Concealed Carry group preps lawsuit against Ohio State
Published: Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Updated: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 09:11
 "Photo: Courtesy of MCT")
Courtesy of MCT
A door displays a sticker designating the area as gun-free. Concealed carry is not permitted on OSU’s campus.
After months of demanding guns be allowed on Ohio State’s campus, Ohio Students for Concealed Carry is preparing to file a lawsuit against the university.
In an statement published on the group’s websiteon Nov. 20, Michael Newbern, director of Ohio Students for Concealed Carry and a third-year in industrial and systems engineering, gave words of warning to Gee.
“We’re coming for you, (OSU President E.) Gordon Gee. And we’re going to be knocking sooner than you think. You can either recognize the will of the people of Ohio, or expect a pink slip,” Newbern wrote.
Newbern told The Lantern that the group has reached a point where a lawsuit against Gee is the only way to make their voice heard.
“We tried, and we have been trying for a year, and there is no interest. No interest whatsoever in speaking to me, anybody from our group, none at all,” Newbern said. “That’s fine, (Gee) can explain it in court in front of a judge.”
At the beginning of Fall Semester, Newbern’s cause gained attention after OSU Police released an Aug. 26 safety notice, telling students of crimes that had occurred on and off campus. Members of Buckeyes for Concealed Carry, the OSU chapter of Ohio Students for Concealed Carry, followed up with a return email to thousands of students about how guns could help if students are in danger.
Three months later, Newbern said the group is ready to file a lawsuit against OSU as early as next semester, after raising about $3,000 at a fundraiser dinner at the beginning of November.
“We are working with a team of attorneys in the Central Ohio area,” Newbern said. “The money is rolling in a lot faster than we thought. And there are other sources, both inside and outside of Ohio, that make that number look very small.”
While Newbern said in the past that Buckeyes for Concealed Carry members want to be able to carry their licensed guns on campus, he now said members are advocating for the right to store handguns in cars parked on campus.
Newbern argued that the Ohio Revised Code states that guns cannot be on “any premises owned or leased by any public or private college, university or other institution of higher education, unless the handgun is in a locked motor vehicle or the licensee is in the immediate process of placing the handgun in a locked motor vehicle,” and therefore, would allow students to keep their handgun in the car on campus.
But OSU law professor Ric Simmons said the situation is difficult since the Ohio Revised Code does not clarify if other institutions could ban those weapons.
“If Ohio Revised Code gives you the right to carry this gun in their car, then the Ohio Revised code would overrule the Student Code of Conduct,” Simmons said. “But it’s not clear to me that Ohio Revised Code does give them the right to carry the gun in the car. It simply says they are not banned from it, but that doesn’t mean that someone else can’t ban it.”
In an email to The Lantern, OSU spokeswoman Amy Murray, said she doesn’t think the group will see any changes in campus policy.
“Dr. Gee has heard from all sides of this challenging issue and remains firm in the position against allowing guns on campus,” Murray said. “The university has no plans to change its current concealed-carry policy.”
Gee has consistently reiterated how he feels about the issue.
“Not as long as I’m president,” Gee said during a Sept. 10 editorial board meeting with The Lantern. “I’m unequivocally opposed. I think that is a horrible idea on a university campus to be carrying guns. Period.”
Some students said they don’t approve of guns on campus either.
Alyssa Glovan, a fourth-year in social work, said she does not approve of the lawsuit against OSU because she thinks only “crazy” people would carry a weapon on campus. She also said she doesn’t understand how having a gun stored in their car will help students.
“I don’t see how it would be of much use if you are on campus and your car is not around,“ she said.
Kate Novotny, a graduate student in English, said she also has a “strongly opposite opinion” on the issue and would feel much less safe if guns were permitted on campus.
“It wouldn’t change anything for people who think that guns will make us safer, and I think it would make people nervous who think that there is no reason to have a gun on campus and that’s only going to lead to problems,” Novotny said.
51 comments
Alyssa Glovan
I'm Alyssa Glovan and wanted to say that I was not quoted accurately. I never said that "only "crazy" people would carry a weapon on campus" and do not appreciate being misquoted, because it is a misrepresentation of who I am. Bottom line I was on the fence with this whole topic because there are clearly both pros and cons to the matter.
Anonymous
Erwin Griswold wrote in 1990 "Never in history has a federal court invalidated a law regulating the private ownership of firearms on Second Amendment grounds." Of course that was before one of his former law students Scalia and 4 other geniuses decided in Heller they knew more than all the judges that preceded them in 200 years. 19th century Texas had laws banning the carrying of firearms in schools, churches, the circus, places where scientific experiments were conducted and within 1/2 mile of a polling place. 19th century Wyoming banned the carrying of firearms in cities and towns with punishment by fines and confiscation of the firearms.
State vs. Workman W. Wa. 1891 said the presumption which the law establishes, that every man who goes armed in the midst, of a peaceable community is of vile character, and a criminal, is in consonance with the common law, and is a perfectly just and proper presumption, and one which ought to prevail in every community which aspires to be called civilized.
Of course even Scalia writes in Heller that nothing in the ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
State vs. Workman W. Wa. 1891 said the presumption which the law establishes, that every man who goes armed in the midst, of a peaceable community is of vile character, and a criminal, is in consonance with the common law, and is a perfectly just and proper presumption, and one which ought to prevail in every community which aspires to be called civilized.
Of course even Scalia writes in Heller that nothing in the ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
Peter B
Dear anonymous,
Thank you for engaging us in a rational, logical fashion. Given the names I've been called in the past, this is a refreshing change.
You write:
"It will be for the court to ultimately decide, but saying that OSU is not allowed to restrict the carrying of weapons in campus buildings, because they are privately owned by the university (which is becoming less and less a public institution thanks to neoliberal practices), is like saying a homeowner is not allowed to make a rule whether or not his or her friends can bring a gun into the home. There is no legality to that request, but it is common courtesy to abide by it."First, I agree it is for the court to decide.
However, I disagree that saying OSU has no grounds to regulate firearms is the same as making that claim about a private business or residence/In fact, a private property owner has every right to make a rule regarding firearms on their property under Ohio law. Under current law, violation of such a posting is criminal trespass.
I believe that it is clear that Ohio State University is a state run and ultimately a state owned institution. Under that umbrella, they have no authority to restrict firearms beyond what State law provides. Wishes to the contrary don't change the facts at hand.
In closing, current state law clearly prohibits the carrying of concealed handguns inside campus buildings, that is not what this suit is about.
Thank you for engaging us in a rational, logical fashion. Given the names I've been called in the past, this is a refreshing change.
You write:
"It will be for the court to ultimately decide, but saying that OSU is not allowed to restrict the carrying of weapons in campus buildings, because they are privately owned by the university (which is becoming less and less a public institution thanks to neoliberal practices), is like saying a homeowner is not allowed to make a rule whether or not his or her friends can bring a gun into the home. There is no legality to that request, but it is common courtesy to abide by it."First, I agree it is for the court to decide.
However, I disagree that saying OSU has no grounds to regulate firearms is the same as making that claim about a private business or residence/In fact, a private property owner has every right to make a rule regarding firearms on their property under Ohio law. Under current law, violation of such a posting is criminal trespass.
I believe that it is clear that Ohio State University is a state run and ultimately a state owned institution. Under that umbrella, they have no authority to restrict firearms beyond what State law provides. Wishes to the contrary don't change the facts at hand.
In closing, current state law clearly prohibits the carrying of concealed handguns inside campus buildings, that is not what this suit is about.
Anonymous
@Peter BThat's my point. It will be for the court to ultimately decide, but saying that OSU is not allowed to restrict the carrying of weapons in campus buildings, because they are privately owned by the university (which is becoming less and less a public institution thanks to neoliberal practices), is like saying a homeowner is not allowed to make a rule whether or not his or her friends can brink a gun into the home. There is no legality to that request, but it is common courtesy to abide by it. I have no problem with campus-carry, I do not believe it will change anything. The most reasonable assumption to make is that nothing will really change. Violent crime rates around the country had been declining steadily over the last 20+ years until the economic collapse in 2008. Whether that decrease in violent crimes was because people were allowed to carry weapons or because the "necessity" motivation of crime decreasing due to relative economic prosperity is not verifiable. This debate is always going to be around.The U.S. has the highest instance of gun violence in the world. I do not think this is because of CCW laws, I think this is due to misinformation and a lack of education on firearms paired with their past availability and, now, individuals illegally procuring them.There is no uncontested evidence. That's part of the peer reviewing process. As such, its a judgment call and both Gee and the university and the CCW groups have made their stance clear. It will not really affect the general public. However, I can understand the fear that guns carry with them. They are tools designed for the specific purpose of incapacitating a living thing, sometimes fatally. College campuses are areas with high crime rates. That is a fact. CCW laws and people enacting that right may deter some crime and they may not. Gee and the university are simply unwilling to take the chance of allowing a weapon to fall into the hands of someone willing to exploit that right for wrong-doing by increasing the number of weapons allowed on campus.
Anonymous
As Ryan G said, much of the same anti-gun arguments were proposed in opposition to 2011's restaurant carry bill. No studies have shown that any minor decreases in crime are a result of that law, but Toby Hoover and other anti-gunners have stated that there has been no negative impact from the legalization of concealed carry by legal licensees into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.Every one of the 70 universities that allows students to carry concealed have reported decreases in their crime figures. Again, one can suggest correlation does not prove causation, and that is fine. What we can say for sure is in those 70 universities with well over 100 campuses, there has been no crime influx resulting from allowing the law-abiding to carry the firearms they are licensed to carry.In the United States, something is only illegal if there is a law in place that forbids it. If crime has not increased on any other university or in the areas inside or outside restaurants in Ohio, there is no objective reason for the illegalization of concealed carry.
Ryan Guenther
As the comment by the person with strangely my same initials said, much of the same anti-gun arguments were proposed in opposition to 2011's restaurant carry bill. No studies have shown that any minor decreases in crime are a result of that law, but Toby Hoover and other anti-gunners have stated that there has been no negative impact from the legalization of concealed carry by legal licensees into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.Every one of the 70 universities that allows students to carry concealed have reported decreases in their crime figures. Again, one can suggest correlation does not prove causation, and that is fine. What we can say for sure is in those 70 universities with well over 100 campuses, there has been no crime influx resulting from allowing the law-abiding to carry the firearms they are licensed to carry.In the United States, something is only illegal if there is a law in place that forbids it. If crime has not increased on any other university or in the areas inside or outside restaurants in Ohio, there is no objective reason for the illegalization of concealed carry.
Karl Spaulding
Ha! You're welcome. :)I addressed campus sexual assault in my long post.Short version: acquaintance rapes on campus and street crime can have very different dynamics. Arguing that "campus carry" will reduce the former is not supported by any research I'm aware of. Good sociology is not simple. Please be careful what can be inferred from the research, whether coming from Lott, Kleck, Cook, Zimring, et al.There are a lot of folks saying lots of things in the comments. Not all of us agree on all points! This issue has many sub-permutations, putting comments all over the map. Messy!I am, however, in favor of "campus carry" because I know of no good reason not to allow it. Here, or anywhere else. This is not just based on criminology, but upon extensive firearms and self-defense training.Being afraid of guns is like being afraid of gay people. It makes no sense. The answer? Education!!Dr. Gee doesn't want any accurate weapons info at OSU, so that's how it is.Karl
Peter B
Dear anonymous, you wrote:
it comes down to erring on the side of caution, which is exactly what Gee is doing. The law permits the carrying of concealed weapons by those who have received permits, but, as a self-governing institution, OSU has every right to add their own rules within the confines of the law. OSU does not have the authority to regulate firearms under Ohio law. Please see Ohio Revised Code Sec 9.68 quoted in part:
(A) The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.
...
(C) As used in this section:
(1) The possession, transporting, or carrying of firearms, their components, or their ammunition include, but are not limited to, the possession, transporting, or carrying, openly or concealed on a person's person or concealed ready at hand, of firearms, their components, or their ammunition.
it comes down to erring on the side of caution, which is exactly what Gee is doing. The law permits the carrying of concealed weapons by those who have received permits, but, as a self-governing institution, OSU has every right to add their own rules within the confines of the law. OSU does not have the authority to regulate firearms under Ohio law. Please see Ohio Revised Code Sec 9.68 quoted in part:
(A) The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.
...
(C) As used in this section:
(1) The possession, transporting, or carrying of firearms, their components, or their ammunition include, but are not limited to, the possession, transporting, or carrying, openly or concealed on a person's person or concealed ready at hand, of firearms, their components, or their ammunition.
Anonymous
@ KarlThank you. You seem to be the only person here using any real logic. Not much would happen if Gee and OSU change their mind. It comes down to principles. However, I would caution against arguing for someone's right to carry a concealed weapon over someone's right to expect safety. It comes down to erring on the side of caution, which is exactly what Gee is doing. The law permits the carrying of concealed weapons by those who have received permits, but, as a self-governing institution, OSU has every right to add their own rules within the confines of the law. @ Totenglocke
There has been no evidence that CCW laws reduce the rate of sexual assaults and the only state in which it reduced the rate of murder was Florida. Nice try.
There has been no evidence that CCW laws reduce the rate of sexual assaults and the only state in which it reduced the rate of murder was Florida. Nice try.
Karl Spaulding
For what it's worth, James Wright, Peter Rossi and Gary Kleck would probably be considered "liberals." Kleck himself insists that he is.My longer post will not take. I tried four times. Whatever.Karl
Anonymous
"shall issue" laws lead to things like Florida's "Stand Your Ground" case that was invoked by the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case and once more with the Michael Dunn/Jordan Davis incident from earlier in the week. Yes, these are isolated incidents, but your referring to statistical data is no better. There is data to support both sides of the argument because the studies are conducted by organizations with agendas. Social science and criminology are hardly reliable sources of information. For every Lott and Mustard, there's a Black and Nagin. Liberal agenda? you say that as if there were no conservative agenda. Rather than rhetoric, you rely on questionable statistics and inciting fear by saying things like: "I'm going to be attacked, I need to protect myself."
Ryan G.
It's strange how restaurant and bar carry was passed in Ohio even with the claims of the "blood in the streets" that would follow, only to see that crime in such areas has dropped by 3%.For some reason, all the talk about that subject went away; yet, the uneducated believe campus-carry would be any different.The classic liberal agenda: argue points using rhetoric and wishful thinking while doing your best to discredit anyone offering any real empirical data. *cough, cough* Anon.
Anonymous
@redlegyou're absolutely correct. when people's civil liberties and rights are respected, i.e. someone's right not to be raped, crime rates go down. do not equate your privilege of carrying a weapon to someone's right to not experience crime. you and your comrades keep claiming that CCW on campus will prevent crime by acting as a deterrent. it doesn't. the action and the aggression will still exist because pulling out your weapon can only occur after that initial inciting incident. what carrying a concealed weapon will allow for is an immediate escalation of violence. you cannot call back a bullet once it is fired. @Joseph Hesterman, Ohio State StudentAs someone who has been mugged, I can assure you that I'm glad I was not armed and able to do something that would take away another person's right to live, despite his aggression toward me. Yes, it sucks being mugged, and yes it is a traumatizing experience that has left me looking over my shoulder every time I walk alone outside.The people on here arguing against the CCW law are not arguing against you alone. They are arguing that guns should not be allowed anywhere. The proliferation of violent weapons is not a deterrent from crime. The people who have CCW permits are not the ones to be afraid of in so far as starting an incident, but they sure as hell are arguing for a way to end incidents quickly and with excessive force.
Anon
"And what a coincidence that all of the anti-gun posts telling us to do our research goes away as soon as the real facts come. If anyone is fear mongering it's those that are afraid of CCW holders and for what purpose besides ignorance I cannot see."Just have better things to do than keep up with the rising tide of s**t spewing out of your mouths.
redleg
"Wow... glad to see such an outcry over the right to carry a concealed weapon when there is virtually no concern for the recent strings of sexual violence and hate crimes on campus over the past year. Nice priorities."hate crimes and sexual violence rates drop when certain civil rights are respected. the lawful carry of weapons onto campus can only decrease the instance of these crimes.
Karl Spaulding
The safest place for a concealed carry handgun is on one's person. Cars are indeed too easy to break into. However, there are extra locking devices to be used for guns in cars. Trusting a locked car to protect any valuables is not wise.As for a rash of stolen guns from colleges that allow concealed carry, we await evidence. :)The best way to stop the threat of gun theft from cars is to allow "on the body" carry, as usual, in most places. There are very few places where prohibiting guns makes much sense. Here are a couple:-MRI machines (no metal allowed near)
-self-defense training environments (only fake weapons allowed for most training)
-Presidential events (Secret Service rules apply here)There may be a few more, but those are all I can think of.At OSU, the only place I would question would be RPAC, for those who will be swimming and doing strenuous workouts or sports. Reinforced lockers may work for this, since regular lockers are not secure enough for my taste. Also, large events at the stadium may be questionable, but I have no info on this. My main fear would be a negligent discharge causing panic, not a crazed killer. Again, what evidence is there? Those who are against "campus carry" should be thinking about more realistic problems. Then we could have a more intelligent discussion.Keep in mind bad things may happen occasionally no matter what the laws allow, but fear based upon "campus carry" is not supported in the real world. If Ohio law changed to allow it, it would doubtless follow the same pattern that concealed carry laws have followed for the past twenty or so years:-Proposed carry law
-Public outcry and predictions of doom
-Law passes amid much publicity
-Nothing much happens...Same story, repeated in many states across the nation. The Doomsayers never seem to learn from history, do they? Karl
-self-defense training environments (only fake weapons allowed for most training)
-Presidential events (Secret Service rules apply here)There may be a few more, but those are all I can think of.At OSU, the only place I would question would be RPAC, for those who will be swimming and doing strenuous workouts or sports. Reinforced lockers may work for this, since regular lockers are not secure enough for my taste. Also, large events at the stadium may be questionable, but I have no info on this. My main fear would be a negligent discharge causing panic, not a crazed killer. Again, what evidence is there? Those who are against "campus carry" should be thinking about more realistic problems. Then we could have a more intelligent discussion.Keep in mind bad things may happen occasionally no matter what the laws allow, but fear based upon "campus carry" is not supported in the real world. If Ohio law changed to allow it, it would doubtless follow the same pattern that concealed carry laws have followed for the past twenty or so years:-Proposed carry law
-Public outcry and predictions of doom
-Law passes amid much publicity
-Nothing much happens...Same story, repeated in many states across the nation. The Doomsayers never seem to learn from history, do they? Karl
Joseph Hesterman, Ohio State Student
In these comments I see people accusing the people who wish for concealed carry on campus, "psychos" we are willing and ready to accept the responsibility of our own self defense. You ask any of the students this year that have been robbed on campus this year alone if they wish they had been armed, they wouldn't blink when they say yes. All we want is the right to protect ourselves coming on and off campus being able to go to our friends houses without being pistol whipped by a mugger on Indianola or 17th. If we are coming from campus we are disarmed. We feel it's our right to self defense. Empower the people not the thugs.
Anonymous
You're right, Wade, People who undergo the CCW license process are less likely to commit crimes. However, being allowed to bring weapons and store them "safely" in a vehicle on campus, where a large number of robberies take place, could potentially lead to more gun thefts, thus more guns in the hands of criminals. Your argument still has no logical bearing.
Wade
And what a coincidence that all of the anti-gun posts telling us to do our research goes away as soon as the real facts come. If anyone is fear mongering it's those that are afraid of CCW holders and for what purpose besides ignorance I cannot see.
Wade
What many of you don't seem to realize is that concealed carry does not mean you can just buy a handgun and carry it around. It requires a background check, thorough training course, a license, and upkeep on all of these to retain it. These "gun nuts" that so many of you fear have actually been proven in a 3 year study of Texas CHL(CCW) circa 2000 to be 13 times less likely to commit any crime than an average citizen. So not only do they choose to comply with all of our normal US/state laws but also with the added CCW laws. This was found by checking the arrest/crime rate of every CCW holder and comparing to the average. The fact that many of you are afraid of these "nuts" having guns on campus is laughable considering you have probably committed more crimes yourself. These people are safe, careful citizens that want the ability to protect family and friends if the need ever arises. Please explain how these people would make campus more dangerous.
is a member of the 
