The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator

Oregon Supreme Court says medical pot and concealed carry A-Ok.

May 19th, 2011 by Ben Maras

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled today that qualified medical marijuana card holders can also apply for and receive a concealed-carry license. The case goes back to a retired bus driver in Grants Pass, who made the mistake of admitting that she was a cardholder in the state-run medical marijuana program when she went to renew her concealed carry license. Officials branded her as a drug addict and said that her medical treatment program barred her from the right to carry a concealed weapon under federal law. But the Supreme Court of Oregon reminded cleared things up for them.

The ruling issued in Salem, Ore., upheld previous decisions by the Oregon Court of Appeals and circuit court in finding that a federal law barring criminals and drug addicts from buying firearms does not excuse sheriffs from issuing concealed weapons permits to people who hold medical marijuana cards and otherwise qualify.

“We hold that the Federal Gun Control Act does not pre-empt the state’s concealed handgun licensing statute and, therefore, the sheriffs must issue (or renew) the requested licenses,” Chief Justice Paul De Muniz wrote.

In other words: states’ rights, bitches. Labeling law-abiding medical patients as dangerous criminals because their treatment is “wrong” in the eyes of authoritarian lawmakers is not only petty and childish, but also downright dangerous when real criminals come into the picture.

The more innocent people get caught up in the prohibition mentality, the more ambiguous the justification for these laws becomes. If the goal is merely to keep guns out of the hands of violent offenders (who are less likely to follow concealed carry laws anyway), it’d be difficult to find anyone less violent than a stoned medical marijuana patient. Oregon has nearly 40,000 registered marijuana patients, who don’t fit the Cheech and Chong paradigm, and have had their medicine prescribed for any number of reasons. Their rights, as well as the rights of the states to make their own policy on guns, drugs, etc., should trump federal meddling of how things “ought” to be.

Oregon State House Moves To Protect Concealed Carry Holders

March 18th, 2011 by Lyzi Diamond

Oregon Concealed Handgun License holders may have further protections from public records requests, the Oregon State House of Representatives voted yesterday.

House Bill 2787, proposed by Reps. Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer, Newberg, St. Paul) and Jeff Barker (D-Aloha) by request of the Oregon State Sheriff’s Association, will only allow the names and registration information of CHL holders to be released for criminal justice purposes or pursuant to court order. The vote passed the Oregon House 42-18, with all but one of the nay votes from Democrats.

Under current law, a CHL holder’s application [link courtesy Oregonian] is open to public scrutiny. The application includes information on previous criminal activity, drug use and military history.

Some representatives are not pleased about the impending legislation, including our favorite Portland representative Mitch Greenlick. From the Oregonian:

Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, voted against the bill, saying later that he thought it too restrictive. The proposal allows disclosure only by court order, license holder consent, or for criminal justice purposes.

“Handguns are what people use to kill people. I want to make sure citizens have a right to know if there is a threat,” Greenlick said.

According to a press release from Rep. Thatcher, however, the bill has support from the Oregon State Sheriff’s Association, the Oregon Firearms Federation and the National Rifle Association’s Oregon consultant. And, you know, 42 of the 60 members of the Oregon House of Representatives, including 13 Democrats.

From Rep. Thatcher’s press release:

“The Oregon House has just taken the first step in protecting the safety and privacy of the Oregon men and women who hold Concealed Handgun Licenses,” note Rod Harder, National Rifle Association Oregon Consultant. “We sincerely hope that the Oregon Senate and the Governor will make the same commitment to our law abiding citizens.

Kevin Starrett, Executive Director of the Oregon Firearms Federation added, “while this is just a step towards correcting a serious breach of privacy for Oregon’s most law abiding gun owners, it is an important advance in the process.”

From here, the bill moves on to the Oregon Senate, where, if passed, must be signed into law by Governor Kitzhaber.

Here’s how the Eugene/Springfield Representatives voted:
Terry Beyer (D-Springfield 12): YES
Val Hoyle (D-Eugene 14): YES
Nancy Nathanson (D-Eugene 13): YES
Phil Barnhart (D-Eugene 11): NO
Paul Holvey (D-Eugene 8): NO

Student Censored by Penn. Community College For Advocating Concealed Carry

May 28th, 2009 by CJ Ciaramella

FIRE reports on yet another case of a student being harassed by school administrators for advocating for concealed carry of handguns on campus. The Community College of Allegheny County in Pennsylvania has threatened disciplinary action against one of its students, Christine Brashier, for handing out pamphlets and trying to start a campus chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.

The school deans said Brashier was prohibited from “soliciting” her materials or even discussing concealed carry on campus. They even went so far as to order her to destroy all of her pamphlets. Brashier was then grilled by school officials, who demanded to know whether she owned firearms or carried a concealed weapon.

Perhaps the CCAC deans need a refresher course in Constitutional law. It just so happens that pamphleteering is explicitly protected by the First Amendment. In the 1938 Supreme Court case Lovell v. City of Griffin, the Court ruled that such activity fell under freedom of the press, writing:

The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press in its connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.

I previously wrote about another student who was harassed by school officials and campus police after advocating for concealed carry in a speech class.

Concealed Carry Licensee Stops Killing Spree

May 29th, 2008 by Vincent

I noticed this story on Instapundit, and even though it’s not specifically about concealed carry on campus, it seemed apropos to the new issue of the Commentator. The gist of it is that a man walked into a bar and started shooting, killing two and wounding two others before stopping to reload.

It was at this point that the second shooter, the Reno resident, produced a concealed handgun and proceeded to fire upon Villagomez who succumbed to his wounds. The Reno resident was in possession of a valid Concealed Carry Permit issued through the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office.

After further investigation as well as ongoing discussions with Humboldt County District Attorney Russell Smith, the decision was made that the shooting of Villagomez by the Reno man was a justifiable homicide as outlined in Nevada Revised Statute 200.120 and 200.160. Because of this the Reno man was released from police custody.

At this point, there doesn’t seem to be any solid motive for the crime, though the article does speculate that the shooter may have been engaged in some sort of family vendetta. This article seems to reinforce that theory. Neither story indicates whether or not the killer was a legal gun owner or not.

Okla. shelves bill to allow concealed carry on campus

April 1st, 2008 by CJ Ciaramella

The Oklahoma Senate decided yesterday to shelve a bill that would have allowed concealed carry of firearms on college campuses to military veterans and those with firearms training. The bill, introduced by Republican Jason Murphey, faced strong opposition from students, faculty and administration on Oklahoma campuses, who said that it would have decreased safety rather than improved it. From the AP article:

University of Oklahoma President David Boren had argued the bill would hurt recruitment of students and faculty. It also would pose a dilemma for police trying to determine whether a person wielding a weapon was a “deranged gunman or someone who thinks he is doing good vigilante work.

I’m not an expert on police tactics, but why wouldn’t it be the same way that they determine real threats in any other situation? Thousands of law-abiding people carry concealed weapons outside of college campuses, yet the news pages aren’t splashed with stories of police accidentally gunning them down.

But I don’t imagine this would be a problem anyways, since the police habitually show up after campus shootings, just in time to clean up the bodies.

For more on the issue, check out Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. Also related are these stories about a Medford teacher who sued the school district for her right to carry. She lost but has since filed an appeal.

Guns Now Allowed on UO Campus

October 2nd, 2011 by Ethan Bendau

Following a lawsuit filed by the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation (OFEF) against the Oregon Board of Higher Education and the Oregon University System (OUS), the Oregon Court of Appeals has struck down an administrative rule banning firearms, among other weapons, from being carried on OUS campuses.

The law was held invalid, with the judges’ decision citing that it “is an exercise of an ‘authority to regulate’ firearms that is not expressly authorized by the Legislative Assembly.” Under state law, the Oregon State Legislature is the only body with the authority to regulate firearms.

 Following this decision, anyone with a concealed carry permit will now be permitted to bring his registered weapon on campus.


The OUS quickly released a statement on Wednesday in which OUS chancellor George Pernsteiner expressed his regret concerning the ruling:

“We are disappointed in the ruling of the Court in this case and will consider our options. Our greatest concern is for the safety of our students and the entire campus community. Whether accidental or intentional, firearms violence continues to hurt or kill thousands of Americans each year in this country. We will continue to review the opinion in order to consider future options to protect the safety of our students, faculty, staff, and visitors.”

The statement was unclear about any intentions to appeal the decision.

This morning, UO President Richard Lariviere sent out an email to the university community to inform them of the decision. Lariviere made no mention of his reaction to the news, though he assured that “the safety of the entire campus community remains our top priority.” The president did, however, conclude the email with the above-mentioned statement released by the OUS.

When asked how he felt about the implications of the decision, Max Ruzi, a UO sophomore, replied, “Anyone with a concealed carry permit knows the responsibility of having a weapon. The people we should be scared are those who don’t respect a gun’s power.”

In the judges’ decision, they originally rejected multiple claims by the OFEF and ignored the issue raised regarding Second Amendment rights. Specifically, the court denied the argument that the State Board of Higher Education had no authority to enact laws that affect members of the public not affiliated with the universities, as well as the contention that Oregon state law “ expressly permits individuals with concealed handgun licenses to carry firearms on college and university campuses.” The court then concluded by agreeing with the claim that the authority to regulate firearms is vested solely in the Oregon State Legislature.

The court remarked that the state laws regarding firearms are in place in order to “ensure uniform statewide standards” and prevent the confusion of discrepancies between state and local law.

The verdict comes about amid continuing controversy regarding the University of Oregon’s efforts to convert the Department of Public Safety to a sworn police force with the ability carry guns, a transition that is expected to take six years to complete. On Oct. 7th, the university will make its request to the State Board of Education who, since the passing of Senate Bill 405, now has the power to approve the police force.

Peter Quint Suing University of Oregon

July 18th, 2011 by Lyzi Diamond

Fox News is reporting that Peter Quint, the ASL professor who was fired over a comment he made to one of his students, is suing the University of Oregon. Since being suspended, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has stepped in, writing a letter to President Richard Lariviere demanding that Quint be reinstated for the 2011-12 academic year. (Read their investigation and letter here.)

There are two things going on in this case: the violation of Quint’s right to due process in being hastily suspended and the violation of Quint’s right to academic freedom in being fired for a comment that could have been interpreted widely. In regards to due process, the UO and the Oregon University system seem to believe they’ve got everything under control. contacted university officials, who would not comment on the pending litigation. However, the university did release a statement.

“The University of Oregon conducted a thorough investigation into the incident that occurred in Mr. Quint’s classroom prior to taking action,” the statement reads. The Oregon University system also said it has procedures for formal proceedings when dealing with matters such as Quint’s.

“The charges or a notice accompanying the charges shall inform the academic staff member of the right to a formal hearing on the charges and of the academic staff member’s duty to notify the president within 10 days after the charges have been delivered or sent whether such hearing is desired,” read the procedures.

Quint’s lawyer disagrees, and is coming at the free speech debate from another angle: the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Quint declined requests for comment after consulting with his lawyer, Kevin Tillson. Tillson did tell that the university terminated Quint mid-term without due process and violated Quint’s free speech and his rights under the Americans With Disability Act for failure to provide reasonable accommodations in the workplace.

As an adjunct professor, Quint is not rewarded the same rights as associate or full tenured professors, which will greatly influence the outcome of the court case. Regardless, it is fantastic that Quint is standing up to UO administrators and fighting for his job. In every instance of a professor, adjunct or otherwise, not being granted the rights he or she deserves, a precedent is set for the next time the UO deals with a professor. And as I mentioned in my previous post, the UO administration already has a tenuous relationship with the first amendment. The time to act is now.

In the words of UO Matters, “Soon professors will need a concealed carry permit just to make a presentation with bullet points.”

The Oregon University System and the Second Amendment

June 1st, 2011 by Lyzi Diamond

Today’s Ol’ Dirty has a letter to the editor tackling an issue that has been oddly absent on this blog as of late: concealed carry on campus. In a letter titled, “Students should have wider gun liberties,” undergraduate student Andrew Saldana attacks the Oregon University System’s illegal policy on firearms on campus while outlining the importance of students and faculty being able to protect themselves.

People should be able to be in charge of their own protection. If an individual wants to take precautions to protect themselves, they should be able to do so as long as it is in accordance with the law. Nobody else is obligated to come to your aid if you’re in crisis — not even the police, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling stating that the police are in place to protect “society at large” not any one individual(s). Even if it weren’t the case, as demonstrated above, the response time of police is too slow to prevent people from dying.

The current policy restricts those who wish to protect themselves from doing so in an effort to stop those who do not follow the law already. Gun-free zones are indeed only gun-free because good-natured people who wish to obey the rules abide by them. Many, if not most, mass shootings take place on areas deemed “gun-free.” In reality, all gun-free zones accomplish is the disarming of those who do good and leave them at the mercy of those who wish to do harm. I implore you to view the testimony of former Texas Rep. Suzanna Hupp in relation to the effects that policy and legislation restricting carry can have.

The reality of the state of concealed carry on Oregon university campuses is that it is legal, according to state law (See ORS 166.370). It is only the Oregon University System that doesn’t allow concealed carry on campus — that is to say, you will get suspended, expelled or face other disciplinary action if you are licensed to carry a concealed handgun and do so on campus.

Oregon Commentator editor emeritus CJ Ciaramella wrote a blog post for The Weekly Standard on May 5, 2010 regarding this topic, and conducted interviews with representatives from the Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus and the Oregon Firearms Federation. Which team is ahead?

Currently, 26 states ban handguns on campus, even by those with concealed carry permits. Twenty three other states leave the decision to individual colleges. Only Utah explicitly prohibits public colleges from banning licensed handguns on campus.

Pro-concealed carry individuals and groups, like Saldana above and representatives from the Oregon Firearms Federation, argue that allowing individuals to carry on campus adds another level of protection for students, allowing them to defend themselves with more rapidity and agility. Those against concealed carry on campus argue that campuses are already relatively safe, and introducing guns on campus will serve to create more dangerous environments.

But let’s not forget the reason that Saldana wrote the letter in the first place. On May 26, the Emerald printed a story called, “University, law enforcement prepare for campus shooting scenario.” The story focuses around what DPS, the Eugene Police Department and SWAT can do in case of an on-campus shooting. As our favorite anonymous professor points out, the story serves to prop up the mission of the Department of Public Safety, which is to get more money to create an on-campus police force (maybe he and we are both too cynical, but whatever).

The SWAT team will be activated in such a scenario, but SWAT officers might not necessarily be on duty at the time and may have to travel from their homes to the police department to gather their equipment before heading to the scene of an incident. Klinko said this process could take up to 40 minutes, depending on where an officer lives.

Eugene has no full-time SWAT officers; the team members have regular duty assignments in addition to their SWAT duties. Additionally, there are not enough vehicles to allow SWAT officers to take their cars and equipment home with them. Despite the department’s efforts, financial constraints prevent the department from being as prepared as it would like to be.

This predicament was expressed to the Oregon House Judiciary Committee by EPD Chief Pete Kerns during testimony earlier this month.

This is where Saldana’s point peaks: in order for Eugene to accurately prepare for an on-campus shooting, a significant amount of money and time would need to be poured into the creation of an on-campus SWAT team. Students would still need to rely on the Department of Public Safety and the Eugene Police Department for their protection. That’s the ultimate disconnect between pro- and anti-concealed carry on campus: those who favor concealed carry on campus believe students should be able to defend themselves, while those who are opposed feel that students and those with concealed carry licenses are somehow not equipped to handle the magnitude of that task.

This files well into the next common argument, which is the blunt, flat, “guns are dangerous” slogan that is heard over and over from anti-gun advocates. In order to receive a concealed carry license in this state, it requires not only a class and a test, but also a willingness to follow the law in order to carry a weapon. It’s not the individuals who have gone through the process of receiving a concealed carry license that universities need to worry about — it’s those who don’t have the training, those who come onto campus with malicious intent, those who got their guns illegally, or who don’t have the training or credentials to carry their weapons on their person. The responsible individuals who sought out their concealed carry license are by definition equipped to handle the magnitude of their own safety. That’s the point.

Finally, these are our rights. These rights, just like all other rights we are legally entitled to, are granted to us from the United States Constitution. These individuals already have the right, through the same process, to carry their weapons almost anywhere else in the state. University campuses should be no different. Ciaramella hits the nail on the head here:

Indeed, if students’ First Amendment right to free expression does not end at the school gates, as the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines, why should they be denied their Second Amendment right to self-defense?

As more and more policies are put into place to create a campus bubble, an ivory tower where only certain ideas and practices are allowed (smoking ban, Pacifica Forum, the Bias Response Team), the future for concealed carry on campus seems fairly grim. Students and administrators need to realize that universities are supposed to prepare students for the so-called “real world,” where people smoke cigarettes, say things not everyone agrees with and, yes, carry concealed weapons. It’s time for us to wake up and realize that we shouldn’t be sheltered from the realities of the world outside the gates of our university. It’s time for us to demand that we be able to exercise our rights.

It’s time to stand up.

Things Looking Up for the Emerald

October 5th, 2009 by D

To be honest, I was looking for SPEW content.

That isn’t to say that I’m not opposed to the idea of finding something readable in the pages of our campus newspaper. I’m just not used to it. I happened upon a blog post by opinion columnist Greg Dewar about concealed carry on campus and it made me wonder:

Could the Emerald be good this year?

We’ve seen over the summer that opinion editor Robert D’Andrea has been able to levy fairly reasoned judgment on rather large issues–quite a difference from last year in which the opinion section of the Emerald resembled the diary of a 13-year old girl. “I just like, think we should, like, all get along and junk. You know?”

And not to toot our own horn or anything, but Commentator editor emeritus CJ Ciaramella has been lobbing intelligently written news pieces since day one–in fact, the first regular issue of the Emerald this school year had a front-page article by Ciaramella… not like that reflects well on the Commentator or anything… just saying.

The point is, with an opinion editor that seems to be able to regulate idiocy from his pages, a news team that’s gaining strength and an already top-notch sports section, we may be in for a good year of the Oregon Daily Emerald.

This is not a bad thing for anyone. This campus desperately needs a newspaper that isn’t filled with single-minded, prattling Obama lovers spewing all over its opinion page. The reporting on campus, since I’ve been here, has been atrocious as well–the AP feed the Emerald pays for should take a back seat this year with a precedence on local and campus news. Lord knows there’s tons of it out there, they just need to go and get it.

We all know that this campus has a major, respected journal of opinion. You can’t deny that fact. The Emerald needs to step up this year and deliver a real newspaper to run along side us.

I think they’re doing a great job so far.

Mo’ ODE Opinion Columnists, Mo’ Problems

April 23rd, 2009 by CJ Ciaramella

You didn’t think we were going to let yesterday’s opinion piece in the ODE about concealed carry on campus slip by, did you? In case you missed it, columnist Truman Capps wrote about how icky guns are and how they shouldn’t be allowed on college campuses. Of course, he made sure to get his liberal credentials out in the open:

I live in Portland and listen to NPR, and my family owns a Prius and a Subaru (with a Volvo in our recent past) – perhaps it’s not surprising that I disagree with the notion that a campus full of armed students and staff is safer than an unarmed one. While I agree that people, not guns, kill people, I am also a firm believer in the familiar adage “Mo’ firearms, mo’ problems,” especially on a college campus.

It’s not so much that I completely disagree with Capps (although I do); it’s that his article is factually wrong on several counts. For example, at the beginning of his second paragraph Capps writes:

Currently, concealed weapon permit holders can take their guns with them everywhere except for government buildings, bars and college campuses.

There is no Oregon statute against concealed carry in bars or college campuses. According to ORS 166.370, possession of a firearm in a public building is a Class C felony, but one of the exceptions is “[a] person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.” In fact, the only public buildings you are not allowed to carry a firearm into are courtrooms, airports and federal buildings.

The university system code against concealed carry is in clear contradiction of state law. I don’t even know where Capps got the idea that concealed carry is illegal in bars. Perhaps before he writes an article disseminated to the whole campus, he should do some basic research first. Or perhaps his editors should fact-check his stories for, y’know, blatant errors. Perhaps a retraction is in order.

I wrote an article last year about concealed carry on campus, which prompted this response from the ODE. Searching through the blog archives for “concealed carry” and “gun control” is also fun.

P.S. In his penultimate paragraph, Capps writes, “[I]f campus safety is such a concern, let Department of Public Safety have guns.” Can we nominate this for oxymoronic phrase of the year or something?

Fear of an Armed Planet

February 28th, 2009 by CJ Ciaramella

Since we recently wrote about the case of concealed carry over at Western Oregon University, I found this story to be quite relevant:

Over at Central Connecticut University, a professor recently filed a complaint against a student, saying the student made the class feel “scared and uncomfortable” after he gave a presentation advocating concealed carry on campus. That night, the student was called into the campus police station, where police grilled him about the firearms registered in his name and where he kept them.

How wonderful that students are being harassed by universities and police for merely speaking up for the Second Amendment. I can’t really say anything more concise or to the point than the money quote at the end of the article, though:

“If you can’t talk about the Second Amendment, what happened to the First Amendment?” asked Sara Adler, president of the Riflery and Marksmanship club on campus. “After all, a university campus is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas.”

On a related note, the Eugene Weekly is at it again. After the smashing success of its last gun article, the EW has once again shown it has nothing but ignorance and contempt for the Second Amendment, writing (emphasis in the original):

Wow, Lane County Sheriff Russ Burger must have a lot of extra time and money on his hands. Burger reportedly has sent letters to more than 10,000 concealed gun nuts to stir up support for his opposition to public records laws and create a problem that did not exist. What’s next, mass mailings to concealed hairdresser permit holders? This expenditure of untold tens of thousands of dollars and staff time comes while Burger complains he doesn’t have the money to stop burglaries. If this is a mass mailing for a NRA-backed re-election campaign, the sheriff should have paid for it himself.

The EW is referring to to the current legal kerfuffle over whether or not to make the names of concealed handgun license holders public record. Of course, making the names public defeats the whole purpose  of concealed carry, but I imagine that’s what liberals are aiming for anyways. It’s not a public records issue. Plenty of personal information is off-limits to public record –  school records, for instance.

Oh, and by the way, if CHL-holders are “nuts,” then there are currently 11,000 insane people in Lane County alone.

Hat tip to The Agitator for the first story.

Student with CHL Arrested and Suspended at WOU

February 21st, 2009 by Guy

Jeffrey Maxwell, a marine and student at Western Oregon University, was approached by campus security on Jan. 28th for having a pocketknife clipped to his pocket. According to his sister, Kim Maxwell, the situation escalated from there to “a huge ordeal” where Jeffrey had to remind the security guards to remain professional. Monmouth police arrived, and he was arrested for possessing a firearm (two shot derringer) in a public building. He was also issued a formal trespass barring him from school property.

Except that with his valid Oregon concealed handgun license he was statutorily exempt from the prohibition on gun possession in public buildings. Since he had not committed a crime, the Polk County DA quickly dropped the charges, issuing a statement to the Oregon Firearms Federation’s attorney (who is representing Maxwell) that said, “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 statue and the facts led me to conclude the charge was not in the best interest of justice.”

Unfortunately, Jeffrey is not free and clear. According to an Oregon Firearms Federation news alert, a tribunal of four students and one WOU staff member sentenced 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.”

This is not the first time a permit holder has been caught on campus with a concealed weapon. Last term, a student here at the UO who wishes to remain nameless was detained by DPS and the Eugene Police Department. He was not charged with any firearm related offenses, but the police did seize his weapon (a snub nosed revolver) and his shoes. The UO student was initially expelled from the University, but upon legal threats the expulsion was reversed, but the student was required to attend alcohol abuse and anger management classes.

While it is completely legal, it is clear that if a student is caught carrying a concealed firearm even with a valid license they will be harassed. (The UO student got his shoes back after a couple days.)

More updates to come. Also, in the next issue there will be an in depth look at the history of concealed carry in the Oregon University system. (This new case could have interesting implications in regards to UO graduate student Brian Stubbs’ failed lawsuit against in the University regarding his carrying of a concealed firearm. For more on that case, check out Tyler Graf’s article in Vol. 21, issue 7/8, pg. 16.)

Notes From the Ol’ Dirty

July 31st, 2008 by Vincent
  • Sports Editor Andrew Grief has an interesting article about the rise in applications for concealed carry permits in the wake of budget cuts that have gutted the Lane County Sheriff’s Office:

Faced with longer response times and fewer deputies, many of the 93,500 Lane County residents who live outside city limits in the county believe having a concealed handgun is a necessary step. The Sheriff’s Office expects a record of more than 1,250 permits to be issued this year in the county, up from 680 in 2005, 811 in 2006 and 950 last year. 

Huh. It’s almost like people feel like their Second Amendment rights are valuable and necessary when the government cannot provide for their well-being.

  • The OC’s own Drew Cattermole and his upcoming radio spot, The Cattermole Minute were mentioned in a story about upcoming ASUO programs. The Commentator, however, is disapponted that Senior News Editor Robert D’Andrea (who got a special birthday shout-out at last week’s roller derby) mistook Drew’s ASUO president bid last year as “not-so-serious”. We can assure Mr. D’Andrea that Drew Cattermole was deadly serious. Deadly.
  • A whole page of re-printed Associated Press stories, with a couple more spread around the issue for good measure? Really? I mean, seriously… this shit shows up every day in Firefox’s built-in RSS news feed. It seems like that space could’ve been better used re-printing some of the more colorful posts left on the comments section of Jeffrey Dransfeldt’s infamous piece on wrestling. I mean, there’s 813 of them to choose from, and most of them are more fun to read than a recycled story about Ehud Olmert from a few days ago. Highlights include:
    • “Jeffery, maybe Mommy didn’t love you enough. I don’t know what your problem is, but the anger you carry from your early puberty is going to hamper you throughout life. Taking glee in the demise of people who have sacrificed more than you will ever know is just a sign of the sickness that dwells in your tortured little body and shadow of a soul. Your rantings sound like those of the VT shooter.”
    • “Your arrogance is disgusting.”
    • “With your neck as shown in the picture, you’re lucky you broke your arm.”

Volume 21

October 22nd, 2007 by Sho

Volume XXI: 2003-2004


Click on a cover to read an issue
(Acrobat Reader required)


Back to the Booze 2003 (.pdf)
Issue I: Back to the Booze 2003
Bar Guide, Choose a Major, Survival Guide


Busted! (.pdf)
Issue II: Busted!
SafeRide, Tuition Hikes, Budget Woes, Minimum Wage


The Libertarian Issue (.pdf)
Issue III: The Libertarian Issue
Free State Project, MADD, Guns, UO and the CIA


Why God Why? (.pdf)
Issue IV & V: Why God Why?
Tax Measure, Speech Codes, Life as an Insurgent, Snow!


The Mini Issue (.pdf)
Issue VI: The Mini Issue
Student Unions, Hobo Living


Held Hostage! (.pdf)
Issue VII & VIII: Held Hostage!
The OLCC, Concealed Carry, Campus Cash, Oregon’s Budget and States’ Rights


Elections 2004 (.pdf)
Issue IX & X: Elections 2004
Candidate Interviews, Campus Parking and Snoop Dogg 4 Prez


This Is The Enemy (.pdf)
Issue XI: This Is The Enemy
Conduct Code, Elections Wrap-Up, Boobies


Hate 2004 (.pdf)
Issue XII & XIII: Hate 2004


Summer Issue/Tater Awards (.pdf)
Issue XIV & XV: Summer Issue/Tater Awards

Check This Out!

January 23rd, 2004 by Timothy

I know that some members of staff do not share my, shall we say, very positive feeling about concealed carry laws. But, I think this is a particularly good thing overall, even if it fails. The OUS is good at making senseless rules, and this might help get them to stop.