When Brian Stubbs fought the Oregon University System’s anti-concealed handgun policy, he exposed a serious conflict between OUS and Oregon law, a conflict that has yet to
be resolved.
It is a classic dilemma: How do we balance individual rights with the safety of the community? Is it worthwhile to infringe on the rights of 4.1 percent of Lane County residents that hold Concealed Handgun Licenses in order to provide for the safety of the rest of the campus? Does doing so really increase safety, or would allowing trained gun users to carry their weapons actually be the safety-
conscious thing to do?
These are important questions that the campus community must debate. The motivating factor should be the safety of students. One thing is clear: The legal conflict between the OUS policy banning handguns on campus and the Oregon statue that allows them on campus needs to be reconciled.
One opinion would be for a Concealed Handgun License holder to bite the bullet — so to speak — and openly violate the concealed weapons ban. The University has yet to enforce the policy, and pushing them to do so would force the courts to make a ruling one way or the other. The courts managed to dodge the issue in the Stubbs case because he begrudgingly chose to comply with the ban.
Another opinion would be for anti-gun groups to lobby the state to change Oregon law. Allowing the OUS to simply ignore a state law seems to be a poor way to deal with an issue this emotional. If the university system wants to ban firearms in the classroom, more power to it, but it should do so in a legitimate way, by amending state statutes.

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]