Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Multnomah county passes anti-gun ordinances

  1. #1
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Multnomah county passes anti-gun ordinances

    So here's a quick rundown per OFF:

    Loaded Open Carry without CHL is banned
    Loaded magazines and speed loaders are banned in public places including car anywhere within the county
    You must allow police to inspect possessed magazines even if you don't have a gun
    Only bank security guards can be armed, other armed guards are prohibited

    And more but those are the ones that apply to carry. I would include a URL but OFF reports that it keeps changing so I won't waste our time.

    Sounds like it's time to make a trip to Multnomah county and exercise some rights.
    "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.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317

    My read on this...

    Well... We stopped the ineffectual gun laws at the Fed level (for now), but we have to watch the city, county, and state levels.
    Multnomah county has just passed (5-0) several laws that will do nothing to stop gun violence.
    LINK

    THESE TAKE EFFECT IN 30 DAYS (25 MAY 2013) !!!

    1) No loaded carry in public places. This is allowed under state preemption, BUT like Portland, magazine must also be unloaded, this makes self-defense or defense of others next to impossible, and this unloaded mag requirement is VOID under ORS 166.170. Several exemptions, including CHL, but how does anyone know if you have a CHL or are unloaded? Stop & detain & search... gives excuse for bypassing 4th amendment rights.

    2) Unlawful to discharge a firearm. Already covered under state law... redundant. This could effect rural areas of Multnomah county where people can currently target shoot on their own land, not sure on this.

    3) Endangering a child by allowing access to a firearm. At least it doesn't require locked up or disabled (they have tried to pass this), but law abiding persons keep positive control of their firearms. This will only come into effect if a kids do get hold of a weapon and there is an incident, at which time you have much more to worry about than 10 days jail & $500. Also, surprise home inspections by DHS could be an issue.

    4) Failure to report theft of firearm. Doesn't stop crime, but penalizes the victims of crime. Law abiding persons are going to report theft of valuables (firearms are spendy), but $2500 fine if you don't within 48 hrs and have the serial number $200 administrative fine.

    5) Curfew for minors with a previous weapons conviction. Ok, but how do you enforce this if other minors can be out later... stop & ID every minor that is out after the special curfew but before the normal curfew? Stop & detain & search... gives excuse for bypassing 4th amendment rights of minors.
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Gresham Oregon
    Posts
    24
    The wait for my CCW has been long enough without these new laws. I still have to wait until July just to get printed.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Cremator75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    393

    Re: Multnomah county passes anti-gun ordinances

    So it looks as though there are no changes that affect CHL holders? Still sucks for those that don't have one.

    The only people that will be safer are the criminals that we all know (except apparently the people that write this crazy stuff) will carry regardless of written law.

  5. #5
    Regular Member PistolPackingPagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Portland, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    7

    OK what about the new School Law?

    Does that affect CWP carriers? The way it was seeming to be worded it only seem to BE affecting CWP owners since if you didnt have a CWP you couldn't bring a gun on school property already, or is this part of the Feel Good Laws that are already there but they are making laws on again?

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Cremator75 View Post
    So it looks as though there are no changes that affect CHL holders? Still sucks for those that don't have one.

    The only people that will be safer are the criminals that we all know (except apparently the people that write this crazy stuff) will carry regardless of written law.
    Except that you be harassed ... do CHL holders care? They should.

  7. #7
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Except that you be harassed ... do CHL holders care? They should.
    That's a big problem the way I see it. With CHL shall issue and fairly common, what would an officers REASONABLE articulable suspicion be that an open carrier was committing a crime (i.e. loaded carry with no CHL)? 1) Unloaded Carry is legal without CHL and 2) Loaded Carry is legal with CHL. Seems the officer would need to have a REASONABLE suspicion that the observed carrier was a) Loaded AND b) has no CHL. Seems a bit of a stretch to me and the Supreme Court has clearly stated that there must be RAS of a crime before an officer can detain you. It's the same with the "We have to detain you until we determine if you're a felon in possession" line. NO, SORRY, you can not do that. Seems the same would apply in this case though there will have to be a "test case" before we know for sure.

    As for the Magazine and other restrictions that go beyond the allowances of 166.173, those need to be taken to court for an injunction or whatever legal jujitsu it is that smacks them....AND PORTLAND.....back into their proper place.
    "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.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    That's a big problem the way I see it. With CHL shall issue and fairly common, what would an officers REASONABLE articulable suspicion be that an open carrier was committing a crime (i.e. loaded carry with no CHL)? 1) Unloaded Carry is legal without CHL and 2) Loaded Carry is legal with CHL. Seems the officer would need to have a REASONABLE suspicion that the observed carrier was a) Loaded AND b) has no CHL. Seems a bit of a stretch to me and the Supreme Court has clearly stated that there must be RAS of a crime before an officer can detain you. It's the same with the "We have to detain you until we determine if you're a felon in possession" line. NO, SORRY, you can not do that. Seems the same would apply in this case though there will have to be a "test case" before we know for sure.

    As for the Magazine and other restrictions that go beyond the allowances of 166.173, those need to be taken to court for an injunction or whatever legal jujitsu it is that smacks them....AND PORTLAND.....back into their proper place.
    Just so I'm clear, if I have a CHL I can have a loaded mag CC. If I have a CHL I can NOT have a loaded mag OC?

  9. #9
    Activist Member bwboley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Portland/Vancouver, ,
    Posts
    252
    From what i read if you have a chl by oregon, you can carry as you wish because oregon is open carry and they cant over step state

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    7

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nampa, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePinkGoat View Post
    According to their own statement all they can do is regulate the discharge of firearms.

    "Why is the County considering this ordinance?
    Gun violence kills about 30,000 Americans each year and injures more than twice as many,
    according to the Centers for Disease Control. Many of these deaths and injuries are
    preventable. Right now, Federal, State and local governments are looking for ways to
    reduce the violence caused by guns. Oregon law authorizes counties to adopt ordinances to
    regulate, restrict or prohibit the discharge of firearms within their boundaries."

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    7

    asdf

    Quote Originally Posted by carracer View Post
    According to their own statement all they can do is regulate the discharge of firearms.

    "Why is the County considering this ordinance?
    Gun violence kills about 30,000 Americans each year and injures more than twice as many,
    according to the Centers for Disease Control. Many of these deaths and injuries are
    preventable. Right now, Federal, State and local governments are looking for ways to
    reduce the violence caused by guns. Oregon law authorizes counties to adopt ordinances to
    regulate, restrict or prohibit the discharge of firearms within their boundaries."
    IMO, they are simply taking small steps to control our rights. Regardless of statistics. Gun violence is but one statistic. Yet they choose guns to regulate.

  13. #13
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePinkGoat View Post
    Just so I'm clear, if I have a CHL I can have a loaded mag CC. If I have a CHL I can NOT have a loaded mag OC?
    Read ORS 166.170 and 166.173.

    170 is state preemption. ONLY the legislature can regulate, in any manner, firearms, ammunition, accessories, and a list of other things unless it specifically grants authority to do so to some political subdivision of the state.

    173 grants that specific authority to cities and counties (but no other political subdivision) to regulate the carry of loaded firearms.

    Those with a CHL are specifically exempted from any ordinances created under the 173 authorization.

    With a CHL, their ordinance does not apply, including their void (per 170 & 173) loaded magazine restrictions.
    "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.

  14. #14
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    I find this interesting... My highlights:

    What if I have a Concealed Handgun License from another state?
    This ordinance applies to you if you have a Concealed Handgun License from a state other
    than Oregon. You cannot carry a concealed handgun in Oregon unless you have an Oregon
    CHL, which you can obtain only in the county of your residence. No other state’s permit is
    recognized or acknowledged.

    What is stated here is true. However, What its not stated here is important.... it is not true when it comes to OC that you must have an OR CHL. The law clearly stated a holder of a permit to carry exempts you from any ORS 166.173 restriction by a local government. (ORS 166.173(2)(c) A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun

    Everywhere a ORS 166.291-292 CHL is required (as in ORS 166.370) it is very clearly specified that it MUST be a license issued under .291-292, or it is linked to that specification (as in ORS 166.173(2)(d) A person authorized to possess a loaded firearm while in or on a public building or court facility under ORS 166.370 (Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility).

  15. #15
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    I find this interesting... My highlights:

    What if I have a Concealed Handgun License from another state?
    This ordinance applies to you if you have a Concealed Handgun License from a state other
    than Oregon. You cannot carry a concealed handgun in Oregon unless you have an Oregon
    CHL, which you can obtain only in the county of your residence. No other state’s permit is
    recognized or acknowledged.

    What is stated here is true. However, What its not stated here is important.... it is not true when it comes to OC that you must have an OR CHL. The law clearly stated a holder of a permit to carry exempts you from any ORS 166.173 restriction by a local government. (ORS 166.173(2)(c) A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun

    Everywhere a ORS 166.291-292 CHL is required (as in ORS 166.370) it is very clearly specified that it MUST be a license issued under .291-292, or it is linked to that specification (as in ORS 166.173(2)(d) A person authorized to possess a loaded firearm while in or on a public building or court facility under ORS 166.370 (Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility).
    Agree but wouldn't want to be the test case as I can almost guarantee that the police will NOT recognize the nuance of the law leaving the carrier using this lack of specification of an Oregon CHL to OC to "tell it to the judge". A spendy proposition.
    "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.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    The Second Amendment
    A well regulated Militia, being
    necessary to the security of a
    free State, the right of the
    people to keep and bear Arms,
    shall not be infringed.


    The Fourteenth Amendment
    Section 1:
    No State shall make or enforce
    any law which shall abridge the
    privileges or immunities of citizens
    of the United States.


    ----------------------------

    Even requiring a CHL to carry concealed is UNLAWFUL.


    I will not beg THE STATE for permission to carry how and where I choose.



    Where the heck is the Constitutional Carry movement in Oregon? AK, AZ, VT (of all places), and WY actually follow the Constitution, more need to follow.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Cremator75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    393

    Re: Multnomah county passes anti-gun ordinances

    +1

    I wish there were more vocal people in our major cities.
    Last edited by Cremator75; 05-01-2013 at 05:43 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by carracer
    Gun violence kills about 30,000 Americans each year and injures more than twice as many,
    according to the Centers for Disease Control.
    Wonder how they came up with numbers that are so much different from the CDC?
    CDC says about 11,000 people per year die from guns used in assaults.
    I'm guessing the city is including suicides in "gun violence", that's another 18K... even though controlling access to firearms doesn't reduce suicide (or murder).
    (These are 2009 CDC data http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_04.pdf)

    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People
    wouldn't want to be the test case ... A spendy proposition.
    Quote Originally Posted by LordSega
    Law abiding persons are going to report theft of valuables (firearms are spendy)
    Those are the only 2 times I've seen 'spendy' used outside of WI & MN.
    Did you 2 grow up here?
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  19. #19
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    SNIP
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    Those are the only 2 times I've seen 'spendy' used outside of WI & MN.
    Did you 2 grow up here?

    Nope, just edjumacated.
    "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.

  20. #20
    Activist Member bwboley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Portland/Vancouver, ,
    Posts
    252

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    Wonder how they came up with numbers that are so much different from the CDC?
    CDC says about 11,000 people per year die from guns used in assaults.
    I'm guessing the city is including suicides in "gun violence", that's another 18K... even though controlling access to firearms doesn't reduce suicide (or murder).
    (These are 2009 CDC data http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_04.pdf)



    Those are the only 2 times I've seen 'spendy' used outside of WI & MN.
    Did you 2 grow up here?
    i say spendy all the time, then again im from the chicago area

Posting Permissions

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