Concealed Carry: OSU (Oregon State) Campus

[LCDR]

Within your rights, but I personally was always careful to keep my gun my own business. When push comes to shove, they may not have an enforceable prohibition, but being the guy to prove it would be time-consuming and expensive.

Trespass is not an easy crime to diagnosis. When is a person trespassing? When dealing with firearms it is critical to get it right. Trespass with a firearm in Oregon is a Class A misdemeanor:

ORS 164.265 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]

Notice:
1) There is NO preemption included in the above stated ORS. Preemption wouldn’t even make legal sense. An individual with a CHL can be charged ORS 164.265 if he/she is in violation.
2) There is no distinction between public or private property in the above stated ORS.

The only item that requires a definition is “enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.” This is defined by Oregon statute:

ORS 164.205 Definitions for ORS 164.205 to 164.270. (Only discussed items listed)

(3) “Enter or remain unlawfully” means:
(a) To enter or remain in or upon premises when the premises, at the time of such entry or remaining, are not open to the public or when the entrant is not otherwise licensed or privileged to do so;
(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

(4) “Open to the public” means premises which by their physical nature, function, custom, usage, notice or lack thereof or other circumstances at the time would cause a reasonable person to believe that no permission to enter or remain is required.

(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]

Notice the three distinct different definitions for “Enter or remain unlawfully”. Violation of any one of the three is a violation of ORS 164.265 if carrying a firearm.

With the above information in mind, anyone want to clarify their position/comments?

LCDR

 

[jfort]

I guess my question would be whether or not you can be lawfully directed not to carry in a public place. I would ask whether carrying a firearm with a CHL is a valid reason to be charged with trespass in an area that is considered public, and by being public has been made legal to carry with a CHL?

 

[LCDR]

I guess my question would be whether or not you can be lawfully directed not to carry in a public place. I would ask whether carrying a firearm with a CHL is a valid reason to be charged with trespass in an area that is considered public, and by being public has been made legal to carry with a CHL?

Depends if the public place is "open to the public" or if you are "licensed or privileged" to be there.

For example:

A University Stadium has been leased for a music festival to a private company. In order for the public to attend, the company is selling tickets. On that ticket is the license agreement, additionally the license agreement is available for your view before your purchase of the ticket. The purchase of the ticket is a contract between you and the company that you will abide by the terms on the back of the ticket. The license agreement states no firearms.

The stadium, although public property, would not be "open to the public" for that event. The company that leased the property has the right to restrict all firearms, even CHL holders. By your purchase of the ticket and entering, if you have a CHL and carry a firearm, you would be in violation of ORS 164.265

Again this is one of many possible examples.

The issue that OFF's educational foundation has brought to the Oregon Appeals Court, may help to clarify some of the issues. But some, somewhat like the example above, has case law behind it already.

LCDR

 

[CEF1959]

So CEF are you for or against concealed carry on Oregon State University property.

I highly doubt you will answer that question!

I guess I should be flattered that you are so interested in my point of view on this as to repeatedly demand a response. But I'm mostly just kind of grossed out by the obsession. Obsession from a guy on the internet, who posts 10+ times per day to one site for 2 years? Yeah, kinda creepy.

 

[Captain Question]

By your purchase of the ticket and entering, if you have a CHL and carry a firearm, you would be in violation of ORS 164.265

Again this is one of many possible examples.

The issue that OFF's educational foundation has brought to the Oregon Appeals Court, may help to clarify some of the issues. But some, somewhat like the example above, has case law behind it already.

LCDR

Would you please cite to some of that case law that supports your position, for those of us who know how to look it up? Clearly I have a different read on the matter than you do, but would like to see your sources before going farther in challenging your analysis.

 

[LCDR]

Would you please cite to some of that case law that supports your position, for those of us who know how to look it up? Clearly I have a different read on the matter than you do, but would like to see your sources before going farther in challenging your analysis.

For starters, here is one Kevin lost himself.

Kevin STARRETT, Appellant, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, acting by and through the STATE of Oregon, Respondent.

0201-00365;  A120898.

As far as the issue of public but not open to the public and lawful order not to enter:

STATE OF OREGON v. WILLIAM LEWIS BARNES,
aka William L. Barnes,

070241459; A136220.

There are others as well. So if you have a different opinion, would really like to hear it with facts backing it up.

There is also a firearm case of private, no notification except for roadside signs (miles away), separate section adjacent to BLM land, no visual division except for topo map , trespass affirmed. Can dig up the appeal number if you really want it.

I have not spent much time on trespass as I am spending most of my spare time on Oregon knife laws and the associated case law. (Much more of a mess than trespass.)

I am also waiting for STARRETT's present case to go forward.

LCDR

 

[Captain Question]

For starters, here is one Kevin lost himself.

Kevin STARRETT, Appellant, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, acting by and through the STATE of Oregon, Respondent.

0201-00365;  A120898.

As far as the issue of public but not open to the public and lawful order not to enter:

STATE OF OREGON v. WILLIAM LEWIS BARNES,
aka William L. Barnes,

070241459; A136220.

There are others as well. So if you have a different opinion, would really like to hear it with facts backing it up.

There is also a firearm case of private, no notification except for roadside signs (miles away), separate section adjacent to BLM land, no visual division except for topo map , trespass affirmed. Can dig up the appeal number if you really want it.

I have not spent much time on trespass as I am spending most of my spare time on Oregon knife laws and the associated case law. (Much more of a mess than trespass.)

I am also waiting for STARRETT's present case to go forward.

LCDR

Let's see.

Barnes

"The information alleged that defendant entered the Portland State University (PSU) campus after he had been issued a lawful order excluding him from campus."

So he was issued a lawful order and tried to come back on. Told to GTFO, he didn't. I don't see how that supports your position that a sign is sufficient, lacking any issuance of an order - i.e. someone saying "please leave and don't come back, sir."

And...

Starrett

"In sum, ORS 166.170 and ORS 166.173 do not preclude a city from leasing public property to a private party on terms that permit the private party to choose whether to permit persons to carry concealed handguns pursuant to a license to enter onto the leased property or attend an event on the leased property. We therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment in the city's favor on that ground."

Not a case involving a trespass, let alone criminal trespass with a firearm, but rather a case involving injunctive relief to force a private party to allow a firearm, which is plainly not within the scope of the statute.

What else ya got? You're not impressing me with your legal brilliance so far - let's see some of those other cases you've alluded to, cases that mean that someone who has not been lawfully asked to leave (see Barnes, above) is prohibited, ab initio, from entering and will be cited and convicted merely for the act of entering.

 

[LCDR]

Let's see.

Barnes

"The information alleged that defendant entered the Portland State University (PSU) campus after he had been issued a lawful order excluding him from campus."

So he was issued a lawful order and tried to come back on. Told to GTFO, he didn't. I don't see how that supports your position that a sign is sufficient, lacking any issuance of an order - i.e. someone saying "please leave and don't come back, sir."

And...

Starrett

"In sum, ORS 166.170 and ORS 166.173 do not preclude a city from leasing public property to a private party on terms that permit the private party to choose whether to permit persons to carry concealed handguns pursuant to a license to enter onto the leased property or attend an event on the leased property. We therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment in the city's favor on that ground."

Not a case involving a trespass, let alone criminal trespass with a firearm, but rather a case involving injunctive relief to force a private party to allow a firearm, which is plainly not within the scope of the statute.

What else ya got? You're not impressing me with your legal brilliance so far - let's see some of those other cases you've alluded to, cases that mean that someone who has not been lawfully asked to leave (see Barnes, above) is prohibited, ab initio, from entering and will be cited and convicted merely for the act of entering.

Glad you concur that a College Rule can support a "Law Full Order" to leave and not reenter a campus! Thank you, that was one of the disagreements on this forum.

I have used numerous cases in the past, in courts of law, that do not directly impact about the item in quest, but indirectly. Yes Starrett was looking for injunctive relief, and he was turned down solid. That case is now enough to be used to support the issue of PUBLIC PROPERTY not being OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

It is apparent you have not been to law school.

As far as the private property / posting; as I stated I would get it to you if you wanted. Apparently you do. When I get back, I will dig it up for you. Although it really doesn't apply in the narrow incident I was discussing.

I recommend you look at some of current trespass cases against freedom of speech. They have also granted rights for schools to limit access to schools.

Then take a look at Contract Law.

Then go back to the specific question that I was answering.

Law school does help.

LCDR

 

[Stomper]

Maybe Law School DOES help... but you loose your soul in the process!

 

[LCDR]

let's see some of those other cases you've alluded to, cases that mean that someone who has not been lawfully asked to leave (see Barnes, above) is prohibited, ab initio, from entering and will be cited and convicted merely for the act of entering.

This case and decision I have a real problem with. It has some real potential negative impact. Notice that it was not handled under the hunting regulation. If it was, I suspect he would not have been found guilty (another case different criteria).

STATE OF OREGON v. CHAD E. HINTON

MI-03-0832; A124901

Actually, I'm glad you do read cases, most people don't. I never tell people what to do or not to do. I only attempt to show what could happen; which doesn't mean what will happen.

Don't know about the LEO thoughts now, but in the late sixties, it all boiled down to the individuals attitude. Good attitude and follows direction, no charge. Bad attitude and didn't follow directions, off to jail with as many charges as possible then let the DA sort it out.

I see where the City of Portland may be trying another run around of Oregon's gun laws: exclusion zones. Portland has had some success in that area with drug enforcement, but there have also been many overturned. Should be interesting.

LCDR

 

[Trlsmn]

I guess I should be flattered that you are so interested in my point of view on this as to repeatedly demand a response. But I'm mostly just kind of grossed out by the obsession. Obsession from a guy on the internet, who posts 10+ times per day to one site for 2 years? Yeah, kinda creepy.

Lots of words but no intelligent point, just your usual attempt at a school yard insult, meh, I've been called worse by better.

Since you've ducked the question let me ask again.

So CEF are you for or against concealed carry on Oregon State University property.

Multiple choice:
A- Yes, I'm "personally" for concealed carry on Oregon State University property
B- No, I'm "personally" against concealed carry on Oregon State University property
C- Duck the question with a personal insult
D- Ignore the challenge

I highly doubt you will answer that question!

 

[Stomper]

You forgot one!!

Are you a man or woman?

 

[Trlsmn]

I guess I should be flattered that you are so interested in my point of view on this as to repeatedly demand a response. But I'm mostly just kind of grossed out by the obsession. Obsession from a guy on the internet, who posts 10+ times per day to one site for 2 years? Yeah, kinda creepy.

The guy that has thoroughly examined my stats and even tried to come up with an analysis of what those stats mean is labeling me as Obsessed!

ZING!

Obsession n. Compulsive preoccupation with a fixed idea or an unwanted feeling or emotion, often accompanied by symptoms of anxiety.

 

[LCDR]

Maybe Law School DOES help... but you loose your soul in the process!

Stomper;

I gave mine to the United States decades ago to use as they saw fit. Wasn't much left when they were done. No complaints, it was my choice, but maybe it wasn't mine to make. :gun20:

 

[Trlsmn]

Maybe Law School DOES help... but you loose your soul in the process!

Stomper;

I gave mine to the United States decades ago to use as they saw fit. Wasn't much left when they were done. No complaints, it was my choice, but maybe it wasn't mine to make. :gun20:

I'll sell you one cheap, you might want to read the fine print before signing though. All souls are guaranteed 100% pre-loosened!

 

[CHLChris]

Every gun owner in the state of Oregon needs this book...

"Understanding Oregon Gun Laws"...by Kevin Starrett

Don't depend on people from the internet to provide legal counsel. That often results in you paying a stupid tax.

info can be found here: Oregon Firearms Federation

Quoted for TRUTH!!

He would be the first to declare that they disallow firearms on the OSU campus, but are UNCONSTITUTIONALLY doing so! When I go onto state campuses, let's just say that I follow the Oregon State Constitution.

I'd welcome that legal battle and settle this once and for all. And I know that my only real goal is to protect myself and my family. I'm no law breaker!

 

[LCDR]

Quoted for TRUTH!!

He would be the first to declare that they disallow firearms on the OSU campus, but are UNCONSTITUTIONALLY doing so! When I go onto state campuses, let's just say that I follow the Oregon State Constitution.

I'd welcome that legal battle and settle this once and for all. And I know that my only real goal is to protect myself and my family. I'm no law breaker!

If you decide to lead the way I will provide more donations to OFF, than I usually do, to assist with your defense. Although I don’t agree with everything Kevin does I do agree with most and provide support.

Personally I wouldn’t put words in Kevin’s mouth. What Kevin has done is to have the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation (OFEF) file a Petition for Judicial Determination of Validity of Rule against the Oregon University System for a rule imposing sanctions against anyone possessing a firearm on institutional property. I have a copy of it somewhere. I believe he brings it up as an issue of violation of State law, not the Oregon Constitution, but I have been wrong before. Maybe Kevin will jump in.

LCDR

 

[CHLChris]

Kevin Starrett hangs around these parts? Cool. What is his screen name?

I just get touchy when anti-gun types who think a gun in anybody's hands is going to start automatically committing mass-murder begin to tell me what I cannot do with my own firearm.

I'm one of the good guys. And when I'm on campus the place is safer, at least incrementally so. I wish everyone saw things this way.

 

[Stomper]

I'll sell you one cheap, you might want to read the fine print before signing though. All souls are guaranteed 100% pre-loosened!

Just add, water... however some models require alcohol!!

 

[LCDR]

Kevin Starrett hangs around these parts? Cool. What is his screen name?

I just get touchy when anti-gun types who think a gun in anybody's hands is going to start automatically committing mass-murder begin to tell me what I cannot do with my own firearm.

I'm one of the good guys. And when I'm on campus the place is safer, at least incrementally so. I wish everyone saw things this way.

This thread entry #35. He will also respond to personal emails to OFF if there is something important.