An email from Southern Oregon University titled "Weapons Policy"

[fd15k]

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

It was clarified in the earlier post :

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;

 

[Gunner3456]

It was clarified in the earlier post :

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;

1. OK, so I get a warning and can leave - no harm, no foul.

2. Who's certain that the order to leave is lawful? Is their "policy" lawful, or are they full of it?

 

[fd15k]

1. OK, so I get a warning and can leave - no harm, no foul.

That's right. But it gets tricky if they tell you not to go there again. I'm not sure what then...

2. Who's certain that the order to leave is lawful? Is their "policy" lawful, or are they full of it?

Lawful in this context likely means that the person who tells you to leave is really a person in the position to do so, and
the order to do so is justified. For instance, if you're asked to leave due to violation of their policy that likely would be a
lawful request. Whether the policy itself is lawful or not is not important - you have to leave, and are free to challenge
the policy in court through a civil suit... or stay, get charged criminally, and try to appeal your conviction

 

[fd15k]

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

It looks like it will, for 4 years.

§ 166.291¹
Issuance of concealed handgun license

1) The sheriff of a county, upon a person's application for an Oregon concealed handgun license, upon receipt of the appropriate fees and after compliance with the procedures set out in this section, shall issue the person a concealed handgun license if the person:
...
(h) Has not been convicted of a misdemeanor or found guilty, except for insanity under ORS 161.295 (Effect of mental disease or defect), of a misdemeanor within the four years prior to the application;


Reasons for denial of application are also the same reasons for revocation:

166.293¹
Denial or revocation of license
...
(3)(a) Any act or condition that would prevent the issuance of a concealed handgun license is cause for revoking a concealed handgun license.

 

[97321]

I don't read into this policy anything that lays the groundwork for trespassing or any kind of criminal charges. The policy addresses the manner in which the school defines its relationship with students, faculty, staff, event attendants, vendors, and businesses, et al. IMO - the policy has no legal standing for criminal infractions. However, the relationship of students to the universities (and staff, faculty, vendors, etc.) is a contractual relationship. The universities are changing the terms of the contract. In effect, if you choose to carry and you are in one of those categories, the school will then sever its contractual relationship with you. If you're a student and you carry, ... then you're no longer a student. If you're a vendor, then you lose your contract, etc., etc.

 

[hermannr]

I don't read into this policy anything that lays the groundwork for trespassing or any kind of criminal charges. The policy addresses the manner in which the school defines its relationship with students, faculty, staff, event attendants, vendors, and businesses, et al. IMO - the policy has no legal standing for criminal infractions. However, the relationship of students to the universities (and staff, faculty, vendors, etc.) is a contractual relationship. The universities are changing the terms of the contract. In effect, if you choose to carry and you are in one of those categories, the school will then sever its contractual relationship with you. If you're a student and you carry, ... then you're no longer a student. If you're a vendor, then you lose your contract, etc., etc.

That is an interesting approach to how the OUS may be viewing this...If so, under contact law, it is a unilateral change in contract, and not binding on the other Party unless the second party agrees to it. It is binding on OUS, but not anyone else who has not signed on.

Let's say I am a tenured professor...my contract is not subject to temination because of tenure. The only modification they can make with teh terms and conditions of employment are those we bi-laterly agree to...

Second approach. I am a vendor with a 5 year contract to supply depends for the faculty and administration. Unless the contract is renegociated (and that takes agreement on both parties) they can not unilaterly cancel my contract, or force me to sign a new one... This is doubly true if I am an official "small business".

Sorry, under contract law, OUS new policy is just soggy wet paper.

 

[fd15k]

I don't read into this policy anything that lays the groundwork for trespassing or any kind of criminal charges.

Policy sets the rules for use of their facilities - violate the policy, and they will ask you to leave. Refuse to leave (or perhaps even come back and do the same thing), and that's trespassing. Trespassing can even be applied to persons who are employed, invited, or otherwise authorized to be there, should they violate the policy. So contract stuff they've put is likely just for the effect "beware of the dog".

 

[Teufel_Hunden]

Guys,

You should really check this out:


http://www.oregonfirearms.org/LC%20opinion%20Stubbs/LC%20Opinion.pdf


My interpretation is: They (the board) have no auhority to do anything to you with a legal CC and CHL anywhere on campus.

Smoke and mirrors.

Someone like MR. Maxwell will get to be a new test case (unfortunately) but thats what lib-tards do.

They can go piss up a rope.

+ they could tresspass you off campus.....with a VALID reason. This just isn't it!

 

[fd15k]

Guys,

You should really check this out:


http://www.oregonfirearms.org/LC%20opinion%20Stubbs/LC%20Opinion.pdf


My interpretation is: They (the board) have no auhority to do anything to you with a legal CC and CHL anywhere on campus.

Smoke and mirrors.

Someone like MR. Maxwell will get to be a new test case (unfortunately) but thats what lib-tards do.

They can go piss up a rope.

+ they could tresspass you off campus.....with a VALID reason. This just isn't it!

Think of the University as of a municipal corporation, or simply of a small town. Can a town in Oregon make a law that would prohibit carrying of concealed weapons while in possession of a valid CHL ? No, it's preempted by state law, and no such entity can have such law. That's exactly what OSU did in the past - they made an administrative rule, making such practice illegal. And that's what got struck down by the court - you really need to apply the court decision on top of the document you've cited. Here is a bit of a help to you :

We conclude that the broad scope of the authority of the State Board of Higher Education
11 to control and manage its properties includes the authority to make rules regarding the
12 conduct of visitors or members of the public on institutional properties.

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/Publications/A142974.pdf

Basically OSU can dictate who and how will be allowed on "their" property. Should you violate that, they will ask you to leave. No criminal penalties if you comply.

 

[Teufel_Hunden]

Basically OSU can dictate who and how will be allowed on "their" property. Should you violate that, they will ask you to leave. No criminal penalties if you comply.

But............as this is a public institution they must have a reason to tresspass you.

They do NOT have a valid reason therefore they cannot enforce the tresspass.

++ this is NOT their property!

 

[fd15k]

But............as this is a public institution they must have a reason to tresspass you.

They do NOT have a valid reason therefore they cannot enforce the tresspass.

I just told you - violation of their policy is such reason.

 

[hermannr]

How come you guys don't just read the policy...the new policy says absolutely about Joe citizen..everthing is about people who have some legal relationship with the OUS properties, not joe citizen on campus to see his girl/wife/daughter (swap sex as you wish), walk through the campus, aboretum....whatever,,, if you are not a student, employee, vendor or have some other legal relationship to the OUS, this policy does not effect you...read it...where does it mention John Q. Public? No-where.

Why? Becasue the court said they could not, that is why. Does that mean security cannot tell you to leave? No, they probably will try to tell you to leave, but they cannot legally force you to leave...and there is no way they can tresspass you. Read 166.015 again, carefully.

Edit to add: BTW: if you go in a building, you need a OR CHL. 166.370 does not have the same wording as 166.173, it specifically states a license issued under .291 and .292

Sorry I have to disagree with you fd15k. The OUS "policy" means absolutely squat to joe citizen. No Standing,

 

[Teufel_Hunden]

CHL holders are specifically exempted by statute from these "policys".

City's cannot do this.....Counties...nope not them either.

Thats why Independence can pass a no OC law....."except for valid CHL holders". Better read the whole law.

 

[fd15k]

the new policy says absolutely about Joe citizen

here is a quotation from the OP:

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.

Perhaps they're incorrectly interpreting the actual Board of Education decision, I will check it in a moment.

Okay, I think this is it :

Control by OUS of its Premises Regarding Others
Subject to the exceptions stated in paragraph (C) below, no person may possess a
firearm on or in the following places on Board-owned or controlled property,
whether or not that person possesses a concealed handgun license:
(1) OUS institution buildings or buildings owned or controlled by the Board; and
(C)
(2) OUS sports or performance venues or sports or performance venues owned or
controlled by the Board; and
(3) OUS institution work places or work places owned or controlled by the Board.

It doesn't seem to cover campus as a whole.

 

[fd15k]

CHL holders are specifically exempted by statute from these "policys".

City's cannot do this.....Counties...nope not them either.

Thats why Independence can pass a no OC law....."except for valid CHL holders". Better read the whole law.

I've explained everything above.

 

[Teufel_Hunden]

166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.

(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]



166.173 Authority of city or county to regulate possession of loaded firearms in public places. (1) A city or county may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession of loaded firearms in public places as defined in ORS 161.015.

(2) Ordinances adopted under subsection (1) of this section do not apply to or affect:

(a) A law enforcement officer in the performance of official duty.

(b) A member of the military in the performance of official duty.

(c) A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.

(d) A person authorized to possess a loaded firearm while in or on a public building or court facility under ORS 166.370.

(e) An employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, acting within the scope of employment, who possesses a loaded firearm in the course of the lawful taking of wildlife. [1995 s.s. c.1 §4; 1999 c.782 §8; 2009 c.556 §3]



They have NO legal authority.

Again....they will play the game......someone will get to be the beta test and if it goes to court they will lose!

They have no "LEGAL" reason to trespass you. just like jeff maxwell....they didn't have anything to charge him with........sorry.............

 

[fd15k]

...

If you're bored, read the court ruling :
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/Publications/A142974.pdf

 

[Teufel_Hunden]

I did....read the last page.


1 Although the State Board of Higher Education is an arm of the state, it is
2 not the Legislative Assembly. And while, as noted, the State Board of Higher Education
3 has general authority to control and manage its property, ORS 351.060, and to enact
4 administrative rules, ORS 351.070(4)(b), no argument can be reasonably made that OAR
5 580-022-0045(3)--which regulates the very subject expressly preempted by ORS
6 166.170(1)--was "expressly authorized" by the Legislative Assembly. See ORS
7 166.170(1). Therefore, we conclude that OAR 580-022-0045(3) is an exercise of an
8 "authority to regulate" firearms that is not expressly authorized by the Legislative
Assembly, and that it is preempted by ORS 166.170(1).1 9 Accordingly, the rule exceeds
10 the agency's authority, ORS 183.400(4)(b), and is invalid.11 OAR 580-022-0045(3) held invalid.

 

[Teufel_Hunden]

They have attempted to enact a policy/regulation/rule that does not apply to legal Oregon CHL holders.

Sorry!

 

[fd15k]

I did....read the last page.


1 Although the State Board of Higher Education is an arm of the state, it is
2 not the Legislative Assembly. And while, as noted, the State Board of Higher Education
3 has general authority to control and manage its property, ORS 351.060, and to enact
4 administrative rules, ORS 351.070(4)(b), no argument can be reasonably made that OAR
5 580-022-0045(3)--which regulates the very subject expressly preempted by ORS
6 166.170(1)--was "expressly authorized" by the Legislative Assembly. See ORS
7 166.170(1). Therefore, we conclude that OAR 580-022-0045(3) is an exercise of an
8 "authority to regulate" firearms that is not expressly authorized by the Legislative
Assembly, and that it is preempted by ORS 166.170(1).1 9 Accordingly, the rule exceeds
10 the agency's authority, ORS 183.400(4)(b), and is invalid.11 OAR 580-022-0045(3) held invalid.

That's cool. What you're missing is also explained in the ruling. There is a difference between administrative rules in regards to firearms and policies in regards to administration of property. Per that court ruling the first ones they can't do as they're preempted, but the second ones they can do, and that's what they've done this time.