Oregon University System sued over campus handgun policy
A pro-Second Amendment foundation has filed a lawsuit challenging the Oregon University System’s ban on handguns, specifically for those with concealed handgun licenses.
The suit was brought forth last month by the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation and filed by Salem lawyer and former chairman of the Oregon Republican Party Vance Day. Rather than a traditional lawsuit seeking damages, the suit petitions the court to determine the validity of the rule.
According to the Oregon Revised Statutes, carrying a firearm into a public building is a Class C felony, punishable by up to five years and up to $100,000 fine, but an exception is “a person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.”
Those statutes allow license holders to legally carry a firearm into any public building in the state, with the exception of airport terminals, courthouses and federal buildings. The statutes also grant sole power to regulate firearms to the state legislature.
The OUS responded in a letter, writing that it had “multiple and lengthy discussions with the Oregon Department of Justice, legislators and campus officials.” The letter continued, “Fundamentally, though, OUS and the State Board of Higher Education believe that our campuses are safer without firearms.”
The OUS response to being told that they are not in compliance with the law is to tell us their feelings and beliefs. Since they can't even site any facts or statistics to back up their irrational fears I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume that their mothers breast-fed them too long.
Good job to the Daily Emerald for doing factual reporting rather than fear mongering in this story. They report, you decide.
EDIT: A video worth more than $0.02...
"I'm the only one in this room proffesional enough, that I know of, to carry this Glock 40... bang!"
11 comments:
I possess an Oregon Concealed Handgun License and support OUS's Policy of banning guns on campus.
If the ban is shown to not be "valid" or in some violation of current statutes, then I would move that the Oregon State Legislature take up the issue and ban ALL firearms on campus.
Why? Because carrying a gun concealed is a privledge not a right. Just like getting a license to drive a car. I have heard hyper 2nd Amendment kooks say that the only way to remain safe is to be armed. The facts however don't support that claim.
Most individual citizens though minimally "proficient" in handling a firearm are not trained like law enforcement agents are. There was a study done not too long ago and covered by major network news station that showed how untrained individuals respond to situations where they drew firearm for "protection". Most if not all weren't able to deal with the situation without hitting innocent people. Even a seasoned and well classically trained law enforcement officer had trouble dealing with situations where they were accosted by assailants with guns and knives. Those who just take a 2 hr "goodie-I-can-get-my CHL-now" class is not enough. Far too many people are running around with guns that shouldn't have them. I would suggest that the requirements to get a CHL be stricter.
I guess I am like most Americans, I want to leave the job of law enforcement to law enforcement officials. If you are that scared that you need to carry a gun around with you everywhere you go, you should lock yourself in the fall-out shelter and never come out. Just my 2 cents.
So "my w cents" wants to turn everything over to law enforcement? Sorry, there just aren't enough cops to cover everything. cf my blogs on the lessons of flight 93 at
http://hallillywhite.blogspot.com/2009/09/lessons-of-flight-93.html
and
http://hallillywhite.blogspot.com/search?q=flight+93
This has to do with taking responsibility for our own lives. Those who refuse to do that are the ones who should lock themselves in the fallout shelter and never come out.
concealed carry law and crime in Texas
Summary --
Jerry Patterson, the author of Texas concealed carry law which was enacted 10 years ago wrote about the legacy of his bill's passage.
John Holmes, a Texas district attorney, since Patterson the following message: "as you know, I was very outspoken and my opposition to the passage of the concealed handgun act. I did not feel that such legislation was in the public interest and presented a clear and present danger to law abiding citizens by placing more handguns on the street. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven that my initial fears were absolutely groundless."
Glenn White, the president of the Dallas police Association, said, "I lobbied against the law in 1993 and in 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened. All the horror stories that I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens without permits. I am a convert."
Statistics show that with the increase of citizens carrying concealed pistols, that between 1995 and 2004, handgun murders in Texas dropped by 18%. The overall crime rate was lower in 2004, 5032 crimes per 100,000 Texans as opposed to 5478 crimes per 100,000.
Patterson summed up the message that people should take away from Texas experience with arming is citizens.
And I have to agree with that theory, when somebody is wanting to either break into your house or rob you on the street, the individual is planning to do that knows that the odds are in his favor that you are not armed and able to protect yourself.
As for the argument, let the police handle it. The police are only able to "respond" after the fact in most cases.
As for handguns in schools... take look at Thurston high school.
1) perhaps it would not have gotten as out of hand as it did
2) although off the subject however, thanks to students carrying cell phones, the police were able to get some idea of what was going on in side. An argument that some schools are trying to ban cell phones on students.
my 2 cents, you are way off base. I did a research paper some years ago. Crime where guns were carried did not go up. In fact, when Florida started theirs years ago, they kept data on the people carrying legally. They did so few crimes they stopped keeping the data. It was not worth the time and money. If you had to stand with two groups of people, one with CHL's, and one without, I would stand with the CHL group. They are the most law abiding citizens. You have to jump through extra hoops to get one. Our founding fathers put the 2nd amendment to make it a right, not a privilege.
From the cop shootings lately, I don't think cops should have guns. They simply unload on the target. They set out to execute their targets, not stop them.
I like how you want to leave the job of law enforcement to law enforcement. Some people might have a different opinion. Especially the ones who have been victims of no knock warrants. I'm sure you can find many cases on the internet where people have been murdered by cops because you wanted to leave law enforcement to law enforcement. Most cops are crappy shots too.
Fall of '66 found my sister on campus at OSU. Her roomie at Sackett came for a visit one weekend, and I was impressed to find that she always traveled with a pistol in her possession.
Her father had bought her the weapon and trained her in its use.
Made perfect sense then. Makes perfect sense now.
The ownership of a gun is a right. Just as it is a right to own a knife or sword. I own several deadly weapons. I hope that I never employ them with the intent to inflict deadly harm.
But if the situation arises, may I defend myself?
.
M2C- your constant lying is getting annoying. You continue to claim you are one thing and then proceed to trash that very concept. Keep your schizophrenic arguments to yourself.
Remember, too, that OSU kicked a former Marine off campus because he was carrying with a conceal carry permit per Oregon law. This guy had served something like 10 years as a Marine with a couple of tours in Iraq.
If he doesn't know how to handle a weapon, then no one does.
And Hal is right there aren't enough cops to be on the spot every time some sort of incident takes place. Even M2C ought to be able to understand that.
Some people carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.
So what's up with you and guns, Miglavs? I mean, seriously. What's up with that?
How can an obvious pro-gun control advocate justify having a concealed carry permit? Isn't that a contradiction of some sort? M2C apparently wants to have it both ways, but at the same time, wants others to accede to his anti-gun advocacy of carrying on a state-funded campus as allowed by the Oregon Constitution.
If M2C doesn't want to carry on a campus, fine. But don't try to tell others that they cannot.
Anon 11:12 is right here. M2C is all about a double standard, but only for himself.
I will not rest until "former" gangbangers are treated like the criminals they are.
Post a Comment