Posted on 02/12/2009 8:50:52 AM PST by goodnesswins
More power to him. I hope he wins big.
But you can train to be a jihadi!
"Jihadists" living in Oregon, FBI says
PORTLAND — The FBI knows of "jihadists" who have trained in terrorist camps in Afghanistan and are now living in Oregon, the agency's Oregon chief said in an interview with The Associated Press yesterday. "We don't have an imminent threat that we're aware of..."
LINK: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002160869_fbi26m.html
Possession or use of firearms, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or other dangerous weapons or instrumentalities on institutionally owned or controlled property, unless expressly authorized by law
Oregon Revised Statute 166.262:
166.262 Limitation on peace officer’s authority to arrest for violating ORS 166.250 or 166.370. A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating ORS 166.250 (1)(a) or (b) or 166.370 (1) if the person has in the person’s immediate possession a valid license to carry a firearm as provided in ORS 166.291 and 166.292. [1999 c.1040 §5]
Oregon Revised Statute 166.370:
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:
.......
(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.
___________________________________________________________
(4) “Public building” means a hospital, a capitol building, a public or private school, as defined in ORS 339.315, a college or university, a city hall or the residence of any state official elected by the state at large, and the grounds adjacent to each such building. The term also includes that portion of any other building occupied by an agency of the state or a municipal corporation, as defined in ORS 297.405, other than a court facility.
Which is more dangerous to America....... an Oregonian Jihadist or an Oregonian moonbat?
I have a greater fear of the moonbat
Yeah...from 2005....bet they’re WATCHING them....
Just gotta love the bio underneath Moser’s on that CSSA blog you provided the URL for.
Sheesh.
“Higher Education”?
“The School can kick him out based on their rules, it is not public property, it is private
“
It appears to me that the school is a public institution, part of the State of Oregon. Therefore, anything it does is “state action” under the Constitution, which opens it to attack. Punishment for commission of a non-offense sounds like a due process violation to me.
Maybe he should transfer to VT.
When the Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act (Shall Issue) passed in 2003, here is exactly what my Sheriff had to say about people in my county applying for permits.....
“They’re soft white guys,” he said. “They look in the mirror and see they’re out of shape and think they need a gun to protect themselves. But they’re living in an area where they have nothing to fear.”
Incorrect - they are a public institution, and Oregon revised statutes do allow a person with a concealed carry permit to carry their firearm in public buildings - exception being courthouses and airports.
The police had initially arrested him without charging him, them they changed that to “carrying a concealed weapon in a public building” - but they failed to fully read and appreciate all of the lawful exceptions to the statute - including “current or former members of the armed forces in good standing”, police officers, those directed by the police to assist them under emergent circumstances, and carriers of legal concealed weapons permits.
When the D.A. read the statute, he realized that any “charging instrument” would be fatally flawed on its face, therefore he had to drop all charges - otherwise he and his office would be the subjects of a very actionable complaint and perhaps even a subsequent civil suit.
Right now, the University is in a position of vulnerability to such a suit, albeit for somewhat different reasons.
A.A.C.
Oh my goodness! He murdered those poor innocent water kittens!
wrong as a public institution receiving public tax funding they are subject to the US Constitution, the Constitution of the state of Oregon, and the Oregon Revised Statutes
Those three effectively trump the policies of the President of the University. The Marine has a good case. I spoke with my own attorney today (he is a member in good standing of the Oregon State Bar Association for more than 38 years) and he would LOVE to represent this Marine.
A.A.C.
Miss Huggins’ article demonstrates EXACTLY what is wrong on so many levels with modern US universities, and what passes for the education offered at them.
Her journalistic work is absolutely shoddy (did not know the fullness of the applicable Oregon Revised Statute and how it trumps school “policy”), shallow (it does not entirely match the story given by the Monmouth police officers), and incomplete - besides being alarmist in the nature of the slant as she closes with two quotes from nervous and fearful skulls-full-of-mush, and nothing to counterbalance those ludicrous impressions.
If a crazed student went wild with weapons such as happened at VA Tech, US Marine Maxwell would likely not think twice about acting with disregard for his own safety to save the lives of teachers, administrators, and fellow students.
This whole episode makes my stomach turn - just like “Senior Alicia St Germaine” but for entirely different reasons...
A.A.C.
Happily, sorry, but Yes - read post 42 - or any of mine on this thread.
This is exactly why I instruct my students for the FL ccw permit that concealed means exactly that! If they're walking around and the cover garment gets blown up by a gust of wind and some little kid catches a glimpse of the gun, all he has to do is trot over to the nearest cop and WAIL: That man has a GUN and I'm scared! The charge will be illicit display. You could have your permit yanked. WHY on earth keep a pocket knife in your back pocket? Kinda uncomfortable to sit on, I would think. I keep mine in a front pocket for easy and fast deployment. Plus, nobody knows. I'm just as careful with my concealment of a firearm.
This release http://media.katu.com/documents/OFF_press_release.pdf seems to bear that out.
note the quote from State Rep. Kim Thatcher
I'm currently unemployed, but will gladly scrape up some of what I have to send along for this purpose. I'm also not a Marine, but Air Force, and I think in this case, I could be considered “amicus curiae.”
Let me know when you have someplace to send the money.
WRM, MSgt, USAF(Ret.)
After a battle stretching back to 2004, the Port of Portland has finally rescinded its illegal ordinance against CHL holders at the Portland Airport.
As you may know, since 1996, the Port had a regulation forbidding persons with concealed handgun licenses from being in the Portland Airport. There was one small problem. The ordinance was unlawful.
Needless to say, the Port and their lawyers did everything they could to justify this violation of the law. Their bizarre interpretations of the law would have made a contortionist jealous. But they were wrong.
In 2005 and again in 2007, OFF members, through their unending activism, blocked a bill that would have expanded the police powers of the Port of Portland Police.
After the second legislative session where their plans were halted because of their refusal to obey the law, they finally got the message, and while it took far longer than it should have, the Port rescinded their bogus rule. The new rule took effect last month. CHL holders are no longer subject to specious and arbitrary arrest for doing something that is perfectly legal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
