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.

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

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.

Noops