Email from Oregon State University this morning

[hermannr]

Asp, well said. Osterr, the answer is "Yes." Because the state has said that the State Board of High Education can exercise control over campuses and "adjacent property" (yes, it says that right in the laws) in the interest of the safety of the student body and faculty. So they CAN have your arrested for trespassing on a public campus.

I must disagree here. OUS can write policy for the health and safety of the students, it it is impossible for them to prove that licensed (or even unlicensed) law abiding armed citizens on campus are a valid threat to the health and safety of anyone...and most data points that legal carry promotes the safety of the student.

Point #2: The OR Supreme Court just told them they could not regulate carry, so whatever they want to do for teh health and safety of the students, regulating legal carry is not one available to them.

As I have stated before, they should be taken back to court, be held in contempt of court, and spend 180 days in jail for doing so. That would get their attention I think.

 

[Norm0931]

Herm, they can have you arrested for trespassing. The court said they couldn't make a rule concerning firearms that carried the weight of a law. So they can't have you arrested for carrying on Campus. They CAN have you arrested for trespassing. They CAN fire you for bringing a gun on campus. They CAN expel you for bringing a gun on campus. Basically they can do everything to remove you from the campus for having a gun however, they can't just see you, call the cops, and have you picked up for the, actual act of carrying it. That's why they have to tell you to leave, if you refuse, you are now trespassing.

 

[fd15k]

Yes sir, I do believe it is. It is enough to justify the effort and expense of filing a pleading, anyway, assuming one has the funds and motivation to see it through.

The reality is that, our legal system being a human one, we might not get the right judge at first crack. An appeal (or two?) may be necessary. I do believe we would eventually achieve a favorable ruling on the standing issue under the circumstances you describe. The ultimate goal, though, will be a tougher hill to climb. Not insurmountable, but tougher than the preliminary issue of legal standing.

Note: It might be best if they were season tickets to avoid any cutesy mootness rulings.

An appeal or two on what grounds ? Wouldn't one just create a bad case law by filing a poorly crafted complaint that will fail ? I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see how that would work.

 

[hermannr]

Herm, they can have you arrested for trespassing. The court said they couldn't make a rule concerning firearms that carried the weight of a law. So they can't have you arrested for carrying on Campus. They CAN have you arrested for trespassing. They CAN fire you for bringing a gun on campus. They CAN expel you for bringing a gun on campus. Basically they can do everything to remove you from the campus for having a gun however, they can't just see you, call the cops, and have you picked up for the, actual act of carrying it. That's why they have to tell you to leave, if you refuse, you are now trespassing.

I do not believe it is possible to trespass a person on public property that is open to the public. That they can try to fire an employee, or expell a student I have no doubt they could (and probably would) try that, but for a person that is just joe citizen, walking through the campus, or even stopping into the museam, no, the place is open to the public, as I am part of the "public" and they have no standing with me, or I with them, the state legaislature, and the state courts have told them, you cannot control or regulate any carry.

Does that mean they couldn't/wouldn't try? No, but to write a citation, they have to show you broke a LAW...as the genal public has a right to be on university property (maybe not a classroom, but definately on the property) you cannot, in any law I have seen, be trespassed. Just like the UW arboritum,,,UW says no weapons, but it is not law, and they cannot enforce it...the arboritum is open to the public..becasue you have broken no Law. I think the Seattle parks ban case made that abundantly clear.

Edited to c/p ORS 166.015(10) definitions: in this case "public place" as used in 166.173

(10) "Public place" means a place to which the general public has access and includes, but is not limited to, hallways, lobbies and other parts of apartment houses and hotels not constituting rooms or apartments designed for actual residence, and highways, streets, schools, places of amusement, parks, playgrounds and premises used in connection with public passenger transportation

 

[Norm0931]

Wrong. The court decision that struck down the ban the first time said the board could control it's property. It's public land but, the board has the authority to regulate the property.

 

[Whitman]

An appeal or two on what grounds ? Wouldn't one just create a bad case law by filing a poorly crafted complaint that will fail ? I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see how that would work.

You are correct in calling for caution, but who said anything about a poorly crafted complaint?

My comment was directed only at the issue of standing. If the trial court ruled against the petitioner on standing grounds, under the circumstances described, that ruling could be appealed. I mentioned the possibility of an appeal or two being necessary only to highlight the fact that there are significant expenses involved in litigation, and any person who wants to challenge the powers that be on a gun rights issue should be prepared for the long haul.

 

[VW_Factor]

Wrong. The court decision that struck down the ban the first time said the board could control it's property. It's public land but, the board has the authority to regulate the property.

I don't think that means they can trespass you however.

 

[fd15k]

You are correct in calling for caution, but who said anything about a poorly crafted complaint?

My comment was directed only at the issue of standing. If the trial court ruled against the petitioner on standing grounds, under the circumstances described, that ruling could be appealed. I mentioned the possibility of an appeal or two being necessary only to highlight the fact that there are significant expenses involved in litigation, and any person who wants to challenge the powers that be on a gun rights issue should be prepared for the long haul.

Right, I understand that. The problem I see is that random Joe with CHL doesn't make a "perfect plaintiff", and without a good plaintiff it will likely fail in the lower court. One might be able to appeal, but there is no guarantee appeal will be more successful. Thus the point - random people filing complaints may create more damage (bad case law) than they do good.

Thinking about it, a good plaintiff would probably be a person who can not avoid going into such "gun free zone", preferably not a person specifically mentioned in the rule. One has to have elevated risk of being attacked. So like the joke goes : African-American disabled lesbian (student).

 

[Whitman]

Right, I understand that. The problem I see is that random Joe with CHL doesn't make a "perfect plaintiff", and without a good plaintiff it will likely fail in the lower court. One might be able to appeal, but there is no guarantee appeal will be more successful. Thus the point - random people filing complaints may create more damage (bad case law) than they do good.

Thinking about it, a good plaintiff would probably be a person who can not avoid going into such "gun free zone", preferably not a person specifically mentioned in the rule. One has to have elevated risk of being attacked. So like the joke goes : African-American disabled lesbian (student).

With respect, I think you do not understand. Please reference post #126, which posed the question I answered. While this is all speculative and hypothetical, we are not talking about "random Joe with CHL." The additional fact that makes all the difference, regarding the standing argument, is that our proposed petitioner (not plaintiff) is in possession of tickets to an on-campus event. This makes him a licensee, and the OUS policy, if enforced, would revoke his license and cause damages.

There is no one that "[cannot] avoid" going onto campus. Even students are there by choice. There are no perfect plaintiffs (or petitioners). No one needs an elevated risk of being attacked in order to establish standing under the "soft standing" analysis I make in earlier posts. And even if the standing argument failed, and then failed on appeal, it would not create bad case law because standing is a preliminary issue. Another person with better standing, in the eyes of the court, could proceed on the merits without regard to any earlier rulings on that issue. In other words, standing is not analyzed in the context of legal precedent. Standing is a case-by-case issue to be determined with respect to the uniquely situated initiating litigant.

In sum, your concerns about creating negative precedent prejudicial to the preferred outcome are unfounded. But this has been an interesting thread-within-a-thread, and your comments bring us back to my fundamental point: no need to cause a ruckus and get yourself arrested to challenge this policy. So long as you can demonstrate the soft standing required by this sort of administrative legal challenge, you will be able to get to the merits and argue the case on state and federal grounds.

 

[fd15k]

With respect, I think you do not understand. Please reference post #126, which posed the question I answered. While this is all speculative and hypothetical, we are not talking about "random Joe with CHL." The additional fact that makes all the difference, regarding the standing argument, is that our proposed petitioner (not plaintiff) is in possession of tickets to an on-campus event. This makes him a licensee, and the OUS policy, if enforced, would revoke his license and cause damages.

There is no one that "[cannot] avoid" going onto campus. Even students are there by choice. There are no perfect plaintiffs (or petitioners). No one needs an elevated risk of being attacked in order to establish standing under the "soft standing" analysis I make in earlier posts. And even if the standing argument failed, and then failed on appeal, it would not create bad case law because standing is a preliminary issue. Another person with better standing, in the eyes of the court, could proceed on the merits without regard to any earlier rulings on that issue. In other words, standing is not analyzed in the context of legal precedent. Standing is a case-by-case issue to be determined with respect to the uniquely situated initiating litigant.

In sum, your concerns about creating negative precedent prejudicial to the preferred outcome are unfounded. But this has been an interesting thread-within-a-thread, and your comments bring us back to my fundamental point: no need to cause a ruckus and get yourself arrested to challenge this policy. So long as you can demonstrate the soft standing required by this sort of administrative legal challenge, you will be able to get to the merits and argue the case on state and federal grounds.

Sounds good, thanks for explaining this.

 

[hermannr]

With respect, I think you do not understand. Please reference post #126, which posed the question I answered. While this is all speculative and hypothetical, we are not talking about "random Joe with CHL." The additional fact that makes all the difference, regarding the standing argument, is that our proposed petitioner (not plaintiff) is in possession of tickets to an on-campus event. This makes him a licensee, and the OUS policy, if enforced, would revoke his license and cause damages.

There is no one that "[cannot] avoid" going onto campus. Even students are there by choice. There are no perfect plaintiffs (or petitioners). No one needs an elevated risk of being attacked in order to establish standing under the "soft standing" analysis I make in earlier posts. And even if the standing argument failed, and then failed on appeal, it would not create bad case law because standing is a preliminary issue. Another person with better standing, in the eyes of the court, could proceed on the merits without regard to any earlier rulings on that issue. In other words, standing is not analyzed in the context of legal precedent. Standing is a case-by-case issue to be determined with respect to the uniquely situated initiating litigant.

In sum, your concerns about creating negative precedent prejudicial to the preferred outcome are unfounded. But this has been an interesting thread-within-a-thread, and your comments bring us back to my fundamental point: no need to cause a ruckus and get yourself arrested to challenge this policy. So long as you can demonstrate the soft standing required by this sort of administrative legal challenge, you will be able to get to the merits and argue the case on state and federal grounds.

How are you going to have a court challange? "OUS Policy" does not effect average joe citizen, only people with a concrete connection to the school..student, employee, contactor. IMHO: A student, employee, or contractor, someone with something substantial to loose, needs to chalange the policy. I do not see how any OUS "policy" can effect average Joe. Joe cannot not have broken a law, according to 166.015(10) you cannot be trespassed on public property, no matter what you think the appeals court said.

Now, an employee that would be putting his job on the line if he broke with this policy...he/she really has standing, even without breaking the policy.