Email from Oregon State University this morning

[civilian75]

Which is a roundabout way of saying the court will require "soft" standing, but not a showing of actual harm as required in most cases. Bottom line: this can be challenged in the courts without someone making a ruckus in order to be a test case.

The way I interpret this is a student or a teacher has soft standing. They have not been harmed by the defendant or respondent but they could rightfully claim their policy puts their safety in jeopardy. Isn't that right?

 

[Whitman]

Civilian75:

I think a student or teacher would definitely be able to demonstrate sufficient adversity of interests as required by the Oregon APA. I also think any CHL holder would be able to do so (that is, demonstrate soft standing). The key is that, under the Oregon APA, one need not demonstrate the existence of a personal impact as required in normal standing challenges. The "any person" language in the statute still carries some weight.

 

[Norm0931]

That's exactly what I was thinking. Any CHL holder or anyone that is included under their rule can be considered being infringed upon and therefore has grounds to sue.

 

[Cougfan2]

Whitman, thanks for the clarification. Very educational.

 

[korntera]

I stole this from somebody else.

 

[Norm0931]

Well, there has yet to be a school shooting at a school where guns are not banned from students and teachers.

 

[branson4020]

 

[bikejunkie]

It's a bad day to be a Beaver...It seems the fine administration at Oregon State has largely extended the same ability of businesses to exclude weapons from their buildings. I would expect this kind of behavior from the People's Republic of Eugene...

 

[Mattiosmaximos]

This is directly from the OFF website:

"The Board of Higher Education and the Oregon University System have made every effort to ignore or circumvent the Oregon Appeals Court. By doing so they have put their staff and their students in danger. We strongly recommend that if you have any reason to be on Oregon University property, you do what they have done: ignore regulations. If the OUS feels free to pay no attention to the clear direction of the Oregon Courts, any rational person would pay no attention to their unlawful regulations.

If you are a CHL holder, carry your self-defense tool. The bureaucrats at the Higher Education Board have demonstrated that they have no interest in your safety. Take care of yourself."

I agree with this completely and will continue to carry when I visit campus.

I do and I always will. Right on.

 

[DonovanJay]

I think its interesting that our elected officials are not getting more media attention speaking out against this..

 

[Cougfan2]

I think its interesting that our elected officials are not getting more media attention speaking out against this..

I don't think it's interesting. I think it's telling.

 

[lcb97269]

simpleguy, "I read this too. While I wholeheartedly agree with OFF with respect to ignoring OUS's "policy", I am not sure I want to volunteer putting my freedom on the line trying challenge it. I think another lawsuit is in order."

You wouldn't be putting your freedom in jeopardy because OUS has no authority to make rules negating state law. If you are a student, that would be the only thing they could hold against you and you could sue their pants off since court precedent has already been set and they have no leg to stand on. A settlement could possibly pay for your education.

 

[lcb97269]

BTW, this resolution came about the day after Ginny Burdick lost in the legislature, again.

 

[Kevatc]

Public money to public institutions to make policy that affects the public in contradiction to the state and federal constitutions. Seems to me this should be unconstitutional. What am I missing?

 

[mat33]

Civilian75:

I think a student or teacher would definitely be able to demonstrate sufficient adversity of interests

I'd like to see some students/profs from UO School of Law stepping up to the plate here. If not then I'll interpret that as lack of appropriate 2A curriculum. I certainly won't ever hire a lawyer that hasn't been learned the Bill of Rights.

 

[branson4020]

simpleguy, "I read this too. While I wholeheartedly agree with OFF with respect to ignoring OUS's "policy", I am not sure I want to volunteer putting my freedom on the line trying challenge it. I think another lawsuit is in order."

You wouldn't be putting your freedom in jeopardy because OUS has no authority to make rules negating state law. If you are a student, that would be the only thing they could hold against you and you could sue their pants off since court precedent has already been set and they have no leg to stand on. A settlement could possibly pay for your education.

Well, actually the Board of trustees has broad authority enacted by the state legislature and recognized by the most recent appellate court ruling. The "state law" actually gives them the right to do this stuff as long as they do it the 'right' way. I'm not trying to defend the University, just trying to focus people on the real problem here, which is the state legislature.

 

[lcb97269]

Well, actually the Board of trustees has broad authority enacted by the state legislature and recognized by the most recent appellate court ruling. The "state law" actually gives them the right to do this stuff as long as they do it the 'right' way. I'm not trying to defend the University, just trying to focus people on the real problem here, which is the state legislature.

Actually, the school boards have no right to trump state law.

 

[fd15k]

Actually, the school boards have no right to trump state law.

What law would that be ?

 

[lcb97269]

What law would that be ?

Oregon's preemption law. Come on, if you don't know about that then you are in the wrong conversation.

 

[lcb97269]

ORS 166.170 - State preemption - 2009 Oregon Revised Statutes