The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator
 

Not a Choice

The Oregon Daily Emerald‘s multimedia site recently posted a video in which students from the University of Oregon campus were asked what they thought about the possibility of concealed weapons on campus. With a few exceptions, most students responded as expected:

“I think that it shouldn’t be allowed, partly because I wouldn’t feel safe with some of the students who would bring weapons,” said one student (1:42).

Another felt that she didn’t feel guns were necessary, “It’s an environment where people are learning… and it’s supposed to be friendly and, like, a place where everyone can feel safe.” (1:51)

Only one person appearing on the clip addressed the true nature of the question and kudos goes to this girl for throwing her own self-interests to the wind in favor of recognizing the civil liberties of others, “The idea of people having concealed weapons scare me, but at the same time I believe a person’s right to have that weapon.” (1:32)

Apparently students on the campus of the University of Oregon have yet to take any course that gives them any common sense whatsoever, so hear this:

Civil liberties are not based on your own sense of justice, morality or preferences. They are based upon a document that is part of the foundation of these United States. To reason otherwise is against the nature of civil liberties in this country and against the Constitution.

Whatever your opinion on guns is, one must be careful to be mindful of the real issue here. The OUS has effectively taken up creating legislation all on their own, in defiance and violation of the laws of the state of Oregon. We cannot give them the power to do so, lest they expand their power beyond their current scope.

State laws allow the holder of a Concealed Hander’s License to carry anywhere in the state of Oregon except for federal courthouses and a few other areas. University campuses are not part of that list according to the state of Oregon. The ban on concealed handgun carry for holders of CHLs is therefore in direct violation of state law.

Of course, if you wanted to bring suit against the OUS directly you could always open-carry on campus. For those of you who don’t know, Oregon is an open-carry state meaning you are allowed to carry a gun at all times (less the places state or federal law prohibits) as long as it’s displayed externally.

Then again, you could let the OUS stomp all over your civil liberties. Apparently they enjoy it.

(Author’s Note: The Emerald staffer who made the opening panels might want to be careful how they word things next time. The second panel (0:04) said “The group seeks to eliminate the state’s ban on handguns…”. The “state” does not have a ban on handguns, dear Emerald staffer, the OUS does. Making a distinction between those two things is vital when you are trying to inform the masses.)

  1. Betz says:

    @Julia:
    Thats funny … last time I heard, the Constitution was a document designed to counter the “minority of the opulent” by giving the majority a vast array of civil liberties … specifically, the right against unlawful search and seizure (4th amendment), the right to not quarter troops in your house (3rd amendment) – both of which were “rights” of the opulent minority – as well as the right to bear arms and form militias (2nd amendment), and the right to criticize the government and worship your own religion (1st amendment). Makes it awful hard for those in power to counter a critical populace when they, too, have guns.

    I think you are confusing the term “democratic” with “government” … The Constitution absolutely puts a kink into the government’s plans to rule its populace with absolute power …. but then again … THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT. The American people had just succeeded and escaped a king – they did not want to replace him with another one, nor did they ever want another one further down the line.

    But hey, its easy to get confused like that when you have a loud, irrational voice screaming in your head.

  2. Vincent says:

    It’s on YouTube. It must be true.

  3. CJ Ciaramella says:

    “Makes sense once you realize that the US Constitution is a very anti-democratic document written with the primary goal of protecting the

  4. Julia says:

    “Civil liberties are not based on your own sense of justice, morality or preferences. They are based upon a document that is part of the foundation of these United States. To reason otherwise is against the nature of civil liberties in this country and against the Constitution.”

    Makes sense once you realize that the US Constitution is a very anti-democratic document written with the primary goal of protecting the “minority of the opulent” from the majority.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpTouVHDVt4

  5. D-Unit says:

    1st rule if you Concealed Carry: Do not talk about concealing and/or carrying a gun.

    2nd rule if you Concealed Carry: Do not talk about concealing and/or carrying a gun.

    3rd rule: Practice drawing and firing with the same gear you carry with, a lot.

    BTW the national media has no clue about the subject of guns, similar to economics, so I’m not surprised the ODE made similar blatantly false statements.

    Oregon Firearms Academy is in brownsville and has a great class that meets the requirements of the state for get your CHL, but more importantly they teach you a solid foundation to begin carrying effectively.

  6. Betz says:

    Alcohol classes? Was alcohol a factor in this case, or was the ruling just imposed arbitrarily?

  7. Gsim says:

    Danimal,

    Actually, last year a OC staffer (who wishes to remain nameless) was discovered with a .38 revolver and a CHL. He was discovered whilst tearing down pro-Obama posters and kicking the Johnson hall sign. The OFF did give him a little support, but due to the nature of his circumstances he wasn’t exactly an ideal case for challenging OSU’s illegal rule.

    In the end his expulsion was reversed (After he mentioned being in contact with OFF and suing for the violation his civil liberties/state law), but he had to agree to attend alcohol classes and jump through a number of other hoops to be able to attend classes again.

    Sort of bumped him off the 4 year graduation plan.

  8. Dane says:

    Haha WWOBRD indeed.

  9. Danimal says:

    Darren, you had it right — Stubbs didn’t have standing because he hadn’t suffered the “actual injury” of having the rule enforced against him.

    The new lawsuit is seeking judicial review of the rule, and there’s a different standing standard for that. It’s easier to establish. The OFEF might have a shot, if you’ll pardon the pun.

    But — and this is for all of you — I’m still waiting for somebody to have the cajones to do what Stubbs didn’t do. Actually carry on campus and get cited. It’s been just over a decade since anyone from the OC tried to have anything on campus held unconstitutional. WWOBRD?

    And no, I’m not on the dirty anything.

  10. Dane says:

    Glad we have alums who know what’s up.
    Thanks Dan!

  11. Darren says:

    Danimal,
    Are you the guy on thedirty.com uofo page?

  12. Darren says:

    I guess I was refering to earlier cases, like that of Brian Stubbs, that were dismissed. Thanks for the explanation though.

  13. Danimal says:

    That’s not quite right. The plaintiff needs standing even if they are directly challenging the law. Standing is an independent requirement whether you’re bringing a “facial” challenge or an “as-applied” challenge (or even the rarely used “as-applied to the face” challenge”).

    The OFEF argues that it has standing because the rule “substantially affects the fundamental constitutional rights for which the organization was created to help protect.” We’ll see whether the court buys it.

  14. Dane says:

    Exactly. Individuals need to have legal standing (have the OUS violate their rights) before. People have tried to file suit before without having been arrested by a campus DPS etc. but it was dismissed.

    I believe the new suit, the one filed by the Oregon Firearms Education Foundation, is of a different type, one that directly challenges the law without a specific person needing “standing”.

  15. Darren says:

    correction
    the person filing did not have legal standing

  16. Darren says:

    There have been a few but they were dismissed because the person filing had legal standing. You have to get caught with a gun on campus and the OUS has to uphold the rule before you can have standing. WOU upheld the rule so now Jeff Maxwell has standing.

  17. Drew Cattermole says:

    The Oregon Firearms Education Foundation filed suit last month.

    Way to go.

  18. Betz says:

    If the OUS has extended their powers to violate a higher authority (Oregon state law and federal law that allows concealed carry), then how come no one has filed suits or grievances against OUS? Seems to me that if their reach does in fact represent an over-extension of their power, then checking it to reverse their law would be a pretty simple matter.

    …Or maybe I’m just ignorant.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.