This past month, officials say Ian Cranston gunned down Barry Washington, Jr. on the streets of Bend. Washington’s death has caused many to call for all manner of retribution and justice, including upgrading Cranston’s charges from second-degree manslaughter to murder charges. A grand jury made that determination last week, and Cranston does now face charges of murder in the second degree, along with several other charges.
But there’s an overlooked manner of reform that’s staring Oregon in the face, and had it been among the slew of reforms proposed by the Oregon legislature this past year, it may have saved this young man’s life. On Sept. 25, a new law passed earlier this year went into effect, which allows local governments to ban those with concealed-carry firearms permits from bringing their guns into public buildings such as airports and schools. Some more conservative lawmakers called SB554, signed by the governor into law June 1, a “radical” idea that did nothing to make communities safer. In light of the recent shooting, which saw Cranston, a concealed-carry permit holder, bringing a gun into a bar and later using it to allegedly shoot Washington, we say the law was not “radical” enough.
Oregon is among only a handful of states that does not address the matter of whether concealed-carry permit holders can mix alcohol or drugs and guns. Fifteen states, including Oregon, do not address this matter in state statutes. The other states, meanwhile, make some type of provision that bans people from consuming while carrying. Four jurisdictions—including Alaska, Arizona, California and the District of Columbia, ban concealed-carry permit holders from consuming at all while carrying. The remaining states prohibit concealed carry when a person is intoxicated or under the influence, or, they ban a person from BOTH consuming while carrying AND being intoxicated while carrying.
While officials here in Bend say alcohol was not a major factor in the death of Washington, they did not specifically state that Cranston had not been drinking that night. The Deschutes County District Attorney’s office will not release the results of Cranston’s blood alcohol level test at this point, so we can only speculate. But the fact that a vast majority of states make some type of provision to keep guns out of the hands of those who are consuming underlines how dangerous a combination drugs, alcohol and firearms can be.
In our own community, a young man lost his life over what officials say amounted to a couple unwanted advances by Washington toward the suspect’s girlfriend. That should not have amounted to a death sentence. Had Oregon’s laws been stricter around the topic of mixing guns and alcohol—as they are in dozens of other states—Barry Washington, Jr. may still be alive today.
Oregon made some strides this past year to more strictly regulate guns and where they can be concealed-carried. Private business owners have every right to ban them from their private premises if they so desire, and local governments now have that discretion in public buildings, too.
When people talk about gun reform, these are the types of reforms they are talking about.
When Cranston’s trial is over and the public is able to better understand the details of what happened that night—including how alcohol did or did not play into the events—the next step may be to introduce in the legislature the Barry Washington, Junior memorial law, prohibiting those under the influence—or those consuming drugs or alcohol—from concealed-carrying. It won’t bring Washington back, but it may bring a measure of justice so desired by friends, family and community members during this moment in Bend’s history.
This article appears in Oct 6-13, 2021.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Any editorial opinion should, in support of the opinion, provide accurate references / sources, which this one does not.
That said – Oregon has long restricted concealed carry.
Off-Limits areas
The Oregon CHL has very few restricted areas. The following are no-go areas for concealed carry:
Federal buildings. This includes the federal offices in Portland, any post office and places such as visitor’s centers in national parks (the parks themselves are unrestricted).
Airports – Firearms are forbidden beyond the security checkpoints. You can carry when going to meet someone at the airport, but if you want to fly with your gun, it needs to be checked, following all the rules of the TSA and your airline.
Indian reservations – There are no problems following major highways across Indian land, but if you leave the highway and enter the reservation you are subject to their laws, and the Oregon CHL becomes invalid. If you have good reason to need concealed carry you can apply to the chief of tribal police or the tribal chief for permission (which you apply to depends upon the tribe).
In Oregon casinos are tribal land, so your CHL is invalid there.
Private property – Owners of private property can forbid carrying weapons on their property. This includes most shops and businesses. If asked to leave, do so without argument and do not return with your gun in the future. If you do so you are liable to be subject to arrest for trespass with a firearm.
Source: https://or-chl.com/carry.php
As Alaska is used as an example regarding a CHL and alcohol/drugs the first thing to note is this. “Alaska’s laws do not prohibit anyone 21 or older who may legally possess a firearm from carrying it concealed or open. A firearms permit is not required.”
https://dps.alaska.gov/Statewide/R-I/Permi…
Alaska does not have a CHL but it does by statute and law state the following:
Alaska Statutes Alaska Statutes 11.61.190 through 11.61.220 describe conduct with a weapon that is criminal. There is no prohibition against carrying a concealed weapon so long as the prohibited behaviors regarding the carry are respected:
The person is 21 years or older.
The person is eligible to own or possess a handgun under state and federal laws
The firearm is legal.
Upon contact with a peace officer, the person immediately informs the officer about the weapon, and allows the officer to secure the weapon for the duration of the contact.
The person does not carry the weapon if they are intoxicated or impaired by alcohol or controlled substances.
The person does not carry the concealed weapon in certain places:
In someone else’s home without their specific knowledge and permission.
In any place where intoxicating liquor is sold for on-site consumption, except a restaurant and the person does not consume alcohol beverages.
In or around any public or private K-12 school or on a school bus without the knowledge and consent of the school’s administrator. (weapons may be unloaded and locked in the trunk of a car or secured in a locked container).
In or around a child care facility. (weapons may be unloaded and locked in the trunk of a car or secured in a locked container)
In a courthouse, court room, or office of the court system or justice related agencies.
In domestic violence or sexual assault shelters.
Source: https://dps.alaska.gov/Statewide/R-I/Permi…
The reader can explore the other states mentioned at her/his leisure.
When the evidence is presented in the Cranston trial we can expect to hear what the BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) for both the victim and the suspect were at the time of the shooting; we can expect to hear what, if any, legal and illegal drugs were present, as well. In cases like this, intoxication / impairment and their effect on a person’s behavior and actions is a two-way street.
The jury will also, as likely as not, see ALL of the video evidence collected by investigators. There are a number of security cameras in and around where the shooting took place – these will provide different angles of the shooting as well as (perhaps) audio.
That having been said – the video clip taken by the suspect’s girlfriend (with both image and audio present) – will be but one such item of evidence and may very well be the least impactful when viewed along with any other static video recordings.
Witnesses will have been interviewed and one of the questions will be if the witness had been drinking that night, where, and how much of what form of alcohol. Clearly a witness who may have himself or herself been intoxicated or impaired will see the jury take that into account.
And as the defense attorney has stated his client was first taken to the hospital for tests and a brain scan due to the observed injuries made by the arresting officers. When, during the fight, these occurred and how they were delivered (and by whom) will be critical for the jury to know.
Facts are the only things admissible in court during a trial. From the facts and in conjunction with the laws related to a shooting such as this one a jury will render a verdict.
Spinning this tragedy into an editorial about concealed carry – an editorial poorly researched and cherry-picked by its writer – detracts from the judicial process and serves no one well.
What we will learn from courtroom testimony and the presentation of the evidence will be hard enough – about both the victim and the suspect. More so, how the community-at-large responds to whatever verdict is arrived at will reflect on us, either favorably or otherwise.
Cardiac Spike to the rescue. LOL
And –
The suspect’s CHL was revoked, by DCSO policy, as soon as he was arrested.
Oregon CHL holders have this authorization available whenever their information is run by an officer. If arrested for crime or crimes the system automatically notifies DCSO and the permit is cancelled.
Only the Sheriff can, upon re-submission of a new application if – in this case – the suspect is found not guilty, can authorize a new CHL. That said, a “Not Guilty” verdict does not mean the permit will be re-issued. That’s the Sheriff’s call.
We all agree Cranston should not have been carrying a firearm while he was downtown having date night.
Don’t take this one incident, and make the thousands that have a carry permit suffer for it, that’s BS.
Sorry about the Washingtons loss of their son, but their son was not exactly a victim in all of this let’s be honest!
You don’t come on to another man’s woman multiple times and not expect a bad result, maybe if Washington made a better decision not to mess with another man’s woman then maybe he’d still be alive
Looks like, for now, it will be up to private businesses in Bend to counter the concealed carry culture. Do we know if any tavern owners, for example, have banned weapons on their premises?
It is interesting to note –
There has been ZERO follow on coverage of this shooting since John Hummel’s rush to judgement as District Attorney became widely known – to include the response by Mr. Cranston’s attorney.
Why is this?
As likely as not because (A) This was not a hate crime by federal standards and law (B) The additional security camera videos provided as evidence by the Bend Police Department investigators, as claimed by Cranston’s defense attorney, provide a much more detailed sequence of events than claimed by Hummel and his “peacekeepers”.
You could not have better non-coverage at this point than if a judge had put a gag order in place (?)
Facts, not emotional / political claptrap, will tell the story in a court of law, period.