Here’s the official statement on the educators’ legal loss in the battle to keep their campuses gun-free zones (in theory):
Today the Oregon University System (OUS) received the opinion from the Oregon Court of Appeals that it did not prevail in the defense of its administrative rule to keep guns off of public university campuses across the state. The Court concluded that the OUS’ administrative rule, OAR 580-022-0045(3) which prohibits firearms and other weapons from campuses, is invalid . . .
OUS chancellor George Pernsteiner [above] said, “We are disappointed in the ruling of the Court in this case and will consider our options. Our greatest concern is for the safety of our students and the entire campus community. Whether accidental or intentional, firearms violence continues to hurt or kill thousands of Americans each year in this country. We will continue to review the opinion in order to consider future options to protect the safety of our students, faculty, staff, and visitors.
“The OUS campuses have worked over the past few years at a high level of diligence to put in place alert systems that will notify students and all campus members of any potential threat to safety. These systems and actions will continue to be in place and we will review if there are additional actions we should take to ensure that we are protecting students and their learning environment.”
OAR 580-022-0045(3) states: “[Procedures to impose applicable sanctions may be instituted against any person engaged in any of the following proscribed conduct]…Possession or use of firearms, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or other dangerous weapons or instrumentalities or institutionally owned or controlled property, unless expressly authorized by law, Board, or institutional rules (for purposes of this section, absence of criminal penalties shall not be considered express authorization.)”
Sounds like they are not happy with the court ruling. It’s interesting to see that they are now going to “consider our options”. Does anyone here have the real facts on the real number of gun related deaths and injuries in the U.S. per year?
If safety is the overall concern, wouldn’t it be more practical to offer students, staff, and faculty a free optional day-course in the safe handling, ethical and legal use, open carrying, and storage of firearms?
That is a great idea. Put your money where your mouth is OUS. If they are so concerned about firearm safety, why not invite the NRA to hold classes there?
If the University really wants to keep it’s students safe, it should ban cars because they kill more students than other cause. The University should also ban professors because they stifle free thought and kill brain cells by the billions.
Ralph, I am a fan of many of your posts, but I am not sure why you keep going with the So cars should be banned since they kill far more people than guns do, argument. Of course they do; according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Americans travel 11 billion miles a day. Over two hundred million people travel in the US every day, and while both cars and guns are tools, and both have inherent dangers, there is no real comparison between the two.
College instructors kill free thought? I thought it was my job to kill my students’ hopes and dreams. Seriously, I do not think my job is to teach free thought; my job is to teach students how to make coherent, arguable claims, support those claims with evidence from a variety of authorities, critically assess those authorities’ claims, and show how their claims are valid through an extended argument based upon evidence, logic, and even emotion (if appropriate).
As to the cars, I was of course being sarcastic, but I forgot to so indicate. I will in the future.
My law school teachers promoted and encouraged creative thinking and rewarded it, as long as I could back up my ideas with strong proofs. I can’t tell you how many times I heard “what’s your authority for that?” Law is a profession that regards stare decisis with a reverence usually reserved for bikini shots of Salma Hayek, so citing an authority is the key to making a good argument.
My undergraduate teachers were all a bunch of self-important intellectual imposters with a political agenda. I despised them then, and still. Knowing what I do about local universities like Brown, the singers may have changed but it’s the same old song. So I believe that every time college administrators and professors get bitch-slapped, an angel gets his wings. 🙂
Ralph, I did not have that experience as an undergrad, but then I did not go to a school like Brown (I know you did not mention your undergraduate institution, but it was the example you used). Perhaps, less prestigious state schools do not have the same level of self-importance in their faculty.
The kind of professor that Ralph describes is endemic to the current collegiate climate. Whether or not your experienced it firsthand or not does not change that solid fact.
Sure there are still good professors who do not allow their politics into the classroom (or at least, not to an inappropriate degree), but they are increasingly in the minority.
A link to the court opinion would be nice. I’d like to read it to find out on what grounds they “lost” this case. The rule itself seems reasonable. It’s the “expressly authorized by law” clause that would seem to be, in my opinion, both the reason the rule is valid and the reason it cannot ban self-defense tools (which are expressly authorized by the U.S. Constitution). Did the court invalidate the rule, or simply force OUS to use an appropriate interpretation of the rule?
Opinion here (PDF):
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A142974.pdf
Keep in mind that this could still go to the OR Supreme Court. I am still wondering what effect this ruling will have on the issue of CC on other (k-12) school grounds.
I conceal carry most everywhere, which incidentally at times includes public K-12 school property (kids’ soccer games, etc.).
The Oregon Revised Statue (ORS) 166.370 subsection (3) is pretty clear – it exempts CHL holders (along with police, active-duty military, and others) from most restrictions against carrying on public property, which includes K-12 school property and public colleges and universities, the only exemptions being courthouses, jails, and federal buildings.
This is the point to the lawsuit, I think – the Oregon University System board, as a public institution, has no authority to control firearms possession, a right preempted by the state with ORS 166.170.
ORS 166.173 permit county or city governments to restrict the carry of firearms within their municipalities (and indeed, Portland, Tigard, Independence – oh irony! – and others have done so). But 166.173 (2)(d) turns right back around and exempts CHL holders from any of these municipality’s restrictions. Neither ORS 166.173 nor ORS 166.370 give a university board any legal standing to enforce a gun ban.
This doesn’t stop them from taking administrative action against a student or teacher who possesses a firearm on campus, however. They could expel you, fire you, etc., which is still concerning and something to fight for.
Actually, this is wrong. This is what the entire lawsuit was about. They have already admitted that they can not ban weapons on campus regarding CCW permits… but they feel they can still punish a student that carries a weapon permitted by their CCW. The court rules that OUS have no right to make administrative regulations regarding the carry of firearms in any way. This means that they can not punish anyone that carries, even if they are a student. This was bound to happen, and the law is extremely clear regarding this.
“this particular rule would seem on its face to be the type of regulation that was intended to be preempted.”
Oregon has a law that says regulations with the force of law concerning guns is reserved for the state assembly. The purpose of the law was to avoid a patchwork of laws in various locales across the state. Seems to be common sense.
This kind of thing is inevitable. Campus Carry is going to go mainstream. I am a college student and its inescapable reality that people in college are adults, and just because we are student’s doesn’t mean we lose our rights.
just because you are old enough to fight in foreign lands to defend the freedoms we hold dear, you should not lose your rights
The issue is, quite plainly, a prime example of doublethink.
On the one hand, the left thinks that those over 18 are adults, and should be allowed to live totally independently of their parents, who should have no say in their education.
On the other hand, the left thinks that those over 18 are children, and demands that they not be allowed to do certain things ‘for their own good.’
I think I’ll put on my JPFO polo shirt, head on over to Portland State University (PSU), and eat my lunch in celebration on the campus. Today, it is sunny and not raining in Portland.
I really appreciate Oregon. I attend OSU and we have a free concealed carry class every year. It is offered free to every student on campus and is part of our Second Amendment Week.
I just walked through the Portland State Campus this afternoon. I’m happy to report back to you all that, despite the ruling, I didn’t see any ‘wild west style shoot outs’.
I’m wondering if the college can still expel students for carrying. i.e. if you are a normal citizen you can carry there, but if you are a student you would still face administrative punishments but not legal ones.
Guns do more harm than good. In the case of college campuses that means the number of true DGUs will be smaller than the number of MISuses of the guns.
The article said “few, if any” problems are expected. The DGUs will be right around zero. So, where is the net gain? I’m not counting the ephemeral idea of individual human natural god-given rights being preserved. I’m talking about more concrete stuff, people hurt, I hesitate to use the phrase, blood on the street, or improper brandishings, or tacit threatening, bullying and all that other good shit (some) gun owners do, even CCW guys.
The net gain is that people with a constitutional right to keep and bear arms will be able to do so without [excessive] government interference.
Comments are closed.