It’s been a while since I’ve seen gun control moving in the states, but now we have a fight on our hands in Oregon, where the legislature is considering banning guns on college campuses. More importantly:
(b) A person who intentionally possesses a firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while on school grounds, commits a Class C felony.
A class C felony? Really? Hey, if it puts more gun owners in prison where they belong, all the better, right? A misdemeanor, or even a petty offense, is enough to deter an honest man, and a person intent on breaking the law won’t be deterred. I’m also not certain, given the way this is worded, that it would be unlawful to drive through a school zone with a pistol in your glove box. Better also hope you aren’t out for a walk and fail to realize a lawn you’ve been walking near is actually property of a school.
I’m a Portlandian and just down the street from me is a wing of one of the local colleges. Two blocks closer is a parking lot for that college but it’s not marked as such. If I were to be walking across that instead of following the side walk and got stopped I’d lose my CCW forever and do 1-3 on the felony.
Yeah, smart move.
This is just a big dust-up because of the teacher who wanted to carry on campus due to harassment issues she was having at the time. Under current law that is completely legal if her employer gives the thumbs up. Now there are college kids who fought to have their right to carry, and won, who are very vocal about carrying and taking personal protection seriously.
Just more moves by this state to try and emulate California. Very very disturbing.
While the guns part is a no-brainer, I’m actually more bothered by the “any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon” bit. Because in the end, isn’t *everything* a potential weapon?
In MA a straw and wadded up paper is a 2.5 year misdemeanor (felony as far as the feds are concerned). See 269 § 10(j).
Just about. Kick a LEO and the charges include “assault with a deadly weapon.”
Scarves, ties, even shoelaces have been used to kill. Or a stone picked up from t ground, though I suppose “in possession” is not in play until you pick it up.
Shows the level of thought legislators put into what they write into laws, rules, regulatins…
Hell, the mind is a powerful instrument and weapon…
I’m in Hillsboro, and while there aren’t any colleges near me, the whole area is filled with schools. I’m going to have to find the name of my local rep, and start making some waves here locally.
Was Mayor Mike there recently? His germs are spreading!!
Sorry, Coach, can’t carry the bats to practice. It’s the law, you know. Might hurt someone.
Those fools should be beaten silly with a Birkenstock.
The sponsor of the bill is Ginny Burdick. This is pretty standard fair for her. Fortunately, most of her anti-gun bills do not get out of committee.
Oregon also has a very strong version of the Second Amendment. It is Article 27 of our state Constitution. I would think a constitutional challenge to her bills, if passed, would be successful.
The lefty legislators up here seem to start every session with anti gun bills. It gives them something to do rather than face the REAL problems we have in this state like JOBS & lack of FUNDING for projects that need to be done. They now meet every year so they supposedly can work on budget problems but the anti-gun crap shows up before any thing else. Rainbow fartin’ Unicorns the bunch of them.
This definitely needs publicized and fought, but I wouldn’t overestimate it’s chances. Oregon comes out surprisingly passable on gun issues relative to our general blue-state tendencies. I take this as push-back from the defeat the state university system already suffered in state court on this issue, but as Rick pointed out above, it doesn’t follow that Burdick has the votes for it. The felony part would be harsh if it passes, but hopefully represents over-reach. I’ll contact my state rep about it anyway, though he’s pretty good on this already.