Almost 40 (a generous estimation) people not affiliated with the newly named University of Oregon Piggy Department gathered in Great Global Scholars Hall last night and a public forum started around 6PM. The subject? The arming of UO Police Officers.

Jamie Moffitt explained that amidst budget cuts with EPD and lessened support, the growing campus community has heightened needs.

Public information officer and communications director at UOPD Kelly McIver maintained that armament is part of the mission to keep the campus safe. He also reiterated a few times that UOPD will generally refer students to the Office of Student Conduct, rather inject legal troubles into their lives.

“Police are not here to police students,” McIver urged. Fun fact according to officials: 88% percent of the suspicious persons investigated by UO Public Safety last year were people unaffiliated with the UO.

Interim Police Chief Carolyn McDermed said it’s really all about relationships. Building a relationship with the community in order to best serve their needs.

The Register Guard has a good play-by-play.

Yes, as of January 1st, 2012 the men and women public-safetying our campus are suffering an inferiority complex. Currently, the UOPD has eleven sworn police officers with thirteen public safety officers aiding them. Only a “couple of” (which I can only assume to mean at maximum but also minimum two) officers are on duty during its 24/7 operation.

In the spirit of the Great Global Scholars Hall, I must ask, “Qué tipo de mierda es eso? Súper inefectivo!”

Read the rest of this entry »

State politics, everybody. Who’s ready for some?

Well a week ago in Salem, the Oregon House of Representatives tabled Senate Bill 1550– a bill that would have prohibited carrying firearms on school and college campuses

Yes, prohibited even if you had a concealed handgun permit. And no, this wouldn’t have any affect on whether or not DPS will be able to carry guns.

The body cited that “all gun-related legislation is over for the current, abbreviated session.”

Democratic Senator Ginny Burdick, who proposed the bill, said that she wudn’t even surprised her bill didn’t move forward. She explained that “the short legislative session should be devoted primarily to budget adjustments and major policy issues that have more urgency to them.”

Guns on campus?

Urgent?

Please!

Take your time.

"Everybody be cool, this is just a robbery!"

The best part is that on Wednesday, the Oregon state House demonstrated what they do find urgent enough to pass: a bill prohibiting the release of information listed on concealed handgun license applications.

This is the third time since 2009 that the Oregon state house has passed a bill that protects this information– ensuring that the applications “remain confidential and [the information] is not released to the public.”

“The bill would protect very personal information about people who are trying to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” said Republican Rep. Kim Thatcher, who proposed the bill.

Dammit, Oregon State Legislature. I really wanted access to the personal information of these gentlemen.

Every once in a while, one looks at the front page of the ODE, pauses for consideration, and realizes that there is a huge divide between how much clout the ASUO has, and how much it thinks it has. On those days, it strikes one that ASUO has something of a Twitter Famous mentality: the small amount of power they are allotted makes them feel as if they have infinitely more sway than they actually do.

This is one of those days.

Last night the ASUO passed a resolution declaring its opposition to concealed-carry on campus. According to the Ol’Dirty, “The resolution reasons that a ban on conceal-carry weapons is not a Second Amendment restriction after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2010 stated schools were considered a ‘sensitive’ place, and thus laws barring firearms were not restricted.” Further, it was noted that because the primary purpose of a gun is to “cause lethal bodily harm”, it should not be permitted on campus, versus potentially dangerous but useful objects such as knives.

Those potatoes aren’t going to chop themselves.

Nowhere in the Daily Emerald article, however, is the meaninglessness and inanity of the whole situation specifically noted. What purpose does this serve? Who was banging down the ASUO’s front door begging them to send down their official declaration on the matter from on high? Contrary to what the Emerald’s headline claims, the ASUO does seem to have enough self-awareness to know that they didn’t actually change state law by passing this resolution. Their hope seems to be that if (with the implicit “and when” undoubtedly present in their minds) the state decides to revisit the concealed-carry on campus situation, the ASUO will be in support of a reinstated ban. My question is, why does the ASUO think the state gives a shit?

Please senators, for the love of God, I beg of you–do something useful with yourselves. How long did this resolution take to argue out? How many man hours were lost that could have been better spent on actually doing something that is within your limited power to do?

The Commentator has had an equipment request waiting on your nod since November. Why not manipulate that power?

The Oregon Daily Emerald‘s multimedia site recently posted a video in which students from the University of Oregon campus were asked what they thought about the possibility of concealed weapons on campus. With a few exceptions, most students responded as expected:

“I think that it shouldn’t be allowed, partly because I wouldn’t feel safe with some of the students who would bring weapons,” said one student (1:42).

Another felt that she didn’t feel guns were necessary, “It’s an environment where people are learning… and it’s supposed to be friendly and, like, a place where everyone can feel safe.” (1:51)

Only one person appearing on the clip addressed the true nature of the question and kudos goes to this girl for throwing her own self-interests to the wind in favor of recognizing the civil liberties of others, “The idea of people having concealed weapons scare me, but at the same time I believe a person’s right to have that weapon.” (1:32)

Apparently students on the campus of the University of Oregon have yet to take any course that gives them any common sense whatsoever, so hear this:

Civil liberties are not based on your own sense of justice, morality or preferences. They are based upon a document that is part of the foundation of these United States. To reason otherwise is against the nature of civil liberties in this country and against the Constitution.

Whatever your opinion on guns is, one must be careful to be mindful of the real issue here. The OUS has effectively taken up creating legislation all on their own, in defiance and violation of the laws of the state of Oregon. We cannot give them the power to do so, lest they expand their power beyond their current scope.

State laws allow the holder of a Concealed Hander’s License to carry anywhere in the state of Oregon except for federal courthouses and a few other areas. University campuses are not part of that list according to the state of Oregon. The ban on concealed handgun carry for holders of CHLs is therefore in direct violation of state law.

Of course, if you wanted to bring suit against the OUS directly you could always open-carry on campus. For those of you who don’t know, Oregon is an open-carry state meaning you are allowed to carry a gun at all times (less the places state or federal law prohibits) as long as it’s displayed externally.

Then again, you could let the OUS stomp all over your civil liberties. Apparently they enjoy it.

(Author’s Note: The Emerald staffer who made the opening panels might want to be careful how they word things next time. The second panel (0:04) said “The group seeks to eliminate the state’s ban on handguns…”. The “state” does not have a ban on handguns, dear Emerald staffer, the OUS does. Making a distinction between those two things is vital when you are trying to inform the masses.)

An anonymous teacher in the Medford Schood District is suing to secure her right to carry a concealed weapon in the classroom. This “Jane Doe” says her life has been threatened multiple times by an abusive ex-husband; however, the teacher says she and her lawyer are primarily concerned with asserting and reinforcing the Second Amendment.

Oregon, unlike many states, allows teachers with concealed weapons permits to carry firearms, but almost all of the school districts in Oregon, such as Medford, do not. Either way the case is decided, it would apply only to Jackson County, unless it went to a higher court. The teacher’s case seems strong, especially with her personal safety at stake. This could be a good precedent for future Second Amendment cases, such as (oh, I don’t know) the right of college students to defend themselves from insane gunmen.

Colleges and universities across the nation made a show of discussing safety issues after the Virginia Tech massacre but accomplished shockingly little. In the end, it was back to “lie prone on the floor and wait to die.” The University of Oregon followed suit, advising students to call our bumbling,  klepto (not to mention unarmed) campus security. OC alum Andy Dolberg ripped the U of O’s revised “safety policies” a new one.

My letter to the Emerald published Wednesday questions the safety of students in the event of a suicidal shooter on campus, and primarily questions the ability of the police or University to keep us safe. A nice person sent me a memo outlining the administration’s concerns about student safety due to the VTech shooting – apparently to quell criticisms. Unfortuneatly, the letter illustrates my point, and lets see how it compares to the strategy VTech used.

1.

The UO has several communication systems to notify members of the university community of emergencies. Each building has a full‐time staff member who is designated as the building manager. We use telephone and e‐mail to communicate with the building managers, who coordinate information flow with students, faculty and staff. In addition, the staff members administering the university Web site are prepared to post updates to unfolding emergencies. The university can also activate a recorded message, allowing community members to call in and listen to updates and safety instructions.

VTech also has these “communication systems” i.e. phones, e-mail, and a website. Someone must be there to utilize them though, and the VT administration sent a wide e-mail about an hour-and-a-half after the first two victims were killed – right before the second slaughter.

2.

In addition, many in leadership positions of the university have completed crisis management and communication training designed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In our effort to be prepared for any eventuality, we periodically train for a variety of scenarios

What?!? You’re actually admitting you were trained by FEMA? One of the largest cities in the US was destroyed and FEMA did practically nothing about it – hrm…which is probably what would happen if there was an emergency on campus.

3.

We have consulted student, faculty and administration leaders on campus and will continue to work to enhance the safety while still recognizing the sad truth that sometimes there is no way to prevent dangers of the larger world from intruding on campus.

The last sentence is an honest admission that the University cannot protect you from everything while on campus, which is a nice change from the “we’re the only ones who can protect you” stance typically taken. Sometimes there isn’t a way to prevent every danger, but there are good ways of deterring it and reducing the risk. With this in mind, students should be encouraged to be proactive about their safety, including allowing students to carry concealed weapons.

4.

If you should see anyone who is behaving in a manner that you think might be threatening, or anything that you think might pose a danger, please immediately notify the Department of Public Safety at 346‐6666.

This is wrong – if you see anything that might be a danger, protect your self first, then call 911 when you safely can. If you are being attacked, or shot at, defend your life first at all costs!

In this memo, the University gives potentially life-threatening advice, and shares none of the policies that actually would be enacted in the case of an emergency – such as will DPS officers risk their lives to save students? I think we all know the answer.

Ron Artest, the Beast with the Least, in his first interview since the unfortunate incident. At least he didn’t pull a Kobe. Although I hear that the man Artest hit left the Palace and was hit by three other men before he went to the authorities, had a history of promiscuous fight-starting, and in fact never said no to Artest’s advances to start a fight. But who are we to determine when “no” means “no”?

Hey, kids, repeat after me: it’s just a game. Just a game. It’s not about who threw the first punch. All that matters is that you gave it your best and beat the snot out of someone.

“It was Artest’s first national interview since he was suspended for charging into the stands and fighting with fans late in Friday night’s game against the Detroit Pistons in Auburn Hills, a Detroit suburb. The suspension amounts to 72 games in an 82-game season, and means he will lose about $5 million.”

And the guy who started the fight? One John Green, aka Mr. Perfect Sober Man, aka Mr. I Didn’t Throw the Cup, aka Mr. Big Fat Liar.

“…Gorcyca said Green was on probation for his third offense of driving under the influence. Green’s record also includes convictions for carrying a concealed weapon and check fraud, according to the Michigan Department of Corrections’ database…Green is a season-ticket holder and will be banned from The Palace.”

I say we drop the whole thing, let the two have a Cage Death Match, and get on with the roundball season. I have me some Jason Kidd to drool over.

Brian Stubbs’ lawsuit against the Oregon University System and the state Board of Higher Education for not allowing him to carry a concealed weapon on campus has been flushed from federal court.

US District Judge Aiken ruled that Stubbs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, known as a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.

From a cursory glance at the opinion, the hitch for Stubbs is that the policy was never actually enforced against him — he has yet to be cited or prosecuted for carrying a concealed weapon. Thus, he’s suffered no injury and therefore has no claim. “Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed for failure to present a justiciable ‘case or controversy.'”

In federal court, Stubbs was alleging the state had deprived him of federally protected civil rights. The court’s refusal to consider whether OUS’s policy violates civil rights before the policy is actually enforced is an example of self-imposed prudential restraint. Courts will refrain from questioning a majority-determined legislative act (or its subsidiary regulations and policies) unless and until an individual can demonstrate actual infringement of rights. Stubbs couldn’t demonstrate that; he had voluntarily complied with the policy.

The decision left open the possibility that Stubbs could continue his crusade in state court (or anywhere else he cared to), ruling only that he had failed to raise a federal claim and didn’t belong in federal court.

UPDATE: I just heard about this today, but it turns out the opinion came out way back on June 29. This may be the longest lag time ever for scooping the Ol’ Dirty.

An interesting spread of opinions on the concealed-carry issue, from the ODE, here. Most eyebrow-raising is that of pre-CIS major Hanna Budan, quoted as saying:

“There can be too much power when only one group is allowed to carry guns or have weapons. I would feel more comfortable if DPS, who is hired and trained by the University, had guns.”

Yikes. I salute Hanna Budan for her faith in humanity, or that subset thereof hired by the University as rentacops. (Only one group, did you say?) She goes on to say that she’d rather have guns in residence halls than classrooms. I think allowing people to bring guns to class is an awful idea, but the residence halls? The Bean complex, specifically? These are people who have already demonstrated a spectacular ability to injure one another using only everyday household objects and institutionally-provided items of furniture. What could possibly go wrong with a bunch of drunken eighteen-year-olds packing handguns in a confined space?

There’s more, but I’m busy and I wanted to use that headline before anyone else. Cheers.