CNN Story on Campus Carry

CNN has a pretty balanced piece of campus concealed carry.  They get some of the legal subtleties wrong though.  For instance, you can carry on a college campus in Pennsylvania legally, it’s just that Colleges and Universities, including those in the state system, exclude firearms through policy (rather than law).  This is the case in Virginia as well.  The laws being proposed in different states are meant to have various effects.

Many states, including Texas and Tennessee, ban concealed carry on college campuses through law.  There are proposals to repeal this, but that would still allow college to ban them through policy.  You could be expelled from the school, but you won’t be facing charges for violating a gun free zone.  Virginia’s proposal would have prevented the state run school system from imposing restrictions on individuals who possessed a Concealed Handgun License.

While I have some issues with how CNN has chosen to cover this, the fact that this is becoming a serious debate at all is a sign on how far we’ve come here.  Even five years ago, it wouldn’t even be up for serious debate.

5 thoughts on “CNN Story on Campus Carry”

  1. In Oregon the Chancellor’s office has forbidden weapons through a policy they basically know to be illegal, as the Oregon University System schools (Eastern Oregon U, Western Oregon U, Southern Oregon U, OSU, U of O, PSU(?)) is state property and we have preemption here. One person attempted challenge with the backing of your favorite people (Oregon Firearms Federation), but plaintiff was found to lack standing.

    What that basically means is that it’s currently treated as a trespass. You’re asked to leave campus if they find you with a weapon. If you refuse you’re charged with misdemeanor trespass. Within that framework, I know of some people who are willing to be “asked to leave” if found out. So, for all intents, there ARE people who regularly carry on OUS campuses.

    I do hope that OFF is someday able to mount a challenge to the policy with a plaintiff that has standing. They may be a little nutty sometimes, but they have had some phenomenal successes. For example, this last year Port of Portland wanted expanded policing powers through the legislature. OFF’s position was that if the Port was willing to violate the law by preventing CCW holders on Port property (also in violation of preemption), then they shouldn’t have expanded police powers. They managed to get enough grass roots backing to kill the legislation. It wasn’t a direct win on the merits, but hopefully it shows the vehemence with which we can and should defend our rights, AND get agencies to think about how they enforce laws appropriately.


  2. What’s Oregon’s standing doctrine? Can a student who wants to carry, but cannot have standing? Or do you need to be harmed by the policy first?

  3. Breda:

    The title is horrible indeed. Borrowed from Brady terminology meant to connote that something is wrong with it.

  4. Oops, forgot to respond to this.

    The person (Brian Stubbs) was found to lack standing and was a student. He was found to have suffered no harm, so yes, harm is the primary requirement for standing in this case.

Comments are closed.