Crazy Lib Draw Down on Oregon Officers

[Skip]

This goes from 0-to-OHSHIT in about two seconds. Thankfully the officers weren't hit but two rounds narrowly missing one of them. There's a lot of badness in this story (CCW, guns in schools, etc...). He was carrying more ammo in his backback so who knows what he was planning.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulCy8rC6jI8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulCy8rC6jI8

Good background story...

DA: Officers 'legally justified' in killing man outside Cascade Middle School

https://kval.com/news/local/da-officers-legally-justified-in-killing-man-outside-cascade-middle-school



EUGENE, Ore. - As police attempted to place Charlie Landeros under arrest after removing him from Cascade Middle School amidst a child custody dispute January 11, Landeros pulled a 9mm handgun from a hoster and pointed the weapon at Officer Steve Timm, investigators determined based on video evidence and witness statements.

[snip]

On January 9, two days before the deadly shooting outside the school, police in nearby Springfield received a screenshot of a Facebook comment on a story about a man shot and killed by police in Portland.
A comment posted by "Charlie Landeros" read, "Time to start killing pigs," investigators wrote.

[snip]


From the DA's statement at the link...


[snip]

He was wearing a backpack which contained additional ammunition of a different caliber. It is not illegal for someone with a concealed handgun license to carry a concealed weapon into a school. Mr. Landeros had a CHL issued in February of 2018.

[snip]

[Irving]

Since when can you legally carry at a K-12 school? It's that unique to Oregon?

[Irving]

Where's the lib part?

[longrange2]

I inferred lib from the t-shirt logo and also his comments online about killing police officers but I could be way off there.

[Skip]

Where's the lib part?

"Smash the patriarchy and chill" t-shirt should be the first clue.

[crashdown]

Grown ass man wearing a backpack in school...... shouldn't they have just shot first?

[CS1983]

If you google Charlie Landeros, well, you’ll find your lib.

[Irving]

Just wondering based on the article.

[Justin]

Looks like he's a good commie now.

👍

[BushMasterBoy]

Some slow motion video of the incident. I don't have an opinion.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsm2rBfNFLg

[DavieD55]

The media riles up the left...useful idiot gets into a shootout with the police...politiicans feed their agenda for gun control.

Problem - Reaction - Solution

[roberth]

Looks like he's a good commie now.

��

Yup

What was he doing carrying a gun? Didn't he know that (D) leadership does not look favorably on gun owners?

These guys are hypocrites, they have guns when they vote for people who want to take guns away.

[Great-Kazoo]

Yup

What was he doing carrying a gun? Didn't he know that (D) leadership does not look favorably on gun owners?

These guys are hypocrites, they have guns when they vote for people who want to take guns away.



WELCOME TO THE TERRORDOME

[Bailey Guns]

There are exceptions to the GFSZA that allow possession of a firearm on/near school property where an individual is licensed to do so by the state in which that person lives. As a matter of fact, it's legal for a CHP holder in Colorado to possess a handgun on school grounds in Colorado as long as the gun remains in a compartment in a vehicle and the vehicle is locked.

Attempting to shoot a cop is NOT one of the permitted exceptions to the law.

[theGinsue]

Attempting to shoot a cop is NOT one of the permitted exceptions to the law.

Whaaaat? See, it's these little tweaks in the laws that make it so confusing for the average citizens to know which way to go.

[Positively dripping with sarcasm]

So, from the little information I've read about this situation, there was an ongoing custody battle this guy was involved in (which was permanently decided when the dumbass decided to pull down on the cops and got himself killed). If I understand the situation right, he was at the school to take his kid - by any means necessary. He lost and now his kid has no father. Stupid is as stupid does.

[SideShow Bob]

Ah,
Some more information, it make s a bit more sense as to his and the officer’s presence at the school. Not that it justifies any of the nuts avtions, it just explains things to make things understandable.

[Skip]

Whaaaat? See, it's these little tweaks in the laws that make it so confusing for the average citizens to know which way to go.

[Positively dripping with sarcasm]

So, from the little information I've read about this situation, there was an ongoing custody battle this guy was involved in (which was permanently decided when the dumbass decided to pull down on the cops and got himself killed). If I understand the situation right, he was at the school to take his kid - by any means necessary. He lost and now his kid has no father. Stupid is as stupid does.

That belief is in the link I posted as well. Not sure I believe it.

First, and let's be honest, if I'm armed and want my kid I'm going to get him and be miles away before LE shows up. Unless there's a SRO, there is no one in that school that can stop me. And he's already inside, so not like he was locked out of the school.

Second, that extra ammo in the backpack... ? "I'm going to get my kid with random ammo in a backpack!" ???? Did he have a long arm he was going to fall back to? Were the round loaded into mags? If so, that means he anticipated or planned an encounter. No one in that scenario but LE is going to put up that much resistance.

Third, he's carrying a Taurus (which should be a felony in any state) PT92 with a mag extension to 20 rounds. That is a heavy CCW! I carried a P226 for awhile and quickly gave that up. If I knew I was going into a gunfight, I would do the same and carry a P226 with as much ammo as I could. EDC for most us serious carriers is very different.

I'm not ready to believe he just wanted his kid. And if that was his only goal, he should have known he lost the moment LE showed up and he didn't have legal custody, and given up.

[Rucker61]

the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act (1990) prohibits firearm possession in school zones; and being a federal law, States cannot make it "legal". Violations could be prosecuted in the federal courts even if a State specifically enacted legislation permitting it. Then again, we have half a million transients that think weed is legal in Colorado, and our entire government is made of a system that makes virtually everything illegal, so that everyone is a criminal whenever enforcement is desired to be taken selectively.So, YMMV.

The 1990 Act was overturned by US v Lopez. The current version is based on Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997. However, since then we've had US v Tait:

US v Tait:

Tait argues that the charge set forth in Count Two, possession of a firearm in a gun-free school zone in violation of 18 U.S.C. ? 922(q), is due to be dismissed for two reasons. First, he contends that the statute is unconstitutional. Second, Tait argues that he cannot be found guilty because he had a permit, issued pursuant to state law, to carry a pistol. The Court need not reach the constitutionality issue because Tait's permit removes him from the reach of ? 922(q).

Section 922(q) (2) (A), known as the "Gun-Free School Zone Law", makes it "unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." As with ? 922(g), however, there are exceptions. Subparagraph (q) (2) (B) states, in relevant part:

Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm ...


(ii) if the individual possession the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a *1104 political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that he individual is qualified under law to receive the license.
It is undisputed that the defendant had a license to carry a pistol in a vehicle or concealed on his person issued by the Sheriff of Escambia County pursuant to ? 13A-11-75 of the Alabama Code (1975).[3] What is in dispute is whether Alabama law requires a sheriff to verify that an individual is qualified to receive a license. The Alabama licensing statute provides:


The sheriff of a county may, upon the application of any person residing in that county, issue a qualified or unlimited license to such person to carry a pistol in a vehicle or concealed on or about his person within this state for not more than one year from date of issue, if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol, and that he is a suitable person to be so licensed.
Ala.Code ? 13A-11-75 (1975) (emphasis added). The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has interpreted this law as prohibiting a sheriff "from issuing a license to carry a pistol to a person who, by operation of law, would be ineligible for such a license." E.M. v. State, 675 So. 2d 90, 92 (Ala.Crim.App.1995). Since a sheriff must may issue a license only to a suitable person and state law defines who is suitable, i.e. who is eligible to possess a pistol, see Ala.Code ? 13A-11-72 (setting out persons who are ineligible), it follows that the sheriff must verify that any person to whom he issues a license is "qualified under law" as required by ? 922(q) (2) (B).

The government relies on federal regulatory interpretation of, and Congressional intent related to, federal firearms legislation to support its argument that Alabama law does not meet the verification requirement. The government argues that Congress intended that the verification of licensees include background checks and that Alabama's licensing procedure does not meet this requirement. First, the government offers a letter issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms explaining to Alabama firearm's licensees regarding their responsibilities under a separate firearms provision. Apparently, the government would have the Court infer from this letter that the ATF believes that Alabama's licensing procedure does not satisfy the verification requirements of ? 922(t) and, therefore, does not meet the verification requirements of ? 922(q) (2) (B). The Court is hard-pressed to see how a letter from federal regulatory agency can be persuasive authority for the interpretation of state law licensing requirements. Moreover, if Congress intended that the ? 922(q) (2) exception would apply only if the state used a specific type of verification procedure it could have said so. It did not.

State law prohibits the sheriff from issuing a license to a person who is ineligible. The sheriff cannot fulfill his obligation unless he has some method to verify an applicant's eligibility.[4] Consequently, state licensing requires verification. Because Tait had a license to carry a concealed pistol issued by the sheriff and Alabama law required the sheriff to verify Tait's eligibility before issuing the license, Tait falls under the exception set forth in *1105 ? 922(q) (2) (B). Therefore, he cannot be convicted of the crime of possessing a firearm in a school zone, defendant's motion to dismiss Count Two must also be, and hereby is, GRANTED.

For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the indictment in this case be and hereby is DISMISSED with prejudice.

[GilpinGuy]

Here's Donut's take on this


https://youtu.be/r4tfM7yqCfU