An email from Southern Oregon University titled "Weapons Policy"

[DonovanJay]

This email was received at 9:22am this morning:

Dear SOU Faculty, Staff, and Students:

On March 2, the Oregon State Board of Higher Education approved a policy on firearms for the Oregon University System, including SOU. Since questions have been coming forward about what this means for us, I am providing some answers here.

The policy forbids students, employees, individuals with a business interest with the campus (such as vendors and contractors), event attendees, those who rent or lease university property and campus visitors from carrying a firearm on Board-owned or controlled property. That property includes all OUS campus buildings, sports or performance venues, and workplaces. The prohibition is effective whether or not an individual holds a concealed handgun license.

The policy also authorizes several exceptions to the firearms prohibition, including on-duty law enforcement officers and public safety personnel, military program participants (such as ROTC), and residents of a family housing dwelling. The latter specifically does not include residence halls, where the policy bans possession of firearms.

SOU students who violate the policy will be held accountable under our student conduct code. Employees who violate the policy will be held accountable under SOU employment policies.
Contractors, vendors, event attendees, those who rent or lease university property, and other visitors to SOU will be subject to exclusion from campus.

The new policy was created following an Oregon Court of Appeals decision last fall ruling that the Board lacked the authority to regulate guns through use of an administrative rule. Yet, at the time, the Court also recognized that the Board has been granted by the Oregon Legislature broad policy control over OUS property. Thus, the Board created this policy.

SOU supports this policy, as well as the Board’s “recognition of its obligation to provide a safe environment to its students, employees, visitors, vendors and patrons,” as stated by the Board’s memorandum on the new policy.

If you have questions regarding the policy or its enforcement at SOU, please contact Campus Public Safety Co-Directors Rich Walsh ([email protected]) or Steve Ross ([email protected]).

Mary Cullinan
President

Read More

 

[branson4020]

Already a very extensive thread on this topic.

http://www.northwestfirearms.com/legal-political/83712-email-oregon-state-university-morning.html

 

[biggie24420]

I would print that email and use is as TP lol.... it's a policy and who cares about their policy. If one is scared of loosing their job, or getting kicked out of school for carrying... that is their deal. As for me, if I was attending school there I would carry concealed 100% of the time and they could kiss where the sun doesn't shine. I have a State issued license to carry and that is what matters because I am legally able to. Again I think law abiding citizens shouldn't have to have a CHL to conceal carry (as long as they fallow laws and are not committing a crime) but that is another story.

 

[Gunner3456]

Do I have to attend their university to learn the difference between a "rule" and a "policy?" The inmates are running the asylum. If I have occasion to be on campus, I'll be carrying.

Seeing how they formulate email addresses, her email would be [email protected]. Maybe I'll email her and educate her on the use of the word "whether."

It's not "...whether or not an individual holds a concealed handgun license." It's "...whether an individual holds a concealed handgun license." "or not" is redundant. She needs a remedial class in 5th grade grammar.

 

[tankballs]

This is a bullfish policy, but as far as the grammar goes, it's sound. Very often, the 'or not' is superfluous (i.e., not required). However, when 'whether or not' means 'regardless of whether', the 'or not' part is required. Sorry gunner.

 

[Gunner3456]

This is a bullfish policy, but as far as the grammar goes, it's sound. Very often, the 'or not' is superfluous (i.e., not required). However, when 'whether or not' means 'regardless of whether', the 'or not' part is required. Sorry gunner.

Sorry, "or not" is superfluous and redundant and verbose. Substitute "if" for whether.

"...even if an individual holds a concealed handgun license." You wouldn't say "...even if (or not) an individual holds a concealed handgun license."

"Whether" is a correlative conjunction. It already implies "or not."

"I'll see whether he wants to play tennis." is correct. "I'll see whether (or not) he wants to play tennis" is awkward, redundant and verbose.

 

[civilian75]

Whoa, whoa, whoa!! The grammar teachers have hijacked the thread!!

Do I have to attend their university to learn the difference between a "rule" and a "policy?" The inmates are running the asylum. If I have occasion to be on campus, I'll be carrying.

+1 on this one with you Gunner.

My two kids now attend their lefty/progressive system. I will support them 100% if/when they decide to cc once they are of legal age.

 

[fd15k]

My two kids now attend their lefty/progressive system.

Not sure what to make of this...

 

[osterr1999]

Bottom line, I don't think you can be legally "excluded" from campus if you are a private citizen on publicly owned property. If it was a private university, they can do what they want to, but they are public. We, the tax payers, "own" the campus and the buildings. I would like to have a police officer or lawyer explain to me how I , private citizen, over whom the university has no control, can be asked to leave public property for doing nothing illegal. Maybe I am just being hard headed, but I don't think so. I think if I were asked to leave, I would ask to have an officer come and explain it to me.

 

[fd15k]

Bottom line, I don't think you can be legally "excluded" from campus if you are a private citizen on publicly owned property. If it was a private university, they can do what they want to, but they are public. We, the tax payers, "own" the campus and the buildings. I would like to have a police officer or lawyer explain to me how I , private citizen, over whom the university has no control, can be asked to leave public property for doing nothing illegal. Maybe I am just being hard headed, but I don't think so. I think if I were asked to leave, I would ask to have an officer come and explain it to me.

Just google "trespassing on public property" - tons of links.

 

[tankballs]

Sorry, "or not" is superfluous and redundant and verbose. Substitute "if" for whether.

"...even if an individual holds a concealed handgun license." You wouldn't say "...even if (or not) an individual holds a concealed handgun license."

"Whether" is a correlative conjunction. It already implies "or not."

"I'll see whether he wants to play tennis." is correct. "I'll see whether (or not) he wants to play tennis" is awkward, redundant and verbose.

Courtesy of Garner's Modern American Usage: "or not" is necessary when the phrase "whether or not" means "regardless of whether." Substituting "if" in the sentence would leave it saying "The prohibition is effective IF an individual holds a concealed handgun license." The meaning of this conditional sentence is that individuals without concealed handgun licenses could carry firearms and not be in violation of the policy. Whether (or Not) - NYTimes.com

Grammar aside, the school can legally make all the gun restrictions it wants. I'm pretty sure all of this started in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting. It's crap, but I would simply choose to quietly violate the policy for my own personal safety. If you're carrying concealed, just keep it concealed. One thing they can't do is discriminately search and seize without justification. Don't give them a justification.

 

[osterr1999]

fd15k,

Each state has different trespassing laws. After looking at the Oregon Revised Statutes, it is not clear to me that you can be trespassed off of public property if you are not breaking a law or acting in a manner that is causing a disturbance. For instance, strolling though campus minding my own business. That being said, it is not clear to me that they can't trespass you either. Most people say to just ignore the policy anyway.

 

[fd15k]

fd15k,

Each state has different trespassing laws. After looking at the Oregon Revised Statutes, it is not clear to me that you can be trespassed off of public property if you are not breaking a law or acting in a manner that is causing a disturbance. For instance, strolling though campus minding my own business. That being said, it is not clear to me that they can't trespass you either. Most people say to just ignore the policy anyway.

I will try to clarify it for you then

164.245¹
Criminal trespass in the second degree

(1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree if the person enters or remains unlawfully in a motor vehicle or in or upon premises.

(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a Class C misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §139; 1999 c.1040 §9]

164.205¹
Definitions for ORS 164.205 to 164.270
...
(3) "Enter or remain unlawfully" means:
...
(b) To fail to leave premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed to do so by the person in charge;
(c) To enter premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed not to enter the premises; or
...
(5) "Person in charge" means a person, a representative or employee of the person who has lawful control of premises by ownership, tenancy, official position or other legal relationship. "Person in charge" includes, but is not limited to the person, or holder of a position, designated as the person or position-holder in charge by the Governor, board, commission or governing body of any political subdivision of this state.

(6) "Premises" includes any building and any real property, whether privately or publicly owned. [1971 c.743 §135; 1983 c.740 §33; 1999 c.1040 §10; 2003 c.444 §1]

How about now ?

 

[Gunner3456]

Courtesy of Garner's Modern American Usage: "or not" is necessary when the phrase "whether or not" means "regardless of whether."

It also must be an adverb. In this case it is an adjective.

Substituting "if" in the sentence would leave it saying "The prohibition is effective IF an individual holds a concealed handgun license." The meaning of this conditional sentence is that individuals without concealed handgun licenses could carry firearms and not be in violation of the policy.

Not in context with all else that is stated before. It is just one sentence among many prohibitive statements. It isn't delineated as separate from the other prohibitions.

Whether (or Not) - NYTimes.com

I really don't want to continue the thread jack, and I apologize for starting it.

 

[osterr1999]

I understand what the law says, but without interpretation from an actual lawyer I think I will do what I think is best. I think this will probably end up going to the state supreme court again before we get a real answer.

 

[fd15k]

I understand what the law says, but without interpretation from an actual lawyer I think I will do what I think is best.

I guess when you see 55MPH on the freeway at night and in a hurry, you also do what you think is best, that is 80+ MPH

 

[Gunner3456]

This higher education system in Oregon reminds me of Sheriff Winters in Jackson County. IMHO he has his own opinion of how things should be regardless of the law, and doesn't mind spending a lot of taxpayer money losing. In addition to his two high profile cases which he lost at the Oregon SC level, he tried to take one of them to the US SC and was rejected. Still that costs money. Also, he has made some out of court settlements which weren't publicized, including the $30k payment to the retired Ron Oakes when he was roughed up.

Hey, it's just our taxpayer money used to try to take away our rights. If someone sues over this college/university "policy" we will pay the defendant's legal fees.

 

[fd15k]

Oh, and one more thing. Since we're talking about trespass while carrying, they have another nice statute :

164.265¹
Criminal trespass while in possession of firearm

(1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.

(2) Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. [1979 c.603 §2]

Jumps from class C to class A. Here is the comparison :

Class Maximum potential jail term Maximum potential fine
Class A Misdemeanor 1 year $6250
Class C Misdemeanor 30 days $1250

 

[Gunner3456]

Oh, and one more thing. Since we're talking about trespass while carrying, they have another nice statute :

164.265¹
Criminal trespass while in possession of firearm

(1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.

(2) Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. [1979 c.603 §2]

Jumps from class C to class A. Here is the comparison :

Class Maximum potential jail term Maximum potential fine
Class A Misdemeanor 1 year $6250
Class C Misdemeanor 30 days $1250

But is is unlawful, or just a violation of "policy?"

 

[branson4020]

Oh, and one more thing. Since we're talking about trespass while carrying, they have another nice statute :

164.265¹
Criminal trespass while in possession of firearm

(1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.

(2) Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. [1979 c.603 §2]

Jumps from class C to class A. Here is the comparison :

Class Maximum potential jail term Maximum potential fine
Class A Misdemeanor 1 year $6250
Class C Misdemeanor 30 days $1250

Now that is interesting. Would it also cost you your CHL?