Portland City Council President Justifies Gun Ban From City Property With Nonsense Argument

I don’t think it’s possible to overstate how idiotic an idea it is to believe that restricting lawful behavior will prevent criminals intent on breaking laws from being able to break them. I mean, if you’re going to kill someone, are you really going to be held up because you’re prohibited from using a particular weapon?

Especially when that weapon is easily accessible via the black market?

Obviously not.

And, to his credit, the president of the Portland City Council claims to understand this as he defends a proposal that would ban licensed concealed carry from city buildings. It’s just that he seems to think the law is needed just the same.

Portland leaders are considering following in the county’s footsteps by banning concealed handguns from public buildings.

Under an ordinance proposed by Portland City Council President Jamie Dunphy, people would be prohibited from bringing firearms into facilities where the “governing body” holds official meetings — even if they have a license to carry a concealed one. Although local code already bans guns from city buildings, there is an “affirmative defense” in place for license holders.

But Oregon’s Senate Bill 243 took effect last fall, allowing jurisdictions to revoke that defense. Dunphy is now “trying to have no guns in city hall,” he told the Community and Public Safety Committee on Tuesday.

“A philosophical argument that I learned was that 75% of people don’t need a law to do what’s right and 10% won’t ever do what’s right, no matter what the law — and so we’re governing for 15%,” Dunphy said.

He noted the city needs “additional tools at every level” to ensure safety and security. The proposal includes exceptions for people like police officers, military personnel who are performing official duties, and government employees who are authorized or required to carry firearms.

Now, I’m pretty sure the percentages provided are pulled out of someone’s fourth point of contact, but the gist is what matters, and sure, the vast majority won’t need a law to do what’s right, and a small number won’t care what the law says; they’ll do what they want. But what gets me is the “15%” that Dunphy brings up.

In his mind, these are people who will follow the law, but nothing more. They will do whatever they want so long as it’s not illegal, and that’s who they’re “governing for” with this.

My question for Dunphy is whether he’s thought beyond this particular provision for even half a second. I mean, if they simply obey the law and nothing more, so you trust they’ll obey the gun-free zone sign on the door, then why wouldn’t laws against murder be enough? Why wouldn’t laws about brandishing a handgun or threatening people be sufficient in and of itself?

Or, is he arguing they’re not really law-abiding, but that a sign will stop them when the potentiality of a long stint in prison for using a firearm illegally won’t?

It makes no sense.

Nor does the fact that, so far as I can tell, this isn’t really an issue that’s reared its head before now. The law has, for some time, allowed people with a permit to carry a gun in these buildings, and it doesn’t sound like Portland has had an issue.

But, then again, this is Portland. It’s not enough that there hasn’t been a problem; it’s something that benefits gun owners, and the people who run the city simply can’t have that. Dunphy’s argument is really just a pathetic attempt to try and frame this as not demonizing most gun owners when it’s really just stupidity masquerading as an argument.

Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.