Long-time readers may recall me blegging for a legal opinion a while back. I was — and still am — trying to determine a clear answer to the question:
Is it legal or illegal for a state employee to carry a licensed, concealed firearm into state office buildings?
A couple of updates since then:
- DAS policy #125-06-321 seems to have disappeared off the Interwebz. Perhaps it has been rescinded?
- Other agencies have enacted their own agency-specific "no weapons" policies to replace it.
Now, I get this from the Oregon Firearms Federation: Kate Brown Prohibits Self Defense For State Workers:
The Department of Administrative Services, at the direction of Governor Kate Brown, has adopted a policy prohibiting all state employees from having a licensed firearm for self defense on "all property and facilities owned, leased, rented or otherwise occupied by the Oregon state government including grounds, buildings, parking structures and lots, vehicles and other equipment and any site where an employee enters on behalf of the employee's employment with Oregon state government except for an employee's home (including employees who live in state housing)…"
This policy extends to "All employees, including limited duration and temporary employees, board and commission members, volunteers, and others working in an agency…" [emphasis in original]
[blink blink]
Apparently either the Oregon Department of Administrative Services did not learn from its past mistake, or they are getting pressured by the Brown Administration to re-enact anti-gun policies.
But is it a legal policy, as in "supported by applicable law"? Further analysis below the fold.
Do we have any legal professionals in the audience? Preferably licensed in Oregon?
I have a question for any legal minds out there, and would love to figure this problem out. I'm trying to determine the answer to this question:
Is it legal or illegal for a state employee to carry a licensed, concealed firearm into state office buildings?
For the purposes of this bleg, I'm strictly concerned with the legalities. Whether it's a "condition of employment" is another matter for another time.
Please don't be shy; all opinions are welcome, and I won't consider any of them actual "legal advice" — unless the commenter is an Oregon-licensed attorney, and positively affirms that his/her comment can be taken as a legal opinion. I'm mostly just group-testing my logic.
[ADDED:] I should note this is all my own cursory research, and although I believe the conclusions are valid — or at least call into question the "conventional knowledge" described herein — I feel a disclaimer is necessary, so here it is: I am not a lawyer or judge, and this should not in any way be taken as legal advice. In fact, in this post I am asking if anyone can offer a legal opinion or any law/statute/rule/policy or case law I may have missed. Thanks. [/ADDED]
Details and analysis below the fold.
