Help me detangle the legalese... OR Gun laws, and schools:

[mrcpu]

I have a valid CC license. I have a firearm that I wish to carry.

The following is the statute:

166.370 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 and 166.292 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) 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 (f) of this section constitute affirmative defenses to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section.

(5)(a) Any person who knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, discharges or attempts to discharge a firearm at a place that the person knows is a school shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this subsection does not apply to the discharge of a firearm:

(A) As part of a program approved by a school in the school by an individual who is participating in the program; or

(B) By a law enforcement officer acting in the officer’s official capacity.

(6) Any weapon carried in violation of this section is subject to the forfeiture provisions of ORS 166.279.

(7) Notwithstanding the fact that a person’s conduct in a single criminal episode constitutes a violation of both subsections (1) and (5) of this section, the district attorney may charge the person with only one of the offenses.

(8) As used in this section, “dangerous weapon” means a dangerous weapon as that term is defined in ORS 161.015. [1969 c.705 §§2,4; 1977 c.207 §2; 1979 c.398 §2; 1989 c.839 §22; 1989 c.982 §5; 1991 c.67 §39; 1993 c.625 §1; 1999 c.782 §7; 1999 c.1040 §4; 2001 c.666 §§24,36; 2003 c.614 §6]





When this is all detangled, can I be arrested for driving through the school zone with my gun concealed? If I stop in the parking lot and take my kids into the office, am I breaking the law?

(1)(d) seems to say I'd OK, but then (f) goes and spells out details of having to be unloaded an dlocked in a vehicle.

Secondly, no matter how you slice it, CCW, without the judges specific permission, is prohibited by section (2), regardless of my CC license. Am I reading the statute correctly?

 

[Novus Collectus]

It is better to read it in the oritional format, but this is what it says to me.

(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....

(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:...
(d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.

As I see it, paragraph (d) of Subesction (3) is an exception to Subsection (1)'s prohibition and licensed individuals are not prohibitted.

Edit: Hmm, but it seems as if you are right that on school property it has to be in the car.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Nope.... the exception in paragraph (d) subsection (3) applies to CCL holders anywhere on public school property. In other words, you can have it in your car, you can have it on your person, you can take it into the school building (concealed of course), you can have your green eggs and ham, Sam I am.

See also:
http://oregonfirearms.org/faq/

A little more than half way down.

Section (2) means that the presiding judge CAN grant permission to anyone to bring a firearm into his/her court. That section has no bearing on carrying on school property.

 

[mrcpu]

Sorry, I meant that the judge part meant that I can never carry in a court building, w/o specific permission, above and beyond my CC permit.


Is the federal law on schools superseded by state? Or what?

 

[JimmyN]

It would appear to me that 3(f) applies to those not exempted by 3(d).

So if you don't have a concealed permit it has to remain in your vehicle.

 

[NavyLCDR]

JimmyN is correct. Without a CCL, the gun has to be unloaded and locked in the vehicle. With a CCL, it can be carried onto public school property - private schools can still prohibit guns.

What federal law concerning public school property and guns? I don't think there is a federal law.

 

[legaleagle_45]

JimmyN is correct. Without a CCL, the gun has to be unloaded and locked in the vehicle. With a CCL, it can be carried onto public school property - private schools can still prohibit guns.

100% correct.

What federal law concerning public school property and guns? I don't think there is a federal law.

18 USC 922(q)(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.

IMHO this statute is unconstitutional. In passing same, they ignored the decion of SCOTUS and complied to the ruling of the Court of Appeals... See, United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=U10287

 

[gaston_45]

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(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;

This states your CHL exempts you from the federal law.

(iii) that is—
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

And this covers the citizens who choose not to get a CHL.

Oregon law is consistent with the federal law.

 

[mrcpu]

IMHO this statute is unconstitutional. In passing same, they ignored the decion of SCOTUS and complied to the ruling of the Court of Appeals... See, United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...0&invol=U10287

At the bottom, it says the finding of the Court of Appeals is affirmed... But IANAL, and all this gobbledygook cooks my brain, so maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.

 

[Colt]

While we're on the subject, does anyone care to decipher PA's school gun law?

It is unlawful to possess any firearm on school property but it shall be a defense that the weapon is possessed and used in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity or course or is possessed for other lawful purpose.

Can it be argued that self defense falls under "or is possessed for other lawful purpose."?

 

[legaleagle_45]

At the bottom, it says the finding of the Court of Appeals is affirmed... But IANAL, and all this gobbledygook cooks my brain, so maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.

Actually, it states that the judgment is affirmed. SCOTUS affirmed the judgment but for a different rationale than did the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals held that, "in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, 922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause."

SCOTUS also found that 922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause but also indicated that congressional findings and legislative history could not save it. A highly edited version of the opinion so it wont cook your brain:

Thus, if 922(q) is to be sustained, it must be under the third category as a regulation of an activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. .... Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms. Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under our cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.... We pause to consider the implications of the Government's arguments. The Government admits, under its "costs of crime" reasoning, that Congress could regulate not only all violent crime, but all activities that might lead to violent crime, regardless of how tenuously they relate to interstate commerce....Under the theories that the Government presents in support of 922(q), it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign. Thus, if we were to accept the Government's arguments, we are hard-pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.

In response, Congress ignored SCOTUS and complied with the Court of Appeals by amending 922(q) as follows:

(1) The Congress finds and declares that—
(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a pervasive, nationwide problem;
(B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;
(C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce and have been found in increasing numbers in and around schools, as documented in numerous hearings in both the Committee on the Judiciary [3] the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce;
(E) while criminals freely move from State to State, ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to or through certain parts of the country due to concern about violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to send their children to school for the same reason;
(F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our country;
(G) this decline in the quality of education has an adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce of the United States;
(H) States, localities, and school systems find it almost impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves—even States, localities, and school systems that have made strong efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or inability of other States or localities to take strong measures; and
(I) the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation’s schools by enactment of this subsection.

Basically doing what SCOTUS said they could not do... which is why I think 922(q) is unconstitutional.

 

[buttrap]

The entire deal is confusing. I also belive that the the att. general of Or decided that 922(q) violated both the state and federal constitution so is not valid in Oregon also.