OREGON: Colleges Won't Fight Court Gun Ruling Allowing Guns On Campus

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/27145037-55/rules-firearms-university-court-guns.html.csp

The Oregon University System on Tuesday said it has decided not to challenge an appeals court decision that struck down a rule barring people from bringing guns onto state university campuses.

The September ruling means people with a concealed weapons permit are allowed to bring firearms onto university campuses. The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that only the state Legislature has the authority to set rules governing concealed weapons.

But university system officials said on Tuesday they will look at using other rulemaking authority to limit firearms on university grounds and buildings.

Although the system can’t set broad rules barring firearms, officials believe individual campuses can include a firearms ban in other forms that would bar most, but not all, guns on campus.

Another small win for gun-rights.

[ananda]

1. This is so crazy.

Beyond belief...

[GreenStormCloud]

2. Why is it crazy?

Crime happens on college campuses also, and people should have the ability to defend themselves. People with CCW permits have shown themselves to be extremely responsible with them. They are far more law-abiding than the general public.

[PavePusher]

3. Please explain the difference in conditions if one crosses an arbitrary line in the street.

We'll wait....

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Can you elaborate?

[TheWraith]

5. Of course they won't. Why would they when they can make their own rules?

If I don't want someone smoking in my business, I can put up a sign. I don't need to lobby for a statewide law requiring every business to ban smokers.

[RSillsbee]

6. The backlash, it burns NT

[iverglas]

7. it must be like living in Alice's world

Through the lookingglass.

Earlier, in the wake of a similar court ruling affecting Oregon school districts, some districts have barred their employees, as a condition of employment, from carrying guns on school property. That type of rule also could be adopted by universities, Saunders said, noting that the appeals court upheld such employment-related rules.

I read this as meaning that a court actually struct down a rule barring the carrying of firearms at elementary and secondary schools.

I assume that the courts will shortly rule that smoking, drinking and showing pornographic films in the school gymnasium while spitting on the floor and peeing in the bleachers may also not be prohibited.

Wonderland isn't what I'd call a place like this, though. Sounds more like some alternate universe where up is down and black is white and good is evil ...

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. Sounds *exactly* like Washington, the state immediately to the north...

...where it's been legal for years.

[TPaine7]

9. Courts are bound by laws and constitutions.

"a court actually struct {struck} down a rule barring the carrying of firearms at elementary and secondary schools."

If a court was bound to reach such a conclusion by legal rules, should it simply disregard those rules?

I assume that the courts will shortly rule that smoking, drinking and showing pornographic films in the school gymnasium while spitting on the floor and peeing in the bleachers may also not be prohibited.

Do you really believe that a sane, law-abiding adult carrying a concealed weapon at an elementary or secondary school is comparable to "smoking, drinking and showing pornographic films in the school gymnasium while spitting on the floor and peeing in the bleachers"?

That comparison shows the accuracy of your worldview.

[Hoyt]

10. College budget limitations force them to yield to flat earther gunners. Very sad.

[gejohnston]

11. would they have much of a case?

If not, perhaps they could spend the money on more important things.

[Hoyt]

12. Yea, they'd have a case that most students and parents would agree with. But, schools have better

things to do than worry about those who don't really care about higher education, just whether they can tote a gun on campus. Many of those folks are members of so-called Young Republicans.

[gejohnston]

15. that is not how the law should work

it should not be by popularity. That is why judges should not be elected. As a nonlawyer, it seems that the court views the university system as quasi or de-facto towns or cities. If so, that would make them fall under the preemption law, which says only the state legislature may regulate guns and ammunition outside of federal law. If that interpretation is correct, what students and parents want does not matter, other than writing their state rep to amend or repeal the law.

It is like the ATF and the medical pot. Given the federal prohibition and the GCA-68, that is the only ruling the ATF could logically come to. The way to fix that is repeal the federal prohibition and amend the gun control act to reflect the repeal.

If anyone is licensed in OR, please correct me if I am wrong.

[Hoyt]

16. GE, if you had to deem corporations a "person" to preserve your guns, you would.

[gejohnston]

19. the two are not even remotely related

but I would set up more co-ops and employee owned companies to achieve the same goal.

[iverglas]

18. Young Republicans

They started it, and it's still them.

The original link to the story in this post no longer functions, but here's the post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x49122

... and the way ordinary members of DU react to the idea:

Fri Apr-02-04 07:00 AM
Original message
Rally calls for end to campus gun ban

Rally calls for end to campus gun ban

Steve Kovalski stood in the shade of the University Memorial Center on Wednesday and watched a "Second Amendment Rally" at the University of Colorado. Resting on the 54-year-old's hip, over khaki pants and under a tan jacket, was a black nylon gun holster.

"It's empty," said Kovalski. "But there will come a time that I will fill that holster."

Kovalski, a Louisville resident, was among a handful of supporters at Wednesday's rally, sponsored by CU's College Republicans. Students and community members are calling upon CU's Board of Regents to revoke its weapons ban on all four campuses.

The Legislature passed a law last year allowing concealed weapons to be carried by permit in most parts of the state, including college campuses.


You've got to be kidding me. Guns on a fricking college campus???!!!!

It was Hannah Arendt who said that thing about "the banality of evil".

Seven years ago this idea was outrageous.

Now it's just part of the landscape as the right wing consolidates its squatters' rights to the public spaces of the US.

[gejohnston]

20. two different places years apart

The right wing is about bringing back the gilded age, they don't give a shit about guns. That must be one big grave yard.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=103408

[We_Have_A_Problem]

28. Whether you agree with...

...someone exercising their rights is irrelevant. I'm positive many people would agree that homosexuals should not be allowed to hold hands in public, but that doesn't mean a law to that effect would be right or even remotely legal.

[Simo 1939_1940]

13. Sadly, more emotwaddle here.

Oregon was shall-issue w/regard to concealed carry long before Texas - to name just one "gun happy" state.

AFAIC, Oregon has proven itself to be a genuinely progressive state over and over again - from it's Death with Dignity law, to it's policy of dispensing clean outfits to IV drug addicts.

[Hoyt]

17. Guns in public just doesn't sound progressive to me. I do like their stance on Euthanasia.

[gejohnston]

21. progressive is a relative term

and kind of gives in to the right after they made liberal a dirty word. It is (in the traditional sense of the word) a liberal idea. As in liberalize carry laws.

4.favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5.favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

[iverglas]

26. in the traditional sense of the word

"progressive" has nothing to do with "liberal". Both words have been bizarrely distorted on the USAmerican political landscape, of course, so one can never tell what anybody means when they use either of them.

A progressive works in the interests of and for the benefit of the public, and supports all of the various efforts by various segments of the public to improve their lot: women, racial and ethnic and gender and religious minorities, workers, immigrants, etc. etc. People who are denied equal opportunity in society and suffer discrimination, oppression and exploitation. Progressives understand that the causes of all people strugging against those are interconnected and interdependent.

"People who want to carry guns around in public" are not one of those groups. People who want to carry guns around in public are not denied the right to vote, are not paid wages they can't live on, are not relegated to substandard educational institutions, are not trapped by poverty in underdeveloped and dangerous communities, are not discriminated against in the labour market or under government policies.

They are individuals whose behaviours are regulated. My behaviour is regulated when I want to exercise my right to vote, when I want to exercise my right to marry, when I want to exercise my right to work or engage in religious practices or walk down the street. That's life in a society.

[Simo 1939_1940]

22. Wouldn't expect your closed mind to have the capacity

to confront it's own biases. One of the better essays on the issue of liberals and their position on the RKBA here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

[Hoyt]

23. I think there are better ways to ensure/secure "rights" than guns.

[Simo 1939_1940]

27. The article covers much more ground than simply

securing/ensuring rights with guns. But you knew that. Your predictable dishonesty compels you to misrepresent the position of the author - on display for all who actually read the article to see.

So thank you, once again, for aiding our cause by undermining yours.

:pals:

[We_Have_A_Problem]

29. Oh? Care to share some of those ways?

Ways which will always work mind you. Ways which other men with guns cannot simply disregard.

[Simo 1939_1940]

30. Another good point, obviously. NT

[We_Have_A_Problem]

31. Thank you.

Thats what so many of the anti crowd seem to completely miss...

If there is no way to forcibly secure our rights, then what happens when someone wants to forcibly restrict them?

[Simo 1939_1940]

33. PLEASE DON'T SHOOT ME MR. THUG!!!

Or I'll scream PLEASE DON'T SHOOT ME!! again. If I'm capable, that is.

It burns.......it really does.



:eyes:

[iverglas]

25. ah, one more reason I'm glad not to be a "liberal"

if that one is an example of the dishonesty of the breed:

When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns ...

Start out with a false allegation, and there's just no telling where you can get yourself to end up, is there?

Perhaps she's saying that none of that 40% of USAmerican households is headed by "liberals" ... in which case she'd be quite wrong, I think. I'll bet there are "liberals" who hunt, "liberals" who shoot skeet ...

She then goes on to valiantly demolish various straw adversaries of her own construction.

We believe the Founders intended ...

The Founders also intended that she and a bunch of other people never be allowed to vote, or exercise a lot of the other rights they were allegedly so fond of. I have to wonder why she thinks that what these Founders thought or intended "when it comes to discussing the Second Amendment" is so all-fired important and disregards all the rest of it. Sounds to me like she checked rational thought at the door.

"It doesn't matter that it's not 1776 anymore"? Well, apparently it does, or she wouldn't be voting.

A very long and pointless screed consisting of her straw people and selective memory. Yech. I hope "liberals" can do a lot better than that intellectual dishonesty and demagoguery, and not be tricked by any of it.

[spin]

34. Interesting ...

You made a good point when you said:

Perhaps she's saying that none of that 40% of USAmerican households is headed by "liberals" ... in which case she'd be quite wrong, I think. I'll bet there are "liberals" who hunt, "liberals" who shoot skeet ...

But you did leave out liberals who own firearms for self defense or who have concealed carry permits.

Since a higher percentage of Democrats own firearms for protection against crime than Republicans or Independents, I'm sure that a significant percentage of these Democrats hold liberal views.

November 22, 2005
Gun Ownership and Use in America
Women more likely than men to use guns for protection

***snip***

Republican and Democratic gun owners are almost equally likely to say they use a gun for protection against crime, 64% to 69%, respectively. However, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say they use a gun for target shooting (71% to 53%) or for hunting (64% to 53%).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

Probably the reason that target shooting and hunting isn't quite as popular with gun owning Democrats is that many live in urban areas with only a few indoor firearm ranges that are expensive to shoot at and have to journey a considerable distance in order to hunt. However urban areas are often far more dangerous than rural areas and in those urban areas where firearm laws are favorable to gun ownership many Democrats own firearms for self defense. Firearm ownership for self defense was very common in the Tampa Bay area where I lived for 37 years. I personally knew a large number of Democrats who owned firearms and some who had carry permits. Only a few were hunters or target shooters.

I predict a lot more liberals will become firearm owners if the trend to make handgun ownership easier continues. For example Chicago will eventually have to stop its efforts to block handgun ownership and California will probably pass shall issue concealed carry in a few years. Illinois will eventually follow the trend and allow some form of concealed carry and hopefully that will be shall issue.

[ManiacJoe]

14. The article suggests that the college admins do not know their students.

The vast majority of college students are not eligible for CCW permits/licenses due to their young age.

CCW holders are not a problem outside the college campuses. Why would they be problems after stepping onto the campuses?

[PavePusher]

24. The only answer that I've seen to that is some hysterical sputtering...

along the lines of "But... but... but GUNS... and DRUGS... and DRUNK FRAT BOYS...", with no additional explaination.

I doubt you'll see anything new.

[ileus]

32. Victory for our fellow citizens in Oregon...congrats.