The Oregon University System will not appeal a court decision that allows guns on campuses.
The decision overturned decades of prohibition, but upheld a 1995 Oregon law intended to prevent cities from creating their own gun laws, giving that power instead to the state legislature. The OUS was challenged by gun rights advocates over its decision to disallow firearms being carried on campus even with a concealed weapons permit.
While the court decision represented a victory for gun rights advocates, the OUS intends to rely on internal policies to continue to promote the safety of students, according to Diane Saunders, director of communication for the OUS.
“The State Board of Higher Education had many discussions regarding the next step,” Saunders said. “Instead of going through a long appeals process we decided to go into different directions. We believe internal policies on campus rather than global ruling would protect our rights.”
“It is still a felony to carry a firearm in a public building unless you have a concealed permit,” Saunders noted.
Saunders cited the famous case in Medford as the OUS’s guide in setting its anti-gun policies, in which a public school teacher brought a restraining order against her husband and felt the need for a weapon for protection while on campus. After the Medford school said “no” to allowing the teacher to carry a firearm on campus, as its internal policy made not carrying a gun a condition of employment, the teacher took the school to court; the school district won the case.
“That was precedent setting for us,” Saunders said.
Advocating for the rights of gun owners, and a participant in the legal proceedings in the Medford case, is Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Education Foundation. Starrett believes that the Medford ruling was not a precedent for the OUS’s past policies, but he can see the OUS pursuing gun control policies as a condition of employment, just as the Medford school district did.
“[Teachers] can now guide and direct the education of young people, but they cannot protect themselves,” Starrett said of the future of employment in the OUS. “Students can’t have [guns] because they will sign a contract as a condition of enrollment. No question that will happen, before we went to the lawsuit we knew this would happen.”
Starrett believes that for years the OUS as well as many other government entities have broken the law. Central Oregon Community Colleges, Baker City school systems and Keizer districts have all said the law doesn’t apply to them, according to Starrett, who says that because of the way the statute is written, there is really no penalty for refusing to obey the law.
“Why should a college campus be treated differently than any place else if the person in question has been given the state’s approval to do this?” Starrett said. “For the same reason that qualified people are allowed to carry [concealed weapons] everywhere else, people should be allowed to carry on public property.”
Starret said that the victims of firearm attacks in public schools, like at Virginia Tech and Columbine, were hurt because they were unable to protect themselves.
“People were gunned down like dogs because they were forbidden to protect themselves,” he said. “I’m willing to bet that any rational person who was there getting gunned down would have loved to have the opportunity to protect themselves.”
“This is what worries me about the quality of higher education today—that universities and administrators would suggest that allowing people who have” a concealed weapons permit to actually use that permit would somehow result in massacre, Starrett said.
But Saunders continues to stress the importance of safety in the OUS charge to eliminate guns on campus.
“We respect the rights of Oregonians who have concealed weapons permits,” Saunders said, but accidents happen all the time, and there are serious crimes committed by people with concealed weapons.
“As a university system you look at every type of risk, and how you’re able to reduce that risk,” Saunders said.