student was charged with "possession of a firearm in a public building

[korntera]

Doing a little further ORS browsing. I wonder if anybody in the
Monmouth PD is aware of this one:


166.262 Limitation on peace officer’s 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 person’s 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.

Here are the laws fully cited in the letters I have been writing to all my contacts at the state house of representatives and yes I did at one point know this one personally.
"Dear Representative Edwards,

My name is Travis Smith, I was the Head of the UO College Democrats in 06/07 and campaigned vigorously for you. I was there on Election night at the Lane Fairgrounds and the after party to congratulate you and Senator Walker and have not asked anything in return since, however I feel there is something wrong here. The reason I am writing to you today is due to a violation of the Oregon University System that was brought to my attention. I feel this is wrong and needs to be right. First let me bring this to your attention…

“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]”

Only the state has the right to make laws regarding firearm possession. If somebody is legally carrying a concealed weapon on campus(due to events like the Virginia tech shooting I do carry a weapon on Oregon Campus’s LEGALLY) under…

“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.”



Which says it is illegal to carry on a campus UNLESS I have a valid concealed handgun license. However recently at WOU a student was arrest for legally carrying a weapon. This scares me as I do travel to University campus’s a lot and used to go to UO Where I was the head of the College Democrats in 06/07. Please do something about this or call me at 503-***-6743, I know Chris is a Pro 2nd amendment candidate (from my personal talks with him) and a democrat so I think we see eye-eye on gun control believing there should be strict control but certain rights should also not be violated.



Thank you for your time and consideration in reading this."

 

[Karma]

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"

That is awesome! I agree completely.

 

[Bend]

13 Feb, Statesman Journal-

<broken link removed>

 

[rayd8]

That is awesome! I agree completely.

I agree too, but I would probably include the school in that suit. Since the academic institution has decided to play hardball (by persecuting him under school policy), Mr. Maxwell should do the same. As many have said this is affecting his entire future.

So this sounds like two different legal battles:

1 - Wrongful Arrest

2 - Violation of ORS by WOU policy

I had been prompted by this incident, so I finally quite procrastinating and joined OFF today

 

[NWMoss]

I agree too, but I would probably include the school in that suit. Since the academic institution has decided to play hardball (by persecuting him under school policy), Mr. Maxwell should do the same. As many have said this is affecting his entire future.

So this sounds like two different legal battles:

1 - Wrongful Arrest

2 - Violation of ORS by WOU policy

I had been prompted by this incident, so I finally quite procrastinating and joined OFF today

Is OFF helping out here? How about the NRA?

(Maybe somebody already said and I just missed it somewhere in the thread...)

 

[SheepDog223]

Now that I've seen these guys become involved in my area I'm joining OFF this very week. I have the application in hand and will be mailing it off monday morning. These guys do good work. Like they say, No Compromise!

 

[rayd8]

Is OFF helping out here? How about the NRA?

(Maybe somebody already said and I just missed it somewhere in the thread...)

OFF is helping with 'actual' court battles.....but I'm not sure what they can do regarding the current persecution under school policy.

My most recent NRA email didn't indicate anything about the WOU incident, but they sometimes run about a week behind the times.

-Mike

 

[SheepDog223]

OFF is helping with 'actual' court battles.....but I'm not sure what they can do regarding the current persecution under school policy.

My most recent NRA email didn't indicate anything about the WOU incident, but they sometimes run about a week behind the times.

-Mike

OFF is more than helping with the court battle, they are totally taking care of the legal aspect and now that they are done with the defence, are changing their objective to going offence which will force the school policy makers to admit that their school rules need to submit to state law. Even though the school rules state that already.

The NRA is to big and slow moving to see individual people and specific situations. They are more adapt to law and policy on the federal and sometimes state level.

 

[aflineman]

I did some thinking on this on my way home from Salem today.
They tribunal suspended him for carrying his handgun concealed even though he had a license to do so, and was legally able to do so on campus.
With that thought, what is to prevent them from suspending someone for riding a motorcycle on campus? Even if that person had an endorsement on their license allowing them to ride, and the streets on campus were public streets. After all, motorcycles can be more dangerous to ride than driving a car.
Also, what is to prevent them from suspending anyone from driving a car on the public roads on campus, even if they were legally licensed to drive? After all, buses help prevent global warming.
Just food for thought.

 

[rayd8]

I did some thinking on this on my way home from Salem today.
They tribunal suspended him for carrying his handgun concealed even though he had a license to do so, and was legally able to do so on campus.
With that thought, what is to prevent them from suspending someone for riding a motorcycle on campus? Even if that person had an endorsement on their license allowing them to ride, and the streets on campus were public streets. After all, motorcycles can be more dangerous to ride than driving a car.
Also, what is to prevent them from suspending anyone from driving a car on the public roads on campus, even if they were legally licensed to drive? After all, buses help prevent global warming.
Just food for thought.

Motorcycles and cars are not spelled out in the 'Student Code of Conduct'????

 

[aflineman]

Motorcycles and cars are not spelled out in the 'Student Code of Conduct'????

So, if the student code of conduct said you had to ride the bus to school, that would be fine? No motorcycles would be fine? EEven on the PUBLIC roads on Campus? How about OFF campus? I'm sure the code of conduct could be applied to this. Many are for on or off campus.
Maybe it is time to look at the code of conduct and make sure it does not infringe upon lawful activities done upon PUBLIC property.

 

[rayd8]

So, if the student code of conduct said you had to ride the bus to school, that would be fine? No motorcycles would be fine? EEven on the PUBLIC roads on Campus? How about OFF campus? I'm sure the code of conduct could be applied to this. Many are for on or off campus.
Maybe it is time to look at the code of conduct and make sure it does not infringe upon lawful activities done upon PUBLIC property.

I would say that if it's covered in here:

http://www.wou.edu/student/residences/pdfs/the_code_of_student_responsibility.pdf

then yes, they would face a tribunal. I didn't realize it, but there actually is a section about motor vehicle laws on page 6.

I agree we need to look at policies that violate law and OFF is doing just that. I'm really interested to see where this goes.

 

[Bend]

Formatting was lost but here is my letter-to-the-editor at the WOU Journal. Please make a comment on it at the Journal.

Link

 

[aflineman]

I would say that if it's covered in here:

<broken link removed>

then yes, they would face a tribunal. I didn't realize it, but there actually is a section about motor vehicle laws on page 6.

I agree we need to look at policies that violate law and OFF is doing just that. I'm really interested to see where this goes.

Looks like they took the page down.
I agree that this will be interesting. Maybe this will cause a relook at the tribunals actions on this an other subjects. I do not feel that a school should be able to make their own laws. Especially ones that violate the rights of an individual and are against state law. Cheers!

 

[ZeroRing]

Looks like they took the page down.

I've been following this thread with interest and I'm wondering... what is the reason for the page being down? Could it be that the school is worried that they are indeed on shaky ground here and they don't want anyone to have "access" to their information prior to it's being "revised"?

Did anyone actually save a copy of the PDF and would care to provide an alternate link to it?

 

[dolooper]

I've been following this thread with interest and I'm wondering... what is the reason for the page being down? Could it be that the school is worried that they are indeed on shaky ground here and they don't want anyone to have "access" to their information prior to it's being "revised"?

Did anyone actually save a copy of the PDF and would care to provide an alternate link to it?

The pdf file seems to be still available. Looks like the earlier posted url got munged during copy/paste or something.

http://www.wou.edu/student/residences/pdfs/the_code_of_student_responsibility.pdf

Maybe the Code tag will work.

 

[ZeroRing]

Maybe the Code tag will work.

That did the trick. Thanks.

 

[hapuna]

There is a HUGE distinction between a public institution and a private employer. That is the big difference in this case. State law overrides any inappropriate policies created by a public institution. A private business can determine their own policies.

[QUOTE
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:[/QUOTE]

 

[aflineman]

There is a HUGE distinction between a public institution and a private employer. That is the big difference in this case. State law overrides any inappropriate policies created by a public institution. A private business can determine their own policies.

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:

This is how I see it also. This is a State institution. How can they enact a policy that is against State law? If it was a private school, whole other story. Kind of how the Boy Scouts can prohibit a gay or athiest, they are a private org (not that I fully agree with this, just an example). A public school can't prohibit individuals, because it is a public org.

 

[Sawdust]

Well it's out there now. Front page of the Oregonian. I can't wait to start reading some of the bleeding heart editorials in the coming week. We all should send the paper our own editorials and put some common sense out there.