Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Fruit loops and bananas

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by RAW, Jul 17, 2015.

  1. RAW

    RAW Salem New Member

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exchange between state employee, state, and union on employees carrying (start from the bottom):


    Also, on the “cultural” aspect, I carry in public everywhere I can (legally) with my weapon either completely, partially, or not at all concealed and I have never had the police called on me (nor even had people even mention it!). I have also seen others carrying weapons in public. I have even seen or known of state employees (besides police) carrying a weapon – and I did not call the police (but I would if they were threatening me). Calling the police on somebody just because I see them carrying a gun would be ignorant.


    From: WOODFORD Richard
    Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 12:36 PM
    To: MOORE Travis <Travis.Moore@ode.state.or.us>
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder


    Thanks.


    By that logic, all this stuff could apply to anyone carrying a concealed weapon legally anywhere right? I understand all the “employer can fire based on known or unknown policy” (which is a problem you said you would try to address). But I can guarantee you that none of the ORS or legal stuff applies to CHL holders in general. Otherwise, concealed carry would be illegal in public place everywhere and people could call the police and say “I say someone carrying a gun and it is a threat.” I guarantee you no police officer would arrest someone based on what “the observer determines” is a threat unless they were displaying threatening behavior.


    So I appreciate your discussion on this. And I understand on how DAS HR (and you) feel about this, but we are only talking about DAS policy and stance on this. As for the law, and specifically on “threatening”, I’m not a lawyer, but I’d bet the law will apply ORS definitions of “what constitutes a threat” to all interactions equally – both criminally and civilly.


    I might be carrying a banana around in my pocket for the next week or two (both at work and at play). It will probably get mushy, but I guarantee you that no legal authority will agree that this constitutes a threat. Good luck to whoever wants to try to report that as such. And just to be clear, if someone is making a threat to you, me, or anyone, the police should be called. Please make your second call to HR (for all of our safety, please get the police on the way first please).


    With all the craziness going on in the world, you can’t be too careful. Thank God (and the law) that there are good guys around with guns that can stop the bad guys!


    So while you are mostly wrong on this issue, I still would like to have you in my corner if I am ever brought up on disciplinary items. On this issue, I do not plan on carrying, brandishing, or anything that might violate policy. On this issue, I’ll let you do what you can, and let the law handle the rest if someone were to go bananas on me. ;)


    From: MOORE Travis

    As for ‘if’ carrying a gun is a threat – it is a threat. It just falls upon the person who observes the threat to feel it was “brandished” in a way that constitutes that threat. Until a law amends that in Oregon or federally, it will always be up to the observer to make their own determination. State of Oregon v. Robert James Pedro, (2011) A140119 http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A140119.htm (he had a pocket knife). While cases may be dismissed, they will still damage the CHL holder, and possibly cause them to loss their license with no criminal or civil consequence to the observer.


    Why: It also goes into then how it changes the physical and emotional demeanor of the CHL holder and their interactions with others, especially coworkers and superiors. It makes the powerless feel powerful, or the shy brave, the angry, deadly, and every other type in the spectrum. I have been looking at studies by the AMA, APA, and FBI, as well as fellowship studies and cited references and this is not an unknown phenomenon.


    You might think it is for a “mutual’ defense, but others think it would align with aggression and intimidation. Very few things are as intimidating as a gun. We are taught that by our culture and family since we were young. But again it all lies in the observation and emotional response of the viewer. While they might see it for a while when the do it will call into question all their previous interactions with the CHL holder and make them wonder if they feel “safe” or “threatened.”


    “In criminal law, a threat of harm varies according to the crime and state law…The threat of harm involved in an assault may involve a reasonably perceived threat of physical injury. Pointing a banana at someone and threatening to shoot them would not be a reasonably perceived threat, however, if the banana was concealed in a pocket to appear as a weapon, the threat may be a reasonable perception of harm.” - http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/threat-of-harm/


    ORS 124.050 (5) - http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/124.050

    ORS 163.190¹ Menacing - http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.190

    ORS 163.210¹ Intimidation https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2013ors166.html

    http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=mulr


    Travis Moore Chief Steward, SEIU Local 581

    Oregon Department of Education
    255 Capitol St NE


    From: MOORE Travis
    Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 9:17 AM
    To: WOODFORD Richard <richard.woodford@ode.state.or.us>
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder


    Richard,

    Let me give the run down on the toxic/divisive subject this is. So here are some of my educated takeaways in talking with people and research on this.


    First of all my answer is and was no.


    DAS said no. And they would fire anyone caught carrying one. That was the answer I gave you. They have been consistent in that.

    · And as an employee they can fire you. You accepted all policies known and unknown when you took employment with DAS/ODE/State of Oregon.

    · As per the law that is an issue for the courts or legislature. It is out of scope of the union’s control.

    · We can influence but from the responses I got, from SIEU, (AFSCME, IBEW, AEE, and others) were they were not going to touch it. I will still send a proposal for the next bargaining session in 2017 but unless Gov. Brown in the next session of February or at end of this session signs more gun bills then DAS will not move or modify any existing policy.


    I am still looking at federal court cases to see what language was included in them that directly addresses CHL concerns around employment – this maybe the only way to counter their Employer first, State agency second argument.


    As for ‘if’ carrying a gun is a threat – it is a threat. It just falls upon the person who observes the threat to feel it was “brandished” in a way that constitutes that threat. Until a law amends that in Oregon or federally, it will always be up to the observer to make their own determination. State of Oregon v. Robert James Pedro, (2011) A140119 http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A140119.htm (he had a pocket knife). While cases may be dismissed, they will still damage the CHL holder, and possibly cause them to loss their license with no criminal or civil consequence to the observer.


    Why: It also goes into then how it changes the physical and emotional demeanor of the CHL holder and their interactions with others, especially coworkers and superiors. It makes the powerless feel powerful, or the shy brave, the angry, deadly, and every other type in the spectrum. I have been looking at studies by the AMA, APA, and FBI, as well as fellowship studies and cited references and this is not an unknown phenomenon.


    You might think it is for a “mutual’ defense, but others think it would align with aggression and intimidation. Very few things are as intimidating as a gun. We are taught that by our culture and family since we were young. But again it all lies in the observation and emotional response of the viewer. While they might see it for a while when the do it will call into question all their previous interactions with the CHL holder and make them wonder if they feel “safe” or “threatened.”


    “In criminal law, a threat of harm varies according to the crime and state law…The threat of harm involved in an assault may involve a reasonably perceived threat of physical injury. Pointing a banana at someone and threatening to shoot them would not be a reasonably perceived threat, however, if the banana was concealed in a pocket to appear as a weapon, the threat may be a reasonable perception of harm.” - http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/threat-of-harm/


    ORS 124.050 (5) - http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/124.050

    ORS 163.190¹ Menacing - http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.190

    ORS 163.210¹ Intimidation https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2013ors166.html

    http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=mulr


    And in essence the state feels that it can act as a “Private Employer” to things that fall outside the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Agreement. And yes this would not even be a discussion at a Private Employer and conversing about it may have led to dismissal.


    For the employer issue DAS does not have to clearly indicate firearms, or weapons in the policy since it is indicated in the general meaning. But this is where it should be and splitting such hairs is a purview of an attorney. I cannot get policies rewritten, I can just get them pointed out and I plan too.


    So I will do what I can do, but this is the last I have to say on it.


    Travis Moore Chief Steward, SEIU Local 581

    Oregon Department of Education
    255 Capitol St NE

    Salem, OR 97310
    Bus. Phone: (503)947-5804

    Cel Phone (503) 580-6629
    travis.moore@ode.state.or.us

    travman7251@gmail.com


    “If any man tells you he loves America, yet hates labor, he is a liar. If any man tells you he trusts America, yet fears labor, he is a fool.”
    Abraham Lincoln





    From: WOODFORD Richard
    Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:13 PM
    To: MOORE Travis
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder


    Well I was looking for a simple yes or no, and didn’t get that until your last email. And while it’s clear what they would intend to do, I still do not think the policy statement is clear. They taking a leap by mixing in a scenario where someone comes in with a gun firing (see below) and someone with a concealed weapon that would never be found because they never look and then talking about all kinds of other policies that apparently do not apply to us. What they are saying is “carrying a gun is a threat” – and that is not supported by law. If it’s policy, then just say “carrying a gun is a threat”.


    So my question was can we (employees) carry with a CHL. So why quote us DAS policy that does not apply to us (it apparently applies to John Q. Public) and all the other crap (see below).


    The question/request was, and is, simple:


    1. Can employees carry at work if they have a CHL (and don’t wave it around)? I don’t care about the John Q. Public. I know they can carry into the building with or without DAS policy affecting them.

    2. If the answer is no, then please ask DAS to update their policies to just directly address it. For goodness sake, they have court cases and public hearings and still they can’t just say “employees may not carry guns at work – even with a CHL”. They have to wiggle around all this threatening, harassment, subjective stuff. OR, if the answer is really yes, then say yes but put some controls on it so people will at least do it on the up-and-up and lock them up or whatever else would make people feel better.


    So if they can’t answer the simple question – what is “probable cause” to search a person if they are suspected of carrying a gun? Since there has apparently never been an issue with this, nor is there a pending one (just a question)? Is it “if someone anonymously says ‘hey I see a bump’, they are going to strip search people and go on witch hunt?”


    I mean concealed is concealed. So all you have is employee honesty and the intent to try to do the right thing. In return, their response, while clear on what they would do, is offensive on its face because it automatically jumps from a legally carried weapon to this “threatening environment, fire immediately!” stance.


    At least private employers can just say “no guns allowed” and live with that stance.


    Richard Woodford, CISSP

    Chief Information Security Officer

    Oregon Department of Education


    From: MOORE Travis
    Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 1:16 PM
    To: WOODFORD Richard <richard.woodford@ode.state.or.us>
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder


    Yes they are consistent.


    From: WOODFORD Richard
    Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 11:43 AM
    To: MOORE Travis; MARSHALL Brian
    Cc: SHEPARD Charles
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder


    Really? These answers are consistent and clear?


    Richard Woodford, CISSP

    Chief Information Security Officer

    Oregon Department of Education


    From: MOORE Travis
    Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 11:21 AM
    To: WOODFORD Richard <richard.woodford@ode.state.or.us>; MARSHALL Brian <brian.marshall@ode.state.or.us>
    Cc: SHEPARD Charles <charles.shepard@ode.state.or.us>
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder


    Actually Brian and I contacted different people, but when read together almost have the same parameter of thought and policy conclusion. But I would agree contact your legislator for your home district. I sure a republican house or senator would take it on.


    From: WOODFORD Richard
    Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 10:49 AM
    To: MARSHALL Brian; MOORE Travis
    Cc: SHEPARD Charles
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder


    We are going to need to end up having to contact the legislature and/or get an attorney who will take it on. But I’ll check there also. I have a feeling if the legislature knew about this, they would issue DAS another memo. Notice how they stalled and gave you six different answers but now that the legislature is out, suddenly they are more bold.


    Richard Woodford, CISSP

    Chief Information Security Officer

    Oregon Department of Education


    From: MARSHALL Brian
    Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 8:58 AM
    To: MOORE Travis <Travis.Moore@ode.state.or.us>; WOODFORD Richard <richard.woodford@ode.state.or.us>
    Cc: SHEPARD Charles <charles.shepard@ode.state.or.us>
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder


    Richard,


    Try contacting the Oregon Firearms Federation. http://www.oregonfirearms.org/who-we-are


    They are the most complete source for information on Oregon’s gun laws and know the lay-of-the-land.


    Brian Marshall, Facilities Coordinator

    Department of Education | 255 Capitol St NE | Salem, OR 97310

    P: 503-947-5943 | Brian.Marshall@ode.state.or.us


    For maintenance requests email: ODE.Facilities@ode.state.or.us




    From: MOORE Travis
    Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 5:03 PM
    To: WOODFORD Richard
    Cc: SHEPARD Charles; MARSHALL Brian
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder


    Richard,


    What the DAS/Legislature was about was how it treats John Q Public. When you are off the clock (and do not have your state ID on) you could bring your concealed carry weapon throughout the capitol. You are no longer a citizen when you work for the state “on the clock”. The state being the virtue of the employer has every right to forbid or limit activities, certain types of speech, due process, search and seizure, and yes firearms on state worksites as the employer.


    The whole argument the state has is of the rights as of employer. It is the same as a private business in this regard. So that is how it has to be addressed when argued in court. And as for the policy side, besides smoking and service animals do you see any other state DAS policy plastered on the buildings or elevators? Those two are to remind Mr. Public again on limitations to his behavior just like the “Right to Refuse Service” signs in private businesses. The rest are implied consent by virtue of employment. Much like ordnances and traffic laws. Not knowing them and violating them is not a defense in court.


    I understand your righteous indignation at the policy the state has and its seeming inconsistency with this issue. But your first suggestion would be the most correct action – then followed by a public initiative to bring a referendum to voters to force a change or push anew law forbidding private/public employers from barring or disciplining employees from bring a CCW to their jobsite.


    tm


    From: WOODFORD Richard
    Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 4:45 PM
    To: MOORE Travis; MARSHALL Brian
    Cc: SHEPARD Charles
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder


    Yes I do, but I don’t know if this is his specialty. I was thinking more along the lines of seeing if I can contact the Representatives that tried to clarify this with DAS last time, the organization they were working with, or the NRA – somebody with some deep pockets.


    Otherwise, I could file suit preemptively and say I’m being denied not only my 2nd amendment right but also that DAS is not following what the Legislature told them directly which is:


    ORS 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.

    And then the legislature told them “yes, that means your policy banning CHL holders is illegal”.


    Then they think we are stupid and try to imply that said policy was directed at non-employees? How in the heck are non-employees even supposed to know about that policy?


    So I do not think we need an “initiative”, we just need to tell DAS to follow what the representatives elected by the people direct them to do.


    We just need the bank-roll to fight it.


    From: MOORE Travis
    Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 3:32 PM
    To: WOODFORD Richard <richard.woodford@ode.state.or.us>; MARSHALL Brian <brian.marshall@ode.state.or.us>
    Cc: SHEPARD Charles <charles.shepard@ode.state.or.us>
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder


    Richard since you have a friend who is a practicing attorney you should run this by him on his legal acumen in this constitutional matter when concerning employee vs. employer rights.


    From: WOODFORD Richard
    Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 11:34 AM
    To: MOORE Travis; MARSHALL Brian
    Cc: SHEPARD Charles
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder


    So, based on three policies that make no mention of “gun” (much less a legally carried one), I, as a new employee, am supposed to imply that my legally carried concealed gun makes the workplace less safe? I think it makes it more safe. And if nobody sees it, it certainly cannot threaten anyone. So still, clarity is not there.


    As someone who has written and enforced policy, I’m sure that you, as someone who has the responsibility to make everybody is informed of the policies that will be used against them, would agree that having a clear policy that you are sure people have read and understood is important. Also, if we really want a “gun-free” zone, it should be posted. If it’s not clear in policy and/or posted, it is not fair to hold it against anyone who would unknowingly break it.


    I think the responsible thing to do, since this is obviously something that has (and will) cause legal turmoil and angst, is to set clear policy and postings.

    From: MOORE Travis
    Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 4:34 PM
    To: MARSHALL Brian; WOODFORD Richard
    Cc: SHEPARD Charles
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder

    So I spoke with DAS. Their stand is that they will expect to terminate the employment of anyone who is caught carrying a concealed weapon during their work hours at their respective work sites/agencies. They will not relinquish that position regardless of the outdated policy (which in their mind is only directed to those who are not acting in a capacity of an employee) due to the policies here:

    1. Discrimination and Harassment Free workplace - http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/CHRO/docs/advice/p5001001.pdf

    2. Violence-Free Workplace - http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/CHRO/docs/advice/p5001002.pdf

    3. Maintaining a Professional Workplace - http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/CHRO/docs/advice/p5001003.pdf

    The will request to all agency heads to issue denial of grievances and force the matter to arbitration where they will argue that as an employer the agency has a “right to restrict certain constitution rights” “due to their disturbance at a workplace environment” and seek to bar the arbitration or appeal it to ERB then Court of Appeals. They were very clear that they wouldn’t change their mind or position any time soon.


    However, they did capitulate that if an employee did bring their Concealed Weapon in their vehicle and it was not reported and in plain view they would do nothing about it since they could not get the probable cause to call for a search of the vehicle.


    So in essence its “we don’t want to know but if we find out your history”. – please note the will not accept a settlement to return you to service. They would pay the fine, the back pay, etcetera but not give you your job back citing “reasonable expectation of a persistent unprofessional disruption in reemployment and workplace safety”.


    Travis


    From: MARSHALL Brian
    Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 9:23 AM
    To: WOODFORD Richard
    Cc: MOORE Travis
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder


    Haven’t heard back from them yet…in the avoidance mode? I’ll keep on them but I don’t think much will happen until after legislature ends.


    Brian Marshall, Facilities Coordinator

    Department of Education | 255 Capitol St NE | Salem, OR 97310

    P: 503-947-5943 | Brian.Marshall@ode.state.or.us


    For maintenance requests email: ODE.Facilities@ode.state.or.us


    From: WOODFORD Richard
    Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 11:33 AM
    To: MARSHALL Brian
    Cc: MOORE Travis
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder


    Thanks Brian, I like the approach of pushing them toward what the law is and making them defend, rather than us defend. Keep after ‘em!


    From: MARSHALL Brian
    Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 2:21 PM
    To: 'SCHACHER Elaine G * DAS'
    Cc: RYAN Shannon * DAS; WOODFORD Richard; MOORE Travis
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder


    Hi Elaine,


    There has been no incident or specific situation that is warranting these questions. This is specifically to clear up an inconsistent message to employees working in a DAS owned building.


    If federal and state policy are the final authority and the Oregon legislature says state agencies cannot prohibit a licensed carrier on bringing their firearm to work (http://www.oregonfirearms.org/pdfs/LC_DAS.pdf), then the DAS policy 125-6-321 is no longer binding and a CHL holder CAN carry at work. To avoid further confusion, we would like to have it removed and not quoted.


    We have many CHL holders that would like to exercise their right and I just don’t want any of my people fired and forced to go through the courts to prove they were legally allowed to carry… we’ve got families to feed and need our jobs.


    Of course, if that firearm were to be used in a criminal fashion, we would expect that employee to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.


    I understand the need to involve the lawyers with this subject. Please keep me informed when you hear back from your superiors.


    Many thanks,


    Brian Marshall, Facilities Coordinator

    Department of Education | 255 Capitol St NE | Salem, OR 97310

    P: 503-947-5943 | Brian.Marshall@ode.state.or.us


    For maintenance requests email: ODE.Facilities@ode.state.or.us




    From: SCHACHER Elaine G * DAS [mailto:Elaine.G.SCHACHER@oregon.gov]
    Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 5:38 PM
    To: MARSHALL Brian
    Cc: RYAN Shannon * DAS
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder


    Hi Brian,

    I have not forgotten about your inquiry. I’m waiting for feedback from executive staff because they would be making any prosecution decisions. I’m thinking they are waiting for the dust to settle on the legislation being considered this legislative session. To my knowledge, there has never been an incident requiring prosecution of an employee for carrying a concealed handgun in any DAS-owned buildings. I’m thinking circumstances would determine appropriate actions. If an employee were to enter this building with a loaded gun with the intent of causing bodily harm to persons within this building, I’m pretty sure we would call the State Police to make an arrest and there would probably be a prosecution. In that case, the handgun would probably not be “concealed”. Generally, we probably would not know if an employee were to have a concealed handgun in a handbag or in the locked trunk of an automobile in a parking lot because we do not conduct routine searches, nor would we, unless there were some activity that would cause that to be appropriate as part of an investigation by a law enforcement officer. Has there been an incident? Is there a specific situation that we should be focusing our answer on? Do we need to get an opinion from DOJ? The current law reads:


    “ORS 166.370 (1) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony.” The statute does not apply to a person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun, along with numerous other exclusions.


    There are a number of bills currently being discussed in this legislative session regarding firearms in public buildings.

    SB173 would allow a holder of a concealed handgun license to present a valid concealed handgun license instead of providing the firearm to a peace officer for examination in a public building. https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB173 -- Passed both chambers.


    SB385 - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB385 relates to possession of weapons in courts. = Governor signed, Effective 01-01-2016


    SB941 – Oregon Firearms Safety Act.

    HB2348 - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2348 adds an exclusion for honorably retired law enforcement officers along the other exclusions in ORS 161.370. Governor Signed, Effective 05-11-2015 .


    HB2357 - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2357 Modifies certain law enforcement defenses applicable to certain firearms-related crimes. Authorizes certain off-duty law enforcement officers to possess firearms in public buildings, provided the officers do not have disqualifying convictions. Referred back to Rules Committee.


    HB2424 - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2424 Authorizes the storage of personal handguns and ammunition by authorized staff of the Department of Corrections and addresses the tension of providing a safe workplace. Governor Signed, Effective 06-04-2015


    HB2527 - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2527 Provides that active and honorably retired law enforcement officers may possess firearms or other dangerous weapons in public buildings. In Judiciary Committee.


    SB170 - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB170 Requires school districts to provide firearm safety courses. In Judiciary Committee


    SB86 - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB170 Relates to firearms training facilities. In Judiciary Committee


    I will follow up with you once I receive feedback from my superiors. The DAS rules and policies will be updated accordingly once the session is concluded.

    Elaine G. Schacher

    Real Estate Services Division, Enterprise Asset Management

    Department of Administrative Services

    503-373-7192

    Visit us online athttp://oregon.gov/DAS/EAM

    Data Classification: Level 1 - Published


    From: MARSHALL Brian [mailto:brian.marshall@state.or.us]
    Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 3:26 PM
    To: SCHACHER Elaine G * DAS
    Cc: CHAMBERS Janet * DAS; RYAN Shannon * DAS
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder


    HI Elaine,


    I still haven’t received a response yet so I wanted to check back in with you. At this time, can an employee who has a concealed handgun permit carry while working in the Public Service Building?

    Brian Marshall, Facilities Coordinator

    Department of Education | 255 Capitol St NE | Salem, OR 97310

    P: 503-947-5943 | Brian.Marshall@ode.state.or.us

    From: MARSHALL Brian
    Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 9:39 AM
    To: 'SCHACHER Elaine G * DAS'
    Cc: CHAMBERS Janet * DAS; RYAN Shannon * DAS
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder


    Elaine,


    Thank you for the information. I understand the DAS policy and OAR are in conflict with each other and certain cases are working its way through the system which could affect information either way.


    However, I’m still not sure how to answer my management’s following question: “At this time, absent of any employment contract with the Dept. of Education stating employees can’t, will DAS prosecute an employee who is a permit holder if they carry at work?”

    Brian Marshall, Facilities Coordinator

    Department of Education | 255 Capitol St NE | Salem, OR 97310



    From: SCHACHER Elaine G * DAS [mailto:Elaine.G.SCHACHER@oregon.gov]
    Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 3:48 PM
    To: MARSHALL Brian
    Cc: CHAMBERS Janet * DAS; RYAN Shannon * DAS
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder


    Good Afternoon Brian,

    Janet Chambers referred your question to me because I am the point person for the DAS administrative rule and policy regarding possession or use of firearms or other weapons of any kind in buildings owned by DAS or under DAS control. I can provide some background on this subject which continues to be a topic of conversation as we struggle with this issue and the political changes occurring. The fact that the DAS policy and the OAR appear to be in conflict with each other has created many discussions but ultimately federal and state laws are the authority. Oregon statutes designate that only the legislature has authority to “prohibit” concealed hand guns that have permits in public buildings according to ORS 166.170 and exceptions are provided in ORS 166.370. In 2009 the DAS administrative rule was amended to remove the former “prohibit” language that was in the rule to correct the conflict with statute. The administrative rule hearing generated over 400 public comments back in 2009 so you can image what controversy there will be today. The current rule is shown below as well as the policy. The policy has not been updated since 1998 and DAS is working on an update to the policy as well as the administrative rule. We have been waiting for certain legal cases to end to give us some guidance regarding the policy. There have been several lawsuits, one involving the Oregon University System. There have also been recent statute changes as well as several measures being considered in the current legislative session so there is work being done to amend both the administrative rule and the policy. Additionally there are other issues that have come up such as Das authority to control any person not an “employee” in DAS-owned buildings so there is consideration for making the policy a “personnel” policy instead of a “facilities” policy. Also there is debate about whether or not DAS has authority to control tenant activities in our buildings as different agencies have their own policies. See the existing Administrative Rule and the Policy below. If you would like to discuss further, please give me a call at (503) 373-7192. We would be happy to collaborate on this as more minds make a better solution.

    ORS 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]

    ORS 166.370 Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging firearm at school. (1) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony.

    (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:

    (d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.

    DAS Administrative Rule:

    125-075-0015

    Possession or and Use of Firearms, Alcoholic Beverages Illegal Substances on the Grounds, Parking Areas (Structures, Facilities, Lots) and Premises of Buildings Under Department Control

    (1)(a) Possession or use of firearms or other weapons of any kind, including any explosives, air guns, or slingshots on the grounds, parking areas (structures, facilities, lots) and premises of buildings under Department control is governed by federal and state laws.

    (b) The provisions of this section do not apply to firearms in the possession of or stored for official public business authorized by statute for peace officers or for members of any state or national military organization.

    (2)(a) The sale, possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages are governed by federal and state laws, local ordinances, and regulations in compliance with a permit. Visitors to any grounds, parking areas (structures, facilities, lots) and premises of buildings under Department control must comply with any directives given to them by law enforcement authorities and employees specifically designated by the Department to investigate observed or reported violations and to issue oral or written warnings or citations to enforce Department rules.

    (b)Wine is permitted when stored or used for official public business by the Department of Agriculture under ORS Chapter 576;

    (c) Alcoholic beverages are permitted if stored legally in any private vehicle in transit through or while legally parked on the grounds, parking areas (structures, facilities, lots) and premises of buildings under Department control.

    (3)(a) It is unlawful for any person to possess illegal drugs on the grounds, parking areas (structures, facilities, lots) and premises of buildings under Department control.

    (b) Illegal drug activities are subject to federal and state laws; local ordinances and regulations; and State Policy 50.000.01 Drug-Free Workplace. Any person who uses, possesses, or distributes illegal drugs on the grounds, parking areas (structures, facilities, lots) and premises of buildings under Department control is subject to criminal prosecution by state and federal authorities.

    Stat. Auth.: ORS 276 & 283
    Stats. Implemented:
    Hist.: GS 3-1983, f. & ef. 1-19-83; DAS 1-2009, f. & cert. ef. 1-6-09



    DAS Policy 125-6-321 DAS Policy: http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/EAM/docs/1256321.pdf


    No firearm or other weapon of any kind, including any explosives, shall be permitted

    at any time on the premise of any state office building owned or leased by the

    Department. Except that, such firearms or other weapons are permitted when in the

    possession of or stored for official public business authorized by statute for peace

    officers or for members of any state or national military organization.

    I hope this is helpful.

    Best regards,


    Elaine G. Schacher

    Real Estate Services Division, Enterprise Asset Management

    Department of Administrative Services

    503-373-7192

    Visit us online athttp://oregon.gov/DAS/EAM

    Data Classification: Level 1 - Published

    Email address: elaine.g.schacher@oregon.gov


    From: CHAMBERS Janet * DAS
    Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 12:06 PM
    To: SCHACHER Elaine G * DAS
    Cc: MARSHALL Brian
    Subject: RE: concealed handgun license holder


    Hi Elaine,


    Since the policy referred to below is owned by DAS Facilities, do you have someone that Brian could talk to regarding DAS policy on “concealed handgun license” while at work in the PSB?


    Thanks.


    Janet L. Chambers

    DAS Business Services

    Program Manager

    http://oregon.gov/DAS/Business Services

    503-378-5522

    Data Classification: Level 1


    From: MARSHALL Brian [mailto:brian.marshall@state.or.us]
    Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:14 AM
    To: CHAMBERS Janet * DAS
    Subject: concealed handgun license holder


    Hi Janet,


    I was hoping you might be able to answer this question, or point me in the right direction to someone who would: May a concealed handgun license holder carry their sidearm while at work here in the Public Service Building?


    I have been asked by a quite a few of my colleagues and have found conflicting info. On the DAS website its says no, http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/EAM/docs/1256321.pdf, while private sector sites says it’s okay http://www.oregonfirearms.org/03-07-07-new-gun-bills-das-changes-rule-sb81-passes-senate. I was even told by the State Police in our building that we can.


    I just want to make sure I have the correct information before I pass it along.


    Many thanks!


    Brian Marshall, Facilities Coordinator

    Department of Education | 255 Capitol St NE | Salem, OR 97310
     
  2. Dyjital

    Dyjital Albany, Ore Flavorite Member Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    5,853
    I took the time to reverse the entire conversation.


    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++








    :)
     
  3. Dyjital

    Dyjital Albany, Ore Flavorite Member Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    5,853
    So it appears the Union caved on this issue because their elected officials (Demoncrats) accepted their monies and they don't want to push an 'agenda' contrary to the SEIU etc.
     
  4. edslhead

    edslhead Vanc Gold Supporter Gold Supporter Silver Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    4,323
    Way too much to read:rolleyes:
     
    albin25 likes this.
  5. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,912
    Likes Received:
    19,561
    So much hot air and ignorant fail... they're like engorged ticks ready to burst. :rolleyes:
     
    Slobray likes this.