In a dramatic challenge to Oregon University System policy, physics graduate student Brian Stubbs filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court against several state higher education organizations. In his claim, Stubbs argues that the system’s ban on concealed weapons violates state laws that allow Concealed Handgun License holders to carry concealed firearms on public property anywhere in Oregon, save in courtrooms and where otherwise dictated by the Oregon Legislature.
The case could have wide-reaching ramifications, too.
“For some time we have known that schools all over the state have been violating the law. It is a case with statewide implications,” said Kevin Starrett, the executive director of the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation.
Prima facie, Stubbs is right-on, but the details of the arguments are worth closer inspection.
State law specifically prohibits cities and counties from abridging gun possession rights of CHL holders within their boundaries. However, both the Board of Higher Education and the Oregon University System certainly qualify as lesser jurisdictional authorities. If educational authorities are allowed, in the purported and ill-defined notion of student safety, to abridge liberties on their campuses otherwise specifically granted by law, what’s to prevent them from otherwise limiting speech they deem “harmful”? If gun rights are to be curtailed on Oregon campuses, such limitations must be legislated.
OUS spokeswoman Di Saunders maintained that the relevant OUS rules are legitimate and are motivated by safety concerns.
“Student safety on OUS campuses is our first and foremost concern,” she explained to the Emerald. “That is why the state board went beyond the Oregon statue and voted to not allow handguns on Oregon public campuses.”
What’s clear is that safety is important to students and OUS alike. What’s less clear is whether Stubbs’ possession of a firearm constitutes a sufficient material threat to safety on campuses to ban him, or any other CHL owner, from carrying handguns there.
Some evidence suggests not. The state laws regulating distribution of CHLs (ORS 166.291-166.295) are justifiably rigorous: The twelve qualifying conditions, which range from age and citizen status to handgun training to past criminal record, ensure that, in the state’s view, anyone who receives a CHL — including Stubbs — has the sense of civic responsibility to carry his or her firearm on public property and use it appropriately.
Indeed, with evidently law-abiding citizens trained in firearm safety carrying a handgun, many students might feel safer.
“Prohibiting law-abiding citizens from carrying their handguns onto campus will not stop a criminal who is intent on violence,” Stubbs said. “It will just ensure that all of the potential victims are unarmed and unable to defend themselves.”