- Messages
- 650
- Reactions
- 123
THe academy used to be on the WOU campus. It is now located in Salem.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
student was charged with "possession of a firearm in a public building
- Thread Starter edhill
- Start date
THe academy used to be on the WOU campus. It is now located in Salem.
- Thread Starter
- #22
update
http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/02.10.09%20alert.html
02.10.09
MARINE VETERAN KICKED OUT OF SCHOOL FOR POSSESSING FIREARMS
WOU STUDENT TRIED,CONVICTED AND SENTENCED.
The WOU student who was falsely arrested and charged with possession of a firearm in a public building, had all his criminal charges dropped by the Polk County DA tonight.
The DA admitted no wrongdoing on his part, or on the part of the police who arrested Jeff Maxwell for a "crime" that does not exist.
In a statement released to OFF's attorney, the DA said "I believe the Monmouth Police Department issued the citation in good faith and that there was an arguable violation. However, a careful reading of the statute and the facts led me to conclude the charge was not in the best interest of justice."
"Not in the best interest of justice." There was NO CRIME. But it gets worse. Much worse.
The college still got to "try" Jeff Maxwell. And they did tonight.
The tribunal that tried Marine veteran Jeffery Maxwell laughed after suspending him from Western Oregon University and sentencing him to:
a "psychological evaluation stating he is not a threat to himself of others" and
a mandatory "ten page paper" " with references, "citing, but not limited to:
1) the importance of following the law,even through civil disobedience.
2) the importance of accepting responsibility for one's actions
3) and recognizing the impact possession of weapons on college campuses has on others."
So, Maxwell has been told his lawful possession of a firearm on campus is evidence of mental illness and he must "confess his sins." Welcome to the new Politburo. Maxwell may as well been judged by the Hitler youth for his "thought crimes."
Jeffery Maxwell's "jury" were four unnamed students and one staff member of WOU.
The "prosecutor" was Patrick Moser [email protected] "Acting Coordinator of Campus Judicial Affairs"
Maxwell asked to have his "trial" open to the public, which is his right, but was denied.
The tribunal was told repeatedly that they lacked the authority to impose a rule dealing with firearms. But the children who sat in judgment of the veteran were not interested in the law or the facts. They were only interested in attacking and embarrassing a man who had committed no crime but had chosen to exercise his right to protect himself and others.
The "trial" was a sham. No one present even seemed to know what the "charge" was. When confronted by the fact that the school has no authority to make rules about firearms, they said that was "not relevant." Then they said they were not charging Maxwell with having a firearm. When asked what they WERE charging him with, they seemed to not know. They then said they were charging him with having a "knife and a rifle in his car." When told they had no authority to make rules about guns in his car, they said THAT was not "relevant."
The children who sat on Maxwell's "jury" and their staff advisors seemed to have no idea what they were actually charging Maxwell with. But they had no problem sentencing him. Gun owners, and all Americans should be outraged.
OFF is committed to continuing Maxwell's defense. We are shocked and disgusted by the treatment he received by the staff and the students of WOU,
We ask your continued support of our legal battle for Jeff Maxwell. We promised Jeff what he promised the men he served with. We will not leave him behind.
http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/02.10.09%20alert.html
02.10.09
MARINE VETERAN KICKED OUT OF SCHOOL FOR POSSESSING FIREARMS
WOU STUDENT TRIED,CONVICTED AND SENTENCED.
The WOU student who was falsely arrested and charged with possession of a firearm in a public building, had all his criminal charges dropped by the Polk County DA tonight.
The DA admitted no wrongdoing on his part, or on the part of the police who arrested Jeff Maxwell for a "crime" that does not exist.
In a statement released to OFF's attorney, the DA said "I believe the Monmouth Police Department issued the citation in good faith and that there was an arguable violation. However, a careful reading of the statute and the facts led me to conclude the charge was not in the best interest of justice."
"Not in the best interest of justice." There was NO CRIME. But it gets worse. Much worse.
The college still got to "try" Jeff Maxwell. And they did tonight.
The tribunal that tried Marine veteran Jeffery Maxwell laughed after suspending him from Western Oregon University and sentencing him to:
a "psychological evaluation stating he is not a threat to himself of others" and
a mandatory "ten page paper" " with references, "citing, but not limited to:
1) the importance of following the law,even through civil disobedience.
2) the importance of accepting responsibility for one's actions
3) and recognizing the impact possession of weapons on college campuses has on others."
So, Maxwell has been told his lawful possession of a firearm on campus is evidence of mental illness and he must "confess his sins." Welcome to the new Politburo. Maxwell may as well been judged by the Hitler youth for his "thought crimes."
Jeffery Maxwell's "jury" were four unnamed students and one staff member of WOU.
The "prosecutor" was Patrick Moser [email protected] "Acting Coordinator of Campus Judicial Affairs"
Maxwell asked to have his "trial" open to the public, which is his right, but was denied.
The tribunal was told repeatedly that they lacked the authority to impose a rule dealing with firearms. But the children who sat in judgment of the veteran were not interested in the law or the facts. They were only interested in attacking and embarrassing a man who had committed no crime but had chosen to exercise his right to protect himself and others.
The "trial" was a sham. No one present even seemed to know what the "charge" was. When confronted by the fact that the school has no authority to make rules about firearms, they said that was "not relevant." Then they said they were not charging Maxwell with having a firearm. When asked what they WERE charging him with, they seemed to not know. They then said they were charging him with having a "knife and a rifle in his car." When told they had no authority to make rules about guns in his car, they said THAT was not "relevant."
The children who sat on Maxwell's "jury" and their staff advisors seemed to have no idea what they were actually charging Maxwell with. But they had no problem sentencing him. Gun owners, and all Americans should be outraged.
OFF is committed to continuing Maxwell's defense. We are shocked and disgusted by the treatment he received by the staff and the students of WOU,
We ask your continued support of our legal battle for Jeff Maxwell. We promised Jeff what he promised the men he served with. We will not leave him behind.
- Messages
- 2,533
- Reactions
- 29
THAT is insane. So much for the open-minded "tolerance" of the liberal establishment types. :nuts:
- Messages
- 735
- Reactions
- 108
I hope that refuses to do what WOU requires of him and slaps them with a 2nd amendment violation of his civil liberties instead.
- Messages
- 389
- Reactions
- 25
Well, I'm certainly no lawyer and I DID NOT stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I agree that the DA was an a$$clown in his final understanding of the law, but aren't students on any institutional campus required to follow a 'student code of conduct' in addition to any state/federal laws?
I'm presuming they do and I'm also presuming that any school code of conduct will ban firearms. Students are implicitly required to know the Code of Conduct. While not a lawful violation, a conduct violation can/will result in disciplinary action. I guess the institutions reasoning is you have a choice and if you choose to attend classes, you will not bring a firearm on campus.
So I again presume it stands to reason that the Code of conduct would violate the spirit of the 2nd amendment as well as the rights of CC holders.
Having said that, it seems like the campus police should have taken a different approach:
<broken link removed>
From the link:
CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMITS
Western Employees - State employees who obtain concealed weapon(s) permits may
mistakenly think the permit authorizes them to carry their weapon(s) on the job.
A permit to conceal a weapon does not create the authority to use or carry a
weapon on the job, concealed or openly.
Citizens - Members of the public who have permits to conceal a weapon may
mistakenly think the permit authorizes them to carry their weapon(s) into public
buildings. A permit to conceal a weapon does not create the authority to carry
a weapon openly or concealed into a public building.
It merely exempts the permittee from a strict liability statute (ORS 166.370)
which would otherwise impose an "automatic" criminal penalty. Without a
concealed weapons permit, ORS 166.370 makes it a crime for anyone except certain
police or military officials to bring loaded or unloaded firearms into public
buildings regardless of their intent.
A. If a person with a permit is encountered, they may be informed, if
appropriate, that campus rules prohibit firearms on campus and in our
buildings. They may be cooperatively requested to not bring the firearm
when visiting in the future. (No penalty or criminal sanctions under the
new ORS are available.) However, after being informed, violation "could"
take place through a trespass or failure to comply with an order
(OAR 80-22-045).
This is not our preferred method and would be utilized only in a very
unusual situation AFTER SUPERVISOR CONSULTATION. ORS 164.265 - Criminal
Trespass while in possession of a firearm as stated in Definitions section
of this policy.
B. NO FIREARMS, WEAPONS, MUNITIONS will be permitted in residence halls or
Campus Estates even if a concealed weapons permit exists. (We will deal
with this on a case by case basis.) No weapons in vehicles or locked in
trunk areas that are on campus.
Caution, courtesy and public relations are very important elements to consider
at all times when moving forward on this policy. If questions are apparent or
the situation unusual... Consult!
Best Regards,
-Mike
I'm presuming they do and I'm also presuming that any school code of conduct will ban firearms. Students are implicitly required to know the Code of Conduct. While not a lawful violation, a conduct violation can/will result in disciplinary action. I guess the institutions reasoning is you have a choice and if you choose to attend classes, you will not bring a firearm on campus.
So I again presume it stands to reason that the Code of conduct would violate the spirit of the 2nd amendment as well as the rights of CC holders.
Having said that, it seems like the campus police should have taken a different approach:
<broken link removed>
From the link:
CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMITS
Western Employees - State employees who obtain concealed weapon(s) permits may
mistakenly think the permit authorizes them to carry their weapon(s) on the job.
A permit to conceal a weapon does not create the authority to use or carry a
weapon on the job, concealed or openly.
Citizens - Members of the public who have permits to conceal a weapon may
mistakenly think the permit authorizes them to carry their weapon(s) into public
buildings. A permit to conceal a weapon does not create the authority to carry
a weapon openly or concealed into a public building.
It merely exempts the permittee from a strict liability statute (ORS 166.370)
which would otherwise impose an "automatic" criminal penalty. Without a
concealed weapons permit, ORS 166.370 makes it a crime for anyone except certain
police or military officials to bring loaded or unloaded firearms into public
buildings regardless of their intent.
A. If a person with a permit is encountered, they may be informed, if
appropriate, that campus rules prohibit firearms on campus and in our
buildings. They may be cooperatively requested to not bring the firearm
when visiting in the future. (No penalty or criminal sanctions under the
new ORS are available.) However, after being informed, violation "could"
take place through a trespass or failure to comply with an order
(OAR 80-22-045).
This is not our preferred method and would be utilized only in a very
unusual situation AFTER SUPERVISOR CONSULTATION. ORS 164.265 - Criminal
Trespass while in possession of a firearm as stated in Definitions section
of this policy.
B. NO FIREARMS, WEAPONS, MUNITIONS will be permitted in residence halls or
Campus Estates even if a concealed weapons permit exists. (We will deal
with this on a case by case basis.) No weapons in vehicles or locked in
trunk areas that are on campus.
Caution, courtesy and public relations are very important elements to consider
at all times when moving forward on this policy. If questions are apparent or
the situation unusual... Consult!
Best Regards,
-Mike
Western Oregon University is a state owned/operated school.
As such state law trumps whatever internal policies they may
wish to have.
We have been through this at the Oregon State Fair and PDX.
Bottom line is that ORS 166.370 (d) applies, and they can not
forbid legal carry.
If it were a private business--yes. Not a crime, but they
can ask you to leave and if you refuse they can arrest for trespass.
Private school? Maybe. ORS 339.315 (3) (a) defines school, and it specifically lists private institutions within that definition.
As such state law trumps whatever internal policies they may
wish to have.
We have been through this at the Oregon State Fair and PDX.
Bottom line is that ORS 166.370 (d) applies, and they can not
forbid legal carry.
If it were a private business--yes. Not a crime, but they
can ask you to leave and if you refuse they can arrest for trespass.
Private school? Maybe. ORS 339.315 (3) (a) defines school, and it specifically lists private institutions within that definition.
- Messages
- 389
- Reactions
- 25
Yes, this would seem to override the internal policy of the school.
It's been a long time since I was in school, but I thought if a person decides to attend an institution they sign documents that attest they will abide by the code of conduct. Violation of this code of conduct is grounds for sanctions (kangaroo court?). I also believe these sanctions are not criminal or civil in nature (ORS doesn't apply?), but academic (suspension, expulsion, write a 10 page paper against your beliefs, etc).
I think WOU went way overboard with this. It's obvious they didn't understand the laws nor their own policy (which required them to request the permitee to leave and not return with said firearm).
I guess I'm the devil's advocate, though I don't like or agree with what is happening here (these events have prompted me to join OFF). Unfortunately I think he's in a tough spot, follow the sanctions and continue school and if not, then no school. Sucks..........
- Messages
- 283
- Reactions
- 4
Your logic is flawed because the university's logic is flawed. Please take a hard look at their policy.
WOU (firearm) POLICY
Pursuant to O.A.R. 580-22-045 the Western Oregon University Campus Safety Services Department shall prohibit the possession of firearms, ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, fireworks or related dangerous items on campus except where exclusively authorized by the President, or through contract, for instructional purposes, part of inter-collegiate sanctioned events, civic events sanctioned by the university, LAW, or in the course of work (e.g. police, BPSST, law enforcement services).
Notice one of the exceptions?
WOU (firearm) PURPOSE
To comply with the Board of Higher Education O.A.R. 480-22-045, promote safety on campus, eliminate potential misuse and reduce the potential of incidentsrelated to these areas, insurance and liability.
I have looked at the State's archives for this OAR. There is no record of it. Is it a secret OAR? I don't know. But I do know that if the "authoritys" (ORS' and OAR's) for your policy and purpose are not followed, anything that follows them is flawed.
This is all detailed in the comments section of the WOU journal article that has been posted on this board several times. I invite you to read them.
The bottom line: If you do not know for your rights you have no rights. And, I'm no lawyer either but I can read, research and think.
- Messages
- 389
- Reactions
- 25
You won't believe how many times my wife has said this to me!
Just for everyone's reference, I am a new CC holder (less than a week!). I'm tyring to read and catch-up!I think I understand the law part. And the DA realized the law part after the arrest. My interpretation of their policy (which references the law) is that they should have asked the student to leave. If he didn't leave then WOU would have prosecuted trespass violation.
So, help me with my logic again....
When I signed on with my current employer, I signed a document that said I would follow the policies and procedures of my company. One of these policies is the prohibition of weapons in the workplace. Violation of company policy (which I understand violates law) will result in disciplinary action to include termination. I NEED to work, so I MUST sign the document. I don't have TIME/MONEY to fight this. I believe this is what happened with Jeff when he 'agreed' to attend WOU. Sign the code of conduct or don't attend school.
I imagine there are thousands of policies just like this across the state (and country). :huh:
- Messages
- 283
- Reactions
- 4
Rayd8-
"If he didn't leave then WOU would have prosecuted trespass violation."
The WOU policy does say that. It also gives you the ORS basis. The ORS states that if you are there legally (he was a student and he carried legally), he can not be guilty of trespass. Another flaw with the policy logic.
"I signed a document that said I would follow the policies and procedures of my company. One of these policies is the prohibition of weapons in the workplace."
It IS your choice. One thing you can try (in the future) is to make it a 2 way document by simply adding a sentence behind the weapons sentence. Something like "In accordance with the laws of this State." Then initial the statement. This throws the ball back into the company's court and may or may not be noticed. Be willing to discuss it in very general terms. The worst case is that they will not hire you. Again, your choice. If they do hire you and you are caught with your legal carry, they will fire you but you might get some money out of it by going through a lawyer.
I am not a lawyer. I am not giving legal advice. I just like gaming the system.
"If he didn't leave then WOU would have prosecuted trespass violation."
The WOU policy does say that. It also gives you the ORS basis. The ORS states that if you are there legally (he was a student and he carried legally), he can not be guilty of trespass. Another flaw with the policy logic.
"I signed a document that said I would follow the policies and procedures of my company. One of these policies is the prohibition of weapons in the workplace."
It IS your choice. One thing you can try (in the future) is to make it a 2 way document by simply adding a sentence behind the weapons sentence. Something like "In accordance with the laws of this State." Then initial the statement. This throws the ball back into the company's court and may or may not be noticed. Be willing to discuss it in very general terms. The worst case is that they will not hire you. Again, your choice. If they do hire you and you are caught with your legal carry, they will fire you but you might get some money out of it by going through a lawyer.
I am not a lawyer. I am not giving legal advice. I just like gaming the system.
- Messages
- 24
- Reactions
- 0
Hey, just thought I would post my letter to John Minahan up here. It isn't a masterpiece, but it gets the job done. I borrowed a line from someone on this site but I dont think you will mind - I just couldn't have put it better myself.
Dear Dr. John P. Minahan,
I recently read a piece on the katu website about a student who carried concealed while attending your school. Further, I read he was later expelled. As a true American who holds a strong belief in liberty, I have little tolerance for abuse of power and infringement of individual rights. A government, be it federal, state, county, city or university, has no authority over the Constitution and our rights as humans. Dr. Minahan, I would encourage you to look at the broader implications of the University's actions. America was founded on the premise that individuals have certain rights and no act of government (or in this case University administration) can take those away. If it becomes "vogue" to deny one right simply because a segment of the population doesn't value it or fears it, then none of our rights are safe.
Jeff Maxwell never broke the law. He is a Marine and among the best of all of us. I would encourage you to get acquainted with the law before you attempt to usurp it. I can offer you a link: <broken link removed> . Read section 2c of ORS166.173. It explicitly talks about concealed carry. You should consider reinstating Mr. Maxwell and in the future, I would encourage you to rethink your authoritarian position and instead promote liberty for all.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
In Liberty,
Josh Brainard
Dear Dr. John P. Minahan,
I recently read a piece on the katu website about a student who carried concealed while attending your school. Further, I read he was later expelled. As a true American who holds a strong belief in liberty, I have little tolerance for abuse of power and infringement of individual rights. A government, be it federal, state, county, city or university, has no authority over the Constitution and our rights as humans. Dr. Minahan, I would encourage you to look at the broader implications of the University's actions. America was founded on the premise that individuals have certain rights and no act of government (or in this case University administration) can take those away. If it becomes "vogue" to deny one right simply because a segment of the population doesn't value it or fears it, then none of our rights are safe.
Jeff Maxwell never broke the law. He is a Marine and among the best of all of us. I would encourage you to get acquainted with the law before you attempt to usurp it. I can offer you a link: <broken link removed> . Read section 2c of ORS166.173. It explicitly talks about concealed carry. You should consider reinstating Mr. Maxwell and in the future, I would encourage you to rethink your authoritarian position and instead promote liberty for all.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
In Liberty,
Josh Brainard
- Messages
- 481
- Reactions
- 73
You won't believe how many times my wife has said this to me!
I think I understand the law part. And the DA realized the law part after the arrest. My interpretation of their policy (which references the law) is that they should have asked the student to leave. If he didn't leave then WOU would have prosecuted trespass violation.
So, help me with my logic again....
When I signed on with my current employer, I signed a document that said I would follow the policies and procedures of my company. One of these policies is the prohibition of weapons in the workplace. Violation of company policy (which I understand violates law) will result in disciplinary action to include termination. I NEED to work, so I MUST sign the document. I don't have TIME/MONEY to fight this. I believe this is what happened with Jeff when he 'agreed' to attend WOU. Sign the code of conduct or don't attend school.
I imagine there are thousands of policies just like this across the state (and country). :huh:
It is my understanding that the difference lies between a public place (WOU) and a private business (your work). First off, the private business should never know that you are carrying a gun to take further measures. Second, you are correct that a private business can ask you to leave and if you don't comply, you can get charged with tresspass. It is my understanding however, that a public place has no right to bar you from carrying with a license. A good example of that is the Oregon State Fairgrounds where they denied the right to carry for years, but were corrected fairly recently.
- Messages
- 389
- Reactions
- 25
Good points Karma. Another difference is that at the public university and my private employer, people MUST sign an agreement to adhere to the policies in order to work or attend school. There is no such requirement for attending the OR Fairgrounds.
- Messages
- 1,165
- Reactions
- 299
Monmouth P.D. 503-838-1109
WOU security 503-838-8481
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sen. Jeffery A. Merkley (DEM)
District: 0S1
United States Senate
B-40B Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3753
Fax: (202) 228-3997
WebSite: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/one_item_and_teasers/merkley.htm
E-Mail: [email protected]
Sen. Ron Wyden (DEM)
District: 0S2
United States Senate
230 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-0001
Phone: (202) 224-5244
Fax: (202) 228-2717
WebSite: http://wyden.senate.gov
E-Mail: http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/
Federal Representative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Kurt Schrader (DEM)
District: 005
United States House of Representatives
1419 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5711
Fax: (202) 225-5699
WebSite: http://schrader.house.gov/
E-Mail: <broken link removed>
State Senator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen. Jackie Winters (REP)
District: 010
900 Court Street NE
Suite S-212
Salem, OR 97301-4067
Phone: (503) 986-1710
Fax: (503) 986-1987
WebSite: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/winters/
E-Mail: [email protected]
State Representative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Vicki Berger (REP)
District: 020
900 Court Street NE
Suite H-488
Salem, OR 97301-4062
Phone: (503) 986-1420
Fax: (503) 986-1612
WebSite: <broken link removed>
E-Mail: [email protected]
WOU security 503-838-8481
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sen. Jeffery A. Merkley (DEM)
District: 0S1
United States Senate
B-40B Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3753
Fax: (202) 228-3997
WebSite: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/one_item_and_teasers/merkley.htm
E-Mail: [email protected]
Sen. Ron Wyden (DEM)
District: 0S2
United States Senate
230 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-0001
Phone: (202) 224-5244
Fax: (202) 228-2717
WebSite: http://wyden.senate.gov
E-Mail: http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/
Federal Representative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Kurt Schrader (DEM)
District: 005
United States House of Representatives
1419 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5711
Fax: (202) 225-5699
WebSite: http://schrader.house.gov/
E-Mail: <broken link removed>
State Senator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen. Jackie Winters (REP)
District: 010
900 Court Street NE
Suite S-212
Salem, OR 97301-4067
Phone: (503) 986-1710
Fax: (503) 986-1987
WebSite: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/winters/
E-Mail: [email protected]
State Representative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Vicki Berger (REP)
District: 020
900 Court Street NE
Suite H-488
Salem, OR 97301-4062
Phone: (503) 986-1420
Fax: (503) 986-1612
WebSite: <broken link removed>
E-Mail: [email protected]
- Messages
- 389
- Reactions
- 25
So I've been doing some more reading .....it looks like the policy was generated 'pursuant' to Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) which are trumped by Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)(Conceal Carry Rights in Public). The firearm policy was enacted under OAR authority.
<broken link removed>
Again, the policy would be 'trumped' by ORS (CC) laws. I think I see the 'light' of the argument. The school is a public place and as such can NOT reserve the right to ask a CC holder to leave with firearm (question more than statement)? A private place, such as my employer CAN reserve that right.
Violation of ORS (and OAR?) results in criminal/civil prosecution. The school does indeed have a 'Code of Student Responsibility' here:
http://www.wou.edu/student/residences/pdfs/the_code_of_student_responsibility.pdf
The 'authority' to establish this code of responsibility is provided under ORS. Attendance at the school establishes agreement to the 'Code of Student Responsibility'. Violations of the 'Code of Student Responsibility' do NOT result in criminal/civil prosecution (ORS), they result in administrative/academic persecution (Code) as we see now.
ORS statutes only allow the establishment of the Code. Once the Code is established, violations of that Code are spelled out within that document. These sanctions are NOT pursuant to ORS, therefore the sanctions do not need establishment from ORS.
A couple of things I'm still hung up on:
1 - Since the policies of the school (and many employers) are in violation of Constitutional and State rights, shouldn't there be a grass roots movement nationwide to introduce law to declare such policies void and require them to be rewritten?
2 - It seems a little crazy that an institution can require a medical evaluation as a sanction. I guess when you write your own policy/sanctions, you can add what you want :huh:
Bear with me guys, sometimes it takes me a while to get my head around some things....
.....it looks like the policy was generated 'pursuant' to Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) which are trumped by Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)(Conceal Carry Rights in Public). The firearm policy was enacted under OAR authority.<broken link removed>
Again, the policy would be 'trumped' by ORS (CC) laws. I think I see the 'light' of the argument. The school is a public place and as such can NOT reserve the right to ask a CC holder to leave with firearm (question more than statement)? A private place, such as my employer CAN reserve that right.
Violation of ORS (and OAR?) results in criminal/civil prosecution. The school does indeed have a 'Code of Student Responsibility' here:
http://www.wou.edu/student/residences/pdfs/the_code_of_student_responsibility.pdf
The 'authority' to establish this code of responsibility is provided under ORS. Attendance at the school establishes agreement to the 'Code of Student Responsibility'. Violations of the 'Code of Student Responsibility' do NOT result in criminal/civil prosecution (ORS), they result in administrative/academic persecution (Code) as we see now.
ORS statutes only allow the establishment of the Code. Once the Code is established, violations of that Code are spelled out within that document. These sanctions are NOT pursuant to ORS, therefore the sanctions do not need establishment from ORS.
A couple of things I'm still hung up on:
1 - Since the policies of the school (and many employers) are in violation of Constitutional and State rights, shouldn't there be a grass roots movement nationwide to introduce law to declare such policies void and require them to be rewritten?
2 - It seems a little crazy that an institution can require a medical evaluation as a sanction. I guess when you write your own policy/sanctions, you can add what you want :huh:
Bear with me guys, sometimes it takes me a while to get my head around some things....
Doing a little further ORS browsing. I wonder if anybody in the
Monmouth PD is aware of this one:
166.262 Limitation on peace officers authority to arrest for violating ORS 166.250 or 166.370. A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating ORS 166.250 (1)(a) or (b) or 166.370 (1) if the person has in the persons immediate possession a valid license to carry a firearm as provided in ORS 166.291 and 166.292. [1999 c.1040 §5]
The civil suit on this one should be interesting.
Monmouth PD is aware of this one:
166.262 Limitation on peace officers authority to arrest for violating ORS 166.250 or 166.370. A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating ORS 166.250 (1)(a) or (b) or 166.370 (1) if the person has in the persons immediate possession a valid license to carry a firearm as provided in ORS 166.291 and 166.292. [1999 c.1040 §5]
The civil suit on this one should be interesting.
Good question--I don't know. I do know that if I were the lawyer
for Maxwell I would be drafting the suit right now. Against the arresting officer individually, the Monmouth PD and probably the city of Monmouth.
His arrest is a clear violation of the law---someone's going to pay.
Besides--how often do you get the chance to tell the police:
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse"
- Messages
- 1,135
- Reactions
- 411
If I abuse my right with a CHL, it gets taken away.
If a cop abuses their right with arrest, they should get taken away.
If a cop abuses their right with arrest, they should get taken away.
- Messages
- 1,465
- Reactions
- 71
Heh, well said.
