POTUS plea to respectable gun owners to support "common sense" gun laws

[Hoosierkav]

I'd wager that if we invested in redeveloping our failing communities and families, and put real resources towards real mental health issues, most of the "common sense" solutions would be thus presented.

 

[Cameramonkey]

This wasn't a gun free zone.

Umpqua Community College not a gun-free zone: Oregon laws prevent that | OregonLive.com

*sigh*. Yes it was. it was a "private property rules" GFZ. While it was not probibited by LAW, it was prohibited by private party (campus) rules. I went into detail here in another thread...
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-oregon-community-college-12.html#post6108914

Relevant text:

Thats the thing that a lot of people need to wrap their heads around. Legal vs rule GFZs... "Colleges arent a GFZ because there isnt a law against it so its not really a GFZ!" No, cupcake, it is. As a student you risk tens of thousands of dollars in lost tuition. Imaging getting booted out of IU after a couple years? That student now has a crap-ton of debt with nothing to show for it. Considering the legal fees to dig an individual out of legal trouble for carrying in a LEGAL GFZ, (e.g. getting arrested because you forgot to take your 1911 out of your briefcase before going into a courthouse) its not a stretch to say that students bear a significant liability for ignoring a college's rules regarding guns. For all practical purposes, it might as well be a law.

And it gets even worse if you are studying something specialized. Will your credits transfer? Can you find another school to take you (and your credits) after being booted for this type of infraction? I could see other ultra liberal admins seeing a student booted for weapons violations refusing the student. "You did it there, we are afraid you might do it here. We cant endanger our other students by allowing you on our campus. You will not be accepted as a student here."

If ANYONE says "no guns allowed" its a GFZ. While maybe not an offense that will get you arrested, it is still a GFZ due to the fact there is a rule/sign saying "no guns allowed".

 

[cbhausen]

Sad part is those students who died risked their lives rather than risking expulsion. And lost.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Sad part is those students who died risked their lives rather than risking expulsion. And lost.

That's one of the many reasons I refused to go to college.

I won't risk my money or my life, and I would have to choose one. I prefer to keep both.

 

[pudly]

Albert Einstein:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

law.com definition:

n. mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior...

Fact: Chris Mercer passed background checks more than a dozen times.

Gun controllers:
Close the gun show loophole! Expanded/universal background checks!

 

[seedubs1]

Exactly. When I went to college, it was not illegal for me to carry. But if I was caught, I damn sure would have been expelled. The VAST majority of kids on a campus like that aren't carrying (and I mean VAST). It's essentially a gun free zone. When I'm on Bloomington's campus, I carry, but I'm probably one of only a couple of people carrying there.

*sigh*. Yes it was. it was a "private property rules" GFZ. While it was not probibited by LAW, it was prohibited by private party (campus) rules. I went into detail here in another thread...
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-oregon-community-college-12.html#post6108914

Relevant text:



If ANYONE says "no guns allowed" its a GFZ. While maybe not an offense that will get you arrested, it is still a GFZ due to the fact there is a rule/sign saying "no guns allowed".

 

[Lowe0]

*sigh*. Yes it was. it was a "private property rules" GFZ. While it was not probibited by LAW, it was prohibited by private party (campus) rules. I went into detail here in another thread...
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-oregon-community-college-12.html#post6108914

Relevant text:



If ANYONE says "no guns allowed" its a GFZ. While maybe not an offense that will get you arrested, it is still a GFZ due to the fact there is a rule/sign saying "no guns allowed".

UCC's policy had an explicit exemption for firearms "expressly authorized by law or college regulations."

 

[ArcadiaGP]

For the purposes of politicizing a tragedy, then sure... call it a GFZ.

I don't know if I like changing my definitions of something based on what event is surrounding it. I don't consider any BW3, college campus, Jared Jeweler, etc... to be "GFZ" in the definition we use outside of tragedies. If I can't keep the same standards inside and outside of those boundaries, what right do I have discussing the topic?

It is not illegal to have guns at Umpqua. That's the only thing that matters to me... so I'm not going to pretend Umpqua is the same as a K-12 school

Guns weren't allowed due to private property policy. But arguments on this topic are cemented in the fact that it needs to have been illegal to bring the guns on-site. It was not. The murders, however, were illegal.

Don't care how unpopular this opinion is, but I cringe at the "Right" for selling themselves out... and becoming no better than the "Left" on these topics.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

For the purposes of politicizing a tragedy, then sure... call it a GFZ.

I don't know if I like changing my definitions of something based on what event is surrounding it. I don't consider any BW3, college campus, Jared Jeweler, etc... to be "GFZ" in the definition we use outside of tragedies. If I can't keep the same standards inside and outside of those boundaries, what right do I have discussing the topic?

It is not illegal to have guns at Umpqua. That's the only thing that matters to me... so I'm not going to pretend Umpqua is the same as a K-12 school

Guns weren't allowed due to private property policy. But arguments on this topic are cemented in the fact that it needs to have been illegal to bring the guns on-site. It was not. The murders, however, were illegal.

Don't care how unpopular this opinion is, but I cringe at the "Right" for selling themselves out... and becoming no better than the "Left" on these topics.

While it might not have been a legally legislated GFZ, it was by its effect, no different--especially if you were a student or employee. If you were, you risked expulsion or firing by not adhering to the policy.

 

[foszoe]

This wasn't a gun free zone.

Umpqua Community College not a gun-free zone: Oregon laws prevent that | OregonLive.com

Its not that clear cut really though. How many people when they see a no guns policy or sticker on a door question the full legal implications of it. If a student reads a handbook banning weapons do you believe they would go search out Oregon law?

To me creating the illusion its a gun free zone approaches making it a de facto gun free zone.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

While it might not have been a legally legislated GFZ, it was by its effect, no different--especially if you were a student or employee. If you were, you risked expulsion or firing by not adhering to the policy.

And even if it were law, it obviously wouldn't have mattered. It's a minute detail that gets nitpicked so we can scream "SEE, THE LAWS DON'T WORK!" Of course they don't work, that's common sense. It's just cheap media points.

 

[Cameramonkey]

UCC's policy had an explicit exemption for firearms "expressly authorized by law or college regulations."

If you have to explicitly ask for permission, its still a GFZ. Look at Indiana law for a similar example. Are Churches with licensed daycare/schools in the same building a GFZ? Yes. Can you get around it with written permission from the board, pastor, etc? Yes. But that exemption doesnt change the fact that it is still a GFZ.

If you cannot freely carry in a facility with no more "permission" than the gun permit in your pocket, it is a GFZ. As soon as someone says "no _____" it is "a _____ free" zone. Doesnt matter if its guns, skateboards, or bubblegum.

By your definition courthouses that prohibit guns are not GFZs because LEOs have permission to enter with their guns. Just because somebody has or can get special permission doesnt remove the GFZ moniker.

 

[Lowe0]

If you have to explicitly ask for permission, its still a GFZ. Look at Indiana law for a similar example. Are Churches with licensed daycare/schools in the same building a GFZ? Yes. Can you get around it with written permission from the board, pastor, etc? Yes. But that exemption doesnt change the fact that it is still a GFZ.

If you cannot freely carry in a facility with no more "permission" than the gun permit in your pocket, it is a GFZ. As soon as someone says "no _____" it is "a _____ free" zone. Doesnt matter if its guns, skateboards, or bubblegum.

By your definition courthouses that prohibit guns are not GFZs because LEOs have permission to enter with their guns. Just because somebody has or can get special permission doesnt remove the GFZ moniker.

Except that you didn't need anything but the permit in your pocket. The law had already been tested back in 2009; the student with a firearm won.

 

[jamil]

For the purposes of politicizing a tragedy, then sure... call it a GFZ.

I don't know if I like changing my definitions of something based on what event is surrounding it. I don't consider any BW3, college campus, Jared Jeweler, etc... to be "GFZ" in the definition we use outside of tragedies. If I can't keep the same standards inside and outside of those boundaries, what right do I have discussing the topic?

It is not illegal to have guns at Umpqua. That's the only thing that matters to me... so I'm not going to pretend Umpqua is the same as a K-12 school

Guns weren't allowed due to private property policy. But arguments on this topic are cemented in the fact that it needs to have been illegal to bring the guns on-site. It was not. The murders, however, were illegal.

Don't care how unpopular this opinion is, but I cringe at the "Right" for selling themselves out... and becoming no better than the "Left" on these topics.

My employer has a policy banning guns in the building. They can't legally prohibit me from having a gun in my car parked in their parking lot. I do keep my carry weapons in the car but not on my person while at work. I wouldn't be arrested, I'd be fired. My workplace is effectively a GFZ because the policy prevents me from carrying at work.

 

[jamil]

And even if it were law, it obviously wouldn't have mattered. It's a minute detail that gets nitpicked so we can scream "SEE, THE LAWS DON'T WORK!" Of course they don't work, that's common sense. It's just cheap media points.

Well I have to agree with that.

 

[chipbennett]

They would not be the ones coming to your door. They don't have the guts for that. They'll send someone else to do it - like the police.

Exactly right.

Last night on Twitter, I asked just one such person how they would forcibly disarm law-abiding firearm owners who refused to comply with illegitimate disarmament laws. He stated, matter of fact, that the police and FBI would forcibly disarm them.

 

[Hohn]

The laws I support are aimed at creating accountability and responsibility of selling firearms in order to hamper the illegal arms trade (that is booming industry and we all know it); while expanding the liberties of respectable gun owners.

The responsibility lies with the buyer, not seller. GM isn't liable for a drunk driver.

 

[chipbennett]

This wasn't a gun free zone.

Umpqua Community College not a gun-free zone: Oregon laws prevent that | OregonLive.com

Yes, it was.

School policy prohibited the concealed carry of firearms inside campus buildings. Students could ignore that policy without *legal* consequence, but not without *school* consequence. Just because you can "merely" be kicked off campus, suspended, or expelled - rather than charged with criminal trespass or worse - does not mean that it isn't a gun-free zone. It's merely a GFZ by policy, rather than by law.

 

[chipbennett]

UCC's policy had an explicit exemption for firearms "expressly authorized by law or college regulations."

That was the security policy. Not the Student Code of Conduct. In the Student Code of Conduct, the phrase "except as expressly permitted by law" only appears with respect to alcohol and gambling. The firearms prohibition includes no such disclaimer. See below.

Did the Oregon campus shooting take place in a Gun Free Zone? Let’s take things in order:


1. Oregon Statute:
ORS 166.370 - Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to: (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.


2. Relevant Court Decisions:
Oregon Court of Appeals:
Oregon Court of Appeals rejects university system's ban on guns on campus | OregonLive.com
“A three-judge panel of the Oregon Court of Appeals said that an Oregon University System ban on guns exceeds its authority and is invalid.”
TL;DR: Colleges cannot ban concealed carry on campus grounds, but can set policy for campus buildings and facilities.


3. Oregon Public University System Policy:
Oregon State Board of Higher Education resorts to policy to ban guns on campus | OregonLive.com
Oregon State Board of Higher Education bans guns from buildings on all its campuses.
(But Umpqua Community College is not part of the Oregon University system, so that policy does not apply.)


4. Umpqua Community College Policy
Student Code of Conduct - Umpqua Community College

“The following actions and/or behaviors are the types of misconduct for which students may be subject to disciplinary action. These prohibitions are not designed to define misconduct in all-inclusive terms and in no way should this be considered an exhaustive list:


“19. Possession or use, without written authorization, of firearms, explosives, dangerous chemicals, substances, or any other weapons or destructive devices that are designed to or readily capable of causing physical injury, on College premises, at College-sponsored or supervised functions or at functions sponsored or participated in by the College.”
​

So, this policy indicates that possession of a firearm “on College premises”, without written authorization, is a “type of misconduct,” is a “prohibition”, and “may” subject the student to “disciplinary action”.

 

[chipbennett]

For the purposes of politicizing a tragedy, then sure... call it a GFZ.

I don't know if I like changing my definitions of something based on what event is surrounding it. I don't consider any BW3, college campus, Jared Jeweler, etc... to be "GFZ" in the definition we use outside of tragedies. If I can't keep the same standards inside and outside of those boundaries, what right do I have discussing the topic?

It is not illegal to have guns at Umpqua. That's the only thing that matters to me... so I'm not going to pretend Umpqua is the same as a K-12 school

Guns weren't allowed due to private property policy. But arguments on this topic are cemented in the fact that it needs to have been illegal to bring the guns on-site. It was not. The murders, however, were illegal.

Don't care how unpopular this opinion is, but I cringe at the "Right" for selling themselves out... and becoming no better than the "Left" on these topics.

Did the Aurora theater shooting happen in a gun-free zone? Do you consider that theater to have been a gun-free zone?

That shooting is universally considered to have happened in a GFZ, even though "no guns" signs do not have the force of law in Colorado.

How is this shooting any different?