MARION, Ohio -- Whether Ohio State University students should be permitted to carry firearms on campus and at university functions was questioned Wednesday morning at the Marion County Courthouse.
The goal of the court hearing was to evaluate if a jury trial would be warranted for a lawsuit filed against the university in November 2016 by Lawyers for Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Students for Concealed Carry Foundation and a former employee at the university's Marion branch who is now a student there.
That suit challenges existing procedures that rule students, faculty and staff are not allowed to carry weapons — even if they have a valid license to do so — anywhere on campus. The only caveat to the regulation is that faculty and staff — no students — who have concealed carry permits are allowed to store their firearms inside a locked vehicle while on campus, following a change to the rules in March 2017.
The outcome of the case could affect all OSU branch locations throughout the state.
Marion County Common Pleas Court Jim Slagle spent nearly two hours Wednesday listening to attorneys representing both the plaintiff and OSU.
The university's legal counsel asked the judge to consider dismissing the lawsuit, because they believe students, faculty and staff agreed to the no-firearm regulations when they signed contracts associating them with the university.
"I'll want to know what the people think the issues are at the trial," the judge said. "It's a little murky here."
One of the issues discussed during the hearing brought into question the extent of the university's governance.
Attorney Michael R. Moran, who represented the plaintiffs, told Slagle he believes the university's policies are regulations, not laws, since the state institution is not a governing body. He added that state law governing the carrying of firearms was written broadly so that it could be challenged and strengthened properly through the court systems.
Moran said he believes a "long-arm" interpretation of the regulation would prohibit students who are enrolled in online classes through the university from keeping a firearm in their own home, if they ever do any of their schoolwork there.
Doug Cole, who spoke on behalf of OSU, said the plaintiffs are pursing only a facial challenge, asking the court to render "void ab initio" (to be treated as invalid from the outset) all the challenged provisions in their entirety. He said be believes the contracts in question contained a list of provisions and that they are a consent agreement between the university and its students, faculty and staff.
The university agreed to provide the plaintiffs with a copy of its disciplinary records; Moran said he wants to see if anyone has been reprimanded for breaking the no-firearm regulation.
Slagle made no ruling Wednesday on whether the case would go to trial and set no court date, but did say another meeting would be scheduled sometime this spring.
Moran said his clients are not seeking damages: they want the regulations to be changed in compliance with state law, and they want the university to cover all of their legal fees accrued throughout the duration of the case.
