Marine Veteran Kicked Out of School for Possessing Firearms

[DickWanner]

http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/02.10.09 alert.html

02.10.09
MARINE VETERAN KICKED OUT OF SCHOOL FOR POSSESSING FIREARMS

WOU STUDENT TRIED,CONVICTED AND SENTENCED.

The WOU student who was falsely arrested and charged with possession of a firearm in a public building, had all his criminal charges dropped by the Polk County DA tonight.

The DA admitted no wrongdoing on his part, or on the part of the police who arrested Jeff Maxwell for a "crime" that does not exist.

In a statement released to OFF's attorney, the DA 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 statute and the facts led me to conclude the charge was not in the best interest of justice."

"Not in the best interest of justice." There was NO CRIME. But it gets worse. Much worse.

The college still got to "try" Jeff Maxwell. And they did tonight.

The tribunal that tried Marine veteran Jeffery Maxwell laughed after suspending him from Western Oregon University and sentencing 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."

So, Maxwell has been told his lawful possession of a firearm on campus is evidence of mental illness and he must "confess his sins." Welcome to the new Politburo. Maxwell may as well been judged by the Hitler youth for his "thought crimes."

Jeffery Maxwell's "jury" were four unnamed students and one staff member of WOU.

The "prosecutor" was Patrick Moser [email protected] "Acting Coordinator of Campus Judicial Affairs"

Maxwell asked to have his "trial" open to the public, which is his right, but was denied.

The tribunal was told repeatedly that they lacked the authority to impose a rule dealing with firearms. But the children who sat in judgment of the veteran were not interested in the law or the facts. They were only interested in attacking and embarrassing a man who had committed no crime but had chosen to exercise his right to protect himself and others.

The "trial" was a sham. No one present even seemed to know what the "charge" was. When confronted by the fact that the school has no authority to make rules about firearms, they said that was "not relevant." Then they said they were not charging Maxwell with having a firearm. When asked what they WERE charging him with, they seemed to not know. They then said they were charging him with having a "knife and a rifle in his car." When told they had no authority to make rules about guns in his car, they said THAT was not "relevant."

The children who sat on Maxwell's "jury" and their staff advisors seemed to have no idea what they were actually charging Maxwell with. But they had no problem sentencing him. Gun owners, and all Americans should be outraged.

OFF is committed to continuing Maxwell's defense. We are shocked and disgusted by the treatment he received by the staff and the students of WOU,

We ask your continued support of our legal battle for Jeff Maxwell. We promised Jeff what he promised the men he served with. We will not leave him behind.

http://media.www.westernoregonjourn...ents-3616492.shtml?refsource=collegeheadlines

Mid-morning arrest startles students
Individual brings weapons on campus in violation of state law
Erin Huggins
Issue date: 2/4/09 Section: News
PrintEmail Article Tools Page 1 of 2 next > Last Wednesday morning at 11:16 a.m., Campus Public Safety (CPS) and Monmouth Police identified, detained and arrested Western student Jeffrey Maxwell in the downstairs student area of Werner University Center (WUC) for violation of ORS 166.370, Possession of a Firearm in a Public Building.
CPS had sent an e-mail on Tuesday, Jan. 27, alerting the campus community about an individual who had been seen loitering around the pool area and the residence halls.
Wednesday morning, CPS received a call reporting a person matching the description given in the e-mail who was carrying a knife on campus. Because weapons were involved, Assitant Director of CPS and CPS Officer Mike Hanson called Monmouth Police Department (MPD) for back-up. Sergeant Kim Dorn, Officer Matthew Olafson and a recruit officer from MPD, along with Hutchinson and Hanson, were unable to locate the individual upon an initial search of the campus.
However, shortly before 11 a.m., CPS received another call about the individual and the MPD officers returned to campus.
Maxwell, who was sitting at one of the study tables across from the Service and Career Learning Center, was approached from behind by Joe Hutchinson from Campus Public Safety and MPD officers. Hutchinson asked Maxwell if he had any weapons concealed on his person.
On first response, Maxwell answered he had a knife. Hutchinson then put Maxwell's hands above his head. The second time he was asked, Maxwell said he had a gun.
After the weapons were removed, officers took him into the Calapooia Room. A few minutes later, he was escorted into one of two police cars parked on Church Street outside of WUC.
Responding to why they did not evacuate WUC, Hutchinson said CPS did not know what weapons were involved and did not want to alert the suspect by a sudden flood of students leaving the building.
"If we had known he had a gun, the scenario would have been totally different," Hutchinson said.
Maxwell was initially approached because of his resemblance to the individual in CPS's e-mail, although Hutchinson said CPS has not confirmed whether or not Maxwell is the same person described in the e-mail.
Hutchinson said there have been no sightings of the person since the arrest last Wednesday.
Dorn said although Maxwell did have a loaded firearm on his person, he did not use it in a threatening way and was cooperative with the police.
Maxwell had a valid permit for possessing concealed weapons; however, the permit does not allow people to bring weapons inside public schools, private schools or courthouses.
"Even if you have a concealed weapons permit, you can't have a weapon concealed on your person if you're going to be in any buildings on campus." Dorn said. "In this instance, he just didn't know."
Hutchinson said Western firearm and munition policies are administrative and correspond to Oregon University System policies, which are not necessarily the same as state regulations.
"We go one step further and say, look, no weapons are allowed on campus, period,"Hutchinson said.
Hutchinson said he asked Maxwell why he had a gun on campus, to which Maxwell replied, "I was just scared after Virginia tech. I was just really worried about my safety."
Several students witnessed the arrest, including senior Alica Tresidder, who said she initially thought the event was a drill.
"I thought they were practicing," she said about officers involved. "They had it under control. I didn't feel threatened at all."
Sophomore Carrie Miller said she thought the suspect was being arrested for drug possession, "not such serious things as a loaded gun."
"I had a test I was down here [WUC] studying for. How am I supposed to concentrate for the next hour?" she questioned shortly after the arrest took place.
Senior Alecia St. Germaine said her first reaction to the situation was fear.
"My stomach started turning and I wanted to leave," she said.
In addition, knowing an armed person could just walk onto campus makes her feel a little uneasy.
"I have night class," she said. "Usually, I'm fine walking to my car. Now I'm going to second guess that."

This seriously makes me ill, so it's not against the law for someone with a valid CHL to possess a firearm at an Oregon college yet this Veteran is still "convicted" by a board of 4 of his peers and a faculty member. I can't believe the comments either. They feel scared that a former military member carries a firearm to protect himself and potentially them?!

 

[CRSIII]

My head just exploded, again!

 

[Bob P]

Sophomore Carrie Miller said she thought the suspect was being arrested for drug possession, "not such serious things as a loaded gun."

So possession of illegal drugs isn't serious but a guy with a valid CW permit, legally carrying a firearm, and just sitting at a desk doing his homework IS serious.

WTF IS WRONG HERE??????????????????

 

[Negotiator]

http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/02.10.09 alert.html



http://media.www.westernoregonjourn...ents-3616492.shtml?refsource=collegeheadlines











This seriously makes me ill, so it's not against the law for someone with a valid CHL to possess a firearm at an Oregon college yet this Veteran is still "convicted" by a board of 4 of his peers and a faculty member. I can't believe the comments either. They feel scared that a former military member carries a firearm to protect himself and potentially them?!

I find it a stretch to call that a jury of his peers...four college students and a faculty member sitting in judgement of a Marine veteran? Give me strenght....

 

[doobie]

We should all send our complaints to the 'judge jury and executioner' in this case.

 

[DickWanner]

I find it a stretch to call that a jury of his peers...four college students and a faculty member sitting in judgement of a Marine veteran? Give me strenght....

I'm sorry, correction. He was supposed to be tried before a jury of his peers, but ended up with a bunch of moonbats.

 

[Bill Nance]

Universities: The greatest bastion of wild-eyed leftist totalitarianism in the country.

Emma Goldman would spit in these fools' eyes. "Progressive" my ass. It's authoritarian, plain and simple. Sadly, western Oregon has been seriously "Californicated."

 

[CRSIII]

It just occured to me; how did anyone know this man had a gun in the first place?

 

[terraformer]

It just occured to me; how did anyone know this man had a gun in the first place?

They didn't. They saw the knife though and he was then asked about a gun which he admitted.

I am a little confused. He was in valid possession of a concealed handgun. Which turns out to have been perfectly LEGAL on an OR college campus. Is this correct? So is this a public university?

Then the college's student body government (not stated specifically but this groups is usually empaneled to deal with honor code violations and other student reg violations and seems to be the case here too) determines that he is in violation of some reg they can't name and he is punished despite being told that they can't make any rule prohibiting cc on campus. Lovely...

 

[Coastie2010]

The call was for a knife. Presumably one of the tacti-cool folders 90% of us carry that is slightly exposed when clipped in a pocket. The cops asked if he had weapons, and he responded that he had a gun as well as the knife.



And I can't think of any verbal response for this utter BS.

 

[seanc]

Sounds like this guy has a pretty good basis for a counter suit.

I think he should be getting free tution, room and board all the way through med or law school..
And a nice apology published in the school paper, on page 1 above the fold.

 

[MetalgodZ]

They didn't. They saw the knife though and he was then asked about a gun which he admitted.

I am a little confused. He was in valid possession of a concealed handgun. Which turns out to have been perfectly LEGAL on an OR college campus. Is this correct? So is this a public university?

Then the college's student body government (not stated specifically but this groups is usually empaneled to deal with honor code violations and other student reg violations and seems to be the case here too) determines that he is in violation of some reg they can't name and he is punished despite being told that they can't make any rule prohibiting cc on campus. Lovely...

Complete crap, however...

Firearms, Munitions, Explosives on University

Possession, use or threatened use of firearms, fireworks, ammunition, explosives, chemicals or any other objects as weapons on university property or at university-sponsored or supervised activities, except as expressly authorized by law or university regulation, are prohibited. Professional law enforcement officers are the only persons permitted to possess firearms while on campus. Concealed weapons are prohibited even with a concealed carry permit.

(from http://www.wou.edu/admin/safety/survivalguide.html#Personal Safety)

I don't know whether it's public property, private property, some mix of the two, or something else entirely. I don't know Oregon's laws on CCW, nor do I know of any local ordinances. He was, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your opinion, honest enough to admit to carrying a concealed weapon in violation of school rules.

 

[EddieCoyle]

I'd tell them to go f*** themselves. But I wouldn't say it nice like that.

 

[terraformer]

Complete crap, however...
(from http://www.wou.edu/admin/safety/survivalguide.html#Personal Safety)

I don't know whether it's public property, private property, some mix of the two, or something else entirely. I don't know Oregon's laws on CCW, nor do I know of any local ordinances. He was, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your opinion, honest enough to admit to carrying a concealed weapon in violation of school rules.

So the OP's source is embellishing on this just a tad. It is not illegal to carry concealed on a campus there in OR, but it was against the rules of the university. Therefore, he was open to being punished for breaking a rule. Whether you agree with it or not, the one aspect of their punishment that makes any sense then is the bit about "the importance of following the law,even through civil disobedience". He was breaking a rule. Now, we can debate the effectiveness, righteousness, constitutionality of carry on campus, but at the end of the day, this guy was guilty of breaking a school rule.

In typical anti fashion, they want a psychological exam. Asides from the dram queen aspect of that which assumes anyone who is armed is a danger, that is dangerous on so many levels and he should resist that at all costs. The student body should never have the authority to order an exam on a fellow student. That should be left to professional administrators under controlled and professional circumstances. The results of said exam can destroy a man's life if done under political duress.

The confess his sins bullshit is busy work. I notice there though the hypocrisy shines through. They didn't ask him to argue his perspective, but to write something that comported to their perspective. Turds.

 

[CRSIII]

The call was for a knife. Presumably one of the tacti-cool folders 90% of us carry that is slightly exposed when clipped in a pocket. The cops asked if he had weapons, and he responded that he had a gun as well as the knife.



And I can't think of any verbal response for this utter BS.

Yes, absolute pelosi.

 

[MrsWildweasel]

I'd tell them to go f*** themselves. But I wouldn't say it nice like that.

Yup, same here.

 

[KilgoreTrout]

Purdue had (may still have) an indoor range located near the intramural athletic fields. There were intramural competitions held there. This was in 1994-95 though.

Meh - an institution can make whatever rules it wants. If you disagree with the rules, then either try to change them or find another institution. That said, seems to be a big fat overreaction in this particular case. I mean, why not take the opportunity to teach college kids about boths sides of the debate? Oh but that would require actual thought. Nevermind.

 

[Bill Nance]

Ok, OWU is in fact a public school, therefore subject to the constitution and state laws.

I've forwarded a copy of the initial post plus the link to FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). Hopefully they will get involved.

 

[JoeyB]

So possession of illegal drugs isn't serious but a guy with a valid CW permit, legally carrying a firearm, and just sitting at a desk doing his homework IS serious.

WTF IS WRONG HERE??????????????????

They are hypocrites. Nothing wrong with either things, haha

 

[clinotus]

The call was for a knife. Presumably one of the tacti-cool folders 90% of us carry that is slightly exposed when clipped in a pocket. The cops asked if he had weapons, and he responded that he had a gun as well as the knife.



And I can't think of any verbal response for this utter BS.

This is a key factor here, because if asked if you have any weapons I think most people would likely give the same answers depending on who was asking. If the asker was an Officer of the Law, then obviously disclose the firearm in addition to the knife, but for a non officer, then just the knife.

I think the majority of us carry knives in our daily travels, heck I carry two sometimes for different daily tasks.

Someone better think of my kids...oh wait, the schools are doing their thinking for them...

 

[Bill Nance]

Meh - an institution can make whatever rules it wants. If you disagree with the rules, then either try to change them or find another institution.

This is not true of a public university. they have to abide by the constitution and state laws.

 

[CooperS7777]

This is not true of a public university. they have to abide by the constitution and state laws.

But I think if you look into it youll find they can suppliment state laws with their own "regulations", which you agree to when you sign your paperwork as an enrolling student.

IE "dry dorms" (like I had in school) - I was bagged and punshied by campus security for possession of alcohol in the dorms, even after I was of the legal age.

 

[terraformer]

This is not true of a public university. they have to abide by the constitution and state laws.

Well, it appears that there was a local reg on not carrying on campus. Now, if that is not valid, then the school administrators should have been involved in this and hauled up in front of the legislature if they are not allowed to have that reg and the frickn' student body government should have gone back to smoking their bongs, throwing pimp n' ho parties, and playing ultimate on the quad.

If it is valid (which disagrees with your assertion), I am not sure this was going to go any different and he probably lucked out getting "tried" by students.

 

[Bob P]

But I think if you look into it youll find they can suppliment state laws with their own "regulations", which you agree to when you sign your paperwork as an enrolling student.

IE "dry dorms" (like I had in school) - I was bagged and punshied by campus security for possession of alcohol in the dorms, even after I was of the legal age.

Public universities are only semi-public. Violate the rules and they can expel you. They're being douchey about it and I wouldn't put up with the psych evaluation either but they're within their 'rights' to do this crap to him. Academia is a world all to it's own. The petty bullshit is really unbelievable. I'd love to see some of these professors try to make it in the 'real' world.

 

[Bill Nance]

Have a look at the FIRE website. these people have been doing outstanding work for a long time now making universities drop such policies. terms of rentership are one thing. your 2nd amendment rights are something else.

You can waive your rights in some circumstances with regard to a domicile. A public university does NOT however, get to make any law it wants in violation of state law and the constitution. they lose every time these go to court.

 

[Bob P]

Have a look at the FIRE website. these people have been doing outstanding work for a long time now making universities drop such policies. terms of rentership are one thing. your 2nd amendment rights are something else.

You can waive your rights in some circumstances with regard to a domicile. A public university does NOT however, get to make any law it wants in violation of state law and the constitution. they lose every time these go to court.

So they can't expel him for a rules violation?

 

[Bill Nance]

So they can't expel him for a rules violation?

They can't expel him for a rules violation if the rule is in conflict with federal or state law.

an ethics violation, like cheating on a test, is not protected under the constitution. Saying you think Muslims suck however IS protected. These have been to court, along with "speech codes" and they lose EVERY time.

 

[Nickle]

I'd tell them to go f*** themselves. But I wouldn't say it nice like that.

Definitely tell them to pound sand, then when they ask what that means, demonstrate, on them.

 

[Bill Nance]

FIRE is one of my favorite civil liberties groups. here's an excerpt from an article on their website:

Over the next six months, FIRE will be exposing the speech codes silencing students at America's most prestigious colleges and universities.

Although students from around the world compete intensively for the opportunity to live and learn at these institutions, most maintain policies that violate students' fundamental rights to freedom of expression and freedom of conscience.

Since we believe strongly that prospective students and their families should consider these restrictions—just as they would consider average test scores and faculty/student ratios—when deciding where to apply to school, we want to make this information as accessible as possible. Information about restrictions on speech at over 400 colleges and universities is already available in our Spotlight database, but we also want to draw particular attention to speech restrictions at the top 25 American colleges and universities, since these elite institutions almost uniformly advertise themselves as—and succeed on the basis of their reputations as—centers of free inquiry and debate. To that end, for each of the next 25 weeks, The Torch will include a detailed discussion of the speech codes in force at these top 25 institutions.

Today, we begin with the institution ranked as #25 on U.S. News & World Report's list of top national universities: the University of California–Los Angeles (UCLA). UCLA receives FIRE's "red light" rating for the policies it maintains that restrict student expression. Not just one but several policies at UCLA are constitutionally infirm.

First, UCLA maintains an impermissible speech code that applies to students living in its residence halls. The On Campus Student Handbook's "Community Standards" provide:

we will not tolerate any form of bigotry, threats, intimidation, violence or other forms of harassment against any member of our community. In the same manner, we will not accept ignorance, humor, anger, alcohol or substance abuse as an excuse, reason or rationale for such behavior.

This is a classic example of a policy that is overbroad, in that it includes both legitimate and illegitimate restrictions on speech. As a public university bound by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, UCLA may prohibit true threats, intimidation, violence, and harassment, but it may not prohibit "bigotry," however offensive bigotry may be to most people. The additional provision that "humor" will not be accepted as a rationale for any "bigotry" raises the distinct possibility that students in the residence halls may be susceptible to punishment for engaging in parody and satire that others might find bigoted (such as the satirical newspaper articles on affirmative action and Islamic terrorism for which students at Tufts University were found guilty of harassment).

Second, the University of California's Policy on Sexual Harassment (which applies not only to UCLA but also to other institutions in the UC system) is also problematic. That policy defines sexual harassment as

unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects a person's employment or education, unreasonably interferes with a person's work or educational performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive working or learning environment.

To understand what is wrong with this policy, it is necessary to know how the United States Supreme Court has defined peer-on-peer sexual harassment in the educational environment, since only speech that falls within that definition may be prohibited consistent with the First Amendment. In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of student-on-student harassment and held that speech, to fall outside the bounds of protected speech, must be "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim's access to an educational opportunity or benefit." The UC policy not only contains no requirement of severity or pervasiveness, it even allows speech to be prohibited if it "implicitly affects a person's employment or education"—a vague definition that could mean almost anything. Under the plain language of this policy, offensive expression that has even the most minor effect on a UC student could be punished as harassment. That is simply unacceptable.

There are additional unconstitutional policies beyond these at UCLA—see UCLA's entry in Spotlight.

Anyone considering attending UCLA should be aware of the threats to free speech that exist there, threatening students with disciplinary action for protected speech and thereby impoverishing the campus discourse. Tune in next week for information on speech codes at the University of Virginia.

I despise what's become of our universities. Organizations like FIRE deserve the financial support we can give them.

 

[Bob P]

They can't expel him for a rules violation if the rule is in conflict with federal or state law.

an ethics violation, like cheating on a test, is not protected under the constitution. Saying you think Muslims suck however IS protected. These have been to court, along with "speech codes" and they lose EVERY time.

Good. I hope they do take it then and kick the school's ass.