Portland's loaded firearm ban upheld

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/24/50550.htm

"A sharply divided Oregon appeals court upheld Portland's ban on carrying loaded firearms in public, affirming a lower court's conviction of city resident on a pair of concealed weapons charges.

Jonathan Christian was charged with carrying a concealed firearm without a permit, in violation of Oregon law, and of carrying a loaded firearm in a public place, in violation of a Portland ordinance. The district court convicted him on both counts, despite Christian's demurrer that the laws violated the Second Amendment..."

Does Oregon have any RKBA organizations? Is there any hope for full preemption?

Does not mean anything ... will be decided by a higher court no matter how it was ruled upon here.

If the guy has the $$ to move forward that is.

He should have known better than to carry concealed without a license. That is state law. If he would have been OC he would have a better chance of challenging Portland's statute of no loaded OC without a license.

Does Oregon have any RKBA organizations? Is there any hope for full preemption?

BB62 said:

Does Oregon have any RKBA organizations? Is there any hope for full preemption?

Click to expand...

http://oregonfirearms.org/

Although I don't know if even Kevin Starrett himself would touch this one.

I think that the city code violation is more of a add on charge. If you are gunna conceal w/o a permit be ready for the piling on when you get caught. I wonder what would have been the outcome if he had a CPL.

Nothing, because there would have been no laws broken.

I still don't unerstand: 1: Why he had a loaded weapon in his backpack? (was he going hiking? that works in WA but not OR) and 2: Why did his backpack get searched by the police???? #2 is the really strange one, at least to me.

As to having a concealed weapon without a permit, and not meeting a .260 exemption...well....know the law.

Wow, that's some screwy sounding "logic" on the part of the majority. The way I read it they're saying that a lawful CHL holder is being reckless by carrying a loaded firearm in public?

"It does not prohibit a person with a permit to carry concealed weapons from knowingly carrying a not-unloaded firearm in a public place. It does not prohibit a person from carrying a recklessly not-unloaded weapon in a public place in order to engage in justified conduct - reasonable defense of self against felonious attack,"

I can't see that kind of "logic" surviving further appeal...then again, judges seem to try to rewrite things all the time so you just never know.