Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Sentate Bill 347 2013 - CHL's on school property

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Scappoose, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    394

    Sentate Bill 347 2013 - CHL's on school property

    http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/mea...0347.intro.pdf

    (b) Subsection (1)(b) of this section does not apply to a person who is licensed under ORS
    166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun, if the school district or other entity that
    controls the school grounds adopts a written policy authorizing persons licensed under ORS
    166.291 and 166.292 to possess a firearm in or on the school grounds under the control of the
    district or other entity.

    Looks like they are trying to leave it up to the schools to determine if a person with a permit can bring a weapon on school grounds. Is that the way you read it?

  2. #2
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Puddin99 View Post
    http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/mea...0347.intro.pdf

    (b) Subsection (1)(b) of this section does not apply to a person who is licensed under ORS
    166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun, if the school district or other entity that
    controls the school grounds adopts a written policy authorizing persons licensed under ORS
    166.291 and 166.292 to possess a firearm in or on the school grounds under the control of the
    district or other entity.

    Looks like they are trying to leave it up to the schools to determine if a person with a permit can bring a weapon on school grounds. Is that the way you read it?
    Not a good bill. CHL's do not need to allow any local discression on where they can carry to anyone.
    Last edited by hermannr; 01-26-2013 at 07:32 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    Not a good bill. CHL's do not need to allow any discression on where they can carry to anyone.
    We need to defeat this one. Bad precedent if it passes.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  4. #4
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    You have complete state preemption for licensed carry...DO NOT give it up...this is only a crack in that door. What you need is to get rid of ORS 166.173...NOT add to the confusion.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •