This Time We Really Mean It

The bureaucrats and OPS officers have teamed up to take away your weapons of mass destruction, I mean concealed weapons, and will stop at nothing to get them. They even are willing to go against established rights listed in the Constitution of the United States. The changes are going to be catastrophic to all gun-toting, I mean, law abiding concealed weapons carriers, and will cause them to suffer immeasurable pain when they are stripped of their assault rifles, I mean handguns. Or will it?

In late January the University made some proposed changes to the student conduct code:

Offenses:
571-21-030: Disciplinary action may be initiated by the University and sanctions imposed against any student or student organization found guilty of committing, attempting to commit, or intentionally assisting in the commission of any of the following prohibited forms of conduct:

Possession, use, or threatened use of fire arms, ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemical or any other objects as weapons on University property or at University sponsored or supervised activities except as expressly authorized by law or University regulations. Possessing a concealed weapons permit does not constitute such authorization. The otherwise lawful possession of a firearm inside a dwelling unit of a University of Oregon Family Housing facility by a person lawfully dwelling therein is not prohibited under this offense.

Two major items stand out. First, a contradiction between expressly authorized by law and a legally binding permit that does not constitute such authorization. A person who goes through a fifteen-day screening period, by law enforcement officials and receives a permit that is valid statewide for the possession of his or her weapon is not expressly authorized by law to possess the weapon on campus. For those who live in family dwellings under the University's control, it is acceptable to stockpile an entire arsenal as long as it is legally done so. Students in the dorms get nothing. It is inconceivable that you have the intelligence or maturity to maintain possession of a weapon, as far as the University is concerned. The modifications are both contradictory and hold double standards.

How will the changes effect the students in the regular pursuit of college life? First there will be far fewer campus shoot-outs. The number of armed robberies and bank holdups will decrease vastly. The mortality rate of students will improve remarkably as a result of the increased strip searches and the metal detectors at every classroom door. OPS officers will have a much wider variety of weapons to discharge at target practice. And the students will not cower in fear when they see people wearing overcoats, blazers or graduation gowns that previously hid their weapons.

Any fool would realize that the University is not a place where gunfights and armed robberies are common. The University is a very safe place. Pat McCormick, medical records supervisor at the Student Health Center, informed me that she couldnıt recall an incident where they had a student casualty as a result of a concealed weapon. Of the few people I know who pack firearms on campus, all hold a concealed weapons permit, and none were pathetic enough to discharge in public. The possession of their weapons in a public area was more a statement reflecting rights given to them by the Constitution.

Oregon Administrative Rule 580-22-045(3) that lists prohibited conduct on all of Oregon's state colleges and universities. Included in the document is the banning of firearms from campuses, effective since 1978. For those who are accustomed to a Westminster system of government where federal authority supersedes that of state governments and state governments likewise over local governments, this would appear to be a slap in the face of the Constitution. Oregon is undermining the authority of the document that is the platform for this nationıs government. Before we can jump up and down and scream traitor to an administrative rule, it should be known that sheriffs of local counties have an important role in the acquisition of concealed weapons permits.

After calling the Lane County Sheriffıs office, the monotonous drone of the computer recorded message comes on and the second item to come up is the application procedure for concealed weapons permits. For the application to be processed the applicant must have two pieces of valid identification, be prepared to be fingerprinted, and when you pay the sixty-five dollars for your permit application you must use checks or money orders. You must also have proof that you have taken a class in firearm safety through either a law enforcement official or a certified member of the National Rifle Association. Incidentally, if you are an ex-convict you neednıt apply, it is a class C felony for you to posses a firearm. Even if you have a clean record you will go through a background check that takes a period of fifteen days. The federal government will make you go through a screening process for a two week period, but the University feels even this does not constitute a person's sound ability to possess a weapon.

For those students that fear guns like a mean dose of the clap, the changes to the conduct code are a welcome sight. You can feel safe knowing that the University will completely quash the unbridled hordes that brandish their weapons on campus. The goodly OPS officer will confiscate firearms from all the bad people on campus and give them a stern warning not to do it again. If you believe this you will no doubt also believe that the tooth fairy has funds coming in from the World Bank and that Santa has the world's greatest procurement team.

Are we going to get increased numbers of officers pulling over students wearing bulky clothing? No. Are we going to have our bags searched by OPS officials at an increased rate? No. Once they have confiscated these weapons, if they ever do, what will become of them? Will the University use public law enforcement records to obtain the names of people with concealed weapons permits and registered handguns and search them on a regular basis? Probably not.

The sad reality is we will never have to answer most of these questions because they are situations that will never occur on the University of Oregon campus. Imagine the first time an OPS officer frisks a member of the opposite sex. We undoubtedly, hear rape cried out and then the officer and school would be slammed with a massive law suit. And it is equally apparent that the campus would be facing another suit as the American Civil Liberties Union would have a great deal to say about random bag searches, including the research done to find owners of firearms.

Even more ridiculous is that without these changes to the daily operations of OPS officers there is almost no way in which the University can enforce this rule. Besides they are too busy handing out parking tickets. Criminals who possess concealed weapons illegally and even students who do so legally are equally immune to the discovery of their weapons. Nothing will stop someone from transporting weapons on campus. Absolutely nothing. Furthermore a human can use more than just a firearm to cause physical harm. Knives, pens, pencils, stones and even a personıs bare hands are more than capable of causing bodily harm to another person. Are we to have these removed as well? Imagine handless students without writing utensils.

The University of Oregon has taken the liberty of watching out for us. They have given us Saferide and other escort services, and even the possession of pepper sprays is promoted by security officials as a means of ensuring one's safety. It is very effective in controlling and curbing criminal actions on the campus and the surrounding areas, but the change to the conduct code is not a necessary step in curbing the level of crime at the University. The changes, in effect, are just words on paper; they mean nothing to the thug who illegally possesses a weapon and will use it in any fashion he or she sees fit. The security on campus does not have the means to enforce these regulations unless they track all registered gun owners and holders of concealed weapons. Even if they do it fails to stop the aforementioned thugs. The proposed changes are impotent. The University made changes to the Student Conduct Code in order to reassure Mom and Dad that the school is safe for little Johnny. It probably gave them something to discuss with security officials other than the amount of parking tickets. The last time I was in the Office of Public Safety, I tried to find out why they sent my parking fines to Washington. Instead they encouraged me to register my bicycle. When I asked why they suggest I do this, "it's mandatory." When I asked why it was mandatory I was told that it was supposed to make parents feel safer about sending their children to school with their expensive bicycles. Incidentally, bicycle theft greatly outweighs incidents with firearms on campus. Don't get held up by the bike bandits.

I don't carry a handgun. I don't need one, I think. The University feels that, even if I go through all the legal channels to acquire the right to possess a handgun, I am still not mature nor sensible enough to know when to use it and when not to. Incidentally, your gun may be drawn only in self defense or in the defense of a person who is threatened with physical harm. This is the justification of the use of physical force, (ORS 161.209). To the university, don't hold hand and donıt make me feel safe. It's not your job.

Gordon Gilbert wrote this for the Oregon Commentator, god bless him.