National Rifle Association Calls For Armed Guards In U S Schools

[DocN]

....committed with a rifle.

The comparison is not logical and is basically off-topic. A rifle is a very specific type of gun. So if you are going to compare then compare rifle deaths with those from a ball-peen hammer, for example.

Makes as much sense as people pushing for an assault rifle ban, when rifles killed less than 400 people the past 3 years and ignoring the fact that almost 8k were killed with handguns.

1) "people" are pushing for better gun control and stricter laws...for guns...in general...no matter what size!

2) having said that: how many of those 400 deaths by rifles happened at one time. Because that is the rather important question.

Sure 400 in 3 years...not that many...except when the happened at 6 incidents! ...just sayin'!

[chuckd]

....committed with a rifle.

The comparison is not logical and is basically off-topic. A rifle is a very specific type of gun. So if you are going to compare then compare rifle deaths with those from a ball-peen hammer, for example.

The title of this thread is "The National RIFLE Association..." It is hardly off topic.

My guess would also be that there are considerably more different types of rifles than there are different types of ball peen hammers.

What do you think?

[chuckd]

....committed with a rifle.

The comparison is not logical and is basically off-topic. A rifle is a very specific type of gun. So if you are going to compare then compare rifle deaths with those from a ball-peen hammer, for example.

Makes as much sense as people pushing for an assault rifle ban, when rifles killed less than 400 people the past 3 years and ignoring the fact that almost 8k were killed with handguns.

1) "people" are pushing for better gun control and stricter laws...for guns...in general...no matter what size!

2) having said that: how many of those 400 deaths by rifles happened at one time. Because that is the rather important question.

Sure 400 in 3 years...not that many...except when the happened at 6 incidents! ...just sayin'!

"Liberals" and "politicians" are pushing for gun control. Not the "people"...at least those in the US.

I don't know about the German "people"

[DocN]

....committed with a rifle.

The comparison is not logical and is basically off-topic. A rifle is a very specific type of gun. So if you are going to compare then compare rifle deaths with those from a ball-peen hammer, for example.

Makes as much sense as people pushing for an assault rifle ban, when rifles killed less than 400 people the past 3 years and ignoring the fact that almost 8k were killed with handguns.

1) "people" are pushing for better gun control and stricter laws...for guns...in general...no matter what size!

2) having said that: how many of those 400 deaths by rifles happened at one time. Because that is the rather important question.

Sure 400 in 3 years...not that many...except when the happened at 6 incidents! ...just sayin'!

"Liberals" and "politicians" are pushing for gun control. Not the "people"...at least those in the US.

I don't know about the German "people"

They have strict gun-laws already...and hardly anything ever happens.

Oh , yes...we have our fair share of violence, domestic or else...and we also have all kinds of criminals, from terrorists to drug dealers. And we have aaaaaaaaaaaall the rights and freedom, you could ask for.

But guess what: we feel with the parents, who lose their children in sandy Hook and elsewhere.

It is called empathy!

[F430murci]

A musician I know was traveling from a gig in North Carolina. She decided to rent a car as opposed to taking tour bus so she could spend New Years at home with her husband. Car broke down on 85 in middle of no where and she had to get a lift with a small town tow truck operator who proceeded to tell her for the next hour how kindergarten teachers should be armed with assault rifles. Haha, I thought to myself as she was telling story yesterday that that was about right.

[koheesti]

Armed Guards for Returning Sandy Hook Students

By Susan Jones

January 3, 2013

(CNSNews.com) - When children from Sandy Hook Elementary school return to class in neighboring Monroe, Conn. today, they'll be entering "the safest school in America," according to the Associated Press.

"Law enforcement officers have been guarding the new school, and by the reckoning of police, it is 'the safest school in America,'" the AP reported Thursday.

"I think right now it has to be the safest school in America," Monroe police Lt. Keith White was quoted as saying.

http://cnsnews.com/n...y-hook-students

I'm sorry but I simply cannot see how a school for primary school children that has armed guards on its premises is 'the safest school in America'. Surely the safest school in America would be a school that didn't required armed guards on its premises at all?

Like the ones the rich, famous, politicians and celebrities send their kids to?

"Surely the safest school in America would be a school that didn't required armed guards on its premises at all?"

Do you not agree with that?

Sure, and the best hospitals are the ones that require fewer doctors.

[koheesti]

To the people saying armed guards are the solution, it might be worth highlighting that security guards have been known to shoot people also.

Example: John Lennon.

The killer was a schizophrenic, with a history of depression, who had had stints in a mental hospital. Yet he still got a job as a security guard, and a gun licence. He bought the gun legally and everything...

Another great example that the problem is crazy people off their meds.

And to the idiots saying they want every school to have armed guards. Do they honestly think the possibility of abduction for their kids is the same as the children of diplomats, or billionaires, or the president's. That's comparing apples and oranges.

Clearly, schools for children not of the diplomats, or billionaires, or the president's get shot up every now and then by crazy people while the privileged children have never been attacked at school. How do you like them apples?

But if you get your way, please say the guards will be required to pass some form of mental health examination.

Amen to that.

Edited January 7, 2013 by koheesti

[hellodolly]

Do they get a percentage on gun sales. Instead of trying to curb gun sales they are encouraging it by suggesting the schools have guards.

What a bunch of losers.

[Scott]

A number nonsensical posts and replies to them have been deleted as well as off-topic posts. It would appear that some posters really don't have anything further to ad to the topic. It's pretty obvious that some posters aren't going to change their mind, so I suggest you not endanger your posting ability by continuing with inflammatory remarks and off-topic comparisons.

[endure]

Sure, and the best hospitals are the ones that require fewer doctors.

I'm sorry but I really don't understand the point you're trying to make. Wouldn't you agree that the best place for 6 years old to get an education is in a place devoid of firearms?

[Scott]

Sure, and the best hospitals are the ones that require fewer doctors.

I'm sorry but I really don't understand the point you're trying to make. Wouldn't you agree that the best place for 6 years old to get an education is in a place devoid of firearms?

Endure, you are correct, in theory, but given the current situation in the US, it might not be practical. At this juncture in time, it's probably best to make sure that we know for certain who has firearms. There is probably some nutter out there and the voices in his head is telling him to finish the job.

It's not a good state of affairs, but it may be needed in the short term.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Scott

[NeverSure]

What is this stupid "gun equals car"- comparrisson again?

I think to best illustrate that is the original and current reason for a car is to provide transport . . . the initial and current reason for a gun is to kill

This is just silly. Gun sales are soaring in the US right now. Yet the gun murder rate per 100,000 capita is 1/2 what it was 20 years ago. The guns that are mostly being sold are designed for self defense. Stay with me here.

Each year in the US as many as two million citizens use a gun to protect themselves, usually without firing a shot. Link I have seen believable numbers 50% more than that.

My guns would kill, just as my car would. The deciding factor is who controls it. Give a drunk or a mentally ill person a car and he's deadlier than a sane person who owns a gun. Surely many more people are killed by cars in the US each year than by guns, even though there are four times more guns in the US than cars!

Yet there are 52 times as many car accidents than there are gun incidents! Do the math. 4x as many guns, but 52x as many car incidents.

"These result in 41 times more injuries by car than by gun, and cars kill more than 150% more people than guns.

Keep in mind that death or injury by firearm includes criminal activity, suicides, accidental discharges, gun malfunctions, citizen self-defense, and police

shootings. Link

If I look at the raw numbers with no preconceived notions, it is obvious to me that the gun issue is based mostly on hysteria. If not, and if death and injury were the true concern, then cars would indeed be the center of attention and would get most of the news and discussion.

Edited January 8, 2013 by NeverSure

[NeverSure]

I would like to add. I am allowed by law to carry my concealed handgun into any public school. It has always been so in the State of Oregon, with a concealed handgun license. Never has such a person caused a problem. Always it has been someone who was not licensed, and often a minor who wasn't even allowed to possess a handgun.

I honestly wish that I and other law abiding gun owners would have been in that school when the shooting started. There's a very good chance that the outcome would have been different.

One day after the infamous Connecticut school shooting:

"Since no crisis can be allowed to go to waste, never expect the media to do anything other than demand more gun control legislation any time a whacko (or a patsy) kills people with a gun. Case in point: on Tuesday night, a complete idiot walked into a Portland, Oregon mall and began firing. Obviously the shooter, Jacob Roberts, was an imbecile to start with, since he managed to kill only two people before turning a gun on himself, but that's not the whole story.

As it turns out, 22-year-old Nick Meli was at the mall, and walking with his friend and their friend's son. Nick said: "I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you serious?'" Nick then directed his friend to a safe location and took up a position behind a pillar away from the shooter.

The anti-gun types would suggest that this man call the police and watch the shooter kill a dozen or more people until the cops finally showed up. Nick had other ideas. Being a legal Concealed Carry permit holder in the State of Oregon, Nick determined that he should try to prevent more deaths. He said: "[The shooter] was working on his rifle, he kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side," as the shooter dealt with a jammed gun.

Nick drew down on the shooter as they made eye contact, and Nick prepared to fire. However, he determined (like any conscious firearms owner should) that there were other people behind Roberts, and his shot was not safe.

The only shot fired after this point was Roberts taking his own life. What could have ended as tragically as the school shooting in Connecticut ended much less tragically, with only two innocent people dead instead of 29.

Of course, the media completely ignored the part that Nick Meli played in this situation, but that's to be expected from an anti-gun, pro-government media. However, it must be recognized that guns DO save lives, and citizens with firearms DO take the necessary precautions not to harm more people.

This could be contrasted with the recent police shooting in New York where the cops on the scene were responsible for nine bystanders being wounded.

There are many people in Portland, Oregon, who are alive today most likely because of Nick Meli possessing a concealed firearm. One could only wish for such an outcome yesterday in Connecticut.

[NeverSure]

Link

Whenever the U.S. suffers from criminal, lunatic mass killings there are those that point to other countries for inspiration. There are those who believe that the U.S. is "uncivilized" because we have not disarmed our populace yet (it seems armed criminals don't bother this type). And then there are those who point to country X to demonstrate that gun bans work.

Of late, the most popular are Australia's ban and the UK's. Commentators seem to forget that both these nations are in fact islands that are much easier to police for arms shipments than a country with two massive rural borders like we have in the U.S.

Let's examine the Australian ban and see if it did anything useful other than taking guns away from law-abiding citizens ... There is evidence that the late '90s gun ban had little or no effect on overall crime whatsoever.

The trends continued according to this report, which states, "The homicide rates [in Australia] provide no support for a proposition that the ban/buyback has helped. However, they also do not indicate that the ban/buyback caused anything, good or bad."

Even TIME Magazine was not able to spin the facts to make a case for the ban:

"The conclusions of these studies were 'all over the place,' says [samara McPhedran, a University of Sydney academic]. But by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer 'is there in black and white,' she says. 'The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence.'"

Ultimately Joyce Lee Malcolm in the Wall Street Journal stated the blindingly obvious when it comes to gun "control" in her recent piece:

"What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems."

As always, this is a clear case where one should be wary of politicians feeling the need to "do something," of whatever party. (John Howard, prime minister of Australia at the time of their gun ban, was a "conservative" but fell for the hype.)

We should not throwaway our constitutional right to bear arms based on shaky evidence from abroad and irrational emotions. Gun grabbers have to admit they hate guns and need to stop trying to claim there are facts to back up their prejudice.

Edited January 8, 2013 by NeverSure

[chuckd]

"Liberals" and "politicians" are pushing for gun control. Not the "people"...at least those in the US.

I don't know about the German "people"

So, you're saying that 'liberals' are not people . . . despite 'liberals' being in the majority int he US?

What an odd thing to claim

Where did you hear that liberals were in the majority in the US?

What an odd thing to claim.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit in to add links:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/25/conservatives-outnumber-l_n_625658.html

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/02/why-america-keeps-getting-more-conservative/1162/

Edited January 8, 2013 by chuckd

[Chicog]

There seems to be an implication that if you are conservative, you must be opposed to sensible gun laws.

I don't see that myself.

[NeverSure]

There seems to be an implication that if you are conservative, you must be opposed to sensible gun laws.

I don't see that myself.

I'm sure you'd like to be the one to define "sensible."

This is something a lot of people don't understand. Many "liberal" people own guns. 90 million Americans own 250 million guns. That's an oft repeated estimate which I think is low, but what would I know since the vast majority of them aren't registered?

One place where many liberals split the sheets with other liberals is over guns. I belong to a gun forum based in the US. I belong for information, and it has classified ads. When we get to talking about anything other than guns, I readily see that all we have in common is gun ownership. That's enough. We have a common goal to preserve our gun rights. On most everything else our opinions diverge.

You will find precious few conservatives who support "sensible" gun laws because the idiots who'd like to write them aren't sensible. You'll find a surprising number of liberals who are in lockstep with conservatives on that single issue.

[Chicog]

There seems to be an implication that if you are conservative, you must be opposed to sensible gun laws.

I don't see that myself.

I'm sure you'd like to be the one to define "sensible."

This is something a lot of people don't understand. Many "liberal" people own guns. 90 million Americans own 250 million guns. That's an oft repeated estimate which I think is low, but what would I know since the vast majority of them aren't registered?

One place where many liberals split the sheets with other liberals is over guns. I belong to a gun forum based in the US. I belong for information, and it has classified ads. When we get to talking about anything other than guns, I readily see that all we have in common is gun ownership. That's enough. We have a common goal to preserve our gun rights. On most everything else our opinions diverge.

You will find precious few conservatives who support "sensible" gun laws because the idiots who'd like to write them aren't sensible. You'll find a surprising number of liberals who are in lockstep with conservatives on that single issue.

Well specifically I see a lot of conservatives who are in step as far as banning assault weapons and the rest of the mass shooting paraphernalia.

[FDog]

I suppose after the next nutter starts blasting away at a school the usual nutters will then go the next step......lets arm all the children, it's safer.

[NeverSure]

There seems to be an implication that if you are conservative, you must be opposed to sensible gun laws.

I don't see that myself.

I'm sure you'd like to be the one to define "sensible."

This is something a lot of people don't understand. Many "liberal" people own guns. 90 million Americans own 250 million guns. That's an oft repeated estimate which I think is low, but what would I know since the vast majority of them aren't registered?

One place where many liberals split the sheets with other liberals is over guns. I belong to a gun forum based in the US. I belong for information, and it has classified ads. When we get to talking about anything other than guns, I readily see that all we have in common is gun ownership. That's enough. We have a common goal to preserve our gun rights. On most everything else our opinions diverge.

You will find precious few conservatives who support "sensible" gun laws because the idiots who'd like to write them aren't sensible. You'll find a surprising number of liberals who are in lockstep with conservatives on that single issue.

Well specifically I see a lot of conservatives who are in step as far as banning assault weapons and the rest of the mass shooting paraphernalia.

"surprising number." The press has so polluted the sheeple that few can adequately define an "assault rifle." I could legally hunt deer with an AR-15. Is the deer "assaulted?"

Can you define one? Or would you prefer to take the uneducated and hysterical news reporters' word for it?

Right now I know two guys in the US who own "assault rifles." There are more, I just don't know them. "Assault rifles" are regulated by the feds. You have to have a very special license to own one. The cheapest one I've ever seen had an asking price of $US20,000. It costs $500 a year for the license. The reason it costs so much is there are so few in civilian hands because they are already so tightly regulated!!

The "assault rifle" was an ex military M16 - standard battle rifle issued to most troops. It can fire about 750 rounds per minute but let's just call that 600. Put a 30 round mag in it and it will fire all 30 rounds in 3 seconds. At 50 cents per round, that's $15 for the joy of pulling the trigger for 3 seconds. Even if you could afford the gun and the background check and the paperwork and the license, could you afford to pull the trigger? How many hours of joy would you like to pay for at the firing range?

You could take a 1,000 round box of surplus ammo to the range and that thing has the ability to empty it in 90 seconds. $500 bucks in 90 seconds. Did you have fun?

You have to pay dearly for short time.

If I call your scooter a pickup, it doesn't make it one. If I'm the most ignorant bastard on the planet I might write for the press and call your scooter a pickup. If all the reporters parrot each other, then your scooter really becomes a pickup.

Edited January 8, 2013 by NeverSure

[F430murci]

I would like to add. I am allowed by law to carry my concealed handgun into any public school. It has always been so in the State of Oregon, with a concealed handgun license. Never has such a person caused a problem. Always it has been someone who was not licensed, and often a minor who wasn't even allowed to possess a handgun.

I honestly wish that I and other law abiding gun owners would have been in that school when the shooting started. There's a very good chance that the outcome would have been different.

Congratulations on potentially admitting to or encouraging other to commit a Federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) . . . Don't get caught or you won't be able to legally have guns any more under other provisions contained in 18 U.S.C. § 922 . . .

. . .

We turn to the defendant's appeal from her second conviction. The statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q), was originally enacted as part of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. See Pub.L. No. 101-647, § 1702, 104 Stat. 4789, 4844-45. In its current form, and subject to certain exceptions not pertinent here, the statute applies to any individual who “knowingly ... possess[es] a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A). The current form of the statute contains amendments enacted in the aftermath of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), to provide necessary connections to interstate commerce. See Pub.L. No. 104-208, § 657, 110 Stat. 3009, 3379 (1996).

. . .

Our review of the constitutional challenge is de novo. United States v. Caro-Muñiz, 406 F.3d 22, 26 (1st Cir.2005). “[A] statute is unconstitutionally vague only if it ‘prohibits ... an act in terms so uncertain that persons of average intelligence would have no choice but to guess at its meaning and modes of application.’ ” United States v. Councilman, 418 F.3d 67, 84 (1st Cir.2005) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Hussein, 351 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir.2003)) (ellipsis in original); see also Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 351, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L.Ed.2d 894 (1964). Nieves-Castaño's constitutional challenge fails because the statute itself adequately put her on notice that her possession of a firearm was unlawful. By the clear terms of the statute, she could only have been convicted if she knew or reasonably should have known that her possession of the firearm was within a school zone, and this scienter requirement ameliorates any vagueness concerns. See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 732, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000) (rejecting a vagueness challenge to a statute that prevented individuals from “knowingly” coming within eight feet of another person to engage in certain actions); see also Hussein, 351 F.3d at 14.

United States v. Nieves-Castano, 480 F.3d 597, 603 (1st Cir. 2007)

Edited January 8, 2013 by F430murci

[NeverSure]

I would like to add. I am allowed by law to carry my concealed handgun into any public school. It has always been so in the State of Oregon, with a concealed handgun license. Never has such a person caused a problem. Always it has been someone who was not licensed, and often a minor who wasn't even allowed to possess a handgun.

I honestly wish that I and other law abiding gun owners would have been in that school when the shooting started. There's a very good chance that the outcome would have been different.

Congratulations on potentially admitting to or encouraging other to commit a Federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) . . . Don't get caught or you won't be able to legally have guns any more under other provisions contained in 18 U.S.C. § 922 . . .

. . .

We turn to the defendant's appeal from her second conviction. The statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q), was originally enacted as part of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. See Pub.L. No. 101-647, § 1702, 104 Stat. 4789, 4844-45. In its current form, and subject to certain exceptions not pertinent here, the statute applies to any individual who “knowingly ... possess[es] a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A). The current form of the statute contains amendments enacted in the aftermath of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), to provide necessary connections to interstate commerce. See Pub.L. No. 104-208, § 657, 110 Stat. 3009, 3379 (1996).

. . .

Our review of the constitutional challenge is de novo. United States v. Caro-Muñiz, 406 F.3d 22, 26 (1st Cir.2005). “[A] statute is unconstitutionally vague only if it ‘prohibits ... an act in terms so uncertain that persons of average intelligence would have no choice but to guess at its meaning and modes of application.’ ” United States v. Councilman, 418 F.3d 67, 84 (1st Cir.2005) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Hussein, 351 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir.2003)) (ellipsis in original); see also Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 351, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L.Ed.2d 894 (1964). Nieves-Castaño's constitutional challenge fails because the statute itself adequately put her on notice that her possession of a firearm was unlawful. By the clear terms of the statute, she could only have been convicted if she knew or reasonably should have known that her possession of the firearm was within a school zone, and this scienter requirement ameliorates any vagueness concerns. See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 732, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000) (rejecting a vagueness challenge to a statute that prevented individuals from “knowingly” coming within eight feet of another person to engage in certain actions); see also Hussein, 351 F.3d at 14.

United States v. Nieves-Castano, 480 F.3d 597, 603 (1st Cir. 2007)

The feds do NOT have jurisdiction over gun use within state borders. Each state has its own laws. The exception is in federal buildings or specific types of weapons which are federally regulated such as assault rifles.

The feds don't have jurisdiction regarding drivers' licenses either.

December 22, 2012

"I've been reading the stories on the whole gun debate recently. I'm pretty sure it's legal for a person with a concealed handgun license to carry a gun on campus. Some people cite that recent case about a Medford teacher not being able to carry a gun on campus. However, I believe the courts treat that differently than a private citizen. Could you let people know what the law is on this subject.

— Michael B., Medford (Oregon)

"You're right, Michael. Under Oregon Revised Statute 166.370, a nonschool employee with a concealed handgun license can bring a gun on campus.

Medford police Chief Tim George said a person with a concealed handgun license can bring a gun into most public buildings, including schools.

He said MPD officers have encountered situations in which a license holder has brought a gun into Medford City Hall. That's allowed, but officers can inspect any gun brought into a public building, George said.

If the gun carrier refuses, he or she could be arrested under ORS 166.380.

Bringing a gun into court buildings is banned under ORS 166.373, but it allows police officers to bring their guns into court.

Attempts to ban guns on campuses for private citizens with concealed handgun licenses have been unsuccessful in Oregon, except in the case of a school employee. In 2009, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that Medford school teacher Shirley Katz couldn't bring a gun on campus even though she had a concealed handgun license. The court ruled that the school policy forbidding employees from bring guns on campus was an employment-related policy and not subject to state laws for the general public.

Send questions to "Since You Asked," Mail Tribune Newsroom, P.O. Box 1108, Medford, OR 97501; by fax to 541-776-4376; or by email to [email protected]. We're sorry, but the volume of questions received prevents us from answering all of them."

[NeverSure]

I suppose after the next nutter starts blasting away at a school the usual nutters will then go the next step......lets arm all the children, it's safer.

Sure, jump right in and make a statement which no one will believe based on prejudice and more hysteria. Is there no bottom below which people will take their hysteria?

[F430murci]

I would like to add. I am allowed by law to carry my concealed handgun into any public school. It has always been so in the State of Oregon, with a concealed handgun license. Never has such a person caused a problem. Always it has been someone who was not licensed, and often a minor who wasn't even allowed to possess a handgun.

I honestly wish that I and other law abiding gun owners would have been in that school when the shooting started. There's a very good chance that the outcome would have been different.

Congratulations on potentially admitting to or encouraging other to commit a Federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) . . . Don't get caught or you won't be able to legally have guns any more under other provisions contained in 18 U.S.C. § 922 . . .

. . .

We turn to the defendant's appeal from her second conviction. The statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q), was originally enacted as part of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. See Pub.L. No. 101-647, § 1702, 104 Stat. 4789, 4844-45. In its current form, and subject to certain exceptions not pertinent here, the statute applies to any individual who “knowingly ... possess[es] a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A). The current form of the statute contains amendments enacted in the aftermath of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), to provide necessary connections to interstate commerce. See Pub.L. No. 104-208, § 657, 110 Stat. 3009, 3379 (1996).

. . .

Our review of the constitutional challenge is de novo. United States v. Caro-Muñiz, 406 F.3d 22, 26 (1st Cir.2005). “[A] statute is unconstitutionally vague only if it ‘prohibits ... an act in terms so uncertain that persons of average intelligence would have no choice but to guess at its meaning and modes of application.’ ” United States v. Councilman, 418 F.3d 67, 84 (1st Cir.2005) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Hussein, 351 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir.2003)) (ellipsis in original); see also Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 351, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L.Ed.2d 894 (1964). Nieves-Castaño's constitutional challenge fails because the statute itself adequately put her on notice that her possession of a firearm was unlawful. By the clear terms of the statute, she could only have been convicted if she knew or reasonably should have known that her possession of the firearm was within a school zone, and this scienter requirement ameliorates any vagueness concerns. See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 732, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000) (rejecting a vagueness challenge to a statute that prevented individuals from “knowingly” coming within eight feet of another person to engage in certain actions); see also Hussein, 351 F.3d at 14.

United States v. Nieves-Castano, 480 F.3d 597, 603 (1st Cir. 2007)

The feds do NOT have jurisdiction over gun use within state borders. Each state has its own laws. The exception is in federal buildings or specific types of weapons which are federally regulated such as assault rifles.

The feds don't have jurisdiction regarding drivers' licenses either.

December 22, 2012

"I've been reading the stories on the whole gun debate recently. I'm pretty sure it's legal for a person with a concealed handgun license to carry a gun on campus. Some people cite that recent case about a Medford teacher not being able to carry a gun on campus. However, I believe the courts treat that differently than a private citizen. Could you let people know what the law is on this subject.

— Michael B., Medford (Oregon)

"You're right, Michael. Under Oregon Revised Statute 166.370, a nonschool employee with a concealed handgun license can bring a gun on campus.

Medford police Chief Tim George said a person with a concealed handgun license can bring a gun into most public buildings, including schools.

He said MPD officers have encountered situations in which a license holder has brought a gun into Medford City Hall. That's allowed, but officers can inspect any gun brought into a public building, George said.

If the gun carrier refuses, he or she could be arrested under ORS 166.380.

Bringing a gun into court buildings is banned under ORS 166.373, but it allows police officers to bring their guns into court.

Attempts to ban guns on campuses for private citizens with concealed handgun licenses have been unsuccessful in Oregon, except in the case of a school employee. In 2009, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that Medford school teacher Shirley Katz couldn't bring a gun on campus even though she had a concealed handgun license. The court ruled that the school policy forbidding employees from bring guns on campus was an employment-related policy and not subject to state laws for the general public.

Send questions to "Since You Asked," Mail Tribune Newsroom, P.O. Box 1108, Medford, OR 97501; by fax to 541-776-4376; or by email to [email protected]. We're sorry, but the volume of questions received prevents us from answering all of them."

Just because it may not be impremissible under a state statute does not mean it is not prohibited under a federal law. State may not be able to prosecute, but Feds can . . . Need to meet certain exceptions under 922 such as unloaded, locks or etc.

RE: Whether purview of Feds or State

Sorry, Post Lopez decisions have clearly upheld the framework of 922 as in case I quoted above. Says it "affects interstate commerce" so Feds can regulate. All court's have upheld as valid. My quick westlaw search yielded 32,000 cases on this statute post Lopez and all upheld statute.

The issue is comparable to the marijuanna laws. Many states have made legal even though still illegal under federal law.

Edited January 8, 2013 by F430murci

[F430murci]

I would like to add. I am allowed by law to carry my concealed handgun into any public school. It has always been so in the State of Oregon, with a concealed handgun license. Never has such a person caused a problem. Always it has been someone who was not licensed, and often a minor who wasn't even allowed to possess a handgun.

I honestly wish that I and other law abiding gun owners would have been in that school when the shooting started. There's a very good chance that the outcome would have been different.

Congratulations on potentially admitting to or encouraging other to commit a Federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) . . . Don't get caught or you won't be able to legally have guns any more under other provisions contained in 18 U.S.C. § 922 . . .

. . .

We turn to the defendant's appeal from her second conviction. The statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q), was originally enacted as part of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. See Pub.L. No. 101-647, § 1702, 104 Stat. 4789, 4844-45. In its current form, and subject to certain exceptions not pertinent here, the statute applies to any individual who “knowingly ... possess[es] a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A). The current form of the statute contains amendments enacted in the aftermath of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), to provide necessary connections to interstate commerce. See Pub.L. No. 104-208, § 657, 110 Stat. 3009, 3379 (1996).

. . .

Our review of the constitutional challenge is de novo. United States v. Caro-Muñiz, 406 F.3d 22, 26 (1st Cir.2005). “[A] statute is unconstitutionally vague only if it ‘prohibits ... an act in terms so uncertain that persons of average intelligence would have no choice but to guess at its meaning and modes of application.’ ” United States v. Councilman, 418 F.3d 67, 84 (1st Cir.2005) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Hussein, 351 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir.2003)) (ellipsis in original); see also Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 351, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L.Ed.2d 894 (1964). Nieves-Castaño's constitutional challenge fails because the statute itself adequately put her on notice that her possession of a firearm was unlawful. By the clear terms of the statute, she could only have been convicted if she knew or reasonably should have known that her possession of the firearm was within a school zone, and this scienter requirement ameliorates any vagueness concerns. See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 732, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000) (rejecting a vagueness challenge to a statute that prevented individuals from “knowingly” coming within eight feet of another person to engage in certain actions); see also Hussein, 351 F.3d at 14.

United States v. Nieves-Castano, 480 F.3d 597, 603 (1st Cir. 2007)

The feds do NOT have jurisdiction over gun use within state borders. Each state has its own laws. The exception is in federal buildings or specific types of weapons which are federally regulated such as assault rifles.

The feds don't have jurisdiction regarding drivers' licenses either.

December 22, 2012

"I've been reading the stories on the whole gun debate recently. I'm pretty sure it's legal for a person with a concealed handgun license to carry a gun on campus. Some people cite that recent case about a Medford teacher not being able to carry a gun on campus. However, I believe the courts treat that differently than a private citizen. Could you let people know what the law is on this subject.

— Michael B., Medford (Oregon)

"You're right, Michael. Under Oregon Revised Statute 166.370, a nonschool employee with a concealed handgun license can bring a gun on campus.

Medford police Chief Tim George said a person with a concealed handgun license can bring a gun into most public buildings, including schools.

He said MPD officers have encountered situations in which a license holder has brought a gun into Medford City Hall. That's allowed, but officers can inspect any gun brought into a public building, George said.

If the gun carrier refuses, he or she could be arrested under ORS 166.380.

Bringing a gun into court buildings is banned under ORS 166.373, but it allows police officers to bring their guns into court.

Attempts to ban guns on campuses for private citizens with concealed handgun licenses have been unsuccessful in Oregon, except in the case of a school employee. In 2009, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that Medford school teacher Shirley Katz couldn't bring a gun on campus even though she had a concealed handgun license. The court ruled that the school policy forbidding employees from bring guns on campus was an employment-related policy and not subject to state laws for the general public.

Send questions to "Since You Asked," Mail Tribune Newsroom, P.O. Box 1108, Medford, OR 97501; by fax to 541-776-4376; or by email to [email protected]. We're sorry, but the volume of questions received prevents us from answering all of them."

Here is a 2012 Oregon Federal District Court generally upholding 18 USC 922 under commerce clause challenge in Oregon:

A. Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)

1. Commerce Clause Analysis

1 Defendant argues that Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power, both on its face and as applied to the defendant.

However, the United States Supreme Court has expressly held 18 U.S.C. app. § 1202(a), the predecessor statute of § 922(g)(1), a valid exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power. Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 97 S.Ct. 1963, 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977). The Court held the statute valid though the statute required only “the minimal nexus that the firearm have been, at some time, in interstate commerce.” Id. at 575, 97 S.Ct. 1963 (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit has also held that the jurisdictional element of § 922(g)(1) ensures a sufficient nexus between possession of firearms and interstate commerce to constitute a valid exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power. United States v. Jones, 231 F.3d 508, 514 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Polanco, 93 F.3d 555 (9th Cir.1996); United States v. Hanna, 55 F.3d 1456, 1462 (9th Cir.1995).¹

United States v. Ernst, 857 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1102 (D. Or. 2012)

Edited January 8, 2013 by F430murci

[NeverSure]

I would like to add. I am allowed by law to carry my concealed handgun into any public school. It has always been so in the State of Oregon, with a concealed handgun license. Never has such a person caused a problem. Always it has been someone who was not licensed, and often a minor who wasn't even allowed to possess a handgun.

I honestly wish that I and other law abiding gun owners would have been in that school when the shooting started. There's a very good chance that the outcome would have been different.

Congratulations on potentially admitting to or encouraging other to commit a Federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) . . . Don't get caught or you won't be able to legally have guns any more under other provisions contained in 18 U.S.C. § 922 . . .

. . .

We turn to the defendant's appeal from her second conviction. The statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q), was originally enacted as part of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. See Pub.L. No. 101-647, § 1702, 104 Stat. 4789, 4844-45. In its current form, and subject to certain exceptions not pertinent here, the statute applies to any individual who “knowingly ... possess[es] a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A). The current form of the statute contains amendments enacted in the aftermath of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), to provide necessary connections to interstate commerce. See Pub.L. No. 104-208, § 657, 110 Stat. 3009, 3379 (1996).

. . .

Our review of the constitutional challenge is de novo. United States v. Caro-Muñiz, 406 F.3d 22, 26 (1st Cir.2005). “[A] statute is unconstitutionally vague only if it ‘prohibits ... an act in terms so uncertain that persons of average intelligence would have no choice but to guess at its meaning and modes of application.’ ” United States v. Councilman, 418 F.3d 67, 84 (1st Cir.2005) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Hussein, 351 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir.2003)) (ellipsis in original); see also Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 351, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L.Ed.2d 894 (1964). Nieves-Castaño's constitutional challenge fails because the statute itself adequately put her on notice that her possession of a firearm was unlawful. By the clear terms of the statute, she could only have been convicted if she knew or reasonably should have known that her possession of the firearm was within a school zone, and this scienter requirement ameliorates any vagueness concerns. See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 732, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000) (rejecting a vagueness challenge to a statute that prevented individuals from “knowingly” coming within eight feet of another person to engage in certain actions); see also Hussein, 351 F.3d at 14.

United States v. Nieves-Castano, 480 F.3d 597, 603 (1st Cir. 2007)

The feds do NOT have jurisdiction over gun use within state borders. Each state has its own laws. The exception is in federal buildings or specific types of weapons which are federally regulated such as assault rifles.

The feds don't have jurisdiction regarding drivers' licenses either.

December 22, 2012

"I've been reading the stories on the whole gun debate recently. I'm pretty sure it's legal for a person with a concealed handgun license to carry a gun on campus. Some people cite that recent case about a Medford teacher not being able to carry a gun on campus. However, I believe the courts treat that differently than a private citizen. Could you let people know what the law is on this subject.

— Michael B., Medford (Oregon)

"You're right, Michael. Under Oregon Revised Statute 166.370, a nonschool employee with a concealed handgun license can bring a gun on campus.

Medford police Chief Tim George said a person with a concealed handgun license can bring a gun into most public buildings, including schools.

He said MPD officers have encountered situations in which a license holder has brought a gun into Medford City Hall. That's allowed, but officers can inspect any gun brought into a public building, George said.

If the gun carrier refuses, he or she could be arrested under ORS 166.380.

Bringing a gun into court buildings is banned under ORS 166.373, but it allows police officers to bring their guns into court.

Attempts to ban guns on campuses for private citizens with concealed handgun licenses have been unsuccessful in Oregon, except in the case of a school employee. In 2009, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that Medford school teacher Shirley Katz couldn't bring a gun on campus even though she had a concealed handgun license. The court ruled that the school policy forbidding employees from bring guns on campus was an employment-related policy and not subject to state laws for the general public.

Send questions to "Since You Asked," Mail Tribune Newsroom, P.O. Box 1108, Medford, OR 97501; by fax to 541-776-4376; or by email to [email protected]. We're sorry, but the volume of questions received prevents us from answering all of them."

Just because it may not be impremissible under a state statute does not mean it is not prohibited under a federal law. State may not be able to prosecute, but Feds can . . . Need to meet certain exceptions under 922 such as unloaded, locks or etc.

RE: Whether purview of Feds or State

Sorry, Post Lopez decisions have clearly upheld the framework of 922 as in case I quoted above. Says it "affects interstate commerce" so Feds can regulate. All court's have upheld as valid. My quick westlaw search yielded 32,000 cases on this statute post Lopez and all upheld statute.

As the old saying goes, he he represents himself has a fool for a client. Believe what you want . . .

The issue is comparable to the marijuanna laws. Many states have made legal even though still illegal under federal law.

Are you an Oregon licensed attorney? If so, I still remind you that 50% of all lawyers lose in court. If airline pilots had that record, no one would fly.

I've been a licensed firearms instructor for 30 years. My signature plus a background check will get you a concealed handgun license in the State of Oregon. You get my signature after you sit in my class for eight hours and then pass the test. The class and test are mostly about concealed firearms laws, firearm safety, and the laws regarding what is lawful self defense and where you may and may not carry.

The test is prepared by the State of Oregon's Attorney General, has been nearly the same for 30 years, and the answer to whether you may carry in a public school including a kindergarten or a state university is "yes." Every single law enforcement officer in the state knows this as do the heads of schools.

I don't know if you're a US citizen, but if you are you know the US isn't a democracy. You know it's a republic of states. You know that there a 100 members in the Senate - two from each state. Regardless of population, each state gets two. That keeps the big states from ruling the small states. The smallest state has as much clout in the senate as the biggest state. The majority doesn't rule.

Each state tightly holds on to its promise under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution which states that powers not specifically given to the feds are reserved for the states.

I don't have time to research your case but I don't have to. Somewhere you're reading something into it which isn't there.

The feds don't have the power to regulate when or where I carry a handgun except on federal property.

[NeverSure]

I would like to add. I am allowed by law to carry my concealed handgun into any public school. It has always been so in the State of Oregon, with a concealed handgun license. Never has such a person caused a problem. Always it has been someone who was not licensed, and often a minor who wasn't even allowed to possess a handgun.

I honestly wish that I and other law abiding gun owners would have been in that school when the shooting started. There's a very good chance that the outcome would have been different.

Congratulations on potentially admitting to or encouraging other to commit a Federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) . . . Don't get caught or you won't be able to legally have guns any more under other provisions contained in 18 U.S.C. § 922 . . .

. . .

We turn to the defendant's appeal from her second conviction. The statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q), was originally enacted as part of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. See Pub.L. No. 101-647, § 1702, 104 Stat. 4789, 4844-45. In its current form, and subject to certain exceptions not pertinent here, the statute applies to any individual who “knowingly ... possess[es] a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A). The current form of the statute contains amendments enacted in the aftermath of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), to provide necessary connections to interstate commerce. See Pub.L. No. 104-208, § 657, 110 Stat. 3009, 3379 (1996).

. . .

Our review of the constitutional challenge is de novo. United States v. Caro-Muñiz, 406 F.3d 22, 26 (1st Cir.2005). “[A] statute is unconstitutionally vague only if it ‘prohibits ... an act in terms so uncertain that persons of average intelligence would have no choice but to guess at its meaning and modes of application.’ ” United States v. Councilman, 418 F.3d 67, 84 (1st Cir.2005) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Hussein, 351 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir.2003)) (ellipsis in original); see also Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 351, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L.Ed.2d 894 (1964). Nieves-Castaño's constitutional challenge fails because the statute itself adequately put her on notice that her possession of a firearm was unlawful. By the clear terms of the statute, she could only have been convicted if she knew or reasonably should have known that her possession of the firearm was within a school zone, and this scienter requirement ameliorates any vagueness concerns. See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 732, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000) (rejecting a vagueness challenge to a statute that prevented individuals from “knowingly” coming within eight feet of another person to engage in certain actions); see also Hussein, 351 F.3d at 14.

United States v. Nieves-Castano, 480 F.3d 597, 603 (1st Cir. 2007)

Judas Priest. Can you read? The first case, happened in Puerto Rico, a territory. The second, United States v. Nieves-Castano, happened with someone who didn't have a valid state license. You must have a license for the specific state in which you are carrying, and some states don't allow carrying in schools. Oregon is one which does.

"A third exception, is if the person possessing the firearm has a concealed carry permit issued by the State in which the school zone is located. This means that as the law is written, and as it has been interpreted by BATFE, if a person with a concealed carry permit is in any State other than the State that physically issued their permit, and they drive within 1000 feet of any K-12 school (which is impossible to avoid) with an unlocked gun, they are committing a federal crime."

So many are ignorant, so little time.

[F430murci]

Congratulations on potentially admitting to or encouraging other to commit a Federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) . . . Don't get caught or you won't be able to legally have guns any more under other provisions contained in 18 U.S.C. § 922 . . .

. . .

We turn to the defendant's appeal from her second conviction. The statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q), was originally enacted as part of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. See Pub.L. No. 101-647, § 1702, 104 Stat. 4789, 4844-45. In its current form, and subject to certain exceptions not pertinent here, the statute applies to any individual who “knowingly ... possess[es] a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A). The current form of the statute contains amendments enacted in the aftermath of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), to provide necessary connections to interstate commerce. See Pub.L. No. 104-208, § 657, 110 Stat. 3009, 3379 (1996).

. . .

Our review of the constitutional challenge is de novo. United States v. Caro-Muñiz, 406 F.3d 22, 26 (1st Cir.2005). “[A] statute is unconstitutionally vague only if it ‘prohibits ... an act in terms so uncertain that persons of average intelligence would have no choice but to guess at its meaning and modes of application.’ ” United States v. Councilman, 418 F.3d 67, 84 (1st Cir.2005) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Hussein, 351 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir.2003)) (ellipsis in original); see also Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 351, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L.Ed.2d 894 (1964). Nieves-Castaño's constitutional challenge fails because the statute itself adequately put her on notice that her possession of a firearm was unlawful. By the clear terms of the statute, she could only have been convicted if she knew or reasonably should have known that her possession of the firearm was within a school zone, and this scienter requirement ameliorates any vagueness concerns. See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 732, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000) (rejecting a vagueness challenge to a statute that prevented individuals from “knowingly” coming within eight feet of another person to engage in certain actions); see also Hussein, 351 F.3d at 14.

United States v. Nieves-Castano, 480 F.3d 597, 603 (1st Cir. 2007)

The feds do NOT have jurisdiction over gun use within state borders. Each state has its own laws. The exception is in federal buildings or specific types of weapons which are federally regulated such as assault rifles.

The feds don't have jurisdiction regarding drivers' licenses either.

December 22, 2012

"I've been reading the stories on the whole gun debate recently. I'm pretty sure it's legal for a person with a concealed handgun license to carry a gun on campus. Some people cite that recent case about a Medford teacher not being able to carry a gun on campus. However, I believe the courts treat that differently than a private citizen. Could you let people know what the law is on this subject.

— Michael B., Medford (Oregon)

"You're right, Michael. Under Oregon Revised Statute 166.370, a nonschool employee with a concealed handgun license can bring a gun on campus.

Medford police Chief Tim George said a person with a concealed handgun license can bring a gun into most public buildings, including schools.

He said MPD officers have encountered situations in which a license holder has brought a gun into Medford City Hall. That's allowed, but officers can inspect any gun brought into a public building, George said.

If the gun carrier refuses, he or she could be arrested under ORS 166.380.

Bringing a gun into court buildings is banned under ORS 166.373, but it allows police officers to bring their guns into court.

Attempts to ban guns on campuses for private citizens with concealed handgun licenses have been unsuccessful in Oregon, except in the case of a school employee. In 2009, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that Medford school teacher Shirley Katz couldn't bring a gun on campus even though she had a concealed handgun license. The court ruled that the school policy forbidding employees from bring guns on campus was an employment-related policy and not subject to state laws for the general public.

Send questions to "Since You Asked," Mail Tribune Newsroom, P.O. Box 1108, Medford, OR 97501; by fax to 541-776-4376; or by email to [email protected]. We're sorry, but the volume of questions received prevents us from answering all of them."

Just because it may not be impremissible under a state statute does not mean it is not prohibited under a federal law. State may not be able to prosecute, but Feds can . . . Need to meet certain exceptions under 922 such as unloaded, locks or etc.

RE: Whether purview of Feds or State

Sorry, Post Lopez decisions have clearly upheld the framework of 922 as in case I quoted above. Says it "affects interstate commerce" so Feds can regulate. All court's have upheld as valid. My quick westlaw search yielded 32,000 cases on this statute post Lopez and all upheld statute.

As the old saying goes, he he represents himself has a fool for a client. Believe what you want . . .

The issue is comparable to the marijuanna laws. Many states have made legal even though still illegal under federal law.

Are you an Oregon licensed attorney? If so, I still remind you that 50% of all lawyers lose in court. If airline pilots had that record, no one would fly.

I've been a licensed firearms instructor for 30 years. My signature plus a background check will get you a concealed handgun license in the State of Oregon. You get my signature after you sit in my class for eight hours and then pass the test. The class and test are mostly about concealed firearms laws, firearm safety, and the laws regarding what is lawful self defense and where you may and may not carry.

The test is prepared by the State of Oregon's Attorney General, has been nearly the same for 30 years, and the answer to whether you may carry in a public school including a kindergarten or a state university is "yes." Every single law enforcement officer in the state knows this as do the heads of schools.

I don't know if you're a US citizen, but if you are you know the US isn't a democracy. You know it's a republic of states. You know that there a 100 members in the Senate - two from each state. Regardless of population, each state gets two. That keeps the big states from ruling the small states. The smallest state has as much clout in the senate as the biggest state. The majority doesn't rule.

Each state tightly holds on to its promise under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution which states that powers not specifically given to the feds are reserved for the states.

I don't have time to research your case but I don't have to. Somewhere you're reading something into it which isn't there.

The feds don't have the power to regulate when or where I carry a handgun except on federal property.

Nope, but I am quoting federal law and I have tried and won cases in federal courts in Nev, Penn, NY, Fla, Miss, and Tenn. I also know how to read and interpret Federal statutes in conjunction with state statutes after spending 3 years clerking for a State Supreme Court Justice. I am not telling you what to do. I just merely pointed out that you may be admitting to violation of federal law and encouraging others to violate federal law. Seems like you would wan to spend time it takes to read and draft a few post to review such laws if you are counseling people on these rights.

The case cited above was federal prosecution and conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(q) for an individual in a state carrying a firearm on or within 1000 feet of school property. I guess the Federal Courts think they do have such powers.

[NeverSure]

Nope, but I am quoting federal law and I have tried and won cases in federal courts in Nev, Penn, NY, Fla, Miss, and Tenn. I also know how to read and interpret Federal statutes in conjunction with state statutes after spending 3 years clerking for a State Supreme Court Justice. I am not telling you what to do. I just merely pointed out that you may be admitting to violation of federal law and encouraging others to violate federal law. Seems like you would wan to spend time it takes to read and draft a few post to review such laws if you are counseling people on these rights.

The case cited above was federal prosecution and conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(q) for an individual in a state carrying a firearm on or within 1000 feet of school property. I guess the Federal Courts think they do have such powers.

Read my post above, and then take some remedial reading courses. You are misquoting federal law. As I said, when lawyers go to court, 50% of them lose which tells you how intelligent they are, or how much stock I should put in their opinions.

In the case you are quoting, it says that if a person has a valid concealed handgun license, BATF has agreed he may carry in a school if the state allows it.

In your case, the person lacked the state license.

[F430murci]

Nope, but I am quoting federal law and I have tried and won cases in federal courts in Nev, Penn, NY, Fla, Miss, and Tenn. I also know how to read and interpret Federal statutes in conjunction with state statutes after spending 3 years clerking for a State Supreme Court Justice. I am not telling you what to do. I just merely pointed out that you may be admitting to violation of federal law and encouraging others to violate federal law. Seems like you would wan to spend time it takes to read and draft a few post to review such laws if you are counseling people on these rights.

The case cited above was federal prosecution and conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(q) for an individual in a state carrying a firearm on or within 1000 feet of school property. I guess the Federal Courts think they do have such powers.

Read my post above, and then take some remedial reading courses. You are misquoting federal law. As I said, when lawyers go to court, 50% of them lose which tells you how intelligent they are, or how much stock I should put in their opinions.

In the case you are quoting, it says that if a person has a valid concealed handgun license, BATF has agreed he may carry in a school if the state allows it.

In your case, the person lacked the state license.

Haha, you know. You are absolutely correct. Sorry for wasting your time on this one. I should have read the full statutory exceptions . . . I can admit when I am wrong . . .

Here is full text of section including part dealing with discharge:

(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to

possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects

interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual

knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

(b Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a

firearm -

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do

so by the State in which the school zone is located or a

political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or

political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains

such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or

political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified

under law to receive the license;

(iii) that is -

(I) not loaded; and

(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is

on a motor vehicle;

(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school

in the school zone;

(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into

between a school in the school zone and the individual or an

employer of the individual;

(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official

capacity; or

(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while

traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to

public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school

premises is authorized by school authorities.

(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (b, it shall be

unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for

the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a

firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or

foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone.

(b Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a firearm

-

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school

zone, by an individual who is participating in the program;

(iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered

into between a school in a school zone and the individual or an

employer of the individual; or

(iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official

capacity.

iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity.

Edited January 8, 2013 by F430murci