College Student Arrested for Legally Carrying on Campus!

[GunOwningLiberal]

imported post

There has been a lot of people on this forum selectively copying and pasting and rewording Oregon laws. Luckily, that's not actually the way that laws work. For those who want to read the actual laws, find the cited statutes, and read them in a reliable place- a government site for example, not this thread.

The reality is, the statute that says that colleges and universities have the right to make their own policies for weapons. The Oregon University System has made their own policy- that loaded guns cannot be brought on their campuses. I attend Western Oregon University. I am a gun owner. I am a "crazy liberal" as someone on this thread called the liberal end of the spectrum. I am not against guns- but I am NOT for guns on my college campus, or any campus, besides in the hands of a police officer.

As a student, he knew the policy. He probably knew the law. He has the right to carry a concealed weapon- but not on this college campus, or any other one in Oregon. It's unnecessary, it's dangerous and it's simply ludicrous.

Monmouth, OR is a small town of 7000 people. We have only 5500 students total who are registered at our university. We have not had a violent crime here in who knows how long. You do not need to bring a loaded gun, and a knife on to our campus. Or any campus for that matter.

What he did was a violation of a statute. No, he didn't violate the other one. But the fact is, he still violated one of them. Chances are, his charges will be dropped, but as of 6 p.m. today he has been expelled from Western, and it is highly unlikely he will be let back in. He endangered our student body, and he has to receive a punishment for it.

 

[Prophet]

imported post

GunOwningLiberal wrote:

He endangered our student body, and he has to receive a punishment for it.

Tell me, in all your liberal wisdom, exactly how he "endangered" the student body.

 

[Squid13]

imported post

GunOwningLiberal wrote:

It's unnecessary, it's dangerous and it's simply ludicrous.

I mean this with all due respect....BULLS**T!!!

I live in Virginia, and it is clearly necessary to be able to defend yourself on a college campus!

 

[JoeSparky]

imported post

Squid13 wrote:

GunOwningLiberal wrote:

It's unnecessary, it's dangerous and it's simply ludicrous.

I mean this with all due respect....BULLS**T!!!

I live in Virginia, and it is clearly necessary to be able to defend yourself on a college campus!

AND A HOLSTERED WEAPON CARRIED BY AN APPROPRIATELY PERMITED COLLEGE STUDENT IS A THREAT TO NO ONE!!!!

And yes, I did KNOW that I was SHOUTING!!!!!!

 

[AbNo]

imported post

Pfft, like he's going to show up again.

'nother drive-by troll.

 

[Orygunner]

imported post

GunOwningLiberal wrote:

There has been a lot of people on this forum selectively copying and pasting and rewording Oregon laws. Luckily, that's not actually the way that laws work. For those who want to read the actual laws, find the cited statutes, and read them in a reliable place- a government site for example, not this thread.

Great Suggestion! Like this link I posted earlier in the thread:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/166.html

Although I don't see where anyone re-worded any oregon laws. Selective copying and pasting is done to get the extra unrelated stuff out of the way to explain a point.

The reality is, the statute that says that colleges and universities have the right to make their own policies for weapons. The Oregon University System has made their own policy- that loaded guns cannot be brought on their campuses.

No, the reality is that you are wrong. There's one law, ORS 166.170 (use the link above) that says specifically:

166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.
(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]

The Oregon Administrative Rules, where the prohibition on firearms in Oregon College Campuses resides, is in violation of this law. Other state departments have had rules in the OARs restricting firearms as well, and many of them have been removed due to the preemption statute. Specific ones I know of are dropping the firearm prohibition in Oregon State Parks, and removing the firearm storage restrictions from Foster Parents in the DHS rules.

I attend Western Oregon University. I am a gun owner. I am a "crazy liberal" as someone on this thread called the liberal end of the spectrum. I am not against guns- but I am NOT for guns on my college campus, or any campus, besides in the hands of a police officer.

Is your college campus somehow a magical place where crime will never happen? Or does the inalienable right of self-defense somehow not apply to students on a college campus? If you think police officers are somehow better than us or make less mistakes than regular citizens, you are very mistaken. Police aren't any more qualified to carry firearms than anyone else. They may be better trained on average, but they screw up just as much andcommit just as many crimes, if not more, than regular people, per capita. If you think cops are the "only ones" qualified enough to carry firearms, you have a lot to learn:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22only+ones%22+site%3Awaronguns.blogspot.com&btnG=Search&lr=lang_en

As a student, he knew the policy. He probably knew the law. He has the right to carry a concealed weapon- but not on this college campus, or any other one in Oregon. It's unnecessary, it's dangerous and it's simply ludicrous.

Jeff Maxwell may have known the policy. I sure hope he knew the law, which he did not break. Do you have some sort of proof that it's dangerous to carry a firearm on campus? It's not dangerous or ludicrousfor a person with a Concealed Handgun License to carry anywhere else, as evidenced by an extremely low crime rate among CHL holders (no blood in the streets, either). Does something magical happen to CHL holders when they cross the imaginary line onto a college campus? Please, back up your claim with some facts or statistics?

Oh, and I'm sure at every school and university shooting in this country, they claimed it was unneccesary for anyone to carry guns there, too.

Monmouth, OR is a small town of 7000 people. We have only 5500 students total who are registered at our university. We have not had a violent crime here in who knows how long. You do not need to bring a loaded gun, and a knife on to our campus. Or any campus for that matter.

Since when is a right dependant on a "need"?

What he did was a violation of a statute. No, he didn't violate the other one. But the fact is, he still violated one of them. Chances are, his charges will be dropped, but as of 6 p.m. today he has been expelled from Western, and it is highly unlikely he will be let back in. He endangered our student body, and he has to receive a punishment for it.

So it sounds to me like you agree he didn't violate ORS 166.370, but that he violated "the other one," whichI assume you mean the illegal rulein the Oregon Administrative Rules. With the backing of the Oregon Firearms Federation, I'm confident the rule will get changed, firearms will be allowed on campus by CHL holders, and justice will prevail.

Your attitude that a law-abiding person carrying a firearm endangers anyone just shows your ignorance. If you'd like to prove otherwise, please feel free to respond with your facts.

...I think I'll donate $50 to OFF now for the Jeff Maxwell's lawsuit against the University...
...Orygunner...

 

[Mike]

imported post

GunOwningLiberal wrote:

What he did was a violation of a statute. No, he didn't violate the other one. But the fact is, he still violated one of them. Chances are, his charges will be dropped, but as of 6 p.m. today he has been expelled from Western, and it is highly unlikely he will be let back in. He endangered our student body, and he has to receive a punishment for it.

Talk about Orwellian double talk - just what statute did the man violate? The rules of this forum are that if you proffer a rule of law, you have to try your best to cite to authority.

A state college policy is not a criminal statute. Further, there is a strongargument that a state college may not enforce a college rule via an administrative sanction like expulsion if the rule is (1) beyond the statutory power of the college, (2) against the public policy of the state and thereby indirectly preempted, or (3) violates the constitutional rights under the federal and Oregon Constitutions.

This is just a sort of case with facts to litigate this question, and I hope the legal defense fund will pursue civil action against the college. A precedent in Oregon would be a great favorable if only persuasive authority in other states.

 

[Orygunner]

imported post

Here's the Oregon Administrative Rule for Western Oregon University prohibiting firearms:

574-031-0030

Specific Standards and Policies

The following list of prohibited forms of conduct is not all inclusive since it is not possible to list all potential violations. The University requires that all students behave in a manner congruent with established community standards and in a manner conducive to the development of the individual. Actions detrimental to the mission of the University and the legitimate activities of the academic community which constitute the University are in violation of this Code and may be subject to judicial procedures. Judicial action may be initiated by the University and educational and/or punitive sanctions may be assigned to any student or recognized student organization found participating in, attempting to participate in, or assisting others in participating in any of the following prohibited forms of conduct:

(...snip 1-13...)

(14) Possession or use of firearms, fireworks, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or other weapons or dangerous instruments on institutionally owned or controlled property.

Because I selectively copied and pasted the text, please view the entire Rule here from this reliable source:
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_500/OAR_574/574_031.html

Note that this is in violation of ORS 166.170 (preemption). The University System has no legal ability to make laws concerning anything about firearms, that power rests solely in the Oregon Legislative Assembly.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/166.html

...Orygunner...

 

[Mike]

imported post

I hope OFF and others in oregon recognize what a great civil case this might make - appeal of the state college expulsion to state court on state and federal grounds.

I don't mean to be a meanie but I met a leader fromI think OFF at a Gun Rights Policy Conference back in 2007 and he insisted to me that a person in a vehicle was not in a public place even if the vehicle was on a public road (for purposes of triggering the need for a concealed permit to open carry in vehicles as a matter of Oregon law).

John Pierce and I explained to him that that position was probably not going to hold in court, and in the end, as we know, it did not - so please do spend the money to get good civil rights counsel. This guy has, it appears so far, really has great facts for an appeal!

 

[Puddin99]

imported post

[align=left][font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/02.10.09%20alert.html[/font][/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left][font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][/font][/align]
[align=left][font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]02.10.09
MARINE VETERAN KICKED OUT OF SCHOOL FOR POSSESSING FIREARMS[/font][/align]





[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]
[size=+1]WOU STUDENT TRIED,CONVICTED AND SENTENCED.[/size]

The WOU student who was falsely arrested and charged with possession of a firearm in a public building, had all his criminal charges dropped by the Polk County DA tonight.

The DA admitted no wrongdoing on his part, or on the part of the police who arrested Jeff Maxwell for a "crime" that does not exist.

In a statement released to OFF's attorney, the DA said [font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]"I believe the Monmouth Police Department issued the citation in good faith and that there was an arguable violation. However, a careful reading of the statute and the facts led me to conclude the charge was not in the best interest of justice."[/font]

"Not in the best interest of justice." There was NO CRIME. But it gets worse. Much worse.

The college still got to "try" Jeff Maxwell. And they did tonight.

The tribunal that tried Marine veteran Jeffery Maxwell laughed after suspending him from Western Oregon University and sentencing him to:

a "psychological evaluation stating he is not a threat to himself of others" and

a mandatory "ten page paper" " with references, "citing, but not limited to:
1) the importance of following the law,even through civil disobedience.
2) the importance of accepting responsibility for one's actions
3) and recognizing the impact possession of weapons on college campuses has on others."

So, Maxwell has been told his lawful possession of a firearm on campus is evidence of mental illness and he must "confess his sins." Welcome to the new Politburo. Maxwell may as well been judged by the Hitler youth for his "thought crimes."

Jeffery Maxwell's "jury" were four unnamed students and one staff member of WOU.

The "prosecutor" was Patrick Moser moserp@wou.edu "Acting Coordinator of Campus Judicial Affairs"

Maxwell asked to have his "trial" open to the public, which is his right, but was denied.

The tribunal was told repeatedly that they lacked the authority to impose a rule dealing with firearms. But the children who sat in judgment of the veteran were not interested in the law or the facts. They were only interested in attacking and embarrassing a man who had committed no crime but had chosen to exercise his right to protect himself and others.

The "trial" was a sham. No one present even seemed to know what the "charge" was. When confronted by the fact that the school has no authority to make rules about firearms, they said that was "not relevant." Then they said they were not charging Maxwell with having a firearm. When asked what they WERE charging him with, they seemed to not know. They then said they were charging him with having a "knife and a rifle in his car." When told they had no authority to make rules about guns in his car, they said THAT was not "relevant."

The children who sat on Maxwell's "jury" and their staff advisors seemed to have no idea what they were actually charging Maxwell with. But they had no problem sentencing him. Gun owners, and all Americans should be outraged.

OFF is committed to continuing Maxwell's defense. We are shocked and disgusted by the treatment he received by the staff and the students of WOU,

We ask your continued support of our legal battle for Jeff Maxwell. We promised Jeff what he promised the men he served with. We will not leave him behind.
[/font]

 

[Orygunner]

imported post

Here's David Codrea's Gun Rights Examiner piece on it:

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m2d11-Children-of-men

The Western Oregon Journal headline was alarming enough:

Mid-morning arrest startles students...Individual brings weapons on campus in violation of state law
​

My goodness. Did authorities just stop a proto-Cho before he could unleash psychotic mayhem?

Well, uh, no.

It turns out student and United States Marine Corps veteran Jeffrey Maxwell, who fit the description of someone committing the heinous crime of loitering on campus, was sitting at a study table, and:

although Maxwell did have a loaded firearm on his person, he did not use it in a threatening way and was cooperative with the police.

Maxwell had a valid permit for possessing concealed weapons...
​

Oh, but that doesn't matter, maintained campus police:

"Even if you have a concealed weapons permit, you can't have a weapon concealed on your person if you're going to be in any buildings on campus."

...Western firearm and munition policies are administrative and correspond to Oregon University System policies, which are not necessarily the same as state regulations.

"We go one step further and say, look, no weapons are allowed on campus, period"...
​

Oh, a "gun free zone." Where haven't we seen that work out for the best?

Still, the thing is, hysterical student newspaper headlines notwithstanding, violating administrative policy is not a crime.

Furthermore, Oregon Firearms Federation tells us, Maxwell "is statutorily exempt." As the facts of the case bear out:

The WOU student who was falsely arrested and charged with possession of a firearm in a public building, had all his criminal charges dropped by the Polk County DA tonight.
​

End of story, right?

Well, uh, no. The gunhaters must have their pound of flesh. A college tribunal, consisting of "four unnamed students and one staff member of WOU" bent to the will of "prosecutor" Patrick Moser, Acting Coordinator of Campus Judicial Affairs.

Maxwell's request for a public "trial" was denied. The students sitting in judgment couldn't specify a charge. The fact that they lacked legal authority was deemed "not relevant."

The tribunal that tried Marine veteran Jeffery Maxwell laughed after suspending him from Western Oregon University and sentencing him to:

a "psychological evaluation stating he is not a threat to himself of others" and

a mandatory "ten page paper" " with references, "citing, but not limited to:
1) the importance of following the law, even through civil disobedience.
2) the importance of accepting responsibility for one's actions
3) and recognizing the impact possession of weapons on college campuses has on others."
​

Children sitting in judgment of a man. Their sentence: Prove you're sane for the crime of having the means to defend yourself. Prepare and sign a forced confession.

There's the type of society I want to live in.

Still, I could have fun with that paper. We all can.

How would you address the three required points?

Maybe I'll compile that into a 10-page paper, and send it in to Prosecutor Moser and his little Jugendgericht.

------------

 

[Orygunner]

imported post

I almost forgot. I Wrote the Western oregon Journal this week:

From: Orygunner
To: aerb@westernoregonjournal.net, ehuggins@westernoregonjournal.net
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2009 9:06:36 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Grossly Inaccurate Article
To Whom it May Concern,

The following article posted on the Western Oregon Journal website written by Erin Huggins was poorly researched and has inaccuracies.

www.westernoregonjournal.com/media/storage/paper986/news/2009/02/04/News/MidMorning.Arrest.Startles.Students-3616492.shtml]http://media.www.westernoregonjournal.com/media/...orning.Arrest.Startles.Students-3616492.shtml[/url]

Specifically,

"Maxwell had a valid permit for possessing concealed weapons; however, the permit does not allow people to bring weapons inside public schools, private schools or courthouses."

This statement in the article is wrong. Having an Oregon Concealed Handgun License is specifically excluded from the prohibition on carrying firearms in a "public building," including college campuses.

Please review ORS chapter 166, specifically 166.360 for definition of a "public building" and 166.370 (1) for the prohibition on carrying firearms, and 166.370(3)(d) for the exception of people with a current CHL.

Also, review ORS 166.170 (Preemption), which specifically states that the State Legislature is solely responsible for regulating anything to do with firearms, which prevents the University from making rules prohibiting possession of firearms on campus.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/166.html

It's obvious that the Monmouth Police Department doesn't know the law, and I suspect that Detective Kim Dorn is the source Erin used for her legal information.

This would be a great story to continue to cover. Even though a public retraction should be made by the Western Oregon Journal for initially providing wrong information in this story, the rights of students to exercise their right of self defense at colleges and universitiesis an important issue and this case should continue to be reported on.

I would suggest contacting Kevin Starret of the Oregon Firearms Federation formore accurate information onfirearms rights and laws inOregon.OFF is going tobe pushing this issue until these illegal bans on firearms are removed.You can contact him through his website. Here is the link to the OFF alert on this issue:

http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/02.06.09%20ALERT.html

Thanks,

Orygunner

Springfield, Oregon.

I received this reply:

From: "Ashley Erb" <aerb@westernoregonjournal.net>
To: Orygunner
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2009 9:25:14 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: Grossly Inaccurate Article


.MsgBody-text, .MsgBody-text * { font: 10pt monospace; }
[*]Mr. Orygunner,
Thank you for your comments. We are already working on this story. We will not simply be printing a retraction, but we plan to go one step further and will be authoring another story all-together including statements for people working for Maxwell's defense as well as our Public Safety's and Monmouth PD response to comments made by OFF and other comments posted to our web page.
Although we cannot say for sure who is correct in this case as we do don't have access to an independent attorney, not one assosciated with Western or OFF or any other lobbying group, nor the resources to hire such a person, we will re-run the story as a "here is what both sides are saying at this time" and let our readers know that their were possible mistakes and faulty information provided in the previous story and why information is said to be faulty. As the event continues to develop, the Journal will be there to cover the events, particularly if the event ends up in court.
Again, we have been well informed of this issue, but I appreciate your comments.
Please feel free to contact me further at anytime. I have class all day today, but will respond as soon as my schedule allows.
Sincerely,
Ashley

Ashley Erb
Editor in Chief
Western Oregon Journal
aerb@westernoregonjournal.net
503-838-8347

 

[Legba]

imported post

They must not have much of a chemistry department there if thepossession and use of dangerous chemicals is forbidden. I was a chemistry major and was required to routinely handle dangerous chemicals.

As for this moron administrator saying that the student didn't violate the statute he was criminally charged under, but that he still violated one of them (statutes), he is contradicting himself. The statutory authority he cites permits the university to set it's own conduct code, but this does not rise to the level of statutory law. He may well be subject to disciplinary action by the university but they have no authorty to compel the student to submit to the prescribed disciplinary actions including a psych evaluation. There's no chance he's going to be readmitted short of a mandamus or other legal compulsion, so why dignify their nonsense by participating in this circus of a hearing at all? I'd have just walked away when they announced my expulsion.

Student disciplinary tribunals are all a joke - petty children sanctifying their bullying by imposing Robert's Rules of Order on their star chamber proceedings.

-ljp

 

[Mike]

imported post

Puddin99 wrote:

[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]The tribunal that tried Marine veteran Jeffery Maxwell laughed after suspending him from Western Oregon University and sentencing him to:

a "psychological evaluation stating he is not a threat to himself of others" and

a mandatory "ten page paper" " with references, "citing, but not limited to:
1) the importance of following the law,even through civil disobedience[/font]

WOW! So the police break the law and this student, who was following the law, must justify the illegal police action thru the legal fiction that HE broke the law somehow??

Is this part of an English course covering Kafka's The trial?

 

[Gordie]

imported post

GunOwningLiberal wrote:

Monmouth, OR is a small town of 7000 people. We have only 5500 students total who are registered at our university. We have not had a violent crime here in who knows how long. You do not need to bring a loaded gun, and a knife on to our campus. Or any campus for that matter.

GunOwningLiberal, you need to do a little research.

As of 2007, the last year that numbers are available for, this is the violent crime rates for your campus. Between 2005 and 2007, there were:

5 Forcible Rapes

1 Aggravated Assault

7 Simple Assaults

GOL may not consider rape and assault violent crime, but I'll betyou that if they were the victim of these acts they would change their tune.

Granted these numbers are pretty low, but if you were one of the victims, it would be little comfort that you need to be defenseless to protect an other's sensitive nature. I have never seen where there is a right to live in complete comfort, without any form of stress, but I have seen where there is a right to defend one's self.

http://www.wou.edu/admin/safety/crime_stats.php

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

GunOwningLiberal wrote:

*liberal drivel*

 

[TFred]

imported post

[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]

a mandatory "ten page paper" " with references, "citing, but not limited to:
1) the importance of following the law,even through civil disobedience.
2) the importance of accepting responsibility for one's actions
3) and recognizing the impact possession of weapons on college campuses has on others."

I don't like writing just for the fun of it, but this could be a very educational paper.

1. Yes, police officers certainly do need to obey the law when they decide who to arrest and who not to arrest. Many cites, not the least of which is Danladi Moore in Virginia, who will soon be filing yet another lawsuit which will probably increase his net worth in the range of 5 or 6 figures.

2. Yes again, the police officers who unjustly arrested Mr. Maxwell should have indeed owned up to the mistake, and not tried to hide behind some mealy-mouthed excuse like "there was an arguable violation". Either there was or there was not. If there was, then he would have been prosecuted. There clearly was not.

3. Despite the fact that most campuses are free target zones, there have been a few documented cases not only on campuses but in churches and other public places where law abiding citizens were able to use personally owned and legally carried firearms to halt a mass murder.

This may not be such a bad paper to write after all.

TFred

P.S. I bet the civil complaint will address many of these issues and will probably be in excess of 10 pages. Do you think they will read it?

ETA: PS

[/font]

 

[Heartless_Conservative]

imported post

As of 2007, the last year that numbers are available for, this is the violent crime rates for your campus. Between 2005 and 2007, there were:

That only includes what was reported to police, not what was never reported due to fear/shame/ administrators hushing things up to make their numbers look better. The actual number is likely much higher, especially if the kind of disgusting "other people's rights don't matter" mentality is as prevalent as the article indicates.

 

[PT111]

imported post

They must not have much of a chemistry department there if thepossession and use of dangerous chemicals is forbidden. I was a chemistry major and was required to routinely handle dangerous chemicals.

When I was taking Chemistry lab a test tube blew up thankfully harming no one but some underwear. The instructorran over, started doing some checking and starting yelling for everyone to stop. One of the by-products of the experiment we were doing was making gunpowder and heating it over the bunsen burners. :what: That experiment was canceled.

Another time the drains in all the sinks startedhaving small explosions going off with a flame about a foot high. We figured out that someone had poured burning sulphur down behind some explosive chemical. That was a fun lab. :celebrate Of course that was about 40 years ago so I can't remember exactly what all those chemicals were.

 

[KBCraig]

imported post

GunOwningLiberal wrote:

The Oregon University System has made their own policy- that loaded guns cannot be brought on their campuses.What he did was a violation of a statute.

Not that I expect a GOL to answer, but: make up your mind. Was it a policy that was violated, or was it a statute?


And if it was a policy, was it in violation of the Oregon preemption statute?