Katz argued that the statute’s first section should be read independently of the second, but the court rejected that position, explaining that the statute’s sections must be read together, as the second implements the first. The court assumed that the statute applies to school districts, but did not decide that question. After closely examining the statutory language and dictionary definitions of “ordinance,” and comparing the language to other Oregon statutes that refer to both “ordinance” and “policy,” the court held that ORS 166.170 does not apply to the school board policy. Therefore, the court held that the school board policy prohibiting employees from carrying guns on campus does not violate the statute and can be enforced against Katz.

Ceasefire Oregon applauds the court’s decision. Teachers with loaded handguns in classrooms put students in extremely dangerous situations. Many school districts throughout Oregon prohibit teachers from carrying guns because they have determined that kids are safest when teachers do not have guns on campus. The court correctly found that such policies do not violate state law.

Katz’s attorney has said that the case will be appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals. The Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF), which, according to the Oregonian, has paid Katz’s legal bills to date, will likely finance the appeal. The Oregon School Boards Association, which drafted the sample policy used by many school districts, supports the Medford School District.

It is possible, of course, that OFF (self-described as “Oregon’s only no compromise lobbying group”) and other extremist elements of the gun lobby in Oregon will introduce a bill in the Oregon legislature to force school districts to allow employees to carry loaded handguns in schools. If you would like to be notified if such a bill is introduced, so you can effectively voice your objections, send your name and email address to Ceasefire Oregon at info@ceasefireoregon.org. Click here to do that now.

 

Ceasefire Oregon works to reduce gun violence by advocating reasonable, effective gun safety laws. We educate the public and legislators about gun violence, lobby on behalf of bills that will help make our communities safer, and work to prevent the passage of irresponsible bills proposed by the gun lobby.


School District Can Prohibit
Employees' Guns at School

The Jackson County Circuit Court ruled on November 9, 2007, that the Medford School District can prohibit its employees from bringing guns onto school property. The court held that Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 166.170 does not preclude the school district from enforcing its employment policy concerning guns.

The Medford School District’s policy, like the policy in many Oregon school districts, “prohibits employees, district contractors and/or their employees and district volunteers from possessing dangerous or deadly weapons or firearms on District property or at school sponsored events.” (Quotation is from the court’s order.)

Shirley Katz, a teacher at South Medford High School and a member of the National Rifle Association, has a concealed handgun license, as do over 93,400 other Oregonians (number as of January 2007). Katz sued the school district, claiming that she had a right to carry her concealed handgun on campus and that she intended to do so. She asserted that the school district’s policy violated ORS 166.170, and asked the court to prohibit the school district from enforcing its policy against her.

In 1995, the Oregon legislature enacted ORS 166.170, taking away from cities and counties their authority to enact ordinances regulating guns and thereby reduce gun violence in their neighborhoods. ORS 166.170 consists of two sections. The first provides, “Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any manner whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms . . . is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.” The second section provides, “Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms . . . .”