Medford Newspaper Sues To Get Names Of Gun Owners

[brien]

The law is not meant to arm teachers in classrooms without the knowledge of parents and school authorities.

Does the law in Oregon mention this about teachers? If so where? Perhaps you can show us what the law means through interpretation by the courts rather than your opinion.

Parents have the right to know if their childrens' classrooms have weapons concealed within them

.

Where in the Oregon law is this enumerated?

[The Decider]

Quote by: brien Does the law in Oregon mention this about teachers? If so where? Perhaps you can show us what the law means through interpretation by the courts rather than your opinion.

Well, since you gave no court citations in your last post, I thought it wasn't necessary.

In any case, I wasn't referring to Oregon since the loophole makes gun concealment legal. I was referring to most other states, including Connecticut, where, to my knowledge, teachers can't carry firearms without the school's and parent's knowledge.

[brien]

In any case, I wasn't referring to Oregon

Since the thread is about Oregon, I think it is relevant. I don't know the Oregon law, and since you hinted in your statement that you did, I merely would like to see what you have posted supported by the law in Oregon.

So, I will ask again, can you support your two statements in your previous post with facts from the Oregon Law?

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: The Decider The law mandates concealment from sight. It doesn't want people brandishing firearms in holsters like the Wild West. The law is not meant to arm teachers in classrooms without the knowledge of parents and school authorities. Parents have the right to know if their childrens' classrooms have weapons concealed within them. They can then decide if they want their children in that environment. Moreover, the permit holder's right to a concealed firearm does not supercede the employer's right to make rules on its property. When both rights conflict, a court must decide which one to invoke. Thus, the newspaper was correct in seeking legal clarification. And I have no doubt that the Oregon legislature will take a closer look at the loophole also.

First, the "Wild West" was much more civilized than today. When people could carry firearms openly and without restirction, murders and assaults were front page news in the mid to late 1800's, even in relatively large cities such as Denver. Today, a murder with no other significant factors might make it on page 3.

As to the right to make rules on one's own property, or, in this case, as has been brought up in discussion, on public school grounds, it seems to me that generally the more restrictive law, or possibly, the earliest implemented wins, unless there is a specific exemption in the law. If it is illegal to carry on school grounds, unless the concealed carry law specifically addresses the issue of teachers carrying on school grounds, I would expect it would not be allowed. If the concealed carry law does not specifically address the issue, it would appear that the legislature, unless they specifically said the public has a right to know, would have felt that no one but the person carrying has the right to know.

Admittedly, in the case of private employer rights (as opposed to public employers such as schools), courts in different states have made differing rulings. Which, you are correct, puts the whole issue back into the courts.

However, that issue, in the courts, does not fall into an issue between the employee and a third party, such as a newspaper, but is an issue between the employee and the employer. Or, in the case of a private school, it could fall into an issue between the employee and the customer, the students or their parents.

Nowhere does this issue come into contention between the person with the permit and a newspaper.

Keith

[The Decider]

Quote by: brien Since the thread is about Oregon, I think it is relevant. I don't know the Oregon law, and since you hinted in your statement that you did, I merely would like to see what you have posted supported by the law in Oregon.

I only know that a loophole exists in Oregon law--no more.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger First, the "Wild West" was much more civilized than today. When people could carry firearms openly and without restirction, murders and assaults were front page news in the mid to late 1800's, even in relatively large cities such as Denver. Today, a murder with no other significant factors might make it on page 3.

Whether or not the Wild West was the historical Shangri-La you claim is not the issue. Conceal laws are designed to keep weapons out of view, not to protect the gun owner's identity. Such laws consider open brandishment of handguns by non-law enforcement individuals a threat to public safety. Debate over the Wild West deserves another thread.

Quote by: Keith Hamburger However, that issue, in the courts, does not fall into an issue between the employee and a third party, such as a newspaper, but is an issue between the employee and the employer. Or, in the case of a private school, it could fall into an issue between the employee and the customer, the students or their parents. Nowhere does this issue come into contention between the person with the permit and a newspaper.

Had you bothered to read the newspaper's editorial that I posted, you would know that the issue is NOT the right of the teacher to carry a gun or not. The editorial stated at length its reason for challenging the Medford police department's refusal to release the concealed firearm permits--Oregon law doesn't permit the police department to make such a decision. According to Oregon law any refusal to release public information must have a legal exception attached by the Oregon legislature. Thus in Oregon public health records can't be released by law. But voting records can. The newspaper argues that until the legislature explicitly exempts concealed arms permits in the law they are not protected. Please read the editorial before responding again.