Email from Oregon State University this morning

[branson4020]

Yes, the preemption statue was what got the University administrative rule knocked down. The court found that the rule, which had the force of law, conflicted with the preemption statue. It also found that:

ORS 351.060 - Board general powers as to control and management of property - 2009 Oregon Revised Statutes

gives the Board of Education broad power to control University property. So, the University took that to mean they could restrict firearms by policy, but not administrative rule. I'm sure it will get tested in court, but it's not clear to me that it won't stand up. The court made a distinction between lawful restriction and unlawful regulation. For instance, state employees can be legally restricted from carrying firearms on the job.

 

[fd15k]

ORS 166.170 - State preemption - 2009 Oregon Revised Statutes

Sure, except :

166.170¹
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]

Now show me where does it say Board of Education is a city, county, etc

 

[bikejunkie]

"No handgun" signs carry the force of law regardless of your chl status per 166.370 anyway. This gives schools, businesses and the like to forbid weapons as they see fit. http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/oregon.pdf

 

[fd15k]

"No handgun" signs carry the force of law regardless of your chl status per 166.370 anyway. This gives schools, businesses and the like to forbid weapons as they see fit. http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/oregon.pdf

I don't think that's exactly what it means. Presence of a firearm triggers a different trespass statute, but you're not trespassing in a place accessible to the public unless you were asked to leave and refused.

 

[bikejunkie]

ORS 166.360 Definitions For ORS 166.360 to 166.380. As Used in ORS 166.360 to 166.380, Unless the Context Requires Otherwise:
(1) "Capitol building" means the Capitol, the State Office Building, the State Library Building, the Labor and Industries Building, the State Transportation Building, the Agriculture Building or the Public Service Building and includes any new buildings which may be constructed on the same grounds as an addition to the group of buildings listed in this subsection.
(2) "Court facility" means a courthouse or that portion of any other building occupied by a circuit court, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court or the Oregon Tax Court or occupied by personnel related to the operations of those courts, or in which activities related to the operations of those courts take place.
(3) "Loaded firearm" meansa) A breech-loading firearm in which there is an unexpended cartridge or shell in or attached to the firearm including but not limited to, in a chamber, magazine or clip which is attached to the firearm.
(4) "Public building" means a hospital, a capitol building,a public or private school, as defined in ORS 339.315, a college or university, a city hall or the residence of any state official elected by the state at large, and the grounds adjacent to each such building. The term also includes that portion of any other building occupied by an agency of the state or a municipal corporation, as defined in ORS 297.405, other than a court facility.
Do “No Gun Signs” Have the Force of Law?
“YES”

From the way I read and interpret this, they have the right to exclude weapons from the entire area if they want

 

[fd15k]

(4) "Public building" means a hospital, a capitol building,a public or private school, as defined in ORS 339.315, a college or university, a city hall or the residence of any state official elected by the state at large, and the grounds adjacent to each such building. The term also includes that portion of any other building occupied by an agency of the state or a municipal corporation, as defined in ORS 297.405, other than a court facility.
Do "No Gun Signs" Have the Force of Law?
"YES"

From the way I read and interpret this, they have the right to exclude weapons from the entire area if they want

All that means that firearms (open or concealed, loaded or unloaded) are not allowed in colleges and universities, as they're considered to be "public buildings" and 166.370(1) bans firearms in public buildings. CHL holders are exempt per 166.370(1)(3)(d).

 

[bikejunkie]

I'm taking personal defense class this weekend and I plan on talking to the instructors about this, but I'm nearly positive in the CHL class they told us, that specific businesses have the ability to ban weapons on their premises, and this applies to all persons, regardless if the have a CHL or not. What Oregon State has done seems like an extension of this

 

[drew]

All that means that firearms (open or concealed, loaded or unloaded) are not allowed in colleges and universities, as they're considered to be "public buildings" and 166.370(1) bans firearms in public buildings. CHL holders are exempt per 166.370(1)(3)(d).

This is the main exemption forcing OUS to be creative with their policy. For others not falling into an exempt status, possession is a felony. It was before too.

 

[sprice37]

Oregon University SYstem campuses are "public" not private property.

 

[fd15k]

I'm taking personal defense class this weekend and I plan on talking to the instructors about this, but I'm nearly positive in the CHL class they told us, that specific businesses have the ability to ban weapons on their premises, and this applies to all persons, regardless if the have a CHL or not. What Oregon State has done seems like an extension of this

That's right, they can ban them, but violation of such policies doesn't carry criminal penalties. All they can do is to ask you to leave, and only if you refuse then you are trespassing and some legal consequences apply

 

[glock.40]

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.

If you aren't willing to fight for your freedom, then you don't deserve your freedom.

 

[fd15k]

If you aren't willing to fight for your freedom, then you don't deserve your freedom.

It's not a straight cut for a lot of people - many have families to take care of. Only under exceptional circumstances one could risk well being of one's family, and this is not one of such circumstances.

 

[HuskyJW]

I don't work in the OUS system....but for a community college system here in Oregon. You break their rule and as a person from the general public you can be cited for trespassing and barred from campus. As an employee...I am very fearful how my college could restrict the right for me to carry. This would show absolutely no regard for my personal safety and if anything were to ever happen on campus I'm screwed. I could be fired for having a CHL and carrying. I've already instructed my wife to sue the college if SHTF. Concealed means concealed though......so we'll see.

 

[hermannr]

Rather that spit your (this means anyone) ideas, I would think those that really wanted to understand the law as reguards a university, would just read the Oregin Supreme Court decision.

Where the problem comes in, does the Board of Regants power to regulate activities with reguard to the health and safety of the University Community include regulating firearms on campus and trump state preemption? The court has already told them "NO" once, now, in all likelyhood, everything will have to go back to court again, so they can be told, that is not in your powers. That, or a specific law relating to the Universities will have to be drawn up and passed, either specifically providing an exemption to the University, or specifically stating that the university is not expempt from state preemption.

 

[simpleguy]

Originally Posted by 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.

If you aren't willing to fight for your freedom, then you don't deserve your freedom.

Wow, really? The arrogance of your statement drips of "shoot first, ask questions later". You are more than welcome to call OSP before heading down to OSU or whereever, and let them know you will be carrying. Let me know how it works for you.

I have no problem fighting for my rights, but I am not going to volunteer to let any government agency make me the guinea pig/poster child for their crusade against my rights. This doesn't even take in to account the costs involved in defending oneself and the ramifications of the ensuing arrest(whether lawful or not). Will you see your CHL again? Your pistol? Will you be able to defend your family? Will you still have a job left?

You need to think before you let your fingers go typing so darned fast.......there's more to it than the bravado you set forth. Work smart. You can be "in the right", yet be wrong at the same time.

 

[sprice37]

If you aren't willing to fight for your freedom, then you don't deserve your freedom.

Accordin to your statement Glock.40 many people in the us do not deserve their freedom. BTW have you served?

 

[U201494]

Wow, really? The arrogance of your statement drips of "shoot first, ask questions later". You are more than welcome to call OSP before heading down to OSU or whereever, and let them know you will be carrying. Let me know how it works for you.

I have no problem fighting for my rights, but I am not going to volunteer to let any government agency make me the guinea pig/poster child for their crusade against my rights. This doesn't even take in to account the costs involved in defending oneself and the ramifications of the ensuing arrest(whether lawful or not). Will you see your CHL again? Your pistol? Will you be able to defend your family? Will you still have a job left?

You need to think before you let your fingers go typing so darned fast.......there's more to it than the bravado you set forth. Work smart. You can be "in the right", yet be wrong at the same time.

You just confirmed this:

Originally Posted by glock.40
If you aren't willing to fight for your freedom, then you don't deserve your freedom.

 

[simpleguy]

Yet more proof the gun community can be it's own worst enemy.

 

[VW_Factor]

I think what goes on here is simply.. Its public property, and you cannot be found trespassing on public property AFAIK.

This is years and years ago, however I'll use it as an example. (I was 16 years old at the time)

I was using my fathers truck and had "off-roaded" around a barrier to an elementary school to hide (we were playing CB tag this evening). Now, don't get the wrong idea, we weren't there to tear anything up and I didn't even rut the grass. After this round was over I was inching the truck out and around the barrier and the local PD showed up and detained myself and my buddy.

I don't remember exactly how long we detained but it was greater than an hour, and the 3 LEOs spent a majority of this time on the phone calling around lord knows where. Probably some judges or DAs or something I imagine.

When they cut us loose, I remember specifically one of the officers mentioned that he would love to write us up for trespassing, but that the he could not, however to watch out because he would get us next time.

This leads me to believe that even though we were there without business (also after hours) and even though someone might not have wanted us there, we could not be held on trespassing charges.

Is this not how public property works? It belongs to the people ultimately?

 

[Norm0931]

Rather that spit your (this means anyone) ideas, I would think those that really wanted to understand the law as reguards a university, would just read the Oregin Supreme Court decision.

Where the problem comes in, does the Board of Regants power to regulate activities with reguard to the health and safety of the University Community include regulating firearms on campus and trump state preemption? The court has already told them "NO" once, now, in all likelyhood, everything will have to go back to court again, so they can be told, that is not in your powers. That, or a specific law relating to the Universities will have to be drawn up and passed, either specifically providing an exemption to the University, or specifically stating that the university is not expempt from state preemption.

See you are looking at the ruling how you want to look at it. Not what they actually said. They said that the State Board of Education could not criminalize the possession, transfer, etc. of a firearm. They specifically sited the Doe decision in that internal policies that "DO NOT CARRY THE RULE OF LAW" can be enacted by the board. It's exactly like someone said early. By entering University property you are voluntarily agreeing to a set of rules enacted by the State Board of Higher Education that does not have the force of law but, does carry the choice of service. So they can tell you to leave and charge you with trespassing if you refuse but, they can't tell you specifically you will be criminally liable for carrying a firearm on University property.

The court SPECIFICALLY said in their decision they were allowed to do this. The court didn't say "No," they said "You messed up. Do it this way instead."