Oregon Republicans Fight Hard to Bring Guns to University Campuses

(SALEM, Ore.) - A group of Oregon legislators led by two outspoken Republicans, want to see students carry guns on public university campuses.

They have dispatched to Chancellor of the Oregon University System, George Pernsteiner what State Representative Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer, St. Paul, Newberg) calls a "sternly worded bi-partisan letter" signed by 34 legislators asking for the state’s public universities to review and revise their gun policies.

They say their efforts are tied to the early February arrest of a Western Oregon University student who chose to violate university rules by carrying guns to class. The student, a combat veteran Marine, had a concealed handgun license.

Thatcher says the letter reads in part, “we respectfully request you follow up on requests made earlier this year to change the policies at the Oregon University System to allow concealed handgun owners to carry firearms on campus as allowed by state law.”

She says, "Under state law (Oregon Revised Statues 166.170) only the Oregon Legislature can regulate firearms. In addition the law allows CHL holders to pack guns in most public buildings, including universities. (Oregon Revised Statutes 166.370)"

Thatcher and State Senator Brian Boquist (R-Dallas) who owns a military contracting or "mercenary" business in Salem, spearheaded the letter as a follow-up to a meeting they had with OUS officials in mid-February.

"The University System promised to respond to concerns voiced by legislators four months ago but so far we have not received a satisfactory answer," Thatcher said.

She says the Chancellor sent a letter to these legislators in February stating, "for the sake of our campuses, I would like this confusion resolved swiftly."

Criminal charges against the WOU student in the February incident, Jeff Maxwell, were dropped but a university suspension remains in place.

The District Attorney involved in the case was quoted in a local newspaper (Statesman Journal Newspaper February 13th 2009) that, "even if a rule is established by the university, the state statute trumps any policy they might have."

Boquist says, "OUS has continued to flaunt Oregon law. For an education institute to take a position they are above the law is unacceptable."

Thatcher added, "the state law is very clear; we have several legal opinions saying OUS is out of bounds and should not be infringing on the rights of Oregon citizens with concealed handgun licenses. The university system needs to be held accountable and justify their actions."

"As a result of this delayed action, we understand there may be lawsuits under consideration against the University System. We would hate to see protracted litigation which would come at great expense to taxpayers. Instead we remain optimistic that the OUS will modify its policiesto bring them in line with state law and look forward to your plan of action. A response would be appreciated by June 30th."

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Matt June 25, 2009 5:51 pm (Pacific time)

Alex: "I believe second amendment rights are of no importance whatsoever and the second amendment should be repealed" Let me ask: what about the first amendment? How about the fifth? What about the rest? The fact is that those amendments are amendments with a guarantee of our freedoms. Without one, you don't have the others. Are you ready to can our freedoms because you are focusing your fears on an inanimate object? The truth is that a gun is no more good or evil then the person wielding it. Concealed carry puts those guns in the hands of legal citizens who are willing to be responsible for a firearm. Very very few people get a chl that have ill intentions - the sheriffs don't allow that. They can deny someone they feel will be a danger to other people. John Stuart Mill said: "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Schmootzenspringer June 25, 2009 1:34 pm (Pacific time)

Alex:"I believe second amendment rights are of no importance whatsoever and the second amendment should be repealed."

Good thing your belief is of no importance whatsoever.

Schmootzenspringer June 25, 2009 1:31 pm (Pacific time)

Alex June 19, 2009 9:08 am (Pacific time)

"They say their efforts are tied to the early February arrest of a Western Oregon University student who chose to violate university rules by carrying guns to class. The student, a combat veteran Marine, had a concealed handgun license." So, if it was legal to carry a gun on campus, the security guards or police would have had no reason to stop this person until he actually started shooting, right?"

Alex, if the gun was concealed (invisible to the naked eye), whether or not guns were allowed on campus, the police would have had no reason to stop this person until he began shooting. Think about it. Concealed...

JonBoy June 22, 2009 5:16 pm (Pacific time)

JonBoy wrote: I do wish that the anti-gun crowd would stick to the facts instead of just personal opinion and knee-jerk politics. Then come back with an intelligent, fact-based rebuttal...that's a challenge. Editor: Dude, this is a friggin' press release from Kim Thatcher. Be damned glad we ran it at all, believe me we don't need to. Okay, Ed. I was talking about the anti-gun people posting remarks on your forum. So, then, since you unbiased and in favor "running it all" even if you don't need to, why did you edit my post to eliminate a reference to the facts, dude, and nothing but the facts? Did your bias just jump out and guide your hand to do some deleting so that the reader wouldn't be convinced by the facts, and only the facts, ma'am? And don't tell me you were editing out HTML. You also refused to allow a post from me that contained a whole string of stats to shoot down the anti-gun crowd. Facts are painful, but a thinking adult should be able to accept them at face value... I do. Yellow journalism is to freedom of the press what shooting of the innocent is to freedom to own firearms. If you don't have the guts to correct your previous malconduct, or post this, then, hopefully, this is food for thought prepared just for you. Good night.

Editor: This is a business and it isn't yours. I am not here to give free publicity to a bunch of Websites because you think I should. This isn't a public utility. I offer no apologies for deciding what does and does not appear here. Good night to you.

JonBoy June 22, 2009 2:14 pm (Pacific time)

They are not "pro-gun" legislatures, a loaded phrase. They are pro-Constitution, as should we all be. And, they aren't fighting hard to "bring guns to university campuses," except in the eyes of the anti-gun fearmongers. They are fighting to keep our constitutional rights from being eroded, bit by bit, by laws that are unconstitutional, before those ill-advised laws are used as precedent to further erode our constitutional rights.

I'm with you JonBoy, and let's apply that constitutional thinking to things like the Right to Privacy, the pivotal point in Roe v Wade. That way we "freedom" junkies can finally get rid of the fake Christians who protest abortion and make Christians look like a bunch of freaks from Kansas. Where you been all my life? Good night Mary Ellen

JonBoy June 22, 2009 1:51 pm (Pacific time)

I do wish that the anti-gun crowd would stick to the facts instead of just personal opinion and knee-jerk politics. Then come back with an intelligent, fact-based rebuttal...that's a challenge.

Editor: Dude, this is a friggin' press release from Kim Thatcher. Be damned glad we ran it at all, believe me we don't need to.

Matt June 21, 2009 11:07 pm (Pacific time)

What I find fascinating is how this article is a blatant attempt to make Oregon Republicans sound like monsters. First, they are not trying to bring guns to schools - they are trying to make schools come into compliance with Oregon Law. Second, this is a bipartisan effort - there aren't 34 Republicans in the house. Therefore it isn't -just- Republicans in this effort. Further, people like Daniel Johnson want to use aggregate data to explain their own paranoia. Sheridan is correct that areas with more legally owned firearms and states with right-to-carry chl permits have lower crime. You don't even attempt to explain that. You don't comb your data for criminal statistics either - suicides and accidental firings are not relevant to the discussion here. And you don't even begin to broach how many firearm deaths are caused by illegally owned (such as stolen) firearms. And this doesn't even start in on chl-holder statistics - I have been studying this for a while and I have yet to find a case where a chl holder has committed any mass shootings, shot an innocent person during a mass shooting, or been shot by police on accident during a mass shooting. The reason is that is just doesn't happen. Chl-holders are much more responsible then the average person with a firearm...that is why they have a license. But in any case none of this matters. The fact is that the Oregon Legislature SOLELY holds the right to regulate firearms in the state of Oregon. ORS 166.670 gives chl-holders on school campuses the exact same right to carry firearms as police and active duty military. Period. Until this is changes - and it probably never will - your left-leaning morale outrage doesn't matter.

Daniel Johnson June 20, 2009 6:56 pm (Pacific time)

Sorry, I meant NRA. My finger slipped.

Martin June 21, 2009 1:00 pm (Pacific time)

Regarding the sources for USA, none were primary. Try the FBI and the the Centers for Disease Control to get a better handle on past and current trends, especially the FBI. Gun crime rates have been going down in the states, and those locations with CHL's are going down much faster. Other parts of the world are having gun crimes increases, for example in Australia, Canada and England. Bottom line, guns are here to stay in America and the situation in Iran provides an excellent contemporary example of why the people need to have guns. Not only protection from criminals, but from a police state government.

Daniel Johnson June 21, 2009 12:15 pm (Pacific time)

For those of you who still have their heads in the sand, check this link and offer a refutation: http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

Martin June 21, 2009 8:37 am (Pacific time)

The Oregon Supreme Court will have the final say, unless there are federal appeals. Just looking at other states that allow concealed carry on their campuses clearly acknowledge that no gun crimes have been committed by this "carry" population and one could make the case that it has acted as a deterrent for gun crime on those campuses. When the next gun crime happens at a school, and it will (statistically speaking), then just compare the right to carry locations with those who disallow. In fact, do that now. I also believe that the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta provides data on accidental deaths, etc., and from what I recall, accidental gun deaths is actually quite low compared to other accidental deaths, not including the big numbers associated with car accidents.

Daniel Johnson June 20, 2009 5:27 pm (Pacific time)

JB: Unless you have some statistics to back up your assertions, it sounds like you're just blowing smoke. Or are you just from the NAR

JB June 19, 2009 7:26 pm (Pacific time)

Over half of gun deaths in th US are suicides, more people are killed by medical mistakes, cars, tabacco, alcohol, drugs ect. Evan ladder falls kill more people than guns. There is alot more important issues to worry about than gun ownership

Daniel Johnson June 19, 2009 6:47 pm (Pacific time)

Sheridan: It seems that it has been cooler and wetter in the last few weeks. If you want to converse offline, I'm at salem-news@gravityshadow.com

Sheridan June 19, 2009 5:57 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel Johnson I did write another post that dealt with some gun data in Canada and Australia but to your point about "make illegal possession of a gun a really serious crime so that fewer people will risk even being near a gun." These laws already exist and they can be quite severe. Guns are not going away here in the states nor are they going to go away in Canada. Again I will point out that there is a rich source of data that shows where you have law abiding gun owners you have a much lower crime rate than those areas that make it difficult to register firearms. Rather ironic don't you think Daniel? As it is here in the states people have guns/rifles for a variety of personal reasons. I frankly gave up hunting many years ago, but I have a variety of firearms for protection, and regular target shooting, which I find relaxing. If the time ever comes when that protection is not needed then maybe I'd rethink my ownership. But that is just my opinion and what others do is their own business. Once again crime is very low for law abiding gunowners and it has been reported that CHL owners stop a considerable amount of crime every year. Time permitting Daniel, I'll attempt to source that last statement for you. By the way, has your weather in your area been cooler this year than in the recent past?

Daniel Johnson June 19, 2009 3:23 pm (Pacific time)

Sheridan: Guns are made for one primary reason and that is to kill people. So many of the killings are accidental; many suicides, some in crime. In fact, you seem to have some statistics handy--Of all the gun deaths in a year, what percentage is through actual crime like robberies and the like compared to accidents and suicides. I wouldn't count domestic shootings as crimes because they tend to be acts of passion that would not result in deaths if guns were not readily available. And saying that only criminals would have guns is just a rationalization. Allowing for the purpose of guns--make illegal possession of a gun a really serious crime so that fewer people will risk even being near a gun. Calgary, a city of just over a million has a homicide rate of 3.14/100,000 the fourth highest in the country. Here's a link on the subject: http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/city/story.html?id=c19e5693-d029-4a4b-be8a-ecde408e44f8

Sheridan June 19, 2009 2:46 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel Johnson what you have written is nothing new to the over 100 million gunowners here in America. Your viewpoint is greatly appreciated and I will give it the serious reflection it deserves. Our crime rate is certainly quite high, especially in the urban environments. How is the crime rate in Canada's urban environments on a per capita level? Have you ever broken it down by category and compared the two? Ditto for urban areas in Europe, Africa and South American countries? Since many of these high crime areas have restricted gun access for law abiding citizens here in the states, even after last years Heller decision, the leaders of these high crime zones still refuse to look at the literally millions of bits of data that go back many decades, which demonstrate to a statistically significant level that when law abiding citizens are armed, there is a direct correlation of not just lower gun crime, but all crime rates. Possibly some of these anti-gun people are suffering from some cognitive disorder, or maybe they have another agenda? Certainly one could not rationally conclude that criminals would turn in their guns if say another law, to join the thousands already on the books, was legislated? I'm not familiar with Canada's Bill of Rights, have you something like that?

Greg June 19, 2009 2:13 pm (Pacific time)

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." What a sad, pathetic philosophy to guide your life by.

Daniel Johnson June 19, 2009 2:05 pm (Pacific time)

I have only one last comment to make. I recall the story of the elderly woman watching soldiers parade by. She exclaimed to the person next to her: "Look, everyone is out of step but my son John!" Americans with their obsession with guns and violence are figuratively saying: "Look, everyone in the world is out of step but us."

Anonymous June 19, 2009 1:47 pm (Pacific time)

I think you might enjoy this 2 minute video on gun control.. the person in the video supports gun control.. and keep in mind, the government also outlawed drugs, and you can find drugs on any street corner.. great video, hope you watch, only 2 minutes.. I might want to remind daniel, wherever you live, a criminal will be hesitant to break into your house, because the criminal does not know if you are armed or not. Ban guns? you will be a sitting duck. You should be thanking gun owners. Here is the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsKzdKNAmo

tonyspdx June 19, 2009 10:10 am (Pacific time)

The university system will only learn if you hit them in the pocket book. Sue them am make them respect the Constitution on the Federal and State level

Daniel Johnson June 19, 2009 12:51 pm (Pacific time)

Sheridan: You write that: "The 2nd Amendment is unique to the United States of America and it has served us well." You can only say it has served you well because you're still alive. Amrica has the highest death rate in the world by gun violence of all civilized countries. There is a psychological term, cognitive dissonance, where people can believe contradictory things with no mental conflict. For some reason you seem to be unable to connect thousands of gun deaths to the high rate of public gun possession. Hint: King George III has been dead for more than 200 years. You no longer need to be afraid that he might invade any of the 13 colonies. Scott: Wide distribution of guns in society is just as much nonsense as driving on the wrong side of the road. This is something that many Americans seem unable to understand.

Sheridan Oregon June 19, 2009 11:42 am (Pacific time)

You can't reduce violence by continually passing gun laws that will be ignored by criminals anyway. There are over 100,000 CHL's in Oregon and I assure you if there was a high crime rate, much less violent gun crime rate for this population, the media would be all over it. There are 3 states I know of that allow CHL's to carry on college campuses and not one gun crime has been committed. How many gun crimes have occurred on school grounds that disallow CHL's to carry at schools? The 2nd Amendment is unique to the United States of America and it has served us well. The crime data kept by the U.S. Justice Department clearly shows that when more law abiding citizens are armed you have less crime. We just need more law enforcement to come down on gun toting criminals. Does any one have data that shows that controlling gun ownership reduces gun crimes? Look at DC, Chicago or any other place that restricts gun ownership.

Scott June 19, 2009 9:22 am (Pacific time)

Dan, cars don't kill people, people kill people. =)

Scott June 19, 2009 9:11 am (Pacific time)

Dan your comparison is nonsense. A gun carried by a trained and licensed individual is nothing like a driver who is already in motion taking his lethal force into someone's face.

Alex June 19, 2009 9:08 am (Pacific time)

"They say their efforts are tied to the early February arrest of a Western Oregon University student who chose to violate university rules by carrying guns to class. The student, a combat veteran Marine, had a concealed handgun license." So, if it was legal to carry a gun on campus, the security guards or police would have had no reason to stop this person until he actually started shooting, right?

Alex June 19, 2009 7:19 am (Pacific time)

Daniel Johnson June 18, 2009 10:41 pm (Pacific time)

You're right, Scott. Why not also support the right to drive on whichever side of the road you feel like?

JB June 18, 2009 9:37 pm (Pacific time)

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. Robert A. Heinlein

Mike H. June 18, 2009 8:40 pm (Pacific time)

I wonder how teachers will feel about this one. If i were a teacher I would be a bit leery knowing any of my students or the people around me may be packing heat.

Scott June 18, 2009 8:15 pm (Pacific time)

This is a free country, right? Why not support this?

[Return to Top]