Archive for the 'Guns' Category
Thursday, July 25th, 2013
A Neighborhood Watch leader follows a suspicious character in the neighborhood and after being assaulted, and having his skull repeatedly bashed into the concrete, shoots and kills the assailant. Most people reading that would probably respond differently than the way some have responded to the media circus and lynching of George Zimmerman. What about this situation is worthy of the hype and uproar that has been thrust upon us for the last year? Nothing! The same situation happened elsewhere only it was a black Neighborhood Watch person and white assailants and surprise surprise, no uproar.
The Stand Your Ground law has been paraded about as another villain in this event, yet it had nothing to do with the event. Unfortunately, not even our supposed constitutional scholar president is able to understand a very simple law. Stand Your Ground says that if you are legally allowed to be somewhere and someone threatens your life you are able to defend yourself without first retreating. In other words if I pull a knife or gun on you while you are walking down the street you can use deadly force (read gun) to defend yourself. You do not have to turn and run. You can stand your ground, hence the name of the law. Now in the Zimmerman case, his head was being bashed into concrete. Retreating is not an option at that point. This was purely self defense. He was not able to retreat once his life became endangered. Mr. Martin was not unarmed, he was using the concrete as a weapon.
The ugly part of this was the race baiting that went on by those in the media and the White House. “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon.” I seriously doubt that a child of a president would be thugged out, smoking weed, and getting suspended from school for criminal activity. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson just showed their ability to profit off a tragedy as usual. Why is it that this was considered a white on black crime when Zimmerman is half Peruvian? Oh but Barack Obama is black even though he is half white. In the eyes of some race is the only issue and no matter what it must have played a role. It was the fact that Martin was black, not that he looked like a thug in an area that had seen a spike in break ins, that got him followed.
Now onto the head shake aspect. It is sad to see how many people suck at the teat of celebrities that they blindly accept and follow what ever their favorite celebrities spout. Zimmerman is an evil bastard and Trayvon Martin was a poor innocent thug. No one stopped to question why this case was being pushed over numerous other cases where a black youth was killed. They just continued on with the talking points of the hypocrites who think it is wrong for you and I to defend ourselves while they have armed security guards to protect them.
Thursday, April 18th, 2013
Truly a blow to democracy. Check this video.
Active duty soldier (veteran of the Iraq and Afganistan wars) and Concealed Handgun Licence holder Christopher J. Grisham was unlawfully disarmed and arrested on March 16 while hiking with his son, who was earning his Eagle Scout rank. Now Temple police have a lawsuit on their hands. Grisham has begun to raise money for his court case and his fellow gun rights-advocating Americans are not letting him down!
After two days of fundraising for his court case, he reached double his fundraising goal. Read about his fundraising campaign here. This is a prime example of illegal search and seizure by over-zealous police. This is CHL holding active duty soldier walking with his son. He wasn’t menacing. The police needlessly handcuffed and disarmed this man. I’m all for police protecting themselves, but I hope every cop in America is watching this and notes that Americans are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and will not have their guns taken away. As Grisham says on his blog,
No one should have to fear being illegally disarmed without warrant, especially someone who has never committed a crime in his life.
Tuesday, February 12th, 2013
Almost 40 (a generous estimation) people not affiliated with the newly named University of Oregon Piggy Department gathered in Great Global Scholars Hall last night and a public forum started around 6PM. The subject? The arming of UO Police Officers.
Jamie Moffitt explained that amidst budget cuts with EPD and lessened support, the growing campus community has heightened needs.
Public information officer and communications director at UOPD Kelly McIver maintained that armament is part of the mission to keep the campus safe. He also reiterated a few times that UOPD will generally refer students to the Office of Student Conduct, rather inject legal troubles into their lives.
“Police are not here to police students,” McIver urged. Fun fact according to officials: 88% percent of the suspicious persons investigated by UO Public Safety last year were people unaffiliated with the UO.
Interim Police Chief Carolyn McDermed said it’s really all about relationships. Building a relationship with the community in order to best serve their needs.
The Register Guard has a good play-by-play.
Yes, as of January 1st, 2012 the men and women public-safetying our campus are suffering an inferiority complex. Currently, the UOPD has eleven sworn police officers with thirteen public safety officers aiding them. Only a “couple of” (which I can only assume to mean at maximum but also minimum two) officers are on duty during its 24/7 operation.
In the spirit of the Great Global Scholars Hall, I must ask, “Qué tipo de mierda es eso? Súper inefectivo!”
Saturday, January 19th, 2013
We just received this news update from EPD:
Case # 13-1268
At about 2:30 this morning, two men left their apartment on Villard Street to pick up a friend. When they got into their car, a frightening surprise awaited them. Jeramey Ortega, 27 of Halsey, OR was in the backseat, and told both men that he would shoot them if they did not comply with his demands.
Following Ortega’s orders, the two men drive him to various locations, wherein each man had seized opportunities to flee the car at a convenience store and a Coburg Road shopping center, respectively. The first victim to flee was giving police a description of the kidnapper right around the time the remaining victim caught this aggressor slippin’ and punched him “at least 20 times before ordering him out of the car,” as the report states. Ortega then ran South where he was reported to be sleeping in a car on Centennial Loop about four hours later. The police arrested him without incident after noticing he matched the suspect description. Ortega was wanted for warrants in two other jurisdictions and a Parole Violation.
Watch yourselves and be safe out there people! These victims were lucky to be unharmed.
Saturday, January 19th, 2013
From left to right: Photo of Joseph Kelley in Utah J.C. Penny taken by Cindy Yorgason;President Obama presenting his proposals in a photo posted on NewsWhip.com; “Pioneer” statue on UO campus carrying his rifle.
The following post contains views and opinions that are my own (Nicholas Ekblad) and do not necessarily represent those of the Oregon Commentator as a whole.
Now, I spent about half of my childhood in The-middle-of-nowhere, Arizona and the greater half in rural eastern Oregon. I was taught by my father how to use a gun and how to use it safely. My father did not make light– ever– of the power and responsibility of a holding a firearm in hand. I firmly believe in the Second Amendment, though it might surprise a lot of people to learn that I support “gun control” in its general sense (READ: the control of guns is as necessary and already as prevalent as the control of, say, the license to drive a motor vehicle)(fully automatic weapons have been outlawed since 1936). That being said, here is my take on Obama’s proposals to congress.
Monday, December 17th, 2012
Our hearts go out to the grieving families in Newtown, Connecticut, in the aftermath of an elementary school shooting that killed 20 children and six adults. Shooter Adam Lanza killed himself soon after police were called.
This atrocity is unignorable. The Commentator is working on an article that addresses the gun control debate from all possible angles and from all possible perspectives. For now, our love and condolences are with Newtown.
The Address for donations is: SandyHook School Support Fund c/o Newtown Savings Bank 39 Main St Newtown, CT 06470
The address for the school is where cards, letters, teddy bears anything for the siblings can be sent for the families: Sandy Hook Elementary School 12 Dickinson Drive, Sandy Hook, CT 06482
Thanks to Swamp Fox Green for the donation information (the full post can be read here).
Friday, February 17th, 2012
State politics, everybody. Who’s ready for some?
Well a week ago in Salem, the Oregon House of Representatives tabled Senate Bill 1550– a bill that would have prohibited carrying firearms on school and college campuses
Yes, prohibited even if you had a concealed handgun permit. And no, this wouldn’t have any affect on whether or not DPS will be able to carry guns.
The body cited that “all gun-related legislation is over for the current, abbreviated session.”
Democratic Senator Ginny Burdick, who proposed the bill, said that she wudn’t even surprised her bill didn’t move forward. She explained that “the short legislative session should be devoted primarily to budget adjustments and major policy issues that have more urgency to them.”
Guns on campus?
Take your time.
"Everybody be cool, this is just a robbery!"
The best part is that on Wednesday, the Oregon state House demonstrated what they do find urgent enough to pass: a bill prohibiting the release of information listed on concealed handgun license applications.
This is the third time since 2009 that the Oregon state house has passed a bill that protects this information– ensuring that the applications “remain confidential and [the information] is not released to the public.”
“The bill would protect very personal information about people who are trying to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” said Republican Rep. Kim Thatcher, who proposed the bill.
Dammit, Oregon State Legislature. I really wanted access to the personal information of these gentlemen.
Thursday, January 19th, 2012
Every once in a while, one looks at the front page of the ODE, pauses for consideration, and realizes that there is a huge divide between how much clout the ASUO has, and how much it thinks it has. On those days, it strikes one that ASUO has something of a Twitter Famous mentality: the small amount of power they are allotted makes them feel as if they have infinitely more sway than they actually do.
This is one of those days.
Last night the ASUO passed a resolution declaring its opposition to concealed-carry on campus. According to the Ol’Dirty, “The resolution reasons that a ban on conceal-carry weapons is not a Second Amendment restriction after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2010 stated schools were considered a ‘sensitive’ place, and thus laws barring firearms were not restricted.” Further, it was noted that because the primary purpose of a gun is to “cause lethal bodily harm”, it should not be permitted on campus, versus potentially dangerous but useful objects such as knives.
Those potatoes aren’t going to chop themselves.
Nowhere in the Daily Emerald article, however, is the meaninglessness and inanity of the whole situation specifically noted. What purpose does this serve? Who was banging down the ASUO’s front door begging them to send down their official declaration on the matter from on high? Contrary to what the Emerald’s headline claims, the ASUO does seem to have enough self-awareness to know that they didn’t actually change state law by passing this resolution. Their hope seems to be that if (with the implicit “and when” undoubtedly present in their minds) the state decides to revisit the concealed-carry on campus situation, the ASUO will be in support of a reinstated ban. My question is, why does the ASUO think the state gives a shit?
Please senators, for the love of God, I beg of you–do something useful with yourselves. How long did this resolution take to argue out? How many man hours were lost that could have been better spent on actually doing something that is within your limited power to do?
The Commentator has had an equipment request waiting on your nod since November. Why not manipulate that power?
Wednesday, June 1st, 2011
Today’s Ol’ Dirty has a letter to the editor tackling an issue that has been oddly absent on this blog as of late: concealed carry on campus. In a letter titled, “Students should have wider gun liberties,” undergraduate student Andrew Saldana attacks the Oregon University System’s illegal policy on firearms on campus while outlining the importance of students and faculty being able to protect themselves.
People should be able to be in charge of their own protection. If an individual wants to take precautions to protect themselves, they should be able to do so as long as it is in accordance with the law. Nobody else is obligated to come to your aid if you’re in crisis — not even the police, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling stating that the police are in place to protect “society at large” not any one individual(s). Even if it weren’t the case, as demonstrated above, the response time of police is too slow to prevent people from dying.
The current policy restricts those who wish to protect themselves from doing so in an effort to stop those who do not follow the law already. Gun-free zones are indeed only gun-free because good-natured people who wish to obey the rules abide by them. Many, if not most, mass shootings take place on areas deemed “gun-free.” In reality, all gun-free zones accomplish is the disarming of those who do good and leave them at the mercy of those who wish to do harm. I implore you to view the testimony of former Texas Rep. Suzanna Hupp in relation to the effects that policy and legislation restricting carry can have.
The reality of the state of concealed carry on Oregon university campuses is that it is legal, according to state law (See ORS 166.370). It is only the Oregon University System that doesn’t allow concealed carry on campus — that is to say, you will get suspended, expelled or face other disciplinary action if you are licensed to carry a concealed handgun and do so on campus.
Oregon Commentator editor emeritus CJ Ciaramella wrote a blog post for The Weekly Standard on May 5, 2010 regarding this topic, and conducted interviews with representatives from the Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus and the Oregon Firearms Federation. Which team is ahead?
Currently, 26 states ban handguns on campus, even by those with concealed carry permits. Twenty three other states leave the decision to individual colleges. Only Utah explicitly prohibits public colleges from banning licensed handguns on campus.
Pro-concealed carry individuals and groups, like Saldana above and representatives from the Oregon Firearms Federation, argue that allowing individuals to carry on campus adds another level of protection for students, allowing them to defend themselves with more rapidity and agility. Those against concealed carry on campus argue that campuses are already relatively safe, and introducing guns on campus will serve to create more dangerous environments.
But let’s not forget the reason that Saldana wrote the letter in the first place. On May 26, the Emerald printed a story called, “University, law enforcement prepare for campus shooting scenario.” The story focuses around what DPS, the Eugene Police Department and SWAT can do in case of an on-campus shooting. As our favorite anonymous professor points out, the story serves to prop up the mission of the Department of Public Safety, which is to get more money to create an on-campus police force (maybe he and we are both too cynical, but whatever).
The SWAT team will be activated in such a scenario, but SWAT officers might not necessarily be on duty at the time and may have to travel from their homes to the police department to gather their equipment before heading to the scene of an incident. Klinko said this process could take up to 40 minutes, depending on where an officer lives.
Eugene has no full-time SWAT officers; the team members have regular duty assignments in addition to their SWAT duties. Additionally, there are not enough vehicles to allow SWAT officers to take their cars and equipment home with them. Despite the department’s efforts, financial constraints prevent the department from being as prepared as it would like to be.
This predicament was expressed to the Oregon House Judiciary Committee by EPD Chief Pete Kerns during testimony earlier this month.
This is where Saldana’s point peaks: in order for Eugene to accurately prepare for an on-campus shooting, a significant amount of money and time would need to be poured into the creation of an on-campus SWAT team. Students would still need to rely on the Department of Public Safety and the Eugene Police Department for their protection. That’s the ultimate disconnect between pro- and anti-concealed carry on campus: those who favor concealed carry on campus believe students should be able to defend themselves, while those who are opposed feel that students and those with concealed carry licenses are somehow not equipped to handle the magnitude of that task.
This files well into the next common argument, which is the blunt, flat, “guns are dangerous” slogan that is heard over and over from anti-gun advocates. In order to receive a concealed carry license in this state, it requires not only a class and a test, but also a willingness to follow the law in order to carry a weapon. It’s not the individuals who have gone through the process of receiving a concealed carry license that universities need to worry about — it’s those who don’t have the training, those who come onto campus with malicious intent, those who got their guns illegally, or who don’t have the training or credentials to carry their weapons on their person. The responsible individuals who sought out their concealed carry license are by definition equipped to handle the magnitude of their own safety. That’s the point.
Finally, these are our rights. These rights, just like all other rights we are legally entitled to, are granted to us from the United States Constitution. These individuals already have the right, through the same process, to carry their weapons almost anywhere else in the state. University campuses should be no different. Ciaramella hits the nail on the head here:
Indeed, if students’ First Amendment right to free expression does not end at the school gates, as the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines, why should they be denied their Second Amendment right to self-defense?
As more and more policies are put into place to create a campus bubble, an ivory tower where only certain ideas and practices are allowed (smoking ban, Pacifica Forum, the Bias Response Team), the future for concealed carry on campus seems fairly grim. Students and administrators need to realize that universities are supposed to prepare students for the so-called “real world,” where people smoke cigarettes, say things not everyone agrees with and, yes, carry concealed weapons. It’s time for us to wake up and realize that we shouldn’t be sheltered from the realities of the world outside the gates of our university. It’s time for us to demand that we be able to exercise our rights.
It’s time to stand up.
Thursday, May 26th, 2011
In a time where young people learn about history through video games and summer blockbusters and blogs are more highly read than books, a significant challenge is presented, not only to teachers who are trying to move students through the education system, but also to parents, politicians and those trying to educate and inform the the next group of young Americans about, among other things, the history of our great nation. In a culture so fragmented and disengaged, it is necessary to change the way we look at education in all forms, but it is arguably most important that young Americans know why there here, what that means, and how it all came to be.
It is likely with this in mind that the Bill of Rights Institute, an nonprofit based out of Arlington, VA that charges itself with educating young people about the United States Constitution, has started a new project: live-blogging the 1787 Philidelphia Convention.
This summer, the Bill of Rights Institute will be blogging the Philadelphia Convention of 1787.
Beginning … May 25 – the date when enough delegates had arrived to give the Convention a quorum – the Bill of Rights Institute’s ”A More Perfect Blog” will give weekly accounts of the key actions and conversations of the Convention.
The project is already underway, starting yesterday with the election of convention leadership, convention rules and the Virginia Plan. You can read the blog here. And please, tell as many young people as possible. It’s oging to be an amazing summer, made only greater by young Americans being informed about their history and the rights and freedoms they are granted because of it.
(Hat tip to Adam Kissel over at FIRE for pointing us to this cool project.)
Thursday, May 19th, 2011
The Center for Disease control wants you to be safe in the case of all possible. Including cannibalistic undead uprising. On Monday the CDC released “Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse,” urging Americans to think of the safety of themselves and their loved ones in the unlikely case of a ghoul situation.
There are all kinds of emergencies out there that we can prepare for. Take a zombie apocalypse for example. That’s right, I said z-o-m-b-i-e a-p-o-c-a-l-y-p-s-e. You may laugh now, but when it happens you’ll be happy you read this, and hey, maybe you’ll even learn a thing or two about how to prepare for a real emergency.
Whether one calls them ghouls, zombies or just “the infected” is a matter of semantics, of course. As the article points out, the term “zombie” originally came from Haitian / voodou origins, and referred to a reanimated corpse brought back by some form of necromancer to follow the evil priest’s will. But realistically, that isn’t the sort of zombie you’ll be up against in the case of undead infestation. More likely, it’d be Night of the Living Dead-style ‘ghouls’: slow, stumbly groaning monsters with a penchant for human flesh. (more…)
Thursday, May 19th, 2011
The Oregon Supreme Court ruled today that qualified medical marijuana card holders can also apply for and receive a concealed-carry license. The case goes back to a retired bus driver in Grants Pass, who made the mistake of admitting that she was a cardholder in the state-run medical marijuana program when she went to renew her concealed carry license. Officials branded her as a drug addict and said that her medical treatment program barred her from the right to carry a concealed weapon under federal law. But the Supreme Court of Oregon reminded cleared things up for them.
The ruling issued in Salem, Ore., upheld previous decisions by the Oregon Court of Appeals and circuit court in finding that a federal law barring criminals and drug addicts from buying firearms does not excuse sheriffs from issuing concealed weapons permits to people who hold medical marijuana cards and otherwise qualify.
“We hold that the Federal Gun Control Act does not pre-empt the state’s concealed handgun licensing statute and, therefore, the sheriffs must issue (or renew) the requested licenses,” Chief Justice Paul De Muniz wrote.
In other words: states’ rights, bitches. Labeling law-abiding medical patients as dangerous criminals because their treatment is “wrong” in the eyes of authoritarian lawmakers is not only petty and childish, but also downright dangerous when real criminals come into the picture.
The more innocent people get caught up in the prohibition mentality, the more ambiguous the justification for these laws becomes. If the goal is merely to keep guns out of the hands of violent offenders (who are less likely to follow concealed carry laws anyway), it’d be difficult to find anyone less violent than a stoned medical marijuana patient. Oregon has nearly 40,000 registered marijuana patients, who don’t fit the Cheech and Chong paradigm, and have had their medicine prescribed for any number of reasons. Their rights, as well as the rights of the states to make their own policy on guns, drugs, etc., should trump federal meddling of how things “ought” to be.
Thursday, April 7th, 2011
Picture from the Second Amendment Week facebook event page
What’cha doin’ next week? Well, if you want to head over to OSU you may have a chance to win a gun!
Yep, you read that right. This coming Monday, April 11th through Friday April 15th the Oregon State University College Republicans will be holding their annual Second Amendment Week.
As part of the festivities they will be raffling off an AR-15 rifle. Unfortunately, while you need not be present to win the drawing, you must purchase the tickets in person. Tickets can be picked up from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday in the MU quad. The drawing is set to be around 6 p.m. on Friday.
Other Second Amendment Week Events include a free gun safety course and Lars Larson broadcasting from the quad (in the words of their facebook group):
Free gun safety course for students on Wednesday at 7PM in Gilfillan Auditorium. Along with being very useful information, this course also meets state requirements to obtain a Concealed Handgun License (CHL).
Lars Larson will be broadcasting from the MU Quad on Friday between noon and 6PM.
Friday, March 18th, 2011
Oregon Concealed Handgun License holders may have further protections from public records requests, the Oregon State House of Representatives voted yesterday.
House Bill 2787, proposed by Reps. Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer, Newberg, St. Paul) and Jeff Barker (D-Aloha) by request of the Oregon State Sheriff’s Association, will only allow the names and registration information of CHL holders to be released for criminal justice purposes or pursuant to court order. The vote passed the Oregon House 42-18, with all but one of the nay votes from Democrats.
Under current law, a CHL holder’s application [link courtesy Oregonian] is open to public scrutiny. The application includes information on previous criminal activity, drug use and military history.
Some representatives are not pleased about the impending legislation, including our favorite Portland representative Mitch Greenlick. From the Oregonian:
Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, voted against the bill, saying later that he thought it too restrictive. The proposal allows disclosure only by court order, license holder consent, or for criminal justice purposes.
“Handguns are what people use to kill people. I want to make sure citizens have a right to know if there is a threat,” Greenlick said.
According to a press release from Rep. Thatcher, however, the bill has support from the Oregon State Sheriff’s Association, the Oregon Firearms Federation and the National Rifle Association’s Oregon consultant. And, you know, 42 of the 60 members of the Oregon House of Representatives, including 13 Democrats.
From Rep. Thatcher’s press release:
“The Oregon House has just taken the first step in protecting the safety and privacy of the Oregon men and women who hold Concealed Handgun Licenses,” note Rod Harder, National Rifle Association Oregon Consultant. “We sincerely hope that the Oregon Senate and the Governor will make the same commitment to our law abiding citizens.
Kevin Starrett, Executive Director of the Oregon Firearms Federation added, “while this is just a step towards correcting a serious breach of privacy for Oregon’s most law abiding gun owners, it is an important advance in the process.”
From here, the bill moves on to the Oregon Senate, where, if passed, must be signed into law by Governor Kitzhaber.
Here’s how the Eugene/Springfield Representatives voted:
Terry Beyer (D-Springfield 12): YES
Val Hoyle (D-Eugene 14): YES
Nancy Nathanson (D-Eugene 13): YES
Phil Barnhart (D-Eugene 11): NO
Paul Holvey (D-Eugene 8): NO