectively proscribed,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  71. Let’s say guns cause externalities. This is clearly the case. Good guys with guns (or lower crime rates because you don’t know who has a gun) are positive externalities. Bad guys with guns (or accidents or sucicides) are negative externalities.

    Is there any way that we can make sure that everyone is paying the appropriate cost or recieving the appropriate benefit from their gun ownership?

    If I had to ban a gun, or a class of guns, I wouldn’t bad rifles (or assault rifles, whatever that means). I’d ban handguns.

    Gustav (23b425)

  72. and you run into the same problem, if you want a relatively inexpensive self defense, you buy a handgun,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  73. “Listen here, faggot. We can change the social contract.”

    – Lemonista

    Knock yourself out.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  74. Listen to me, faggots. I speak the truth that you are afraid to hear. All guns should be banned because only psychopaths, rage-hounds, and white males holding on to a dying of unearned privildge have guns.

    Murcof (1231f6)

  75. Listen to me, faggots. Gun will only be taken from your cold, dead fingers? Good.

    Murcof (1231f6)

  76. Listen to me, faggots. Your faggotry has not gone unnoticed. I’m behind seven proxies, so I speak the truth.

    Murcof (1231f6)

  77. Seven proxies, faggots.

    Murcof (1231f6)

  78. I guess it’s time for the Billy Madison quote,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  79. What the holy hell was that?

    JD (06633b)

  80. And enter the Trolls. So which one of these standard trollish tropes did the current joker fit?

    Charles (3cf0f0)

  81. Ha, ha, ha, ha…..he called us faggots! And me, a man of the cloth no less.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  82. Gustav, you’d ban handguns? Good luck with that. Molon labe.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  83. Molon labe? That’s all you can say. I’d love it, faggot. That way you’d get what you deserved. It’d be a shart pain, let me tell you, but they after that it’d be all better.

    Focrum (d647e2)

  84. JD: I work here is done?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  85. That’s our opposition. Heh.

    nk (dbc370)

  86. I wonder if a class action law suit by the victims, survivors and families, might change some defacto legalish sounding State Board of Higher Education gun etiquette style guides?

    They have a case.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  87. JD is back.

    Feel free to move about the cabin.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  88. 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)

  89. Ivy League prof. calls Ben Carson a ‘coon:’

    U Penn Prof Anthea Butler tweeted “If only there was a ‘coon of the year’ award” in response to Ben Carson’s claim that people have the right to display Confederate flags on private property.
    In the past, Butler has tweeted that God is a “white racist” and Michael Brown’s death was a “blood sacrifice.”
    Butler has tenure status and has boasted “I can’t get fired” after previous criticism for her tweets.

    Wondering if the illegal Board of Higher Education style practice of tenure, making it appear that your amoral harasser is above any laws of decency or decor, might feed into the lone crazed school shooter?

    The shooters invariably kill a teacher (tenure holder) first.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  90. Our leftist troll is a homophobe. How special.

    JD (06633b)

  91. And you really could stand to lose the know-it-all attitude.

    Patterico (114097)

  92. Yes, JD, and it hides behind seven proxies! What a display of courage.

    felipe (56556d)

  93. Listen to me, faggots. . . .

    Worst. Prophet. Homily. Ever.

    JVW (ba78f9)

  94. 94… LOL… Always remember to never forget, faggots…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  95. behind six proxies
    and cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs
    from his mom’s basement

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  96. unending shart pain
    link sausage fingers typing
    teary Manson Lamps

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  97. his unrequited love
    proved much too strong for Sparky’s
    seventh geek proxy

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  98. molon labia
    a fine thing he’d never know
    just one of many

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  99. catcher not pitcher
    no scunion or table pussy
    would the sad lad know

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  100. his dreams aren’t as empty
    and no one knows what it’s like
    behind Manson Lamps

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  101. Colonel, it is to our discredit that we haven’t yet collected your work and published an anthology.

    JVW (ba78f9)

  102. The gravity of the situation, JVW… http://gfycat.com/ZestyImportantBluefish

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  103. Number 100 was for mg…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  104. The Secret of the Seventh Proxy….
    Sounds a bit like Dan Brown.

    kishnevi (31ba4e)

  105. would one of our resident experts care to explain how the logistics of the total firearm seizure they desire would w*rk out?

    as a former Infantry/Cav Scout faggot, i’m intrigued as to how they plan to accomplish this task…

    redc1c4 (05f1f5)

  106. to steel his proxy
    he drank a can of Moxie
    and promptly blew Chunks*

    * Focrumb’s elderly fat neighbor

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  107. hey Pat: aren’t you going to ban them for calling other poasters “faggot”?

    that’s h8 speech if i ever heard it… 😎

    redc1c4 (05f1f5)

  108. The gravity of the situation, JVW. . .

    My God, I would have majored in physics had I seen this when I was 18.

    JVW (ba78f9)

  109. the trolls usually manifests itself in a limited number of forms, the tourette’s character suggests nazgul, which is an ever narrower category,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  110. Yeah, just saw that. That guy is a blockhead.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  111. yikes he’s total sybil,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  112. Nozdrul.

    nk (dbc370)

  113. East a dick, Patterico.

    South a scrotum, YI.

    North a nad, YI.

    West a wang, YI.

    JVW (ba78f9)

  114. you must be over the target, Patterico,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  115. Leonista and Murcof with mom at the family clam bake:

    http://dailylifestyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/disturb-7.jpg

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  116. I think you’ve awoken the Old Ones from Raw Meat and Just Be Koz,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  117. It’s got to be a female.

    nk (dbc370)

  118. A fat female.

    nk (dbc370)

  119. The “ladies” of the Yeast Infection family applying for the annual Sears catalogue circa 1957. Only Aunt Nipples (3rdfrom left) survived the arduous elimination process.

    http://dailylifestyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ready8.jpg

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  120. After careful consideration I think the troll is this character in the internet designation book.

    Charles (3cf0f0)

  121. A fat, pimply-faced female.

    nk (dbc370)

  122. A fat, pimply-faced female with hammer toes.

    nk (dbc370)

  123. that’s a nazgul, in my book,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  124. Which would not stop immigration, merely make it 100% illegal immigration.

    For the same reason gun bans do not work.
    — kishnevi

    I don’t think that’s a totally analogous situation since if a law against immigration were as well enforced as such laws were over 60 years ago, during the 1950’s “Operation Wetback” of the Eisenhower administration, while such action wouldn’t — naturally and obviously — result in zero immigration, it would certainly stem it to a significant degree.

    Keep in mind there’s a difference between highly visible and generally large objects known as human beings versus rather small objects known as guns. So concealing one is more difficult than concealing the other.

    Mark (f713e4)

  125. Our leftist troll is a homophobe. How special.

    Actually, liberals tend to love aberrant and pathetic behavior, so he perhaps was in reality complimenting this forum. Or using that particular word in the same way various blacks (just about all of them also loony liberals) love calling one another the “N” word (if not “niggaz”) or the way — closer to the point — homosexuals (just about all of them loony liberals too) love calling one another “faggots.”

    Mark (f713e4)

  126. @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)

  127. @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)

  128. @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)

  129. @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)

  130. 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 the other thread because I am tired of your arguing this in two places. You argue it here.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  131. Carrying it further: please explain the difference between the argument you made:

    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.

    And the argument the petitioner made:

    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.

    If you acknowledge they are the same argument, please tell me whether the court “accepted” or “rejected” that argument.

    If you acknowledge that they rejected it, then please explain what language the legislature used to “expressly authorize” the carrying of handguns in public buildings on public college and university campuses.

    If you acknowledge that no such language exists other than the language that the court explicitly said does NOT expressly authorize that, then apologize to me for being high-handed and arrogant when you were wrong all along. Then retract all your comments and pledge to be a better person in the future.

    Thanks!

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  132. @Patterico:What did the court say about the legislature’s intent, based on the concealed carry statute, vis a vis public buildings on school campuses?

    They said the concealed carry law does not, in itself, prove that the legislature intended that concealed carry holders carry into all public buildings even if the universities disagreed:

    “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.”

    And the argument the petitioner made:

    The petitioner made three arguments, not one. One was that 166.370 allows concealed carry in pubic buildings whether the university says so or not. The court, as you point out, rejected that one, because 166.370 does not say universities can’t trump the rule.

    The petitioner made an additional argument which the court accepted: that 166.170 forbids the universities from preempting the Legislature.

    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).

    then please explain what language the legislature used to “expressly authorize” the carrying of handguns in public buildings on public college and university campuses.

    166.170 says that the Legislature has final say on firearms. 166.370, established by the Legislature, says that firearms are legal in public buildings for concealed carry holders. The court ruled that the university is not the legislature and so cannot override 166.370.

    I already linked to helpful Oregon sheriffs who explain where you may not carry and universities do not appear on that list.

    f you acknowledge that no such language exists other than the language that the court explicitly said does NOT expressly authorize that

    I do not. The court said that the law says the university cannot make rules that contradict the legislature and the legislature says concealed carry permit holders can carry in public buildings, and the sheriffs agree. I am not wrong, and the sheriffs are not wrong, and the court is not wrong.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  133. They said the concealed carry law does not, in itself, prove that the legislature intended that concealed carry holders carry into all public buildings even if the universities disagreed

    Which is the argument you were making.

    the legislature says concealed carry permit holders can carry in public buildings

    It does? Where does it say that?

    Are we about to run in a circle, Gabriel?

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  134. You say:

    They said the concealed carry law does not, in itself, prove that the legislature intended that concealed carry holders carry into all public buildings even if the universities disagreed

    “They” is the court, and the concealed carry law is 166.370, so let’s rephrase that by substituting in the statute number and naming the court as “they”:

    The court said 166.370, established by the legislature, does not, in itself, prove that the legislature intended that concealed carry holders carry into all public buildings . . .

    You say that, and in the same comment, you say:

    166.370, established by the Legislature, says that firearms are legal in public buildings for concealed carry holders.

    Maybe . . .but that’s not what the court said with respect to college campus buildings, is it?

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  135. @Patterico:It does? Where does it say that?

    ORS 166.370 said that. The court says that the universities may not override it, because ORS 166.170 denies them that authority. So 166.370 is the law as it currently stands in Oregon regarding concealed carry in public buildings. The sheriffs’ offices I linked to agree with that interpretation.

    The court did not overturn 166.370 and did not say it is not a valid. It says that 166.370, taken alone, does not forbid the university from making a different policy. But 166.170 does forbid the university from doing that. So 166.370 is the law and the universities’ policy was declared invalid.

    Only the Legislature may regulate firearms; until the Legislature makes a different law 166.370 is the law.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  136. @Patterico:ut that’s not what the court said, is it?

    It did say so. More than once.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  137. @Patterico: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).

    The court denied the university the right to forbid concealed carry holders from carrying on campus. They invoked a different law, 166.170, to support 166.370.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  138. Only the Legislature may regulate firearms; until the Legislature makes a different law 166.370 is the law.

    And the intent of the concealed carry provision portion of 166.370 is, according to the court, not “to require public educational institutions to permit concealed handguns.”

    Here’s a reading comprehension question, Gabriel. The court said: “We proceed with the question whether state law expressly authorizes the possession of firearms on public university campuses.”

    How did they answer that question, Gabriel? “Yes”? Or “no”?

    (That is a yes or no question.)

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  139. @Patterico:We proceed with the question whether state law expressly authorizes the possession of firearms on public university campuses.”

    They answered “Yes”. 166.170 and 166.370 are state law and, taken together,expressly authorize the possession of firearms on public university campuses.

    I am citing the whole document. You are citing only half.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  140. Seriously, Gabriel you are turning this into the argument clinic, again.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  141. @narcisco:Seriously, Gabriel you are turning this into the argument clinic, again.

    Sorry if this boring you, but I live in the Northwest and care intensely about its gun laws. I also care when I see a friend making a mistake.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  142. We proceed with the question whether state law expressly authorizes the possession of firearms on public university campuses.”

    They answered “Yes”.

    You just failed the reading comprehension test. Let’s try it a different way.

    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.

    Does the court agree with the petitioner’s contention here, Gabriel? Yes, or no? That too is a yes or no question.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  143. I throw it open to any of the lawyers here. The opinion is here. At page 4, the court says:

    “We proceed with the question whether state law expressly authorizes the possession of firearms on public university campuses.”

    Any lawyers want to read the opinion (and I commend to you pages 4 and 5, but by all means read the entire opinion) and tell me whether the court answers that question “yes” or “no.”

    Gabriel says they answer it “yes.” Anyone else care to weigh in?

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  144. @Patterico:Does the court agree with the petitioner’s contention here, Gabriel? Yes, or no? That too is a yes or no question.

    No. The court agrees with the petitioner’s other contention, that 160.170 denies the university the authority to override 160.370.

    The court only disagrees that legislative intent regarding the universities’ policy is entailed by the language of 160.370. The court agrees that 160.170 denies the authority of the university to contradict 160.370, therefore 160.370 stands.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  145. @Patterico:I throw it open to any of the lawyers here. The opinion is here. …

    You are only citing half the document. There are two laws. One law says you can carry in public buildings. A different law says no one but the Legislature can alter the first law.

    The first laws stands. Concealed carry in public buildings in Oregon is legal. The sheriffs I cited agree.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  146. Patterico, I wonder if it would be possible to have reader feedback on the comments in a form like Amazon’s “Was this helpful to you? [yes] [no]” and then display the totals. We spend a lot of time going over certain Commenter’s repetitions, and such feedback might give them some idea of how well they are doing in convincing others. You might require the usual anonymous email address for each vote, and use that plus the hashtag you compute to enforce a one-email / one-vote rule.

    This could be an optional feature that the moderator would invoke when we get into one of these almost endless loops.

    And the same thing could be used to elicit feedback on your book review blogs. The query could be something specific to the topic at hand, instead of the generic “is this helpful” …

    For what it’s worth, I am persuaded by your #89. I’m not interested in this enough to research the legal issues and I am presuming that this is the latest ruling. The chronology of the various citations would be useful in this regard.

    I am also persuaded by the essential fact that the “security guard” at the community college was unarmed. Presumably this “guard” had a secure safe room that could be used to hide out in the event of trouble while awaiting the arrival of the SWAT teams. In the better public high schools I coached in over the last two decades, we always had a “liaison” officer who was armed and he/she worked with unarmed security guards. This worked well, mainly because the liaison officers were carefully selected to be the kind of people who commanded respect. These officers were also aware of the crime issues that were confronting the local community, and so they were often able to anticipate problems and thus to defuse them before someone got hurt.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  147. @Patterico: It’s not buried on page 4 you know. Try page 1:

    Petitioner contends that the rule exceeds respondents’ statutory
    6 authority, that it is preempted by ORS 166.170, and that it violates the Second
    7 Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that the rule is preempted
    8 and therefore do not address whether it also violates the Second Amendment.
    9 Accordingly, we conclude that the rule is invalid.

    I have read this correctly. Two laws are at issue. The concealed carry law is 166.370, and the university argued state law gave them authority to override it. The court disagreed, citing 166.170, that the universities do not have the power to overrule 166.370.

    So 166.370 is the law until the Legislature changes it.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  148. Again: “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.” This is the contention you raised. It’s the contention the petititoner raised. It’s the contention the court rejected.

    I understand that the petitioner got the regulation invalidated on other (pre-emption) grounds. But they rejected the argument you made.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  149. @BobStewartAtHome:This could be an optional feature that the moderator would invoke when we get into one of these almost endless loops.

    Patterico does not have to justify any decision he makes about any commenters to anyone. Making up a “rule” that is only enforced and interpreted by himself would just be a pretence.

    If you find it tiresome, why are you reading it? If Patterico find it tiresome he can close the thread–but he need not even do that. He can tell me to leave and never come back, and I won’t.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  150. @Patterico:But they rejected the argument you made.

    Again, you are citing only half the document. One of the arguments was that the 166.370 in itself forbade the university from banning guns. The court said that this is not true, 166.370 by itself does not forbid the universities from having a different policy. The court said a different law, 166.170, does forbid that–and since it does, how does 166.370 not stand, since it was enacted by the legislature? It says what it says, and the sheriffs agree.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  151. It was a gun-free zone under the college’s rules: https://web.archive.org/web/20150317085529/http:/umpqua.edu/resources-and-services/academic/student-code-of-conduct?showall=&start=4 Number 19

    Gabriel is arguing besides the point. Ok, it’s not a criminal offense. Ok, there is no statewide rule threatening academic discipline. So what? There is a “local” rule threatening academic discipline. I’ve lost track with the two threads but all this was said early on. The college imposed a rule, which if it ever went before a judge might be struck down, but it has not been struck down and it is obeyed because it is, rightly, presumed to be valid by students and staff at UCC.

    nk (dbc370)

  152. OK, help me out here. Please, for the love of God, do not remind me that the petitioner won the case, or that the legislature pre-empted the regulation. Reading is fundamental. I said in a comment upthread: “I don’t care about the State Board’s rule. Pretend it doesn’t exist.” I will repeat that and bold it: “I don’t care about the State Board’s rule. Pretend it doesn’t exist.”

    Also: “I don’t care about the State Board’s rule. Pretend it doesn’t exist.” Got that? Good. Now, concentrate. Let’s walk through this, step by step.

    I cited the petitioner’s argument:

    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.

    Nothing there about a State Board regulation. That paragraph is, quite simply, an argument that the legislature, through the concealed carry law, intended to expressly authorize concealed carry in public buildings including state college and university campuses. Since that paragraph does not say anything about the State Board’s regulation you are going to remain silent about the State Board’s regulation. Remember: “I don’t care about the State Board’s rule. Pretend it doesn’t exist.”

    I asked you, yes or no, did the court agree with that argument? In comment 144 you agreed that the court did not. (It agreed with another argument, but: “I don’t care about the State Board’s rule. Pretend it doesn’t exist.”)

    So you admit that the court disagreed with the argument that the legislature, through the concealed carry law, intended to expressly authorize concealed carry in public buildings including state college and university campuses.

    And yet you keep saying the opposite.

    Are you trolling me? I assume not . . . so . ..

    Do you not even realize that you have said two completely contradictory things?

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  153. BTW, Illinois also leaves guns in schools up to the individual schools. There is no statewide rule. But the ones that don’t want guns have to post signs.

    nk (dbc370)

  154. nk is of course right, and that is my main point, that there was a de facto rule in effect.

    But the subsidiary point is that Gabriel assured us that the law is what the law is, and yet he has the law so bollixed up that in one breath, he says the court ruled that the legislature expressly provided for concealed carry in public school buildings, and in another, he says that the court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the legislature expressly provided for concealed carry in public school buildings. (He just keeps coming back to the fact that the petitioner won under pre-emption, and that fact apparently blinds him to the direct contradiction between what he himself has said in this very thread. But if we’re left with just the law, and no regulation — and I agree we are — we are still stuck with the court’s interpretation of that law. And the court’s interpretation of the law, per Gabriel, is that it expressly authorizes concealed carry in public school buildings, and also rejects the argument that concealed carry in public school buildings is expressly authorized. And if that makes no sense to you, then you are starting to feel my pain in watching Gabriel contradict himself endlessly without realizing he is doing so.)

    The larger point is, if a smart guy like Gabriel can fuck this up so badly, what do you expect community college students to do? Answer: what the school officials tell them to.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  155. @Patterico:Do you not even realize that you have said two completely contradictory things?

    There’s no contradiction. The court rejected an argument about legislative intent about university policies, it did not reject what the law actually said.

    Nothing there about a State Board regulation.

    It’s the very next sentence. How can you say it’s not there?

    “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 authorityto adopt a policy to exclude handguns from its institutional facilities.””

    So you admit that the court disagreed with the argument that the legislature, through the concealed carry law, intended to expressly authorize concealed carry in public buildings including state college and university campuses.

    No. The court said 160.370, by itself, is not evidence that universities cannot restrict concealed carry. The court said that 160.370 AND 160.170 taken together are, and declared the law invalid.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  156. @Patterico:he says that the court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the legislature expressly provided for concealed carry in public school buildings.

    The court did not say this. The court rejected that 160.370, by itself, is intended to forbid universities from restricting concealed carry. What they said is much more narrow than you are making it out to be, so there is no contradiction.

    “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.””

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  157. @Patterico:The larger point is, if a smart guy like Gabriel can fuck this up so badly, what do you expect community college students to do?

    Are the sheriffs I cited also wrong? Why are courts and Federal buildings the only public buildings on this list?

    O) Even with a concealed handgun license, where can I not carry a firearm?

    A. Oregon law provides very few limits on where a person with a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) can carry a firearm, and federal laws contain a few more prohibitions. 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

    • Designated wilderness areas (where a specific declaration has enacted a restriction or prohibition of firearms)

    • Indian reservations or Indian property – you may not carry a firearm concealed without the written permission of the tribal judge; this may also apply to certain casinos on Indian lands. We advise people to contact the individual tribe to determine what the current rules are for that location.

    • 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 where the owner prohibits firearms possession

    • Private property where the owner prohibits firearms possession

    No person may bring a firearm, weapon or other contraband into the secure perimeter of the Washington County Jail, and all visitors to the jail must go through a security screening and metal detector. Knowingly introducing contraband into a correctional facility is a Class C felony.

    See also:

    ORS Chapter 166

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  158. OK, I am going to bed. I leave you with simple symbolic logic:

    Proposition A: The court says the legislature has expressly authorized X.

    Proposition B: Socrates argues to the court that the legislature has expressly authorized X. The court rejects Socrates argument.

    I submit to you that Proposition A and Proposition B cannot both be true. In Proposition B, the court’s rejection of Socrates’s argument is a denial that the legislature has expressly authorized X. That is inconsistent with X.

    Let X represent “concealed carry inside buildings at state colleges and universities.”

    You have repeatedly assertion Proposition A. I can prove it but it would be tiresome, and this is already tiresome. I assume you admit this.

    In comment 144, you agreed with Proposition B. I presented the petitioner’s argument in comment 142 that the legislature has expressly authorized concealed carry inside buildings at state colleges and universities.” I asked you in comment 142 if the court agreed, and you said no in comment 144.

    So:

    Do you deny Proposition A and Proposition B contradict one another?

    Do you deny that you have asserted both?

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  159. I read the decision, and it seems clear that the Court determined that the State Board did not have the authority to impose gun laws that exceeded existing laws enacted by the legislature.

    So I’m going to agree with Gabriel. But it isn’t a simple matter. On page 5 the Court rejects the notion that the state law that allows holders of concealed hand gun permits to carry firearms in public buildings …

    indicates an intention to require public educational institutions to permit concealed handguns.

    But it goes on to argue that other rulings suffice to demonstrate that the Board exceeded its authority, in other words, legislative intent wasn’t a needed.

    But I’m not a lawyer, so take it for what it’s worth.

    And this makes the employment of unarmed “security guards” by the Community College even more incomprehensible. This is akin to the insanity that led to “nuclear free” neighborhoods in Seattle during the cold war. Wishing for something, no gun violence on campus, makes it so if you are a progressive.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  160. It’s the very next sentence. How can you say it’s not there?

    Nope. Re-read the first block quote in my comment 152. I am discussing the petitioner’s argument. When I say “there is nothing there about the State Board” I am not talking about the different passage you just cited. I am talking about the quote I just provided. It’s NOT the next sentence after what *I* quoted. You’re getting sloppy and your logic is getting worse and worse, to the point where you’re just flat-out mischaracterizing my comments.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  161. @Patterico:Do you deny that you have asserted both?

    Yes. Socrates asserted the legislature expressly asserted in one law taken alone Y, not X. X is “concealed carry is legal in public buildings”. Y is “concealed carry is legal in public buildings even if the State Board of Higher education says different”. The court asserted X and denied Y, and I am doing no differently, and neither are the sheriffs I linked to.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  162. I read the decision, and it seems clear that the Court determined that the State Board did not have the authority to impose gun laws that exceeded existing laws enacted by the legislature.

    So I’m going to agree with Gabriel.

    Me too. I totally agree with the proposition you uttered in your first sentence. I never said otherwise. Never. Not even once.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  163. @Patterico:I am talking about the quote I just provided.

    The quote you provided is not the entirety of the argument.

    I should clarify in 161: the court denied that 160.370 established Y, and agreed that 160.170 does establish Y. But X was not in contention.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  164. @162 and 159: gun laws that exceeded existing laws enacted by the legislature.

    Me three. And the gun law enacted by the legislature, 161.370, expressly allows concealed carry in public buildings and the court never said it didn’t. The court only said that 161.370 by itself was not sufficient to establish that the legislature never intended the universities to say different, only that 161.170 says that.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  165. This primer on symbolic logic explains:

    “P even if q” means “p whether or not q” or “p regardless of q”. Therefore one perfectly acceptable translation of it is simply “p”.

    Similarly, “X even if Z” can be translated as simply X.

    Now let’s turn to what you just said.

    X is “concealed carry is legal in public buildings”. Y is “concealed carry is legal in public buildings even if the State Board of Higher education says different”.

    X = “concealed carry is legal in public buildings”

    Z = “the State Board of Higher Education says different”

    The first statement expressed in symbols: X is X.

    The second expressed in symbols: Y is “X even if Z.” (Again, Z being “the Board of Higher Education says different.”) But remember, we said above: “X even if Z” can be translated as simply X.

    So: X is X, and Y is X.

    Both are X. The “even if” following X in your term Y does not change the fact that X is X, and that Y is X.

    You can’t assert X and deny X.

    Logic.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  166. “And the gun law enacted by the legislature, 161.370, expressly allows concealed carry in public buildings and the court never said it didn’t.”

    In 142 I said the petitioner argued this, and in 144 you admitted the court rejected that contention.

    Seriously: give up.

    I am going to bed.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  167. Final thought: re-read 164.

    You say: “The court asserted X and denied Y.”

    But I proved X=Y in 164.

    So you’re saying the court asserted X and denied X.

    Ergo you are all fucked up in the head. Good night.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  168. OK, now I understand Patterico’s larger point. State law allows concealed carry in public buildings, and that preempts the State Board’s regulation, even though the Court said that this application wasn’t the intent of the legislation. They basically concluded that although a university campus wasn’t the equivalent of a town (say,) that the basic provisions of the law had to apply to the community, even if the employment practices were different, as in hiring unarmed security guards. I hope I’ve got that right.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  169. @167: So you’re saying the court asserted X and denied X.

    Nope.

    X is “concealed carry is legal in public buildings according to 160.370”.

    Y is “concealed carry is legal in public buildings even if the State Board of Higher education says different, according to 160.370”.

    The court held Z, “concealed carry is legal in public buildings even if the State Board of Higher education says different, according to 160.170 and 160.370 taken together”.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  170. I don’t think so, Bob. Sorry.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  171. Looking at 168, Gabriel, Z is irrelevant. Even if you disagree, answer this:

    Did the court take different positions on X and Y?

    Your contention, as I understand it, is that the court did. But X and Y are the same. The “even if” language is logically surplusage. Don’t take my word for it. I gave you a link in an earlier comment.

    So your contention is logically inconsistent. [Comment edited to decrease impoliteness.]

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  172. It’s really a terribly written, horribly murky court opinion.

    But that, of course, is largely my point. This legal gobbledygook is what is supposed to trump school officials’ pronouncements in the minds of community college students? I submit that is a rare case indeed.

    Patterico (114097)

  173. @168:. State law allows concealed carry in public buildings, and that preempts the State Board’s regulation, even though the Court said that this application wasn’t the intent of the legislation. They basically concluded that although a university campus wasn’t the equivalent of a town (say,) that the basic provisions of the law had to apply to the community, even if the employment practices were different, as in hiring unarmed security guards. I hope I’ve got that right.

    I agree with this too. Patterico and I are arguing about how narrowly to interpret a paragraph from the decision–me with quite a bit less personal abuse–and not about the end result of the decision, that in Oregon you can legally carry in public buildings and only the Legislature can say differently.

    I followed up on the Board’s reaction, for what it’s worth. Here’s the memo. They crossed out “firearms” from the administrative ruling. Then they created an “internal policy” regarding control of their property that contained a few very exceptions which they hoped would pass legal muster the second time. It seems to be restricted only to students, faculty, employees, vendors, visitors, and people attending events. So I suppose people who wander in and don’t know it’s a university are allowed to carry if they have a concealed carry permit. But since it’s an internal policy it doesn’t seem to have any but internal consequences; I suppose they could fire or expel you or ask you to leave the property. I don’t know if they ended up adopting the policy or not, or what legal status it has.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  174. @Patterico:Your contention, as I understand it, is that the court did. But X and Y are the same.

    But Z, which the court upheld is different. Both laws taken together are Oregon law.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  175. 1. Barack Obama is a crap president.

    2. Barack Obama is a crap president even if he thinks he’s awesome.

    Those are two different ways of saying the same thing. If you assert 1 and deny 2, you are having a hard time with logic. You’d do better to assert both.

    Patterico (114097)

  176. I didn’t ask you about Z, Gabriel. I asked you about X and Y. Now you’re playing the Artful Dodger. You can read. You know what I asked. Why dodge the question?

    We both know why.

    Patterico (114097)

  177. @Patterico:In other words, court rejected my X of 169, rejected my Y of 169, accepted my Z of 169, concluding that 160.170 says the university can’t forbid concealed carry on campus, and leaving alone the law 160.370 that says concealed carry is legal in public buildings.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  178. @Patterico:If you assert 1 and deny 2, you are having a hard time with logic.

    I don’t deny logic. I deny that your X and Y are correct characterizations of the argument. So I deny X and Y, which I concede may well be the same, but not Z. Z is the same thing I’ve been saying. It’s true I didn’t include it in my response to your 158, but people miss things when they’re tired and and getting scolded.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  179. Z, by the way, is: the legislature pre-empted the State Board from making a rule. Z is not what you claimed.

    Your argument is like saying: parents have a rule that their child cannot murder their sibling. A judge has ruled that the parent lacks custody and may not make rules for the child. Ergo the child may murder his sibling.

    A ruling that one authority lacks power to make a rule is not a ruling that the opposite of the rule is the law.

    Which gets us back to what the concealed carry law says, and what the court ruled that it says. Which gets us back to X and Y and not Z.

    I.e. the question you are dodging because you see how it destroys your contention.

    Patterico (114097)

  180. @Patterico:Now you’re playing the Artful Dodger.

    The fact that I didn’t explicitly and every time reject your X, Y in favor of my X, Y, Z is not proof that I am wrong or acting in bad faith. It is proof that I am not infallible, especially in a surprisingly heated argument carried out over a period of several days. Neither are you, sir.

    I maintain what I have all along, the court rejected MY version of X and Y, and accepted MY version Z. These things are:

    X: 160.370 allows concealed carry in public buildings.
    Y: 160.370 allows concealed carry in public buildings even if the Board says differently.
    Z: 160.170 does not allow the Board to say differently, and 160.370 together with 160.170 allows concealed carry in public buildings.

    So I deny both X and Y, and accept Z, as does the court, without contradiction.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  181. Please answer the simple questions I asked in 157:

    Do you deny Proposition A and Proposition B contradict one another?

    Do you deny that you have asserted both?

    Patterico (fecd9b) — 10/6/2015 @ 10:50 pm

    If you deny you asserted both, please consider my proof in 157 that you did, and tell me where my proof was wrong.

    Patterico (114097)

  182. @Patterico:Your argument is like saying: parents have a rule that their child cannot murder their sibling. A judge has ruled that the parent lacks custody and may not make rules for the child. Ergo the child may murder his sibling.

    No my argument is: the law says the child may murder his sibling. The parent forbids it. The judge ruled that the parent lacks custody and may not make rules for the child, only the law may do that. Ergo the child may murder his sibling.

    See, no contradiction.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  183. In comment 144 you answered my question “no.” You appear to be taking that answer back. Are you?

    Patterico (114097)

  184. @Patterico: Your 157 did not accurately cite my argument, and I forgot, in one post, to explicitly say that.

    So again, my argument, not the one you make up for me:

    X: 160.370 allows concealed carry in public buildings.
    Y: 160.370 allows concealed carry in public buildings even if the Board says differently.
    Z: 160.170 does not allow the Board to say differently, and 160.370 together with 160.170 allows concealed carry in public buildings.

    The court denied X and Y but accepted Z. No contradiction. This is what I thought I was saying in your response. The fact that I did not repeat X Y Z every single time does not mean that I disavowed them. It means anyone can make mistakes in what they post.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  185. @Patterico:In comment 144 you answered my question “no.” You appear to be taking that answer back. Are you?

    No. I am saying the same thing. Again and again. One time I forgot to explicitly say it again and you are jumping on that as though I disavowed it.

    Here is my 144, fully consistent with my Z of 184:

    No. The court agrees with the petitioner’s other contention, that 160.170 denies the university the authority to override 160.370.

    The court only disagrees that legislative intent regarding the universities’ policy is entailed by the language of 160.370. The court agrees that 160.170 denies the authority of the university to contradict 160.370, therefore 160.370 stands.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  186. 169.I don’t think so, Bob. Sorry.

    Sigh …

    The good news is that if we fill up the Subaru in Vancouver, WA, we can just make it to Eureka, CA, and never have to stop in Oregon. Where the citizens are so benighted that they are not capable of filling their own gas tanks. Instead, the gas stations have to employed trained gas tank fillers to fill your tank. So I’m not likely to find myself on an Oregon community college campus. Although when the boys were in high school, we’d go down there occasionally for USA Track and Field meets in the early summer.

    This ability to encapsulate yourself against the hostile Oregon environment would be even more true in a VW, provided you had version 1 of their exhaust management software.

    The bad news is that we would now be in California.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  187. No my argument is: the law says the child may murder his sibling. The parent forbids it. The judge ruled that the parent lacks custody and may not make rules for the child, only the law may do that. Ergo the child may murder his sibling.

    Well, then, extending the analogy, the parent argues that the law says the child may murder his sibling, and the court rejects that argument. May we say the court said the law says the child may murder his sibling? No.

    Similarly, if the petitioner says the legislature intends through its concealed carry provisions to allow concealed carry in public buildings on campus (comment 142), and the court rejected this argument (as you agreed in comment 144), we may not say the legislature intended through its concealed carry provisions to allow concealed carry in public buildings on campus.

    So again, are you taking back your “no” from comment 144? Or are you just impervious to the logical argument I am making?

    Patterico (114097)

  188. @Patterico:the parent argues that the law says the child may murder his sibling, and the court rejects that argument.

    That did not happen in this case. In THIS case, the judge rejected the argument that the law that allows sibling murder does not deprive non-custodial parents of authority over children. The judge instead said that child-custody laws do that, so the parent may not overrule the sibling-murder law. The status of the sibling murder law is not affected.

    we may not say the legislature intended through its concealed carry provisions to allow concealed carry in public buildings on campus.

    No. The ruling was that the 160.370 by itself did not sufficiently establish the intent. It was established instead by 160.170.

    So again, are you taking back your “no” from comment 144?

    No.

    Or are you just impervious to the logical argument I am making?

    I reject your premises. The premises as you stated them are not as stated in the court’s ruling.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  189. @188 before you jump on me over the typo. This sentence should say:

    “In THIS case, the judge rejected the argument that the law that allows sibling murder deprives non-custodial parents of authority over children.”

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  190. Let’s review what your no from 144 means, by reference to the question I asked.

    Example:

    Q. Are you going to the store?

    A. No.

    The “no” here means, referring to the question: “No, I am not going to the store.”

    In 144, your no means:

    No, the court did not agree with petitioner’s argument that the concealed carry provision of ORS 166.370(1) 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.

    Given that concession, where does the legislature supposedly expressly authorize guns in campus buildings? The pre-emption provision does not expressly authorize anything, it merely prevents the board from passing its own laws. The concealed carry provision does not expressly authorize concealed carry in public buildings on state colleges and university campuses. My goodness, we just established that in the preceding paragraph, and you agreed in comment 144.

    So where is this express authorization?

    Answer: in your mind and nowhere else.

    Blather away, I really must sleep. I recommend repeating irrelevancies for the 45th time and completely failing to engage with my arguments. It’s served you well so far, right? (Yes, an eyeroll accompanies the last sentence.)

    Patterico (114097)

  191. @Patterico: It’s like Achilles and the Tortoise but we’re arguing over who is whom.

    It’s your blog, have the last word, and here let the matter end. Others will judge between you an me.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  192. The ruling was that the 160.370 by itself did not sufficiently establish the intent. It was established instead by 160.170.

    I’ll give you this: that’s new. Also made up. Please cite the quote that says 160.170 establishes the legislature’s intent to allow guns in campus buildings. You will not provide such a quote because none exists.

    Patterico (114097)

  193. “The larger point is, if a smart guy like Gabriel can fuck this up so badly, what do you expect community college students to do? Answer: what the school officials tell them to.”

    – Patterico

    Which is where there is ample room for disagreement, on both a priori and a posteriori grounds, and where this whole debate could have honestly been left a while ago. At the end of the day, there were still a number of students carrying guns on that campus, and none of them got in trouble for it. And none of them stopped this psycho from shooting a bunch of people, either – a fact that’s gone undiscussed.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  194. I have seen an interview with one guy who said he was too far away to do anything. He seems to imply there were others with him, as if they were a veterans’ contingent of sorts, but never clearly says so.

    In any event, outside that contingent, Raw Story said most students believed the campus was gun free.

    Patterico (114097)

  195. And none of them stopped this psycho from shooting a bunch of people, either – a fact that’s gone undiscussed.

    No, it’s gone discussed but there is no evidence that any were anywhere near the shooting, and in fact one was stopped when he started to go there.

    Is it so important to you to make silly points about things that don’t matter ? If the army vet had had a gun, ten people might be alive that aren’t. Does that matter to you ?

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  196. “Stopped” by whom? A school employee? He was the one with the gun, right? No one without a gun was stopping that guy unless he was willing to be stopped. This isn’t a silly point. This should be the central point: trying to make a campus “gun free” clearly does not prevent shootings. Having armed students on campus clearly does not prevent shootings. HOW DO WE PREVENT THESE SHOOTINGS?

    Maybe the answer is “we can’t.” That would be a sobering thing to acknowledge, wouldn’t it?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  197. “If the army vet had had a gun, ten people might be alive that aren’t. Does that matter to you ?”

    – Mike K

    And if some other untrained student had had a gun, five or six more people might be dead that aren’t. Does that matter to you?

    How many people get killed by stray bullets in gang shootouts where both sides are armed (and know each other to be armed)? Patterico can answer that one way better than I can, but I’m guessing that “a lot” is a fair answer.

    So: how do we prevent these shootings?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  198. Leviticus,

    You seem to be asking a question that doesn’t have an easy answer. You might as well be asking how we prevent the 88k annual deaths from alcohol or the 40k from medical malpractice. Unless your asking a gotcha question of the only way to stop these is by an outright ban and total elimination of guns in this society. So which is it the hopeless question or the gotcha question.

    Charles (e32db7)

  199. Yes, because gang members in a shootout prove those gang members already care about the law and other people. Or maybe they don’t care about anything other than themselves, thus their criminal activities.

    John Hitchcock (05901d)

  200. We need to prevent law-abiding people from having guns, because as I’ve shown, criminals with guns accidentally shoot innocents in their uncaring criminal activities.

    John Hitchcock (05901d)

  201. shirley you can’t be serious,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  202. It hasn’t gone undiscussed, Leviticus. I discussed it in the other thread. College employees convinced the concealed carry folks that it was too dangerous for them to try to respond. I don’t know if that advice was good or bad in that situation, but it certainly fits the campus administrators’ statements that the campus should be gun-free.

    DRJ (521990)

  203. This should be the central point: trying to make a campus “gun free” clearly does not prevent shootings.

    I don’t really see myself as ideological on this. I have cited statistics showing the overwhelming majority of these mass shootings happen in “gun free zones.” I have cited several examples where people having guns during incipient mass shootings have stopped them. I am unaware of situations where armed civilians in incipient mass shootings have killed innocent people. That clearly could happen some day — but if it did, that would have to be weighed against situations where a civilian with a gun saved lives.

    Remember your Thomas Sowell. There are no solutions. Only trade-offs.

    As for gang shootouts where both sides are armed, in the cases I have handled and that I am aware of from my colleagues discussing them, I can think of no situation where people were “killed by stray bullets in gang shootouts where both sides are armed.” I can think of one where a person was shot. After the shooter executed the victim, the victim’s friend got a gun and fired back, hitting the murderer, and also hitting a witness in the head. The witness ended up being OK and testifying. If I have handled or heard of other such cases, I can’t remember them right now. The fact that I have not heard of such cases could be because prosecution could be difficult in a situation where obvious self defense claims present themselves, but I have not heard of such situations in my jurisdiction that I can remember.

    Certainly I am aware of innocent people being hit by stray bullets fired by one or more bad guys, with no people firing back from on the other side. I have handled, and am aware of, multiple cases where that happened. The victims have included an honor student killed at a Long Beach high school by a single gunman (a case handled by my colleague), a 9-year-old hit by stray gunfire and two of her relatives hit as well (I handled that one), and one where an infant was hit in the head by gunfire (handled by my colleague, and the infant miraculously survived with no major lasting injuries).

    I also know of cases where people being armed may have saved lives. I have handled and heard of many cases where shop owners with guns shot and/or killed armed robbers.

    I’d have to do a comprehensive check to be accurate about this, and that is unlikely to happen, but that is my impression off the top of my head.

    I don’t think we can prevent these shootings. I also think that the situation is not as bad as portrayed by the media, when one adjusts for population. The U.S. is a large country of 330 million people, remember. This analysis concludes that the U.S. mass shooting statistics are better than many European countries on a per-capita basis.

    I have no problem with background checks. I think they are a good thing. But many on the left make no bones about the fact that they simply want the government to confiscate guns at large. This, to me, represents a policy driven by feelings and not facts. And they will spin facts all day long to keep their feelings the way they like them.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  204. Also, if you fear untrained gunmen, you should advocate for more intensive CCW training instead of trying to stop trained and licensed gunowners from responding.

    DRJ (521990)

  205. Leviticus writes, ” No one without a gun was stopping that guy unless he was willing to be stopped.”

    I would like to comment on this point.

    First, I do agree with Dr. Locke, that the quickest way to end a shooting is to introduce another gun.

    However, like many of you, I work in a gun free zone, an urban community college. Now, the police (sworn police officers employed by a city police department, not security guards, patrol our campus) have trained us in what, I imagine (or hope), is the latest thinking among law enforcement agencies about how to react to a “active shooter” event. Basically, their advice can be summed up by the following mantra: “Run, Hide, Fight”.

    Run and Hide, I think are obvious enough. If you’re not there, or the shooter can’t see you, you can’t be targeted and there is a better chance you won’t be shot. I’m not sure I buy the notion of the lock-down. Everything else equal, I wonder if it’s not better to leave the area than barricade yourself in.

    Fight, on the other hand, needs some explanation. The shooter, according to the police officer who was making the presentation, is invariably living out a fantasy. They’re mentally very fragile (whether this rises to the level of legally diminished responsibility I can’t say), which explains why, when the police first arrive, the shooters tend to commit suicide if given half a chance. So fighting, even if it means grabbing a chair, throwing objects, or rushing the shooter, is, short of having a gun yourself, not a bad response, everything considered. The reason is that in their fantasy they’re godlike dealer of death, they’re invincible, unstoppble and powerful, so processing reality and dealing with the fact that the reality doesn’t accord with the dream tends to cause them to break down. Furthermore, if they’re fending off an attack, this gives the police (i.e., people with guns) more time to arrive on the scene and neutralize the threat.

    So, I agree, the shooter is unwilling to be stopped, but given the unique mental stresses they’re facing, and the fact that they’re in a walking dream and not processing reality correctly, fighting, even if unarmed, can be an effective response (though, of course, running or hiding are still much, much better).

    Galvan (fc8fc9)

  206. Leviticus,

    Are you seriously arguing that because people get killed by stray bullets in gang shootings, it is a reason to prevent CCW holders from responding in mass shootings? People also get killed by stray bullets when police respond. Should the police stay away, too?

    Citizens who respond carelessly can be punished in civil and criminal court. We should emphasize training to avoid carelessness, as we shoukd also do with the police. I don’t think the answer is arguing that it’s too dangerous to try.

    DRJ (521990)

  207. So: how do we prevent these shootings?

    The same way you prevent car accidents, those 88k from alcohol, those 40k from medical malpractice and every thing else. Kill everybody. Other than tha,t shit happens and most of it is out of our control. Mistakes are made, bad people exist. Live with it. The only reason any of those a-holes are making a deal out of the shootings is for political reasons. How can 8 people shot dead be more appalling than a million aborted? When those 8 people can be the catalyst to disarm your opponents.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  208. Not Dr. Locke, Dr. Lott.

    Galvan (fc8fc9)

  209. You can’t prevent these shootings. Period. Thinking that you can is nonsense.

    JD (f9efde)

  210. hands up don’t shoot goes a long way

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  211. JD,
    Well there are some who want the unicorn pooping rainbows while being ridden by a leprechaun carrying a pot of gold standard. Wit the idea that the NRA is a terrorist organization that is just as guilty of this and that all guns need to be taken and we too can be like some utopia where no one is shot at all. The truth is you can’t and there are nations that experience gun violence still.

    Charles (e32db7)

  212. “You can’t prevent these shootings. Period. Thinking that you can is nonsense.”

    Is there any crime or criminal activity that can be prevented? I mean, this doesn’t accord with what we’ve observed: we’ve seen this incredible decline in violent crime since WWII. What was going on there and why can’t it be applied to mass shootings?

    Galvan (c53736)

  213. I guess we could throw out our founding documents and go all Minority Report on people, but that doesn’t strike me as a good trade-off.

    JD (34f761)

  214. One idiot argument after another all attempting to disabuse citizens of their right to defend themselves. And it’s true that if only things were different they wouldn’t be the same.

    If frogs could be made to grow fur, the world would be safe for chinchillas.

    Any place where Security Guards are forbidden to carry guns is a gun-free zone whether it’s simply customary or it’s an official policy. The obvious fact is that deranged monsters bent on mass slaughter seek opportunities to attack unarmed targets. Schools and colleges are their preferred killing fields and will remain so because leftist gun grabbers would rather bury dead children by the dozens than acknowledge the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment and the sound rational for it.

    An armed populace is the last real check on federal government tyranny and for all the Left’s highfalutin talk about democracy the one thing they can’t abide is a government of, for, and by the people.

    ropelight (4e9d6e)

  215. actually violent crime is going up, or have you not been paying attention,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  216. What do mass shooters want? What are their criminogenic needs?

    See: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303309504579181702252120052

    Galvan (c53736)

  217. “actually violent crime is going up, or have you not been paying attention,”

    Not really. Or, certainly, not that simply.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/09/04/the-crime-wave-in-u-s-cities-doesnt-show-up-in-the-data/

    Galvan (c53736)

  218. wonk blog, that was amusing, oh you were serious?

    narciso (ee1f88)

  219. More serious than the Daily Mail, of that I assure you.

    Galvan (c53736)

  220. “You can’t prevent these shootings. Period. Thinking that you can is nonsense.”

    – JD

    That’s the point I’m trying to make. You can’t stop these shootings with gun control. You can’t stop them with gun proliferation, either, which is the myth that the gun lobby would love to have everyone believe. You can’t stop them. They are the cost of gun ownership in our society.

    I’m not arguing for increased gun control, or CCW restrictions, or confiscation, or any of the things that people here assume I’m arguing for. I’m not even sure I’m in favor of background checks, given that they perpetuate the inability of some citizens to defend themselves. I understand that people will own guns, and I understand the cost. I support private gun ownership because I’m more afraid of my government than I am of my neighbors.

    I would prefer that people acknowledged these things openly, rather than pretending that gun proliferation was the key to ending gun violence.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  221. >$700 (AUS) for an old .38? What do the bullets cost? Hell, son, by any measure that’s gun control that works.

    In any case, it doesn’t really say anything about my main points, namely: violent crime is down (which means there are some factors that effect antisocial behavior) and preventing mass shootings > than stopping mass shootings.

    Galvan (c53736)

  222. no, in light of the president talking up Australia, as this great panacea, it’s just curious that a whole cell of Salafis is unraveled yet crickets,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  223. as a member of the bar, leviticus, you should take a stand, the joyce foundation will be their with their data sets pushing registration, just like Bill Ayers envisioned, the other side will tout the defensive application of weapons, where will you stand,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  224. Raise your hand if you have ever asserted or claimed that you could prevent these types of shootings with gun proliferation.

    JD (34f761)

  225. ‘the reality based community’ doesn’t really care about realities, it turns out,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  226. JD,

    Well it is a stretch that some on the right make. The soundbite argument if you will That said most realistic view of this argument is that a person with a gun can stop a mass attack or reduce the death toll from many to few. The problem lies in that for some the idea of many is >1 and few should be <1. That isn't realistic either, but it is a hope that some carry.

    Charles (e32db7)

  227. gun proliferation, suggests an outside force, not voluntary action,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  228. i can’t seem to bet past #122…

    did i miss anything?

    O:)

    redc1c4 (321ba5)

  229. Gun proliferation will not stop the singular “mass murders”, but law abiding citizens with guns can stop mass murders in progress by shooting the murderer. And arguing what a moral person will do based on what a group of immoral people have done is foolhardy at best.

    John Hitchcock (1b87a1)

  230. This has probably already been said, but 1000 rounds is a lot for church.. at home or out on the ranch it is called taking advantage of the volume discount.
    A good friend of mine has ranch land in Colorado and Texas. He has a clay pigeon setup in Colorado and a range in Texas. He often hosts veterans of recent wars (his son is active Marine pilot) for shooting, lunch, shooting, then beers, dinner. He buys ammunition by the pallet

    steveg (fed1c9)

  231. The school can’t regulate ownership of firearms as an act of law, but it can as an act of the property owner.

    Any property owner has the right to prohibit anyone else from carrying a gun inside, on pains of being declared trespassers if they don’t.

    That’s one thing.

    The other thing is that the law itself, makes a separate exception for a “school”

    In general, for most public buildings, having a concealed handgun license is a defense o the felony of possession of a handgun in a public building.

    But for schools, it is a defense to the felony of possessing a gun on school property ONLY 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.

    Also, of course, if the school grants permission:

    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.

    Courts are another exception, but the law declares a more standard policy for courtrooms than for schools..

    Sammy Finkelman (2972ba)

  232. 218. ropelight (4e9d6e) — 10/7/2015 @ 8:40 am

    An armed populace is the last real check on federal government tyranny

    Not without an air force or a no-fly zone.

    The Kurds were armed in 1991 and before. That didn’t help them. Only the U.s. Air Force helped them. And how are the Syrian rebels doing today?

    Sammy Finkelman (2972ba)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8292 secs.