Oregon Activist Drafts Bill to Repeal School Gun-Free Zones
Derek LeBlanc, head of the Oregon Gun Owners Action League (ORGOAL), has drafted legislation that would tear down the state's gun-free school zone statutes. LeBlanc wrote the bill the day after a shooting at Silver Rail Elementary School in Bend, Oregon, and published his plan in a lengthy post on the ORGOAL website. He blames those statutes for leaving children unprotected. The bill would also extend civil protections to people who intervene with a firearm during a violent attack. The draft is not final. LeBlanc says the Oregon Legislative Council is still tweaking the language, which means the bill has not been formally filed.
Key Details
The facts in LeBlanc's post and his follow-up comments to TTAG's sister outlet TGM are straightforward.
- Author: Derek LeBlanc, ORGOAL president, who won the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms "Activist of the Year" award.
- Timing: LeBlanc drafted the legislation the day after the Bend school shooting.
- Target: Oregon Revised Statutes that LeBlanc says created potential criminal penalties for an armed defender in Bend. He calls the broader set of school restrictions "insane ordinances."
- Proposed change: Repeal of those restrictions, plus civil protections for defenders who intervene.
- Status: Not finished. LeBlanc told TGM by email that the language is "being tweaked by the Legislative Council" and is "not fully 'cooked' yet."
- Timeline: The Oregon Legislature convenes later than most state legislatures, which gives drafters more time to refine the text.
- Defensive gun use claim: LeBlanc cites CDC-adjacent figures putting defensive gun uses at up to 3 million per year, often without a shot fired.
- Media claim: LeBlanc argues that guns "have a PR problem" and blames the media and "prohibitionists" for suggesting guns shoot themselves.
Background
Oregon bans firearms on school grounds through ORS 166.370, which carries criminal penalties and contains a list of exceptions. The statute is the core of what LeBlanc wants gone. The Oregon Constitution's Article I, Section 27 guarantees the right to bear arms in defense of oneself and the state, and gun owners have long argued that the school ban conflicts with that promise. Courts have not agreed. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Justice Scalia wrote that laws forbidding firearms in schools and government buildings are presumptively lawful. That language matters for anyone trying to strike down a school ban. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court replaced the old means-end balancing used by lower courts with a text-and-history test. Bruen gave gun owners a stronger argument, but it also left Heller's sensitive-places language standing. Any repeal bill would need to survive that history-based scrutiny if a court ever reviewed it.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
Oregon residents who carry a firearm for self-defense face a patchwork of rules. The school ban reaches far beyond classrooms. It covers parking lots, school sporting events, and other areas tied to a school campus, so a legal carrier can cross a line without realizing it. If LeBlanc's bill passes, the change would affect any permit holder who drives past a school, attends a child's game, or works near a campus. It would also change the risk calculation for a defender who acts during an attack on school grounds. Under current law, that defender could face charges even when the intervention stops a shooter. Gun owners outside Oregon should watch closely too. Activists in other states often copy language from successful bills, and a repeal framed around defenders could travel. Watch for the official bill number once it is filed, and read the exact text rather than summaries of it. Summaries often leave out the exceptions that decide who is actually covered.
DownRange Analysis
This bill is a legislative fight, not a constitutional one. Heller already put school bans in the presumptively lawful column, and Bruen does not change that signal. A court would likely uphold a school ban under the history test unless the record showed strong historical analogues for a broader right, and those are hard to find for schools. The better path is the statehouse. A repeal bill can win on policy grounds by showing that the current ban disarms the people most likely to stop an attacker. The 3 million defensive gun use figure is contested, and LeBlanc should expect critics to challenge the survey methods behind it. Our advice is simple. Until any change becomes law, treat ORS 166.370 as fully enforceable. Know the exceptions, keep your firearm out of school zones unless an exception clearly applies, and keep the draft's progress on your radar. If the bill gets filed, contact your legislators and testify. Silence leaves this issue to the people who want the ban to stay.
