(OR) Oregon Court of Appeals Strikes down student carry ban!

[Gray Peterson]

Hot off the Presses!

Excellent ruling purely based on state preemption. Employees cannot carry, but students and visitors now can.

[HowardW56]

Wow.....

[Ubermcoupe]

freaking awesome!

[7x57]

Hmm. An irresponsibly brief skim of the first page makes me wonder if the judge was quite happy to find it preempted so as not to have to even touch the 2A claim.

7x57

[taperxz]

Hmm. An irresponsibly brief skim of the first page makes me wonder if the judge was quite happy to find it preempted so as not to have to even touch the 2A claim.

7x57

And he shouldn't want to! Why mess with perfection

[Dreaded Claymore]

Thank goodness. When the student carry bill failed to pass in Arizona, I thought perhaps that fight wouldn't be able to succeed. There's hope yet!

[onedavetoomany]

Does this ruling allow open carry?

[Nor-Cal]

Really good news to hear!

[Bend]

Does this ruling allow open carry?

Yes, if you have an LTC/CCW/CHL.

[Dead*Reckoned]

Ridiculous, why should students have the right to defend themselves like any other citizen?

As a side note, this gives also gives me hope that they will pass a similar law like this here in Arizona. Way to go Oregon!

[GaryV]

Excellent ruling purely based on state preemption. Employees cannot carry, but students and visitors now can.

Maybe I'm just missing something (and I probably am), but it seems that this ruling strikes down the prohibition for employees as well, unless there is a separate internal employee policy. I know earlier case law allowed internal employee policies to stand, but it sounds to me like the court struck down the challenged regulation entirely, not just for certain applications, and if this regulation was the only thing keeping employees from being able to carry, wouldn't they be free to as well, at least until and unless the board passes a policy addressing the issue?

[jb7706]

Freedom and common sense. It's a good day.

[hoffmang]

I've long predicted that one of the ways you would know we are really #WINNING was to watch for courts to hand us victories on any basis other than the 2A.

Here is one.

-Gene

[Crom]

I've long predicted that one of the ways you would know we are really #WINNING was to watch for courts to hand us victories on any basis other than the 2A.

Here is one.

-Gene

I'm glad we won. But is this nothing more than a case of Constitutional avoidance doctrine in practice? My understanding is that the doctrine dictates that a federal court should refuse to rule on a constitutional issue if the case can be resolved on a nonconstitutional basis. They are only to answer one as a last resort.

I know this was a state court ruling but plaintiffs did raise the 2A issue so I am thinking the doctrine would apply here too.

Just a thought.

[hoffmang]

I'm glad we won. But is this nothing more than a case of Constitutional avoidance doctrine in practice? My understanding is that the doctrine dictates that a federal court should refuse to rule on a constitutional issue if the case can be resolved on a nonconstitutional basis. They are only to answer one as a last resort.

I know this was a state court ruling but plaintiffs did raise the 2A issue so I am thinking the doctrine would apply here too.

Just a thought.

Somewhat yes but remember what the pre-Heller days looked like. Courts would ignore the other issues and seize upon the 2A as a way to duck the case.

The times they are a changing.

-Gene