Medford Newspaper Sues To Get Names Of Gun Owners

[Winter wind]

Patriot Act

I'll look into the others later, but it is 2 in the morning over here and I'm going to bed, then I'll look..

The patriot act, i don't know if you've notice, is extremely unpopular, and has effectively killed Bush's presidency along with other maneuvers that have given the federal government too much power (with the war on terror as an excuse.)

[Osborn F Enready]

Winterwind said: I know someone who can make one. Not as good quality, but the effect is good enough.

BINGO...

So what good is outlawing something if they can be made at home?

This is why the world will NEVER be rid of firearms or weapons. People know how to make them, and will. Making them illegal is pointless.

Winterwind said: While it was all nonsense, you only take me out on one thing. the knife. The switch blade was outlawed because you could just pop it into someone with a button. I didn't say it made sense, I said there are regulations that I don't here you complaining about.

If you have time, I will give you a bried overview of the regulations I regularly complain about, and that nonsense regulation on switchblades is one of a long list.

Winterwind said: I know, i suck at this. But please explain another reason a flare gun is dangerous.

Flares are flammable, and have been known to cause fires by falling into high flammability areas.

YouTube - Flare Gun Fun

They are also as apt to be misused as any other object man has access to.

YouTube - guy shoots himself with flare gun

Inanimate objects are not inherantly dangerous. Users of objects can be.

[Osborn F Enready]

Winterwind said: I'll look into the others later, but it is 2 in the morning over here and I'm going to bed, then I'll look.. The patriot act, i don't know if you've notice, is extremely unpopular, and has effectively killed Bush's presidency along with other maneuvers that have given the federal government too much power (with the war on terror as an excuse.)

Bush is still in power, and the Patriot Act is still in effect except for some state examples.

[Winter wind]

BINGO... So what good is outlawing something if they can be made at home?

What he can't make is a grenade launcher. He said there are just a few too many parts.

Flares are flammable, and have been known to cause fires by falling into high flammability areas. They are also as apt to be misused as any other object man has access to. YouTube - guy shoots himself with flare gun Inanimate objects are not inherantly dangerous. Users of objects can be.

But as a weapon..?

Bush is still in power, and the Patriot Act is still in effect except for some state examples.

Bush is only in power in name. For all purposes he's lame duck, abandon by the people, his party, much of his white house is jumping ship, and congress. The Patriot act is going to be deemed unconstitutional eventually, I know segments have already been modified or dispelled. Or repealed, it's inevitable.

With that, I'm going to bed.

[Osborn F Enready]

Winterwind said: What he can't make is a grenade launcher. He said there are just a few too many parts.

I can, as can many people make simple machines like grenade launchers.

Winterwind said: But as a weapon..?

What CAN'T be used as a weapon?

Cotton balls could be used as a weapon, as can a piano wire, or a guitar string. Should we outlaw that too?

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Winter wind Numbers, Tonto. Please.

I don't know if I can come up with exact numbers. But, hopefully I can find a reference to the effort ... Here is an interesting editorial speaking directly to the subject. Right off-hand, I can't find a really good report on the specific item I mentioned previously. I'm working right now (on a Saturday morning ). Maybe I'll look again later.

Quote by: Winter wind Again, I'm willing to say you have a point worth exploring, but what about the question of an semi-auto weapon. Why do you need an uzi for defense?

Actually, auto-loading weapons (semi-auto) are pretty much the standard gun in the world. Some of them, your Uzi example is one, are made to look scarey, but the standard hunting rifle or shotgun is auto-loading.

My wife's little .45 is a semi-auto pistol, again, pretty standard stuff there. My sidearm of choice, however, is a revolver, I have 4 fewer rounds than my wife's .45 and 2 fewer rounds than my son's. I really hope to never have to use more than my 6 rounds in my .44mag at one time, though.

But, I can fire those six rounds in my revolver as quickly as my wife could fire six rounds through her semi-auto. The extra recoil of both the heavier round and the lack of an autoloading mechanism makes it a little bit harder to stay on target, though. But, I can put 23 out of 24 rounds into a 6 inch circle at 10 yards. (Don't know what happened to the one I got off, it was on the paper but not in the circle.)

But, don't let the mechanisms scare you. It really matters little if a weapon is auto-loading, bolt action, revolver, pump action, lever action, it makes little difference in actual operation. And, just because one looks scarey, and the other doesn't, doesn't change much, either.

I will say, I don't care for full auto. Not because I'm opposed to them on any principle, I just find that extremely rapid fire is highly inaccurate and wasteful of ammo. It's better to fire fewer rounds with more hits than to spray indiscriminately.

Keith

[Osborn F Enready]

Keith said: I will say, I don't care for full auto. Not because I'm opposed to them on any principle, I just find that extremely rapid fire is highly inaccurate and wasteful of ammo. It's better to fire fewer rounds with more hits than to spray indiscriminately.

I agree, but I would like to have a full-auto Mac-10 or Mac-11 with a suppressor for fun.

[Winter wind]

I can, as can many people make simple machines like grenade launchers.

You can make a grenade launcher? -_-'
Doesn't the grenade launcher i pointed out have all these bells and whistles?

I will say, I don't care for full auto. Not because I'm opposed to them on any principle, I just find that extremely rapid fire is highly inaccurate and wasteful of ammo. It's better to fire fewer rounds with more hits than to spray indiscriminately.

Actually, my problem with the uzi is it's deadliness in a crowd. A pistol seems to shoot less quickly then an uzi. Plus, an uzi has less defensive purpose, and much more offensive purpose, right? I mean a gun in the hand of a civilian in a crowded room is less effective then a pistol when taking down the bad guy. What it is good for is holding off several attackers or for drive-by-shooting when you don't care who gets hit.

What CAN'T be used as a weapon? Cotton balls could be used as a weapon, as can a piano wire, or a guitar string. Should we outlaw that too?

That wasn't the point. I said we shouldn't outlaw a flare gun because it isn't as dangerous as a gun and it's main purpose isn't as a harmful device. A grenade launcher is more likely to be used as an offensive weapon.

I agree, but I would like to have a full-auto Mac-10 or Mac-11 with a suppressor for fun.

The problem is allowing the public access to Mac-10s means that drive-by shootings are much more deadly and that police have to out number a man with a Mac-10 by some ridicules number before they can make a move. Wanting it for fun does not trump safety.

the number of people who defend themselves with a gun—somewhere between 80,000 and 2,000,000 each year

I have heard this stat been called completely untrue, but I'm looking for why right now. In the mean time, your average woman does not defend herself with a modified AK-47, not unless she's fighting off Turkish rebels.

[Winter wind]

Federal Reserve Act

The Federal Reserve Act created the Federal Reserve in 1913 to make a central banking system in the United States. Now, I'm crap at economics, but I think this was done to avoid the kind of thing that destroyed Mexico in the 1970s when a small group of foreign investors could hold the Mexican government in a headlock.

War and Emergency Powers Act

I'm not sure, but this was the act that declared a state of emergency in WWII. During war, the government has to centralize otherwise it's like trying to fight with a broken sword that has been duck-taped back together.

nor were they reversed even though there were MASS outpourings of public sentiment against them,

Proof?

Proof?

A flare gun isn't going to fling shrapnel in a blast that will blow someone to pieces.

Tossing things can be dangerous, and could cause you to throw your arm out of socket, and all things that are thrown are projectiles.... doesn't this deserve regulation under your theory of logic?

Yah, the risk of throwing your arm out is definitely the same as getting blown to pieces.

So you are saying guns should be removed from the planet? How do you propose this?

Start by making certain guns (like grenade launchers and uzis) illegal and possessions or selling any will land you in prison. Wait for circulation to die down then move on to the next set of guns.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Winter wind Actually, my problem with the uzi is it's deadliness in a crowd. A pistol seems to shoot less quickly then an uzi. Plus, an uzi has less defensive purpose, and much more offensive purpose, right? I mean a gun in the hand of a civilian in a crowded room is less effective then a pistol when taking down the bad guy. What it is good for is holding off several attackers or for drive-by-shooting when you don't care who gets hit.

That wasn't what you said the first time, though, you questioned whether semi-auto weapons should be allowed. It is this type of uneducated overgeneralization that gets so much flack from those of us who do know what we're talking about when it comes to firearms.

You are probably correct that a sub-machine gun like an Uzi, even in semi-auto mode, rather than full auto, can spray more lead into the air in a given period of time than a .45 pistol. However, those rounds will not be well aimed and are quite unlikely to kill for the number fired. A .45 pistol, in close quarters in the hands of skilled shooter can be much more deadly. But, that same .45 has much more application for personal defense.

For indiscrimate killing, however, explosives are much, much more effective than either. And one can make many quite powerful explosives using common household and industrial chemicals. Would you propose that we cripple industry in this country further by outlawing any chemicals that might be used for explosives?

Ultimately, that's really what it comes down to. What should the government regulate and control? Perhaps you have a point that there is very limited practical use for an Uzi or Thompson sub-machine gun. However, by giving the government the ability to outlaw those weapons, you are basically saying they can pick and choose what they can and can't control, themselves. And government is notorious for overstepping their bounds, especially when most people who are asking for them to enact such controls use such blanket terms as "semi-automatic" which covers not only those less useful weapons, but most weapons in the country today.

We have accepted, to a limited degree (and quite possibly wrongly, in my opinion), that the government can control full-auto weapons. One reasoning for this is that many, if not most, full-auto weapons are crew-served weapons, not individual defense weapons. And, as I've stated previously, full-auto does have limited use for personal defense because of the inaccuracy of full-auto firing. However, even that is, to sue a phrase recently used elsewhere in these forums, the camel's nose in the tent. We have seen clear evidence that allowing these types of control for full-auto weapons has been used as part of the justification for controlling all defensive weapons.

Quote by: Winter wind That wasn't the point. I said we shouldn't outlaw a flare gun because it isn't as dangerous as a gun and it's main purpose isn't as a harmful device. A grenade launcher is more likely to be used as an offensive weapon. The problem is allowing the public access to Mac-10s means that drive-by shootings are much more deadly and that police have to out number a man with a Mac-10 by some ridicules number before they can make a move. Wanting it for fun does not trump safety. I have heard this stat been called completely untrue, but I'm looking for why right now. In the mean time, your average woman does not defend herself with a modified AK-47, not unless she's fighting off Turkish rebels.

OK. I know this is largely a repeat of what is above, but, it definitely applies.

In semi-auto mode (and most all Mac-10s and AK-47s sold in the US only operate in semi-auto mode) these guns are actually piss-poor for real defense. However, how do you allow a government that will always overstep what it should be doing to draw this line? Especially when people like you are lumping all semi-auto weapons into the same category?

I like my AK, and, if we were to ever have collectivist riots as have occurred elsewhere in this country (race, welfare, poverty, whatever), I would be very glad to have it in my lap while I'm sitting in my living room. And, as a member of the militia (technically, I won't be next year, I'll be too old according to the current law, but that age limit is definitely outdated. 200 years ago, 45 might have been the upper limit as to what would be an effective fighting person. That part definitely no longer applies and should be updated to at least 65 years old) it is important to me to maintain my skills in the weapon I've chosen for that purpose. We don't ask our military to practice with .22 rifles before going into battle, they practice with their M-16s. For cost purposes I do put a lot more rounds through my .22s (both revolver and rifle), but, every time I go to the range I do put a couple hundred rounds through the AK and .44, just to stay in practice.

While the submachine guns you mentioned to have a legitimate defensive purpose, fighting in tight hallways, trenches and bunkers, that same purpose can make them undesireable for use by the average American. But, how do you draw the line that disallows that specific weapon while making sure that legitimate weapons are not restricted?

I don't see any way you can trust the government to do so.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Winter wind Start by making certain guns (like grenade launchers and uzis) illegal and possessions or selling any will land you in prison. Wait for circulation to die down then move on to the next set of guns.

Well, I guess this answers most all of my post above. I guess I should have known this would be your position from your previous posts, but I had kinda hoped we had managed to get you to think that there is a legitimate use for guns outside of the hands of the police and the military.

I guess we need to work on that some more.

Just remember that, "when guns are outlawed only the government will have guns" is pretty much the same as the original phrasing of that sentiment.

Keith

[Winter wind]

That wasn't what you said the first time, though, you questioned whether semi-auto weapons should be allowed. It is this type of uneducated overgeneralization that gets so much flack from those of us who do know what we're talking about when it comes to firearms.

Like I said, I'm bad with guns. I meant the one that fires bullets one after the other and can be sprayed in an arc. The kind you see in a drive by. I don't know what their called, but I do know what they sound like (in real life. Saw two drive by shootings, both had that kind of gun)

For indiscrimate killing, however, explosives are much, much more effective than either. And one can make many quite powerful explosives using common household and industrial chemicals. Would you propose that we cripple industry in this country further by outlawing any chemicals that might be used for explosives?

No, just make it that much harder to get. (check out the columbine shootings and how many of the explosives went off).

Ultimately, that's really what it comes down to. What should the government regulate and control? Perhaps you have a point that there is very limited practical use for an Uzi or Thompson sub-machine gun. However, by giving the government the ability to outlaw those weapons, you are basically saying they can pick and choose what they can and can't control, themselves. And government is notorious for overstepping their bounds, especially when most people who are asking for them to enact such controls use such blanket terms as "semi-automatic" which covers not only those less useful weapons, but most weapons in the country today.

So you rather err on this side then the other? I donno. I think that the government can be a tool of good rather then a necessary evil. Government got rid of slavery and segregation over the strong objections of the civilian. Government controls firemen and police force. Also the government is the only thing that can have foreign relations.

I like my AK, and, if we were to ever have collectivist riots as have occurred elsewhere in this country (race, welfare, poverty, whatever), I would be very glad to have it in my lap while I'm sitting in my living room.

Heh, I would just skip town. The AK would draw too much unwanted attention from rioters.

Plus you seem to think that being armed will be any help if the government really decides to take out a person. I mean, you're Mac-10, isn't going to be much help against the 10th armored division. or if 82nd airborn decides to carpet bomb your hometown. What would be much more effective would be the peaceful protest as led by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Fighting back makes it look like a fight. Civil disobedience makes it look like opression. Which means more inside and outside support. The gun isn't as powerful as public opinion.

but I had kinda hoped we had managed to get you to think that there is a legitimate use for guns outside of the hands of the police and the military.

I think that there is a strong chance that a simple handgun isn't a crap idea. That it could be useful. But not being an expert, I don't know. What I am against are the grenade launchers and the uzis, that seem to have little defensive purpose.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Winter wind Like I said, I'm bad with guns. I meant the one that fires bullets one after the other and can be sprayed in an arc. The kind you see in a drive by. I don't know what their called, but I do know what they sound like (in real life. Saw two drive by shootings, both had that kind of gun)

That would be an automatic firearm, otherwise known as "full-auto", as opposed to a semi-automatic firarm. An automatic firearm fires multiple times with a single pull of the trigger. The firing often sounds like a buzz, if the rate of fire is high enough. A semi-auto weapon requires a single pull of the trigger to fire a single round. Unless someone is seriously practiced with this type of weapon you will always hear a bang - bang - bang, clearly individual shots.

In general, full auto weapons are illegal without going through specific steps. Those steps aren't particularly onerous, but it is unlikely that your average criminal will even bother.

But, full-auto weapons are really quite useless for actuall killing except in very close quarters. They bounce around a lot and are very difficult to keep on target. They are primarily used by the military to spray a lot of bullets around to keep an enemy from raising their heads to fire back. For close quarters work a submachine gun, like a full auto Uzi, Mac-10 or Thompson, can be used to fill an entire halway with bullets and can be very effective. These same guns in an open space miss a lot more than they hit. And, even in those hallways, a semi-auto or pump shotgun can be much more effective.

So, a semi-auto or pump shotgun can be more deadly than a full-auto submachine gun. Does that mean we should outlaw bothe submachine guns and the shotguns? You would have a hell of a fight on your hand if you were to outlaw shotguns. They are heavily used for hunting, both small and big game (shotshells for birds, slugs and buckshot for deer). They also are very effective for home defense while not being a good offensive weapon for shooting up schools and the like. (But, of course, no one in a school will be armed, so anything will ultimately work in shooting up a school. Why do you think so many of these killings happen in schools?)

You would be far better served to stick with your "all guns are evil and all guns should be outlawed" than to try to make arguments regarding a subject you, self admittedly, know little about. I still won't respect that argument but you may be more effective.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Winter wind No, just make it that much harder to get. (check out the columbine shootings and how many of the explosives went off).

Columbine was a cluster-f*ck that was largely due to government incompetence. The police sat outside while a couple of kids went through the entire school doing what they wanted. And were guaranteed to face no opposition since it is illegal for anyone to have guns in a school. You want to see some real disasters, make it illegal for anyone other than criminals to have guns anywhere.

As to the explosives, these guys weren't mental giants. They hadn't even completed a government high school course of education and I can guarantee they didn't pay any more attention in their science classes than absolutely necessary. Let's see what happens if anyone with a college degree in a hard science ever decides to try to complete a similar act.

Quote by: Winter wind So you rather err on this side then the other? I donno. I think that the government can be a tool of good rather then a necessary evil. Government got rid of slavery and segregation over the strong objections of the civilian. Government controls firemen and police force. Also the government is the only thing that can have foreign relations.

Government implemented segregation and endorsed slavery. Just because they changed their mind doesn't suddenly make them a tool for good.

Government controlling the police doesn't give me a warm-fuzzy. And, there are plenty of places where the government doesn't control the firearm, there do exist private and volunteer fire departments, government isn't necessary for that.

And, are you trying to tell me that General Motors, Toyota, Haliburton, Exxon, etc don't have any foreign relations. And, what justifies the government taking money, by force (all taxation is backed with the threat or use of force), from American Islamists and sending that money to Isreal? Or, Irish Americans and sending troops to support the British?

Just because the government has taken it upon themselves to control foreign relations doesn't justify to me that such is right or absolutely necessary.

Quote by: Winter wind Heh, I would just skip town. The AK would draw too much unwanted attention from rioters. Plus you seem to think that being armed will be any help if the government really decides to take out a person. I mean, you're Mac-10, isn't going to be much help against the 10th armored division. or if 82nd airborn decides to carpet bomb your hometown. What would be much more effective would be the peaceful protest as led by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Fighting back makes it look like a fight. Civil disobedience makes it look like opression. Which means more inside and outside support. The gun isn't as powerful as public opinion.

I'm not saying I'm going to hunt down rioters, or even make myself obvious. I plan to lay low but have something in case things go bad for me. In the riots following the Rodney King decision in the '90s, the people in the inner city that managed with minor problems were armed Korean shopkeepers. Those that weren't armed had their stores looted and destroyed. Those that were armed mostly came through unscathed. Not because they killed anyone, but, even rioters will tend to stay away from a person defending their property with a firearm.

As to the might of the American military, we have plenty of examples to disprove your point. Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan.

Keith

[Winter wind]

That would be an automatic firearm, otherwise known as "full-auto", as opposed to a semi-automatic firarm. An automatic firearm fires multiple times with a single pull of the trigger. The firing often sounds like a buzz, if the rate of fire is high enough. A semi-auto weapon requires a single pull of the trigger to fire a single round. Unless someone is seriously practiced with this type of weapon you will always hear a bang - bang - bang, clearly individual shots.

The ones i heard were bursts. Like pulling the trigger fired three shots or something. Maybe they were just sporadic with the trigger.

So, a semi-auto or pump shotgun can be more deadly than a full-auto submachine gun. Does that mean we should outlaw bothe submachine guns and the shotguns? You would have a hell of a fight on your hand if you were to outlaw shotguns. They are heavily used for hunting, both small and big game (shotshells for birds, slugs and buckshot for deer). They also are very effective for home defense while not being a good offensive weapon for shooting up schools and the like. (But, of course, no one in a school will be armed, so anything will ultimately work in shooting up a school. Why do you think so many of these killings happen in schools?)

Again it isn't the trained professionals I worry about. You sound like you practice a lot with guns therefore you are somewhat of an expert. However, if someone like me just picks up a gun. I'm going to be more dangerous with an uzi then a shotgun. That's how my logic goes with gun control. It is the gangs and the nuts that don't go through the trouble of training and just shoot the gun.

You would be far better served to stick with your "all guns are evil and all guns should be outlawed" than to try to make arguments regarding a subject you, self admittedly, know little about. I still won't respect that argument but you may be more effective.

But then I wouldn't be arguing what I think. I don't know a lot about guns, ergo my goal is more learning then converting. Right now, I think there is a fair point on both sides. Since I normally hear the "all guns are evil" argument, I'm trying to understand the other side. So I'm trying to learn more before coming to a proper conclusion. I don't think all guns should be outlaw, I say it works in other countries, but I don't know if that's good or not. I'm just trying to learn.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Winter wind I think that there is a strong chance that a simple handgun isn't a crap idea. That it could be useful. But not being an expert, I don't know. What I am against are the grenade launchers and the uzis, that seem to have little defensive purpose.

I would tend to not agree with you on this subject, but it is a somewhat defensible position. In order to argue this point, hoever, you need to have more knowledge on the subject and come up with a way to make absolutely certain that the items you wish to restrict are the appropriate ones to restrict and have a clear plan for limiting those restrictions to ONLY those items you feel don't have a "defensive" purpose.

I can come up with VERY good arguments for the, so-called, semi-automatic "assult weapon", virtually any sidearm, rifles, including "sniper rifles", and shotguns. Both for personal defense and sporting purposes for all.

Admittedly, full-auto weapons, other than an all out battle, have very limited use other than personal enjoyment. But, if you accept that the purpose of the second amendment is to defend us from tyrannical government or invasion, then we have to face the possibility of "all out battle".

You do realize, don't you, that those cannons in the town squares in any state more than 150 years old were once there for an actual defensive purpose and owned by the citizens of that town. It is exactly such a cannon that the Battle of Lexington-Concord was fought over, and the American Revolution was started for. The second amendment wasn't written for duck hunting, or personal defense, alone. It was intended to cover much more significant weaponry than our government today would ever consider.

I'm just arguing about personal weapons at this time, however. You can't eat an elephant in a single bite.

Keith

[Osborn F Enready]

Not to sound sarcastic or insulting, I think you should do some studying about what you are arguing for or against Winterwind.

You obviously don't know much about firearms, so how can you even weigh the issue with objectivity?

[The Decider]

Here's the Medford Mail Tribune's side of the story, unfiltered by the selective quotes in the OP:

Sometimes, we make the news

Keeping public records public is part of a newspaper's job

October 21, 2007

We wound up being in the news instead of reporting it last week when it was announced that the Mail Tribune had gone to court to get Sheriff Mike Winters to release a public record — the list of concealed weapons permit holders in Jackson County. It's not a place we find particularly comfortable, but it is a place we are willing to go when we think the public's right to an open government is threatened.

Oregon has a long record of openness and very specific laws on the requirements for keeping public records and public meetings open to the public. There are exemptions to those requirements, to be sure, exemptions that include everything from unfair labor practices complaints to information about archaeological sites.

There are exemptions for student records, documents relating to the transportation of radioactive material, public utility customer information, individuals' library records, medical records related to Oregon Health Sciences University and on and on.

But nowhere is there an exemption listed for concealed weapons permits.

The issue arose when we asked the sheriff to confirm whether South Medford High School teacher Shirley Katz had a permit. He denied our request and later denied our request for the entire list.

We do not intend to publish the names of permit holders, but do hope to discover how many teachers hold similar permits. But that story has taken a back seat in this case to the importance of keeping public records public.

Some people have told us they don't believe the permits should be public record. We think there is a good argument to be made for why the records should remain public, but in truth what we think, what other people think and what Sheriff Winters thinks is beside the point. No individual, elected or otherwise, and no organization, media or otherwise, determines what is a public record. That's up to the law and up to the Legislature.

If Sheriff Winters and those who agree with him think concealed weapons permits should not be public record, they should try to get the law changed. But no one, and certainly no law enforcement officer, should choose to enforce only the parts of the law that he agrees with.

If public officials are allowed to withdraw from the public record the portions that they would like to keep secret, there would be precious little left for the public to see. Every time a public record is removed from view, government is granted a little more power while the governed lose a little more.

Some people want to turn this into a debate about gun rights. That has nothing to do with it and we do not dispute the rights of people to own guns or to have concealed weapons permits. That is the law of the land.

But it is also the law of the land that public records belong to the public and not to public officials. It is up to the public and, yes, sometimes the media, to ensure that law is upheld.

MailTribune.com: Sometimes, we make the news


Several points:

1) The newspaper wants the information because of a loophole in Oregon law that allows teachers with concealed handgun permits to carry guns in public schools. Oregonians should know about this fact and parents should know that some teachers may be armed without anybody's knowledge. Oregonians, through their legislature, can then decide if they want to leave the loophole in tact of close it for good.

2) The newspaper rejects the police depart