Multnomah county passes anti-gun ordinances

So here's a quick rundown per OFF:


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.

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.

The wait for my CCW has been long enough without these new laws. I still have to wait until July just to get printed.

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.

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?

Cremator75 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Except that you be harassed ... do CHL holders care? They should.

davidmcbeth said:

Except that you be harassed ... do CHL holders care? They should.

Click to expand...

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.

We-the-People said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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

Link

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kptv/KPTV/story_pdfs/multcogunfaq.pdf


^^^ Correct Information

ThePinkGoat said:

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kptv/KPTV/story_pdfs/multcogunfaq.pdf


^^^ Correct Information

Click to expand...

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."

asdf

carracer said:

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."

Click to expand...

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.

ThePinkGoat said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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).

hermannr said:

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).

Click to expand...

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
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.

+1

I wish there were more vocal people in our major cities.

carracer said:

Gun violence kills about 30,000 Americans each year and injures more than twice as many,
according to the Centers for Disease Control.

Click to expand...

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)

We-the-People said:

wouldn't want to be the test case ... A spendy proposition.

Click to expand...

LordSega said:

Law abiding persons are going to report theft of valuables (firearms are spendy)

Click to expand...

Those are the only 2 times I've seen 'spendy' used outside of WI & MN.
Did you 2 grow up here?

SNIP

MKEgal said:

Those are the only 2 times I've seen 'spendy' used outside of WI & MN.
Did you 2 grow up here?

Click to expand...

Nope, just edjumacated.

MKEgal said:

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?

Click to expand...

i say spendy all the time, then again im from the chicago area