Gawd, Lawyers Suck

Part of my day job (pestering Casey is only a hobby) includes acting as city attorney for a number of cities here in Oregon. That includes participating in a list serve for Oregon City Attorneys. Recently a question was posed to the list (names are removed to protect the guilty) regarding gun bans, looking like this:

Has anyone passed an ordinance relating to banning firearms in public buildings. Apparently 166.370 prohibits firearms in public buildings, but exempts those that carry firearms with concealed permits.

We want to ban everyone except police officers from having weapons in our municipal buildings.
Thoughts?

Okay, that was immediately answered, correctly, by this:

State law generally preempts cities from applying ordinances banning guns in public buildings to persons with concealed handgun licenses. ORS 161.173(2)(c). See Starrett v. City of Portland, 196 Or App 534, 102 P3d 728 (2004).

But then the fun begins, with a variety of other attorneys chiming in, beginning with the original poster:

Thank you for the response. Is it just me . . . shouldn't cities have the right to outright ban fire arms at least at public meetings in light of the recent issue in Missouri? Courts do not have the same exceptions under 166.370 for those with carrying concealed permits and yet, City Council occasionally provide very similar "quasi-judicial" proceedings (with all of the emotionally charged fall-out that comes with these types of proceedings).
Again, Thank you for the help.

*and*

Maybe we should ask LOC* to ask the legislature to amend ORS 166.370 at the next session.

*League Of Oregon Cities

*and*

You may want to see if the League will support an amending bill and if there is a legislator that will submit it.

*and*

I agree with the comments about the law and possible remedies. You should know that I refuse to tell the [client] that they can't stop somebody who shows up at the gate with [a gun] asking for directions to [site]. We will let a judge tell us we have no authority to enforce our ordinance .

The problem is this. As I seem to recall, attorneys took an oath along the lines of protect, defend, uphold, hug and cuddle the Constitution(s). I recall no verb whatsoever involving "legislatively subvert."

Now, the Oregon Constitution, in pertinent part-that would be the infamous Section 27, reads:

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

I looked. I looked again. I looked hard. I put on my reading glasses and looked yet again. And I cannot, for the life of me, find the words "except in places or times where the State would legislate otherwise."

And yet all those attorneys up there see no problem whatsoever with asking the State to legislate part of that section away, because of their fear that their clients - cities, counties, metro areas- may do something evil enough to upset a constituent and cause the constituent to open fire on the client. Rather than simply have their clients rethink their abusive policies, they would rather restrict personal liberties and rights and wipe out portions of the Constitution by legislative fiat.  I particularly liked the attorney who instructed his client to violate the Constitution because he was going to "wait for a judge" to tell them they were doing so.

This is protecting and upholding?

As Brian Wilson says..."We're Doomed."