Schools Enlist Parents to Improve Students’ Readiness Every Day
Educators are finding that kids aren’t coming to school prepared to learn because they are... Read More
Oregon to Rethink College Campus Gun Ban
The Oregon state Board of Higher Education is set to rethink its policies on gun control in an attempt to keep firearms off public university campuses.
The Oregon Board of Higher Education is set to partner up with state Legislature to pursue a new option for keeping guns off the campuses of the state’s seven public universities.
This week Democrat Senators passed on a vote to revive the campus weapons ban to the full state Senate.
The Senate Rules Committee also approved a separate measure sought by gun-rights proponents that would protect the identity of people with a license to carry a concealed weapon, writes the Associated Press.
While the Oregon Court of Appeals rejected a rule against guns on campus last fall, the court also said the Board of Higher Education has authority to control its property. Therefore, the board is expected to approve a requirement that people who have a reason to be on a campus agree not to carry a gun.
This rule would apply to all students, professors, employees, contractors and visitors on campus – while the police, military programs such as the Reserve Officer Training Corps, residents in non-campus housing, and hunting or target shooting clubs are except.
Higher Education board member Jim Francesconi said:
“There is strong support for this policy on the board.
“We believe this complies with the court decision.”
Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Education Foundation, says that he isn’t surprised to hear of the ban. However, before taking legal action the foundation will see how the policy is enacted.
He said he hopes students challenge the policy by choosing to attend school where guns are allowed, citing campus dangers such as rapes and shootings, writes the AP.
While 25 states have ruled to allow each college to make its own rule on guns, another 22 states, including California, ban concealed weapons on all campuses.
Proponents say that the appeals court ruling to allow the protection of the names of people who carry a concealed weapon is a victory for people who want to see individual gun-owning privacy maintained.
Recent News
John Jensen: De-fogging High Stakes Testing, Part 1
by John Jensen, PhD The debate over high-stakes testing pits the need for assessing student... Read More
Denver Dumps 250 Non-Tenured Teachers, Public Reacts1
Teachers and parents spoke out at the Denver Public Schools board meeting about the... Read More
Popular News
Number of Homeschoolers Growing Nationwide 50
Researchers are expecting a surge in the number of students educated at home by their parents over... Read More
James Shuls: Why We Need School Choice 26
The Pedagogical Agenda of Common Core Math Standards 23
Career Index
Plan your career as an educator using our free online datacase of useful information.
- Select a City Subject
- Business Administration Schools in Cleveland
- Business Administration Schools in Collegedale
- Business Administration Schools in Columbia
- Business Administration Schools in Dayton
- Business Administration Schools in Franklin
- Business Administration Schools in Gallatin
- Business Administration Schools in Harriman
- Business Administration Schools in Henderson
- Business Administration Schools in Jackson
- Business Administration Schools in Johnson City
- Business Administration Schools in Lebanon
- Business Administration Schools in Martin
- Business Administration Schools in McKenzie
- Business Administration Schools in Memphis
- Business Administration Schools in Morristown
- Business Administration Schools in Nashville
Comments
I think I’d be more supportive of widespread gun ownership if they amended the famous “An armed society is a polite society,” saying to include “a society with strong gun liability laws is a society where gun owners are more responsible.” If anyone does mischief with a gun, the owner should have to prove that he or she was responsible with storage and maintenance or take on some of the liability for the damage.
It’s pointless to argue with Americans about gun ownership because….well it just is. But can someone explain the point of concealed carry? Even if you read the Constitution to allow the ownership of weapons, surely there’s nothing in the Second Amendment that says concealing it is allowed. Open carry or nothing.
I’m assuming you’re asking in good faith, so I will attempt to answer likewise. There is nothing in the Constitution about concealed-carry vs open-carry, but what is in the Constitution is that the right of people to bear arms can not be infringed. Meaning, the government doesn’t have the right to mandate open-carry if the person wants to carry concealed.
The government does have the right to mandate rules that cater to the good of society
in public situations there should be very strict rules about posession of dangerous firearms, since that is a situation with groups of people, with differing opinions. in that time and place the good of the group outweighs the rights of the individual.
the government should not attempt to control the right of an individual to own a weapon, only how they can engage that weapon in public.
how they control that is a topic that should be up for debate.
If that is what you really believe, than I suggest you get a movement together to pass a Constitutional amendment to that effect. Otherwise, you’re screaming into the wind, or just trying to pick fights with the Constitution, take your pick.
so you trust every individual with a gun to behave appropriately in a group?
and if they don’t then what? you will have a personal gun fight to settle it?
i thought we lived in a society.
the constitution gives you the right to own weapons, but not trapse around in mixed company with them
TT, I am a supporter of gun support and of course I don’t trust everyone with a gun to do the right thing. I keep reading about guns going off or being taken to school and so on. However, Joe is right in this. The courts have chosen to interpret the Second Amendment as an actual right for individuals to carry weapons and if that is so, the right of them to do so may not be infringed. I think most gun control laws are on very shaky constitutional ground. So any person who wants strong gun control, their only option is to lobby for an Amendment.
I really hope you’re not a teacher. It’s traipse. Also your interpretation of the Second Amendment leads me to believe you’ve never read it. Or the rest of the Constitution, for that matter. What part of “right of the people to keep and bear arms” says anything about the company those arms keep?
Come now, Bob. Let’s not niggle with spelling corrections. People like to claim that the provision for private ownership of guns is clear as water when it very much isn’t. The text in question is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Now, the courts have chosen to focus on the second clause of that sentence, but for a while it was actually thought that the meaning of this is people may keep and bear arms only in the context of participating in the “well-regulated militia.” So if you think the Constitution is unambiguous in this, you’d be wrong. It’s not impossible to think that sometime in the future, we’ll go back to the other interpretation and since we don’t actually have well-regulated militias in this country, civilians will lose the right to own weapons.
It also doesn’t say a well regulated militia is an army or even an organized body. Perhaps a militia is an armed public that keeps its government from further stepping over its line?
Militias had a very specific meaning at that time. Basically, they mean a body like the National Guard. They definitely didn’t mean an armed public or they wouldn’t have described it as “well-regulated.”
This is what always bugged me about the anti-gun and pro-gun zealots both. The Amendment is about two lines long and yet they still manage to be blind to the parts that they disagree with. Mike sees “militia” and “not be infringed” and sails right past the “well-regulated.” The gun opponents see “well regulated” but ignore everything that comes after.
So Jenn, the answer is??? Well regulated (which is in my first post hardly skipped right over) may simply mean enforcing laws that are already on the book. Do bad, get punished. I teach in a school that is, if you allow nothing then nothing bad can happen. Let me tell you nothing good can happen either. Wasn’t the first VT shooter stopped by armed students?
I’ve just been catching up on news from yesterday and I read about the shooting of the Florida principal. Oh no.
Bob. Let’s not niggle with spelling corrections. People like to claim that the provision for private ownership of guns is clear as water when it very much isn’t. The text in question is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
http://www.militaryfrontier.info/
[...] Proponents say that the appeals court controlling to allow the protection of the names of folks who carry a concealed weapon is a victory for people who want to call on individual gun-owning privacy maintained.Source [...]