Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Mt. Hood Community College

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    I am attending MHCC and was wondering if anyone has had any issues carrying on campus?



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    Let me add a little to my original post,

    Here is a line from the Student Hand Book,

    Engaging or participating in possession or use of explosives, firearms, dangerous weapons (or their facsimiles), or other hazardous objects or substances. Weapons are allowed on the campus only by duly authorized officials while in the performance of their professional duty.
    http://www.mhcc.edu/pages/1459.asp

    What I was reading on another post, they can't restrict the possession of a legally concealed firearm, right?




  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Scappoose, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    I am not a lawyer, but my interpretation is if you willfully disobey their code of conduct, that they can eject you - as a student. If I under stand correctly, they could not do anything with a visitor who is legally carrying, assuming it is public property.If it is considered private property, they they could ask the visitor to leave or be trespassed.


    From their web site:
    The following actions and/or behaviors will constitute violations of the MHCC Student Code of Conduct and will subject any student committing a violation to disciplinary sanctions including separation from the College or any lesser sanction authorized by the Code:

    16. Engaging or participating in possession or use of explosives, firearms, dangerous weapons (or their facsimiles), or other hazardous objects or substances. Weapons are allowed on the campus only by duly authorized officials while in the performance of their professional duty.

    With a permit and concealed, you are not breaking any laws.


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Estacada, ,
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Definition of public building and court facility:

    (4) “Public building” means a hospital, a capitol building, a public or private school, as defined in ORS 339.315, a college or university, a city hall or the residence of any state official elected by the state at large, and the grounds adjacent to each such building. The term also includes that portion of any other building occupied by an agency of the state or a municipal corporation, as defined in ORS 297.405, other than a court facility.

    (2) “Court facility” means a courthouse or that portion of any other building occupied by a circuit court, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court or the Oregon Tax Court or occupied by personnel related to the operations of those courts, or in which activities related to the operations of those courts take place.

    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.

    Subsection 3, contains exemptions for certain persons. Let's go into the exemptions:

    (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:

    (a) A sheriff, police officer, other duly appointed peace officers or a corrections officer while acting within the scope of employment.

    (b) A person summoned by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest or preserving the peace, while the summoned person is engaged in assisting the officer.

    (c) An active or reserve member of the military forces of this state or the United States, when engaged in the performance of duty.

    (d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.

    (e) A person who is authorized by the officer or agency that controls the public building to possess a firearm or dangerous weapon in that public building.


    Subsection 2, which deals with carrying a loaded or unloaded firearms in court facilities, are NOT exempt via concealed handgun license. Public buildings, however, are exempted by CHL. I also point out that under Oregon law, "courts" insofar as the state weapons prohibition does NOT include the city courthouse or courtroom. A city judge MIGHT (again, I emphasize might because I don't have good understanding of a city judge's power) have the ability to prohibit weapons in his courtroom under the provisions of contempt, but such prohibitions MUST be limited to his courtroom and cannot be used as a wedge to ban the possession of all firearms throughout the public building where his courtroom is housed.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    So from what I understand, I am pretty much safe if it's concealed and no one knows about it, but I risk being punished by the school if they find out about it. Am I correct?

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Scappoose, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    That is my interpretation. Legally there is nothing they can do to you if you have a permit. But they could expel you from the school since your violating their code of conduct.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    Guess I will see how things go then. I think the school would be less concerned about a student concealing if there happened to be a gunman on a rampage, and the student was able to stop them from causing anymore harm.

  8. #8
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    Dogbait: PM sent
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Window_Seat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vacaville, California, USA
    Posts
    123

    Post imported post

    Dogbait wrote:
    Guess I will see how things go then. I think the school would be less concerned about a student concealing if there happened to be a gunman on a rampage, and the student was able to stop them from causing anymore harm.
    Unfortunately it doesn't work that way when it comes to their attitudes. They would rather have 30 people dead than to have 1 person dead, and school admin would show it in their true colors after the fact (IMO of course).

    Erik.

  10. #10
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611

    Post imported post

    Window_Seat wrote:
    Dogbait wrote:
    Guess I will see how things go then. I think the school would be less concerned about a student concealing if there happened to be a gunman on a rampage, and the student was able to stop them from causing anymore harm.
    Unfortunately it doesn't work that way when it comes to their attitudes. They would rather have 30 people dead than to have 1 person dead, and school admin would show it in their true colors after the fact (IMO of course).

    Erik.
    Really believe that these college administrators are well intended, good people.

    Problem is that most of them seem to think that if they see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil that evil will cease to exist.

    Unfortunately, evil subscribes to no such rules or limitations.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  11. #11
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    GIGA DITTOS on that!!!!

    It's the same as "let's just talk to the bad guys and see what we're doing that makes them want to hurt us. Then we can stop doing that and they won't hurt us anymore."

    COUGH, GAG, CHOKE
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    155

    Question

    Reviving an old thread, but I found this document on the campus website..

    http://www.mhcc.edu/docs/CampusSecurity/CleryReport.pdf

    Page 18-19, has their policy information on Firearms on campus. I noticed they had a "Criminal Trespass" section on there as well.

    What are your thoughts on this document?
    Last edited by Dogbait; 11-20-2010 at 07:37 PM. Reason: wrong page numbers

  13. #13
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    My thoughts are that these schools need to be sued. The law is clear and they are violating it. The legislature also needs to strengthen ORS 166.170 and while I'm advocating a 'wish list" they should include criminal penalties for the head of any governmental agency which violates the provisions of 166.170

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    130
    Code 5040, adopted 3/8/06



    DRUG-, ALCOHOL-, TOBACCO-, AND FIREARM-FREE WORKPLACE

    The College is committed to maintaining a drug-, alcohol-, tobacco-, and firearm-free workplace and will comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.

    END OF POLICY

    I posted this many months ago and asked several times to get the thread stickied, I was contacting all the states schools and getting the word from the horses mouth, but I lost interest when no one gave a **** anymore.

  15. #15
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    That may only be the part that applies to employees. Most of the schools have firearms prohibitions (and others) in the "student code of conduct" that they make you sign in order to attend.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    It is UnCertain as to whether or not such Covenants can be Honored by The Courts IF Mt. Hood College is Publicly-Funded, however, the Policy itself is InCorrect on its Face, as is.

    ORS 166.370(3)(d) Allows Carry in Public Buildings, as Defined under ORS 166.360(4), to Include Public and Private Colleges/Universities, by those with Oregon Concealed Carry Handgun Licenses, and such Conduct is Preempted under ORS 166.170(1) AND ORS 166.170(2).

    Therefore, Article IV(16) is Preempted by The ORS.
    Last edited by aadvark; 12-28-2010 at 12:33 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Yup, the college can't do it and the courts have no jurisdiction in the matter as college policies are....policies....not the law.

    However, the schools will use their power to expell a student and then expend tax payer dollars to defend against the civil lawsuit that MAY be brought forth by the student if they can secure legal representation in the fight (it's not cheap and the school attorneys will try to bury the plaintiff in high cost lawyer fees responding to all of their BS).

    The plaintiff (student) SHOULD prevail but that would assume that oru courts actually follow the law instead of deciding what they think the law should say.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    160
    There is also the matter of signing the agreement to attend the college/university. If you sign it and within that agreement you end up agreeing to no weapons on the campus, they can bring that to the trial as well.

  19. #19
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by DenWin View Post
    There is also the matter of signing the agreement to attend the college/university. If you sign it and within that agreement you end up agreeing to no weapons on the campus, they can bring that to the trial as well.
    Yes they can, and then the argument is that they do not have the lawful authority to make such requirements (they are not a county or city) as well as that the document was signed under coercion (as you can not attend the Publicly Funded without signing it).

    The legislature has been clear, the schools are out of line and the law is on the side of lawful citizens complying with state law.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Yes they can, and then the argument is that they do not have the lawful authority to make such requirements (they are not a county or city) as well as that the document was signed under coercion (as you can not attend the Publicly Funded without signing it).

    The legislature has been clear, the schools are out of line and the law is on the side of lawful citizens complying with state law.
    So true, and I was talking to older friend of mine today who is a instructor at WOU about the issue, and Maxwell case as well.

  21. #21

  22. #22
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    I'll trump your "Heller" with CONSTITUTION

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •