“A heroic student charged at the Oregon college shooter and was shot five times as he tried to save his classmates,” dailymail.co.uk reports. “Army veteran Chris Mintz, 30, was taken to hospital following the massacre at Umpqua Community College on Thursday morning. His cousin Derek Bourgeois told DailyMail.com that Mintz faced Chris Harper-Mercer, 26, who killed at least 10 people at the school in Roseburg.” Mintz is expected to recover from his wounds, including two broken/damaged legs. It’s not known if he was armed on the “gun free” campus. But another vet was . . .
The vet – identified only as “John” – told breitbart.com that he was carrying a firearm on campus in a building about 200 yards from the shooter. Although he says he was trained to run towards danger, in this case, he did not. John “sheltered in place” until the police responded, some eight minutes after the first 911 call. When asked why he was carrying in a “gun free zone,” John responded “It’s not my responsibility to make sure everybody knows the law of the land.”
God bless our veterans.
Just the ones with boots on the ground, or supplying them with boots, beans, bullets, and bandages.
So you’re saying that those providing perimeter security at CONUS bases, those that provide intel, those that run payroll, those that handle MWR, et al…..they don’t deserve God’s blessings? Who pi$$ed in your cornflakes?
@Tim: I think he is trying to say anyone that fights or those that are backing up those that are fighting. I suspect that includes ALL the support staff. Don’t think he was leaving anyone out on purpose. Just did not want to name them all. Perhaps he will answer this himself ?
@Galtha58 Not seeing it. He uses the phrase “Just the ones…” That tells me he is excluding some vets though I’m not sure which ones. Personally, I think they all need our support, from those at the pointy end of the sword to those all the way back at the handle. They all signed on to “support and defend” and that deserves some thanks IMAO.
Brian K – WTF does that mean?
God Bless the All!
Just to let you and any one else know there have been many “gun truck” battles envolving support people. The enemy targets supply convoys all the time.
One of those “non combat soldiers” was a female national guard truck driver from kentucky who was a crack shot during a fire fight in iraq. She was awarded the silver star for her bravery.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a media interview. He is a vet, likely pro-2A, and if he goes off against further gun laws the interview will blow up in their faces.
It’s people like you sir, that make America great. It was military/veterans that did the same thing in France and so selflessly gave when others ducked. I pray you have a speedy recovery and thank you for your true sacrifice, not only to this country, but also to those around you in class yesterday.
Why the hell does this keep coming up? The school was NOT a gun free zone! They allowed guns per state law!
Damnit, can’t anyone get it right? Not even TTAG?
OR state law allows guns on campus. The Oregon State Board of Higher Education’s policy bars them from college buildings and sporting venues. In short, concealed carry is allowed on certain parts of UCC campus. That said, the following warning is posted on the campus security web page:
Comforting to know water pistols were banned.
The college must not have any auto body or refinishing classes there, as paint guns are not allowed either. I assume all building painting must be done by finger, roller or brush.
Seems they never plan to paint any of the buildings either. Paint guns were included in the list.
I’m guessing that the “paint guns” mentioned are the kind used in the phony war games silliness in the woods, mostly by kids.
davidx yes david probably refers to paint-ball guns.
You missed the joke about not being able to paint common things on school grounds with a paint (spray) gun
“Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited”.
Interesting statement for sure. Especially the part about college regulations. Appears to imply that IF you have a concealed carry permit and the weapon is not prohibited by college regs then you could carry. But, one would have to look at the actual college regs to figure out the second part. And probably at the State law to figure out the first. So, it really does not say much at all.
Graduated college in Oregon in 2011 – while the law says you can carry, the school rules essentially say you get booted out if you do. That’s the best summary I can give as an Oregon resident and relatively recent college grad.
UCC, for all intents and purposes relevant to this unfortunate event, is a gun-free zone.
Note: “as expressed permitted by state law.” Oregon state law permits concealed carry on campuses by those with licenses, which means it’s not a gun-free zone — anyone with a concealed carry license can carry on campus.
It appears that portion is in quotation marks, making it a comment from Breitbart, not TTAG. Carry laws on campuses are a tricky mismatch of woven laws, regulations, and ordinances as well, such that federal, state, local, and campus regulations state opposing things, so you might not be wrong on paper, but there are more papers.
The media machine will want to twist the facts to get as much traction as possible out of this story, such as scare people into thinking people disregard the law in order to carry anywhere they want, and that they are dangerous and useless in stopping an attack so that the gun control laws are tightened until there are no legal guns left. You’re going to see comments now such as, “see, there was a good guy with a gun right there and he did nothing to help”.
In local interviews the veteran with concealed carry license stated, “he tried to respond to the incident, but was stopped by school staff”.
This is satire, right? It must be satire.
It was a Gun Free Zone. Read the school’s student code of conduct.
I did. Nowhere in it does it say students are prohibited from licensed carrying. It says students MAY be prohibited (licensed v., not licensed). I also read the school’s other rules elsewhere (which state carry is allowed by law) as well as the Oregon state law. Students ARE allowed to carry concealed on campus as long as they are licensed. And in fact, some students were CCing legally.
Chip, really you are way too smart for this. Just stop now.
Then read again (above)
Again, here is the school’s policy:
Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms…on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited.
Why is that explicit statement so hard to understand? It was a Gun Free Zone, by school policy, not by law (sure, it’s legal to carry, but doing so can get you expelled). The effect is the same: innocent people who follow the school’s rules were disarmed.
What is so hard to understand about except as expressly authorized by law ? That is your own quote and the school’s rules. Want me to cite the law because you are too lazy to? I will.
Dammit, I hate having to do this to good people. It’s usually the liberal idiots.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to: (d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) and 166.292 (Procedure for issuing) to carry a concealed handgun.
Yes, preemption applies. Honestly, it’s not that difficult. You know there were students legally carrying there, right? They were even interviewed on TV.
Chip, are you willing to email your email address? Mine is [email protected].
Yep. Mea Culpa. It seems obvious to me that the school was trying to assert a firearm-free environment, without actually going against the statutes.
Man, I’m glad ya’ll got that sorted out, because you are both too smart for something like that.
Things like this are exactly why I loathe this kind of useless “unlawful conduct is prohibited” language in legislation or policy.
Exactly! It’s already unlawful. Of course it’s prohibited! They’re just trying to muddy the waters with lawful conduct for people who aren’t careful readers.
That debate, between Chip and Danny, both reasonable and intelligent men, underlines what I see as the goal of many local government and higher education institutions. That is, to make local policy appear as law, or to make it so confusing as to leave the carrier in constant doubt as to where it is legal to carry or not.
@Jwt and Co.,
This lengthy rule set is intententional, and designed to create a “chilling effect” against legal carry. They want you to think you can’t do anything without fear of being prosecuted or expelled.
That’s one reason I like concealed carry: it’s easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.
Also, any “staff member” who advises me to standby instead of stopping an active shooter will be enthusiastically disregarded.
All buildings were “gun free zones” (note the parallel here and what’s happening in UT):
In an Oregon Court of Appeals case (2011), three judges concluded that Oregon public colleges and universities no longer have authority to ban weapons on the physical grounds of a campus. Each school does however, have discretion as to whether to permit concealed handguns inside buildings, dormitories, event centers, and classrooms. Private colleges and universities may still prohibit weapons throughout the entire campus including grounds.
On March, 2, 2012, the Oregon Higher Education Board voted unanimously to ban weapons in all seven state colleges and universities.
Gun Free Zones exist outside of law. If the location has a no-weapons policy, and state that they can and will trespass and/or expel those found out to be armed with anything as offensive as a water gun, then it is a Gun Free zone.
According to the schools Code Of Conduct, under prohibited actions, number 19. Firearms are allowed with written permission only. In essence therefore, it is a defacto gun free zone.
In an Oregon Court of Appeals case (2011), three judges concluded that Oregon public colleges and universities no longer have authority to ban weapons on the physical grounds of a campus. Each school does however, have discretion as to whether to permit concealed handguns inside buildings, dormitories, event centers, and classrooms.
Umpqua Community College As of March 2015, Concealed carry was not permitted, except by written permission by college https://web.archive.org/web/20150317085529/http://umpqua.edu/resources-and-services/academic/student-code-of-conduct?showall=&start=4
Stop reading “Think Progress” and stop spreading lies commie.
True hero = Chris Mintz.
A very overused term, but here is the rare case where it is literally true.
And another case where action saves lives. If he had just stood there he would have surely been killed. Even being unarmed, charging the shooter was the best option.
Still doesn’t mean it was an easy choice, and I don’t know that I could have done it.
Chris Mintz – true hero.
“shot five times… Mintz is expected to recover”
Assuming the reports about the nameless POS using a long gun are true, can we put to rest the myth of “stopping power”?
What if the long gun is the same .22 rimfire he’s holding in the selfie?
I saw a major news organization said the sheriff’s called it an “AR Type.” I was wondering if he had brought the 10/22 from the pics. If this guys was shot 5 times and survived maybe it was… except he suffered broken legs. Broken legs would definitely stop a charge, and I’m willing to bet a .223 could brake a femur.
“I saw a major news organization”
And that right there is your first mistake. The liberal media outlets rush to get the info out as fast and as inaccurate as possible to be #1. Rarely will they correct previous statements.
I am not saying it was not an AR15 type of rifle but lets wait until the Sherif tells us what it was.
A 5.56 round will break a bone.
You noticed the 10/22 in the picture too?
How could you not notice the beautiful silhouette of your first firearm? Too bad a douchebag was holding it. It’s interesting that having had at least 4 guns, the only gun pic he posted was with the 10/22. I wonder if he stole the other guns from his mom.
Campuses are known targets of nutcase Demoncrats who have gone off the rails. Only a fool would not protect themselves in these leftist created killing zones.
The antis seem to be blowing up on the people who had guns on campus. The school was a no gun zone. The ccers didn’t use them, so no aditional fatalities. It’s just a strange paradox to them. The folks with handguns didn’t kill anyone.
So much for the “lawfully carried firearms on campus mean more innocents will be killed in the crossfire” and “lawfully carried firearms on campus mean responding officers will shoot them, too, for not knowing who the bad guy is” myths.
So what’s their beef? Is it “you people broke the law,” or “your guns didn’t help,” or “omg moar gunz EVERYONE could have died,” or what?
I hope someone starts a gofundme for Chris Mintz.
Bless this man for trying to stop the attacker. It would likely be better if more people would do the same and swarm the shooter. I will be interested to hear the details of his attempt to disable the shooter.
On another note, Everytown for lies and deception in order to disarm us all is pushing the story that 45 school shootings have occured this year. I am seeing it and hearing it everywhere. Channel 3 news in Phoenix quoted it as fact this morning. It is in Time who lists the shootings. http://time.com/4058669/umpqua-community-college-shooting/ I haven’t looked into the list in detail but it includes suicides and accidental discharges. Some of the incidents show 0 killed and 0 injured. So basically anytime a gun went off in the same state as a school. Maybe POTUS can team up with them to get something done and end his frustration.
I’m actually okay with Everytown claiming 45, 100, or even a 1,000 school shootings per year. I’m at peace with it now. Because the truth of the matter is that for the civilian disarmament complex, any number above zero will be used as a shock number. So even if it were 3, they’d use that to bring down a hail storm of anti-gun rhetoric. By over-exagerating the amount, they do more harm than good for themselves because honestly, it gets to the point of who the hell cares anymore. Meanwhile none of their proposed gun laws would do anything to prevent the who the hell cares anymore happenings and so they end up marganilizing themselves as an advocacy organization.
Been saying this for awhile. Our beloved Pres noted yesterday that these incidents were becoming “routine” in the minds of Americans. To the extent that they are, it is entirely the fault of the gun-grabbers (including our beloved Pres) and their water-carriers in the major “news” outlets, with their constant drumbeat of similar stories, real, imagined, or somewhere in between. Add in the “boy who cried wolf’ element (ordinary people can look around every day and see that their local schools are not being shot up, despite the never-ending cries that the halls of knowledge are running rivers of gunfire-induced blood) and the rational mind would quickly pick up why the grabbers aren’t getting any more traction than they are. Fortunately, the grabbers for the most part (especially the rank-and-file of neurotic “moms” and metrosexual “modern men”) are not conversant with rational thought.
Yep. Those who prefer to sub-contract out their own (and their family’s) personal security to an unaccountable government agency deserve to cower, run for their lives, and “hope” to survive until armed responders arrive and take action on their behalf.
Hope is never an effective strategy. Probably best they (the unarmed) stay in shape and practice running, dodging, hiding and playing dead.
“I purchased my rights back from the government”…
Perfect little smirk after that comment.
I like that guy.
I’m willing to bet Mr. Mintz is not a “modern man” (see subsequent TTAG post).
Just as well because it’s a bit tougher to charge an active shooter in Kenneth Cole oxfords.
I love how a misunderstood issue gets straightened out in a blog, in this case the guns-on-campus thing, and then you scroll down and still find people claiming it’s a “gun-free-zone” anyway, indicating they haven’t bothered to read the foregoing posts.
Hats off to Chip and Danny for ironing it out.
And last night the nooz reports coming out were saying the shooter lived at home with Mom and Dad at age 26 and was on anti-depressives, sleep aids, and and posting weird stuff on his FaceCrack account. Dunno if any of this has panned out today yet.
No doubt the media rumpswabs have been busy searching for pics of this guy in front of a Confederate or Nazi flag, too.
Well, I see from the vid that the school’s president said the school was a “gun free zone”, so I guess the confusion is pretty understandable on that score.
Did the Oregon campus shooting take place in a Gun Free Zone? I still am not sure. Let’s take things in order:
1. Oregon Statute:
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to: (d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) and 166.292 (Procedure for issuing) to carry a concealed handgun.
(H/T Dan Griffith)
2. Relevant Court Decisions:
Oregon Court of Appeals:
“A three-judge panel of the Oregon Court of Appeals said that an Oregon University System ban on guns exceeds its authority and is invalid.”
TL;DR: Colleges cannot ban concealed carry on campus grounds, but can set policy for campus buildings and facilities.
3. Oregon Public University System Policy:
Oregon State Board of Higher Education bans guns from buildings on all its campuses.
(But Umpqua Community College is not part of the Oregon University system, so that policy does not apply.)
4. Umpqua Community College Policy
So, this policy indicates that possession of a firearm “on College premises”, without written authorization, is a “type of misconduct,” is a “prohibition”, and “may” subject the student to “disciplinary action”.
Unless I’m missing something, I have to stick with my original conclusion: Yes, the Umpqua Community College shooting took place in a Gun Free Zone.
IANAL. I welcome corrections.
I’m pretty sure that’s legalese for buildings and places of business. So the college can’t issue a blanket ban covering the whole campus, but they can prohibit anything they want in the buildings where their business takes place.
So yes, since it happened inside a building, the shooting did take place in a legally designated Gun Free Zone. That’s the way I read it.
If he was really on antidepressants…..
It’s just more evidence that the pharmaceutical lobby is much bigger than the ninnies say the gun lobby is.
Danny and Chris you’re both right -and wrong. Intentional confusion. Just like in Chicago. BTW THIS is the FIRST I’ve heard or seen on this hero. Why is that??? I’ve had the news on all day(including Fox business,Fox and commie news netjerk). One thing I do know-quit blaming mommy for a 26year old with a kid living at home. And I am offended by the loser comment(not looser- loser). My brother is a teacher at Joliet Jr. College and he does a great job helping people attain a better life.
I’ve been on anti-depressants, sleep aids, had to return to living at home for a short period and it took me 3 runs to finish college. But I can promise you’ll never see my name in the news.
Everyone seems to be looking for the “one simple thing” to blame for this guy doing what he did.
A lot of people go through tough crap in life and seek out help coping with it. Which is in many cases a responsible thing to do.
Far fewer of those people who do use medications and, god forbid family support, end up going on a shooting rampage than end up being able to claw their way back up to normalcy, or at least a healthier life.
The medications did not make him do it. You know the drill. Correlation isn’t causation — that goes for some of the stretched to the point of breaking “gun control law studies” and it goes for antidepressants (which by the way are mostly generic now, the pharma lobbies make nothing off of them) being the “cause” of spree killers.
More likely is that they’re either misdiagnosed or doctors don’t know or don’t want to deal with “true crazy”, so they just try some things and see what sticks. (Knowing some doctors, they are far from infallible.)
Depression wasn’t the problem, real problem doesn’t get fixed, nutjob shoots up a nursery, reported to be on medication.
We may never know what caused this guy to do what he did. It could have been that he just wanted to kill some people that day.
here is a group of vets willing and able to help and are castigated for having PTSD, and we know why Overseas they had a chance too protect themselves from incoming fire! and back home, Liberal wimps won’t let him protect himself from the Idiot doing the shooting!
Our country has it’s compass so out of kilter on what is important and what is not that returning Vets are screwed from the beginning as you lose more rights being a civilian than you would in Service time for all vets to get together and show those limpdick’s in Washington how wrong they are! fire the bureaucrat’s out of office that make rules inconsistent with Constitution
Now, this army vet who was injured is a real hero. He could have easily “sheltered in place” like the other vet but chose not to.
I bet Mintz would have taken care of business if he was armed, and then we wouldn’t be talking about this because it would barely have made Portland news. He clearly had the attitude and guts to take it on, if not the tools.
The 2nd says it all. No double standards put the DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com