You got the emails from the President. You’ve read our many words about it@@When?@@. By now, you know that firearms are legally allowed on University property@@Are they? Or would this occur after the appeals’ process has ended and nothing has changed?@@.
Here’s the deal, though. The Oregon Court of Appeals was rational in reaching the verdict that students, faculty members, staff and members of the community should be legally allowed to have firearms on campus — or even that they should bring firearms.
And, though the Department of Public Safety was indeed granted a path to a policehood this past summer, even the details of that change have yet to be hammered out. (The Oregon State Board of Higher Education will be meeting this Friday to vote on that subject.)
Breaking it down to argue that the campus is moving to a Wild West scenario or to increased gun use is simplistic. At the same time, to try to argue away concerns of administrators and students is insensitive. What we need in this process of change is the deliberative process that DPS said would be used last year when they were lobbying for police powers@@which is? What process?@@.
Throughout the ruling, the Court’s arguments parse out the petitioner’s contentions and reject several of them@@http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A142974.pdf@@. The petitioner (Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation) argues that because a part of Oregon Revised Statute 351 argues that the Oregon University System “shall adopt rules and bylaws for the government thereof, including the faculty, teachers, students and employees therein,” they are not permitted to make Oregon Administrative Rules — like the one (OAR 580-022-0045(3)) that formerly prohibited firearms — affecting non-members of the institutions.
The Court rejects this notion and goes on to raise a further statute that gives OUS the grounds to make rules to control the property of its member institutions, saying that the rule was within those bounds.
Petitioner’s next argument regards the ORS (166.370) about concealed carry licenses, saying that OAR 580-022-0045(3) violates state law that allows those with a license to carry their weapon in a public building. They argue that the exception of allowing firearms in public buildings ought to include state universities’ campuses.
The Court again rejects this, arguing that ORS 166.370 “does not speak to the State Board of Higher Education’s authority to adopt a policy to exclude handguns from its institutional facilities. OAR 580-022-0045(3) therefore is not inconsistent with the statute.”
The 12-page document, available to the public on the Court’s website, lays out the petitioner’s contention and for the most part, rejects it. The ruling that we have all now heard so much about does not come until the very last page, when the Court argues that the previously existing OAR made a regulatory law, which was not authorized by Oregon’s legislature, and was therefore invalid.
We say all that to communicate two big points: One, it is especially wrong to argue (or imply, or surmise) that the Court’s ruling was made in haste — that it did not consider your concern about having guns on campus. The Court came to a decision that the OUS simply did not have the jurisdiction to make the rule that it did, but it did not make it lightly.
(And we applaud the Court for taking that decision away from OUS and giving it back to the universities.)
But two, it is obvious that this issue is one that requires more student and administrative discussion. Though making a rule regarding firearms is something that does not fit directly into OUS’ legal purview, the University should now sponsor a dialogue and develop a set of community priorities about guns.
Even though a decision was made last week, the tenor of that decision indicated that this topic is not over yet@@I would go for an appeal.@@.