-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Mt. Hood Community College
- Thread starter Dogbait
- Start date
imported post
Let me add a little to my original post,
Here is a line from the Student Hand Book,
What I was reading on another post, they can't restrict the possession of a legally concealed firearm, right?
Let me add a little to my original post,
Here is a line from the Student Hand Book,
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?
Puddin99
Campaign Veteran
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.
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.
duhrkoopm
New member
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.
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.
Puddin99
Campaign Veteran
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.
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.
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.
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.
We-the-People
Regular Member
imported post
Dogbait: PM sent
Dogbait: PM sent
Window_Seat
Regular Member
imported post
Dogbait wrote:
Erik.
Dogbait wrote:
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.
imported post
Window_Seat wrote:
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
Window_Seat wrote:
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
We-the-People
Regular Member
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
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
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?
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:
We-the-People
Regular Member
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
TheHossUSMC
Regular Member
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.
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.
We-the-People
Regular Member
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.
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.
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:
We-the-People
Regular Member
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.
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.
DenWin
Regular Member
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.
We-the-People
Regular Member
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.
Historyman1942
Regular Member
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.