Fallacy of the Community Safety Firearms Act (Senate Bill 243)
You are flying out for a trip, arrive at the airport, but before you reach the gate, you pass controlled entry points. Uniformed personnel. Metal detectors. X-ray machines. Physical barriers. Armed response. You don’t promise not to bring a weapon, you are prevented from doing so. That security perimeter is a barrier, not a promise.
Now picture something else.
A public building. A school. A city hall. Maybe six doors. Maybe ten. Maybe more if it’s a campus. A single decal on one entrance. Another sign taped near a bulletin board. A webpage nobody reads. No screening. No guards. No barriers. No enforcement until after something happens.
That, in Oregon, is now called a “Gun-Free Zone.”
Thanks to the Community Safety Firearms Act (Senate Bill 243), passed by the Oregon Legislature and signed by Tina Kotek, local governments may prohibit licensed concealed handgun holders from carrying firearms in public buildings—as long as they post a sign and update a website.
That’s the entirety of the “security plan.”
What a Gun-Free Zone Is Not
It is not a secured perimeter.
It is not a controlled access point.
It is not a detection system.
It is not a deterrent to criminals.
It is not even a meaningful obstacle.
It is a request.
And like most requests, it only works on people inclined to comply.
The Honor System Fallacy
Under SB 243, the state did not ban guns from buildings by force—it banned them by honor system.
If you are a law-abiding Oregonian with a concealed handgun license—background checked, fingerprinted, trained—you are expected to notice the sign, obey it, and disarm yourself.
If you don’t notice the sign?
If you enter through a different door?
If the notice was online but not obvious?
Congratulations. You may now be committing a crime.
Meanwhile, the person intent on committing violence:
- Does not read signage
- Does not check government websites
- Does not care about ordinances
- Does not obey firearm laws in the first place
And now, by design, they are more likely to be the only armed person in the room.
If Signs Stopped Crime…
If signs worked, we wouldn’t need locks.
We could put stickers on our cars:
Carjacking Prohibited
We could tape notices to our doors:
Burglary-Free Zone
We could end violence tomorrow with vinyl decals and laminated warnings.
But we don’t—because criminals don’t follow rules.
They don’t respect boundaries.
They don’t respond to polite requests.
They respond to resistance—or the lack of it.
Who Actually Gets Disarmed?
Not criminals.
They were already illegal carriers before SB 243. They remain illegal carriers after SB 243. The sign doesn’t change their calculus by one inch.
The people disarmed are:
- Parents
- Teachers
- Staff
- Volunteers
- Law-abiding citizens who passed the state’s own vetting process
SB 243 doesn’t remove guns from violent people.
It removes lawful defensive capacity from compliant ones.
That’s not public safety. That’s selective vulnerability.
Guns Don’t Commit Violence
People do.
And not the people who:
- Apply for permits
- Sit through training
- Pass background checks
- Follow posted rules
Violence is committed by people who already ignore laws, warnings, and social norms.
People who don’t care about your sign.
Or your feelings.
Or your ordinance.
If Oregon Were Serious About Safety
If the state actually wanted to stop violence, it would:
- Confine mentally ill violent offenders instead of cycling them back onto the street
- Enforce existing criminal laws
- Prosecute repeat offenders
- Clean up open-air drug markets
- Provide real security where it claims vulnerability exists
Instead, it chose the cheapest option:
- A sign
- A website update
- And new penalties for people who were never the problem
That’s not courage. That’s convenience.
Window Dressing, Not Protection
A “Gun-Free Zone” without enforcement is not a safety measure.
It’s window dressing—comforting to policymakers, invisible to criminals, and dangerous to the public.
SB 243 does not create safe spaces.
It creates undefended spaces.
And history has shown—again and again—that undefended spaces are exactly where violence prefers to happen.
Do something, say something, tell Tina she’s made Oregon public spaces, less safe.
Her post on X says to me she doesn’t know or she doesn’t care. Let her know what you think, and let me know in the comments.
About the Author
