Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: portlands new ruling does 166.260 overrule it?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Forest Grove OR
    Posts
    27

    portlands new ruling does 166.260 overrule it?

    with the recent headline http://www.katu.com/news/local/Portl...l?abc=kf8RRNt0

    would 166.260 override this without having a CHL?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    56
    You need the CHL to carry loaded in Portland.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Salem Oregon
    Posts
    19

    Right?

    So, in Portland, we have the right to bear arms with no teeth. I guess that means you need a "GOVERNMENT PERMITION SLIP" to bear arms that are useful in Portland.

    So, is it a "Right to Bear Arms", or a "Government Permission slip to Bear Arms"?

    Just Sayin

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by willigun View Post
    So, in Portland, we have the right to bear arms with no teeth. I guess that means you need a "GOVERNMENT PERMITION SLIP" to bear arms that are useful in Portland.

    So, is it a "Right to Bear Arms", or a "Government Permission slip to Bear Arms"?

    Just Sayin
    You are exactly correct.

  5. #5
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Since I'm not local, I had to google to find 166.260
    Looks like 1h (a license) is the only defense that would apply to most people for carrying concealed (166.250). Although 3a (going to or coming from a range) would be pretty easy to claim.
    The only thing it says about OC is that OC is not cc.
    Says nothing about the pistol being loaded.
    I hope this goes to SCOTUS. The OR SC ruling is just stupid.

    http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/166.html

    166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250. [unlawful possession of firearms]
    (1) ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affecta) Sheriffs, constables, marshals, parole and probation officers, police officers, whether active or honorably retired, or other duly appointed peace officers.
    (b) Any person summoned by any such officer to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace, while said person so summoned is actually engaged in assisting the officer.
    (c) The possession or transportation by any merchant of unloaded firearms as merchandise.
    (d) Active or reserve members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard or Marine Corps of the United States, or of the National Guard, when on duty.
    (e) Organizations which are by law authorized to purchase or receive weapons described in ORS 166.250 from the United States, or from this state.
    (f) Duly authorized military or civil organizations while parading, or the members thereof when going to and from the places of meeting of their organization.
    (g) A corrections officer while transporting or accompanying an individual convicted of or arrested for an offense and confined in a place of incarceration or detention while outside the confines of the place of incarceration or detention.
    (h) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.

    (2) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating ORS 166.250 (1)(c)(C) that the person has been granted relief from the disability under ORS 166.274.

    (3) Except for persons who are otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm under ORS 166.250 (1)(c) or 166.270, ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affect:
    (a) Members of any club or organization, for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets upon the established target ranges, whether public or private, while such members are using any of the firearms referred to in ORS 166.250 upon such target ranges, or while going to and from such ranges.
    (b) Licensed hunters or fishermen while engaged in hunting or fishing, or while going to or returning from a hunting or fishing expedition.

    (4) The exceptions listed in subsection (1)(b) to (h) of this section constitute affirmative defenses to a charge of violating ORS 166.250.
    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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by chadman View Post
    with the recent headline http://www.katu.com/news/local/Portl...l?abc=kf8RRNt0

    would 166.260 override this without having a CHL?
    The problem is ORS 166.173 which gives local government the authority to restrict unlicensed LOADED OPEN carry. Portland does go farther than the law allows only in the requirement to also have an unloaded magazine.

    This case did not answer the secondary question that is: "What does ORS 166.173(2)(c) actually mean?" the wording says "license to carry a concealed weapon" so, is my interpretation correct (I read that as "any license to carry a concealed weapon") or is the prevailing thought in OR that it means only an OR CHL.

    While it is well known and acknowledged that if you wish to conceal you must have an Oregon CHL, or meet an exemption in ORS 166.260, however, to be exempt from ORS 166.173 (and also exempt from whatever local law is based on that law) has not been through the courts yet,

  7. #7
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    snip... Looks like 1h (a license) is the only defense that would apply to most people for carrying concealed (166.250). .../snip
    MKEgal, having a CHL exempts a person from the Portland (and other cities in Oregon) unloaded carry ordinances.
    Having a CHL doesn't not require a person to carry CC, it just gives the person the option to carry CC or OC loaded.

    The part that needs challenging is the "unloaded magazine" part of Portland's ordinance which is not allowed by ORS 166.173.

    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    snip...the wording says "license to carry a concealed weapon" so, is my interpretation correct (I read that as "any license to carry a concealed weapon") or is the prevailing thought in OR that it means only an OR CHL.
    I can't quote it, but I believe that the courts have said that only an Oregon CHL counts since Oregon does not recognize any other state's CHL/CCL.
    I agree they should have been consistent in stating "A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun" rather than "A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun". As written you could make the argument, but I wouldn't want to have to.
    Last edited by Lord Sega; 08-19-2013 at 06:22 PM.
    "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

  8. #8
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Since carrying an unloaded weapon without a CHL is lawful and carrying a loaded one with a CHL is lawful, it occurs to me that the police, under the requirements of TERRY to non consensually stop an individual, would be required to have particularized suspicion that 1) the weapon is loaded and 2) that the carrier does not have a CHL.

    Absent particularized suspicion that the carrier fails to meet those criteria, the police would seem to be lacking the authority to detain (seize) a citizen in order to check (search) the load condition of the weapon and, if loaded, whether the carrier possesses a CHL. They could still attempt a "consensual" (i.e. intimidating presence, wiggle words, etc.) encounter in an attempt to get the citizen to "cooperate" and/or make an incriminating statement.

    It is seriously time to start pushing back against the BS in Portland by using existing laws and creating scenarios that further the cause. For instance, carry a weapon in a holster from which the police are incapable of removing it (even if that requires gluing the weapon into the holster). Imagine their consternation when they can't get the weapon out of the holster to check it and the carrier refuses to cooperate......you can't resist but neither do you have to cooperate. So, without any suspicion that the weapon is loaded, will they seize it? Seize the carrier? Toss in a belt from which the holster can't be removed and which is physically locked to the carrier and you can add yet another layer of confusion to the officers.

    Make sure everything is audio and video recorded by multiple resources and you have the makings of a civil suit, if they violate (they will) the carriers rights and there may be a bit of leverage to get Portland to revise their tyrannical BS.

    ALSO: The carrier should be "sterile" (i.e. no ID, no smart phone, etc.)
    Last edited by We-the-People; 08-19-2013 at 07:12 PM. Reason: Add last para
    "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.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Mattimusmaximus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hillsboro
    Posts
    261

    portlands new ruling does 166.260 overrule it?

    I'm okay with helpin out if you want to meet and greet in Portland? Ill film for anyone?


    -Matt of Hillsboro OR-

  10. #10
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Sega View Post

    I can't quote it, but I believe that the courts have said that only an Oregon CHL counts since Oregon does not recognize any other state's CHL/CCL.
    I agree they should have been consistent in stating "A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun" rather than "A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun". As written you could make the argument, but I wouldn't want to have to.
    That is very true for CONCEALED carry, to my knowledge there is no case as to the OPEN CARRY exemption for ORS 166.173(2)(c) a person that as a license to carry a concealed weapon. Remember (2)(d) is CHL specific. If (2)(c) is for only a CHL, why is there a (2)(d)?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    53

    You may want to look into the county ordinances as well.

    This just disgusts me but here it is.

    Multnomah county code 15.064 (C)

    It is unlawful for a person who possesses a firearm, clip or magazine in or upon a public place, or while in a vehicle in a public place, to refuse to permit a peace officer to inspect that firearm clip or magazine after the peace officer has identified himself or herself as such. The prohibitions of this subsection do not apply to or affect the persons listed in sub section (B) of this section.

    Source: web.multco.us/sites/default/files/county-attorney/documents/ch15.pdf page 7.

    Pretty much they want you to wear a scarlet letter and discourage you from carrying a firearm unless you identify yourself. Or carry without ammo and a permission slip.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    127
    ...i hope multnomah fails in enforcing that stupid and arrogant law.

    Also, I did not know the supreme court gave that much wiggle roo,...

  13. #13
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by BadMoon Risin68 View Post
    This just disgusts me but here it is.

    Multnomah county code 15.064 (C)

    It is unlawful for a person who possesses a firearm, clip or magazine in or upon a public place, or while in a vehicle in a public place, to refuse to permit a peace officer to inspect that firearm clip or magazine after the peace officer has identified himself or herself as such. The prohibitions of this subsection do not apply to or affect the persons listed in sub section (B) of this section.

    Source: web.multco.us/sites/default/files/county-attorney/documents/ch15.pdf page 7.

    Pretty much they want you to wear a scarlet letter and discourage you from carrying a firearm unless you identify yourself. Or carry without ammo and a permission slip.
    That can be challenged. Pretty much DOA. read US Supreme Court ruling in Delaware V Prouse. A random request to see a license for a licensed activity (and that licensed activity is only the only reason for the request) is illegal. Black applied that to OC, but that applies only in the 4th circuit right now. The 10th had a similar ruling in Thompson.

Posting Permissions

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