Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: So, court date @ Newport Municipal

  1. #1
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098

    So, court date @ Newport Municipal

    I figured I would have to call ahead of time. See if their building had a provision for carriers to check in/secure their weapon.

    The admin lady Kathy told me that she had never been asked that question before and that she was unsure of the answer. You'll have to ask the NPD, as they are in the same building they would be better equipped to answer.

    I did as such. Sounded like a dispatch lady not an admin office. Anyway, asked the very simple question again.

    "Does the Municipal Courthouse have a provision or are they equipped for checking in the weapons of LAC's who happen to be carrying.

    Her answer was "Weapons of any kind are NOT allowed in any of the city owned building in Newport for any reason".

    I let her know that didn't answer my question, and asked again if they were equipped to check them in, or are we expected to lock them up in our vehicles.

    "They are to be locked up in your trunk".

    Surprised to know she seems to think we aren't allowed in any city owned building.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Just curious, did you provide her with a cite to the preemption law?

    Did you ask to speak to a supervisor?

    I had a similar conversation with a police dispatch lady a few years ago, in another state with preemption, with similar results, and those are both things I wish I had done.
    Last edited by ManInBlack; 03-19-2012 at 07:06 PM.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  3. #3
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    Just curious, did you provide her with a cite to the preemption law?

    Did you ask to speak to a supervisor?

    I had a similar conversation with a police dispatch lady a few years ago, in another state with preemption, with similar results, and those are both things I wish I had done.
    Didn't ask any such thing or even attempt to argue about it. I am really unconcerned with their thoughts or opinions of the law. I am not familar with their layout of this courthouse which is most certainly why I called in advance to see if they were equipped for it or not.

    That being the case, it still would not deter me from carrying in other city owned buildings of which permit holders are exempt from restrictions.

    According to 166.360 their "Municipal Court" isn't even considered a "Court Facility". It lists specifically

    - Circuit Court
    - Court of Appeals
    - Supreme Court of Oregon
    - Oregon Tax Court

    Or is a Municipal Court considered a Circuit Court in eyes of the law?
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nampa, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,096
    Typical Newport response. I went to the Linclol County sheriff dept office in the courthouse to get an application for nonresident conceal permit. The receptionist told me not to bother as they will not issue to non residents for any reason. Her excuse? "We don't want other people carrying guns here".

    Also remember, Newport is a non loaded city unless you have a permission slip.
    Last edited by carracer; 03-20-2012 at 01:51 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Salem, Or
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by carracer View Post
    Typical Newport response. I went to the Linclol County sheriff dept office in the courthouse to get an application for nonresident conceal permit. The receptionist told me not to bother as they will not issue to non residents for any reason. Her excuse? "We don't want other people carrying guns here".

    Also remember, Newport is a non loaded city unless you have a permission slip.


    From what I understand Grant county is your best shot. Try Umatill county as well.

    Mike

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nampa, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Trap View Post
    From what I understand Grant county is your best shot. Try Umatill county as well.

    Mike
    Thank you!

  7. #7
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Carracer!

    Sheriff Palmer has a form/check list for Grant Co online (just google it) IMHO he is #1...but Umitilla is closer to ID and is good too. You can use Sheriff Palmers Check list so you are ready to go where ever you wish to make you app.

    BTW; the OC restrictions in OR are for those that do not have any license (from anywhere) with one exception...public buildings,,,there you need an actual OR CHL. The "unloaded carry" crap in any of these burgs (like Portland...and Newport), you only need some legit authority's license to carry loaded. Newport Muni code 8.20.005...it is still nothing as they do not provide for the discharge of a firearm in SD.
    Last edited by hermannr; 03-20-2012 at 07:09 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    I figured I would have to call ahead of time. See if their building had a provision for carriers to check in/secure their weapon.

    The admin lady Kathy told me that she had never been asked that question before and that she was unsure of the answer. You'll have to ask the NPD, as they are in the same building they would be better equipped to answer.

    I did as such. Sounded like a dispatch lady not an admin office. Anyway, asked the very simple question again.

    "Does the Municipal Courthouse have a provision or are they equipped for checking in the weapons of LAC's who happen to be carrying.

    Her answer was "Weapons of any kind are NOT allowed in any of the city owned building in Newport for any reason".

    I let her know that didn't answer my question, and asked again if they were equipped to check them in, or are we expected to lock them up in our vehicles.

    "They are to be locked up in your trunk".

    Surprised to know she seems to think we aren't allowed in any city owned building.
    Talking through her back side...muni codse here http://www.thecityofnewport.net/dept...icipalCode.pdf

    8.20.005 on page 229 for weapons. Obviously a bunch of displaced Portland D's in this politically correct town.

  9. #9
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    Talking through her back side...muni codse here http://www.thecityofnewport.net/dept...icipalCode.pdf

    8.20.005 on page 229 for weapons. Obviously a bunch of displaced Portland D's in this politically correct town.
    I figured as much. I didn't go digging for it, as I am a permit holder and whatever charge they'd toss my way if hassled or arrested I would defend. Given that whatever city ordinance wouldn't mean much to a permit holder in a court of law.

    Just wanted to know what I'm jumping into there at there "Municipal Courthouse", and whether I would be missing my traffic court date pushing an issue of carrying there and checking it in, etc or not.

    I still need to put a lawyer on retainer, but I haven't found one I really like that knows enough about this sort of stuff to make me feel comfortable. Last attorney I talked with didn't even know OC was legal, so I scratched him off the list.

    I will print that section out however to show Kathy and perhaps whoever it was I spoke with at the PD to better educate them perhaps.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  10. #10
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Municipal Courts in the state of Oregon are not "Court Facilities" per state law and therefore are NOT prohibited areas for CHL holders to carry (ORS 166.360(2). Now that's the LAW...but anyone who has been here any amount of time knows that the LAW isn't always the way things work. For some reason our supposed SERVANTS only like to follow the LAW when it suits their opinions and desires.

    Further, ORS 166.370 (1) prohibits carry in "public buildings or court facilities" while 166.370 (3)(d) specifically exempts OREGON CHL holders from the restrictions on carrying in PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

    An OREGON CHL is required in order to be exempt from public building restrictions. Since Municipal Courts are NOT included in teh definiton of "court facilities" then they are merely "public buildings" (of course they might be co-located within a "Court Facility" in which case the nuance of the law would be moot.


    REFERENCES:

    166.360 Definitions for ORS 166.360 to 166.380. As used in ORS 166.360 to 166.380, unless the context requires otherwise:
    (2) “Court facility” means a courthouse or that portion of any other building occupied by a circuit court, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court or the Oregon Tax Court or occupied by personnel related to the operations of those courts, or in which activities related to the operations of those courts take place.

    NOTE that no where is Municipal Court mentioned

    166.370 Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging firearm at school.
    (1) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony.

    (2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person who intentionally possesses:

    (A) A firearm in a court facility is guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C felony. A person who intentionally possesses a firearm in a court facility shall surrender the firearm to a law enforcement officer.

    (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
    (d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    lincoln city
    Posts
    84

    municipal district?

    166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly. (2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]

    Doesn't state preemption prohibit the "municipal corporation or district" or in their words "municipal court" from regulating firearms¿

  12. #12
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by nny420 View Post
    166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly. (2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]

    Doesn't state preemption prohibit the "municipal corporation or district" or in their words "municipal court" from regulating firearms¿
    The operative part of 166.170 to this discussion is bolded above.... "Except as expressly authorized by state statute".... so with ORS 166.360 defining a "Court Facility" without including municipal courts in the definition, they didn't give that express authority.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  13. #13
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    So. The court is located at City Hall. There is no security checkpoint or signage on the building. Nor is there security check or signage on the courtroom itself.

    Just FYI.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  14. #14
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Good luck sir. I imagine you'll be fine.

  15. #15
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    Good luck sir. I imagine you'll be fine.
    Oh. Yes. Also the update is I won. Completely outclassed the officer with information, pictures and his own dashcam video (in which he did not wish to submit).

    Judge looked at him like he had kicked a kitten. He was that disappointed with the officer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nampa, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,096
    Not to be nosey....but.... some details?

  17. #17
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Was in Newport for the weekend. With my wife and her step mother.

    I turned left from an intersection (with a stop sign) onto a road called Coast st. The officer was headed towards us on Coast after the turn. He immediately got over off the side of the road to make a U Turn and follow us.

    Where he pulled off the road was a full two blocks away, not to mention even farther than that was downhill (which is pretty steep). With cars parked on the side of Coast St, and being 2 1/2 blocks at the very least (he was likely further) there was ZERO possibility for him to see us at all, let alone if we had stopped or not. What likely caught his attention is the lack of front license plate on my NB here.

    Dressed in a suit and tie and some snappy shoes. The Honorable Jeffrey Pridgeon entered the room and actually asked that everyone stay seated. We began and the Judge listened to the officer and what he observed that day. He also made note that the officer after reviewing his dashcam footage wished not to include that in evidence. Then it was my turn. I asked the officer if he recalled the speed at which he was travelling that morning. He answered that he did not know. Which is perfect, that he did not recall important details. That is all that I asked of him.

    I presented my overhead shots taken from Google maps showing the positions of all the parked vehicles and where the pedestrians were and which directions they were travelling. It showed as well, where the officer pulled off the road to turn around and follow. It was as close as he got to us was 2 entire blocks away, which put him about 2 and a half blocks from when I was at the stop sign. It was shown that from the distance he was travelling and his direction that his sight line between himself and my vehicle was greatly obscured, not only by parked vehicles, but being downhill.

    I made sure to point out that ALL of these vehicles and pedestrians could clearly been seen in the dashcam video that the officer wished not to be in evidence. I pointed out that I did indeed have a copy and was prepared to show it if needed. (I did take screenshots and printed them out with my overhead view packet) From that the Judge said that actually having to watch the video was not needed.

    I got to fully explain the stop, and transcribed EXACTLY what the officer said, and my responses. The Judge smirked slyly when I got to the part where I flatly refused to answer questions without my lawyer present.

    I got to call Jayme as a witness, who testified about the pedestrians we waited for at the intersection. She did very well. The officer at this point was beading sweat on his brow.

    The Judge went on to ask the officer if my rendition of the overhead view was correct, including as to where he pulled off to complete his illegal U-Turn to follow. The officer held his head low and and told him that it was indeed correct.

    The Judge then looked at the officer with great disappointment like he had kicked a kitten. Announced that given the amount of evidence shown in the pictures from the dashcam video and the overhead that The State has not met its requirement to show a preponderance of evidence that Mr. (Me) made the violation. He dismissed the case and wished us a good day. Success! Also, no. I did not commit the violation. I successfully pushed back against the NPD and have emerged victorious! I prefer not to be stuck with a BS ticket for a violation to begin with.

    In the parking lot back to the car, the officer stopped in his cruiser when driving past and made the comment. "I've got to give you an "A" for effort". An A for effort? Man, I out classed you in that courtroom. Pffft. A for effort indeed.

    Also, given the particular environment and the Judge appeared to be in good spirits I didn't feel it appropriate to ask for permission to record the proceedings. I didn't feel it necessary to record at all. The Judge was fair and impartial.
    Last edited by VW_Factor; 04-17-2012 at 03:28 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nampa, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,096
    Fantastic! A for effort...indeed!

    Did you leave your carry locked in your car or did they provide a secure location?

  19. #19
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by carracer View Post
    Fantastic! A for effort...indeed!

    Did you leave your carry locked in your car or did they provide a secure location?
    They don't have secure anything there at the city hall or even for the court room (which was my initial reason for bumping the thread).

    My wife and I secured our sidearms in the vehicle while in court and retrieved them later to finish our business outside of the courtroom.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  20. #20
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Kudos vw
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •