Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 9/28/2011 2:22:39 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 4:03:49 PM EST
Sweet!! So I can now legally carry on campus, and nobody can do anything about it? Or is this still in the process of being allowed? From what I understand, the ORC does not ban the possession of firearms on a campus. Am I correct?
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 4:27:20 PM EST
Originally Posted By Schlitter:
Sweet!! So I can now legally carry on campus, and nobody can do anything about it? Or is this still in the process of being allowed? From what I understand, the ORC does not ban the possession of firearms on a campus. Am I correct?


This is of interest to me as well. I knew that there was some technicality where schools couldn't bar the lawful carry of firearms on campus, but I've been to PCC and now am attending COCC and have seen very clear instructions that firearms are not permitted on campus under any circumstances.

So does this mean we're in the clear now?
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 4:49:23 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 4:53:13 PM EST
This is of interest to me as well. I knew that there was some technicality where schools couldn't bar the lawful carry of firearms on campus, but I've been to PCC and now am attending COCC and have seen very clear instructions that firearms are not permitted on campus under any circumstances.


Might want to check COCC's rules. IIRC, they just say "... within the law."
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 5:57:25 PM EST
I'm cautiously optimistic. Better write your reps now before this hits NWCN tomorrow morning.
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 6:05:28 PM EST
Originally Posted By Bend:
This is of interest to me as well. I knew that there was some technicality where schools couldn't bar the lawful carry of firearms on campus, but I've been to PCC and now am attending COCC and have seen very clear instructions that firearms are not permitted on campus under any circumstances.


Might want to check COCC's rules. IIRC, they just say "... within the law."


According to Student Conduct on their website it says: "Firearms, explosives, ammunition, weapons, or fireworks of any kind are not permitted to be carried or used on the College campus."

ref:link
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 6:57:36 PM EST
So then, if this is extrapolated as is commonly the case with court decisions, it would appear that only the legislature can make decisions about guns, explosives, and other things in schools, or other public places.

I wonder if this would eventually apply to all schools, or other public buildings unless the legislature has specifically given them the power to make such rulings.

I wonder if this would apply to courthouses that ban anyone other than police officers on duty from carrying firearms in the buildings? Unless the legislature has already given courts the right to make decisions that the legislature hasn't authorized, it would appear that it already applies to courthouses. But I sure wouldn't want to try taking firearm into the courthouse, then hope that the judge decides the case in my favor.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 6:28:38 AM EST
This has always been a no-brainer for me: state law (which allows on-campus ccw) trumps internal policy of OUS state universities. Apparently the Oregon Court of Appeals realized this as well.

I talked about this some time ago to an OSP trooper here at OSU and he told me that "violators" would first be asked to leave, and if they refused, then they could only be cited for trespassing (not a weapons violation, assuming a valid CCW permit).

The true law-breakers in this case have always been the schools within the OUS.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 10:46:18 AM EST
http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2011/09/oregon_court_of_appeals_reject.html

One possible option would be to require students to sign a statement agreeing not to carry a gun before allowing them to enter classroom buildings, sports events or their dormitories, she said.


Link Posted: 9/29/2011 5:45:38 PM EST
This has always been the law, the court just affirmed it. You can carry on public school campus regardless of what their "rules" say because ORS 166.170 says that those rules are void. I walk past "no guns" signs all the time at schools, public parks, etc because they don't have the authority to write those rules.

I just gave $25 to the OFF education foundation LINK. (the folks who sued over this) If you like freedom and have the money I suggest you do the same thing.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 6:32:50 PM EST
Originally Posted By frogwater:
"violators" would first be asked to leave, and if they refused, then they could only be cited for trespassing (not a weapons violation, assuming a valid CCW permit


Right, just because it's legal doesn't mean they have to like it, and they can still kick you out or even expel you, much like having alcohol in a dry but legally-aged dorm room. It would also be relegated to a school-by-school policy rather than a sweeping rule, the punitive measures of which would be again administrative, but not legal. At that point you could sue and plausibly win to get the ruling repealed but it would be quite a lot of work.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 8:23:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 8:23:59 PM EST by Renegade13B]
Originally Posted By Ginocide:
Originally Posted By frogwater:
"violators" would first be asked to leave, and if they refused, then they could only be cited for trespassing (not a weapons violation, assuming a valid CCW permit


Right, just because it's legal doesn't mean they have to like it, and they can still kick you out or even expel you, much like having alcohol in a dry but legally-aged dorm room. It would also be relegated to a school-by-school policy rather than a sweeping rule, the punitive measures of which would be again administrative, but not legal. At that point you could sue and plausibly win to get the ruling repealed but it would be quite a lot of work.


Boozes doesn't have a state preemption. (at least I don't think it does) I will be interesting to see if they will be able to still punish administratively. It is my understanding that anyone who was ever caught recently carrying on campus was punished administratively and not criminally.

Anyone know if this ruling applies to community colleges as well?
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 8:46:31 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 8:48:18 PM EST by Schlitter]
Originally Posted By Ginocide:
Originally Posted By frogwater:
"violators" would first be asked to leave, and if they refused, then they could only be cited for trespassing (not a weapons violation, assuming a valid CCW permit


Right, just because it's legal doesn't mean they have to like it, and they can still kick you out or even expel you, much like having alcohol in a dry but legally-aged dorm room. It would also be relegated to a school-by-school policy rather than a sweeping rule, the punitive measures of which would be again administrative, but not legal. At that point you could sue and plausibly win to get the ruling repealed but it would be quite a lot of work.


But how could they remove someone for doing something that was just ruled to be justified? That doesn't make any sense. Here at OSU, it is a public campus, funded by the public. It is not private property. Therefore, they have no right to "ban" anything protected by the government.

Does Tinker v. Des Moines not apply? It was also a right that was being infringed. Just because it was a different amendment should not mean the schools have a right to discard the other 27
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 8:42:27 AM EST
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:

Anyone know if this ruling applies to community colleges as well?


OUS' purview is over these campuses. I suppose you'd need to look up your community college's rules separately.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 3:01:25 PM EST
Originally Posted By Ben762:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:

Anyone know if this ruling applies to community colleges as well?


OUS' purview is over these campuses. I suppose you'd need to look up your community college's rules separately.


The whole point of this is that ORS 166.170 says that NO community college or local parks department, or the Port of Portland, or the dogcatcher, or county, or city or other municipal corporation or district can regulate firearms. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. Void means they are as enforceable as a sign that says "no Jews."

This preemption statute is why you can legally carry in the airport as long as you aren't past the federal checkpoints. That's because the Port of Portland runs that portion of the airport and they are not allowed to regulate firearms.

This is why the ODFW hunting guide says that they can't regulate what you can carry in the field, only what you can take game with.

This is why I confidently walk past "no guns" signs at schools, public parks, the DMV, etc. Their signs are void under state law. Wannabe dictator bureaucrats like to pretend that they are above the law in writing rules. The appeals court just affirmed that they are not.

The bottom line is that if you have a CHL you can carry anywhere except Indian reservations, inside federal buildings and inside state courthouses. That is it.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 7:26:11 AM EST
Originally Posted By Danielisright:
Originally Posted By Ben762:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:

Anyone know if this ruling applies to community colleges as well?


OUS' purview is over these campuses. I suppose you'd need to look up your community college's rules separately.


The whole point of this is that ORS 166.170 says that NO community college or local parks department, or the Port of Portland, or the dogcatcher, or county, or city or other municipal corporation or district can regulate firearms. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. Void means they are as enforceable as a sign that says "no Jews."

This preemption statute is why you can legally carry in the airport as long as you aren't past the federal checkpoints. That's because the Port of Portland runs that portion of the airport and they are not allowed to regulate firearms.

This is why the ODFW hunting guide says that they can't regulate what you can carry in the field, only what you can take game with.

This is why I confidently walk past "no guns" signs at schools, public parks, the DMV, etc. Their signs are void under state law. Wannabe dictator bureaucrats like to pretend that they are above the law in writing rules. The appeals court just affirmed that they are not.

The bottom line is that if you have a CHL you can carry anywhere except Indian reservations, inside federal buildings and inside state courthouses. That is it.


People need to read this...and then read it again. It's not that complicated. I carry a small laminated copy of ORS 166.370 in my wallet for educational purposes...the important stuff highlighted in red.

166.370 Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging firearm at school
(1) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony.(2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person who intentionally possesses:
(A) A firearm in a court facility is guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C felony. A person who intentionally possesses a firearm in a court facility shall surrender the firearm to a law enforcement officer.
(B) A weapon, other than a firearm, in a court facility may be required to surrender the weapon to a law enforcement officer or to immediately remove it from the court facility. A person who fails to comply with this subparagraph is guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C felony.
(b) The presiding judge of a judicial district may enter an order permitting the possession of specified weapons in a court facility.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:(a) A sheriff, police officer, other duly appointed peace officers or a corrections officer while acting within the scope of employment.
(b) A person summoned by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest or preserving the peace, while the summoned person is engaged in assisting the officer.
(c) An active or reserve member of the military forces of this state or the United States, when engaged in the performance of duty.
(d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) and 166.292 (Procedure for issuing) to carry a concealed handgun.(e) A person who is authorized by the officer or agency that controls the public building to possess a firearm or dangerous weapon in that public building.
(f) An employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, acting within the scope of employment, who possesses a firearm in the course of the lawful taking of wildlife.
(g) Possession of a firearm on school property if the firearm:
(A) Is possessed by a person who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing the firearm; and
(B) Is unloaded and locked in a motor vehicle.



Link Posted: 10/1/2011 8:19:20 AM EST
why bother, they will just make up new laws as they go along. It is what they do...


if they want something...they will figure out a way to get it. Hey, they are liberals folks..seriously..

Link Posted: 10/1/2011 1:26:58 PM EST
Originally Posted By OrARGB:
Originally Posted By Danielisright:
Originally Posted By Ben762:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:

Anyone know if this ruling applies to community colleges as well?


OUS' purview is over these campuses. I suppose you'd need to look up your community college's rules separately.


The whole point of this is that ORS 166.170 says that NO community college or local parks department, or the Port of Portland, or the dogcatcher, or county, or city or other municipal corporation or district can regulate firearms. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. Void means they are as enforceable as a sign that says "no Jews."

This preemption statute is why you can legally carry in the airport as long as you aren't past the federal checkpoints. That's because the Port of Portland runs that portion of the airport and they are not allowed to regulate firearms.

This is why the ODFW hunting guide says that they can't regulate what you can carry in the field, only what you can take game with.

This is why I confidently walk past "no guns" signs at schools, public parks, the DMV, etc. Their signs are void under state law. Wannabe dictator bureaucrats like to pretend that they are above the law in writing rules. The appeals court just affirmed that they are not.

The bottom line is that if you have a CHL you can carry anywhere except Indian reservations, inside federal buildings and inside state courthouses. That is it.


People need to read this...and then read it again. It's not that complicated. I carry a small laminated copy of ORS 166.370 in my wallet for educational purposes...the important stuff highlighted in red.

166.370 Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging firearm at school
(1) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony.(2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person who intentionally possesses:
(A) A firearm in a court facility is guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C felony. A person who intentionally possesses a firearm in a court facility shall surrender the firearm to a law enforcement officer.
(B) A weapon, other than a firearm, in a court facility may be required to surrender the weapon to a law enforcement officer or to immediately remove it from the court facility. A person who fails to comply with this subparagraph is guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C felony.
(b) The presiding judge of a judicial district may enter an order permitting the possession of specified weapons in a court facility.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:(a) A sheriff, police officer, other duly appointed peace officers or a corrections officer while acting within the scope of employment.
(b) A person summoned by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest or preserving the peace, while the summoned person is engaged in assisting the officer.
(c) An active or reserve member of the military forces of this state or the United States, when engaged in the performance of duty.
(d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) and 166.292 (Procedure for issuing) to carry a concealed handgun.(e) A person who is authorized by the officer or agency that controls the public building to possess a firearm or dangerous weapon in that public building.
(f) An employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, acting within the scope of employment, who possesses a firearm in the course of the lawful taking of wildlife.
(g) Possession of a firearm on school property if the firearm:
(A) Is possessed by a person who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing the firearm; and
(B) Is unloaded and locked in a motor vehicle.





I've never had any shadow of a doubt that campus carry is legal, but I didn't doubt OUS' willingness to expel/fire people who break their administrative rule. What I meant when I responded to Renegade was that his school may still have admin. rules that (even with precedent from this week's decision) could get him in trouble - since the court has only ruled OAR 580-022-0045(3) invalid. I'm not a paralegal, but that's my take
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 2:55:44 PM EST
I understand that anyone can be denied entry into, or told to leave a courthouse, and failure to obey such a directive is a criminal offense, however, does that all mean that someone with a valid CCH is exempt from the "no firearms" rules posted in courthouses?
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 6:33:01 PM EST
Originally Posted By Genin:
I understand that anyone can be denied entry into, or told to leave a courthouse, and failure to obey such a directive is a criminal offense, however, does that all mean that someone with a valid CCH is exempt from the "no firearms" rules posted in courthouses?


No. Those with a concealed handgun license are exempted from subsection (1) and restrictions of weapons in courtrooms are listed in subsection (2).
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 10:57:54 AM EST
That would do it then..
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 11:22:34 AM EST
Originally Posted By Ben762:

I've never had any shadow of a doubt that campus carry is legal, but I didn't doubt OUS' willingness to expel/fire people who break their administrative rule. What I meant when I responded to Renegade was that his school may still have admin. rules that (even with precedent from this week's decision) could get him in trouble - since the court has only ruled OAR 580-022-0045(3) invalid. I'm not a paralegal, but that's my take


Exactly what I was getting at. While we all know that it is not illegal to carry in all these places, this ruling may not apply to admin rules in schools outside of the OUS. Thus, administrative punishment might be an issue for some.

I think the safest course at this point is for all students to continue to practice good OPSEC and PERSEC until this matter is further clarified and tested. However, if someone has deep pockets and is willing to sacrifice their education for this matter, I would applaud them for being the test case
Top Top