Search News


Browse Archives

News

New Challenge to Gun Limits on Campuses

February 16, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Many colleges bar people from bringing guns onto campus, but that position continues to be attacked by politicians.

In Utah, the University of Utah in 2007 lost a lengthy legal fight to ban guns from its campus. Now the issue is getting attention in Oregon, following the suspension of a student from Western Oregon University. The student admits to carrying a gun, but notes that he has a concealed weapon permit from the state. The university maintains that state law also gives the public higher education system the right to ban guns from its campuses -- regardless of whether gun owners have a permit. With backing from Republican state legislators, the student says that the permit laws should trump the university's view of the issue.

The student -- Jeffrey L. Maxwell -- could not be reached. But he told the Albany Democrat-Herald that the suspension followed an incident in which campus police were looking for a suspicious person on campus. Before determining that Maxwell, a Marine Corps veteran, was not that person, they asked him if he had any weapons and he answered truthfully that he was carrying a loaded pistol. While the university has declined to discuss the specifics of his punishment, Maxwell has told local reporters that he was suspended until the fall and ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation and to write a paper on obeying the law and the impact of guns on campus.

Oregon's administrative statutes specifically state that guns are barred from public colleges (as well as elementary and secondary schools) unless specifically authorized by institutional officials. A spokeswoman for the Oregon University System said that officials there couldn't comment on Maxwell, but that the system has viewed its gun ban as based directly on Oregon law.

The case become a rallying cry of sorts for gun supporters in Oregon. The Democrat-Herald has invoked Virginia Tech to back Maxwell. "At Virginia Tech and elsewhere, rules like the ones enforced by the university system have not prevented gun violence but left people on campus more vulnerable to mass murderers," said an editorial in the paper.

A letter from Bruce Hanna, Republican leader of the Oregon House of Representatives, to the university system called its policies "out of line" and said that the state's public universities are ignoring the rights of holders of concealed weapons permits.

While much of the publicity in the state has come from critics of the university policies, others defend them.

Shawn Alford, president of Ceasefire Oregon, a group that favors gun control, said that universities "have a right and obligation to keep students and faculty safe." Alford noted that there is a long-standing tradition of heightened regulation of guns in certain places, even if states permit gun possession generally.

For example, in last year's Supreme Court decision striking down a District of Columbia gun control law as violating the Second Amendment, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: "[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on New Challenge to Gun Limits on Campuses

  • Only one problem.
  • Posted by Oregonian on February 16, 2009 at 7:40am EST
  • The problem:

    "Oregon’s administrative statutes specifically state that guns are barred from public colleges (as well as elementary and secondary schools) unless specifically authorized by institutional officials."

    Is not true. ORS 166.370 and ORS 166.70 are what is relevant in this case. First, he broke now Oregon statute:

    "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.
    (2) (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person who intentionally possesses:
    ...
    (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."

    Second, WOU's "policy" is in violation of state law:

    "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."

    In the simplest of terms, WOU had no right to arrest Maxwell as he was violating no law and as a public institution, they had no right to create a policy that violates Oregon law.

    Please, read Oregon gun laws a little bit before you make such statements. There *is* a reason the DA did not press charges against the student.

  • Posted by kgotthardt on February 16, 2009 at 8:40am EST
  • “[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.."

    Yes, except gun carriers are not mandated to have psychological exams before obtaining a license.

    Furthermore, these people are endorsing legalized shoot-outs on and off campus in the name of self-defense. Their best suggestion for campus safety is shoot now, ask questions later. Where are critical thinking and innovation here?

  • No Physiological tests for teachers either
  • Posted by Idealist on February 16, 2009 at 11:55am EST
  • I can only imagine how much attention this article will get. First, Oregonian pegged it correctly. This case is getting a lot of airplay in the NW. Jeffery Maxwell acted within his right to carry a concealed weapon and as the accounts have stated was completely honorable and truthful to the authorities upon their inquiry. What has happened since is the deliberate persecution of a Marine Corps veteran who at some point swore to uphold the constitution, and is more than qualified to defend his country and its citizens. Gun ownership and possession, like free speech, come with responsibility. Mr. Maxwell was being a responsible citizen and now he is to pay for it with a pound of his flesh.

    Hysterical fears from the gun control (ban) crowd aren’t based on good science, history, statistical indicators, just the building of glass houses. They just don’t seem to grasp that the second amendment is the very thing that protects us from an obtrusive government. A government, that may pull law abiding citizens off the street and unjustly persecute them. It also gives, we the citizens, the right to "lawfully" protect ourselves.

  • Posted by huh? on February 16, 2009 at 12:15pm EST
  • I’m missing the part where “these people” are proposing a “shoot now, ask questions later” approach.

  • No hysterics, please.
  • Posted by Engineering Grad Student on February 16, 2009 at 1:15pm EST
  • Only two comments into the discussion, and we're exposed to the shrill hysterics of kgotthardt, a person who thinks the topic is whether we ought to have legalized shootouts. Can a shootout be legal? Possibly, if we legalized duels.

    What we're talking about is the illegal use of force by an armed party or parties against an individual or group, and how the innocents who are faced with this situation legally permitted to respond. For a person who claims to advocate critical thinking and innovation to solve problems, it would help to begin with the topic at hand instead of some bizarre caricature.

  • Posted by Tom2 on February 16, 2009 at 1:15pm EST
  • It doesn't matter how one feels about this issue. The Constitution prohibits infringement of our right to keep and bear. That prohibition applies to the President, the Congress, the governors, mayors, sheriffs and certainly peanut-headed academicians. Clearly, our founders defined this as a God-given right like 1st Amendment rights and all the rest. Opinions are irrelevant. Oregon citizens in the neighborhood should arm themselves and visit the campus.

  • Posted by William James on February 16, 2009 at 1:30pm EST
  • "Furthermore, these people are endorsing legalized shoot-outs on and off campus in the name of self-defense."

    By that you mean, students/citezens legally protecting themselves against murder, as opposed to what?
    Being illegally lined up and gunned down?
    If you want to be disarmed and depend on authority and camera surveillance, move to the UK or something.

  • Posted by chuck reece , No Obligation on February 16, 2009 at 2:20pm EST
  • I disagree with the quote from Shawn Alford, president of Ceasefire Oregon, a group that favors gun control, said that universities “have a right and obligation to keep students and faculty safe.” If you are the victim, or the surviving family member of the victim, try to sue the university and collect. You will find there is no such right or obligation. Likewise, the courts have ruled that your local or state law enforcement agency has no duty to protect the individual.

  • Don't trust the citizens! :)
  • Posted by Prof Ed on February 16, 2009 at 3:10pm EST
  • "Furthermore, these people are endorsing legalized shoot-outs on and off campus in the name of self-defense. Their best suggestion for campus safety is shoot now, ask questions later. Where are critical thinking and innovation here?"

    Kgotthardt's comment sounds like negative stereotyping of citizens, and such certainly does not qualify as critical thinking. Likewise, there's nothing either democratic or innovative about labeling citizens as too stupid or too irresponsible to be trusted with an effective means of self-protection. While despots certainly share such condescending views, no true democracy has ever been based on disempowerment of its citizens.

  • Posted by Oregonian on February 16, 2009 at 8:45pm EST
  • Blind hysterics aside, the fact remains:

    Contrary to what the article states and what the author should correct in the spirit of journalistic integrity the young man violated no Oregon law and WOU did.

    "Furthermore, these people are endorsing legalized shoot-outs on and off campus in the name of self-defense."

    Wow. Just. Wow.

    "Where are critical thinking and innovation here?"

    Points to the above statement and asks the same question.

  • What about those of us who don't want to be shot?
  • Posted by Former Oregonian on February 23, 2009 at 4:04pm EST
  • I'm always astonished at the knee-jerk defense of the right to carry weapons, openly or concealed. What about the rights of the rest of us NOT to be shot? The more guns that are around, the more likely that is to occur.

    Allowing guns on the grounds of educational institutions may not be illegal, but it should be, for the safety of everyone.

  • To Former Oregonian
  • Posted by Engineering Grad Student on February 25, 2009 at 10:30pm EST
  • You surely have the right not to be shot. I believe it's codified in law somewhere between the assault and murder statutes, depending upon the particular situation. We have an individual right to keep and bear arms, and so the guns in this country are not going anywhere. Some of us would like to use it to make sure we not only have the right not to be shot, but the ability to prevent that right from being violated.

  • Possession and CHL
  • Posted by Business Teacher , Instructor/Business at RCC on February 26, 2009 at 11:15pm EST
  • I think what bothers me is the assumption by the state universities that anyone attending them will accept the blanket policy that if one is present on campus, one will not carry a firearm, even with a CHL. I teach at Rogue Community College, which is the only community college of which I'm aware that has a combined building with a four-year school, in this case Southern Oregon University. The RCC library is contained within the county library across the street. I suppose this means that, in order to abide by this ridiculous no-firearms policy, I have to go put my firearm elsewhere (or not bring it to school at all, which rather defeats the purpose) before embarking on my school day in the combined RCC/SOU building, but I can go into the library legally. Yet, if I carry the absurdity further, I can't go into the area designated as the RCC library within the county library.

    I agree with the above writers in that the only authority who can actually write laws to forbid guns on campus is actually the Oregon Legislature; I carefully read the statutes before writing this. Where the universities got off on their "policy" is, I think, a lot of P.R. to try and assure nervous parents that their children would be safe. There is no place that is 100% safe. If one has the means to protect one's self, safety is more assured. I will continue to carry.

  • late reply to prohibitionist comment above
  • Posted by JJR , Librarian/Tech Services at Texas Woman's University on April 17, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • I'm doing a little back tracking with Inside Higher Ed articles, but felt the need to respond to this comment:

    "I'm always astonished at the knee-jerk defense of the right to carry weapons, openly or concealed. What about the rights of the rest of us NOT to be shot? The more guns that are around, the more likely that is to occur."

    There are already laws on the books against murder and aggrivated assault with a deadly weapon. A concealed carry permit holder is still legally responsible for every shot they fire in a self-defense situation, and if you, as a bystander, are accidentally hit by one, you can (and should) take legal action after the fact to recoup damages. If you die, your family can sue for wrongful death, etc. Carrying concealed is an enormous responsibility that no one takes lightly. People don't go out and lay out hundreds of dollars for concealed carry permits and range time and training on a whim.

    Concealed carry permit holders ought to know that even if they do everything "right" from a tactical standpoint, they can still be subject to legal civil action after the fact. Still, as the old saying goes, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

    "Allowing guns on the grounds of educational institutions may not be illegal, but it should be, for the safety of everyone."

    That law did not stop the shooters in IL and VA, who were also willing to commit murder on top of the laws & regulations banning guns on campus in those states. Armed civilian resistance could have stopped them and saved lives; When the police finally were able to respond at VA Tech, the shooter committed suicide (as mass shooters often do).

    I also would like not to be shot, which is why I carry concealed outside of work hours, away from my institution. I know that my firearm does not guarantee I won't be shot, but being able to shoot back is sometimes deterrent enough for less-than-psychopathic criminals, some of whom will flee at the mere sight of a gun in their intended victim's hands, which is the best possible outcome. But I try to prepare myself mentally to survive a gunfight by cultivating a survival mindset, determined to keep fighting until I prevail, even if I get hit.

    I realize among many academics my view is the minority view. But I'm heartened by the other commentors to this article, who do evidently understand thet right of self defense as recognized and guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution.