Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Ashland, OR effort to target open carriers deserves NATO doctrine response!

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Ashland, OR effort to target open carriers deserves NATO doctrine response!

    http://www.chinookobserver.com/news/...f911e0f47.html

    SNIP

    Ashland, Ore.-- An ordinance in Ashland against loaded open carry guns will be voted on May 6th. But not everyone is happy about that.

    Saturday at Ashland's Lithia Park a group got together with their guns to demonstrate that open carrying can be safe and peaceful.

    It was called 'Open Carry Day' and a barbecue put together by Liberty Ashland and the Oregon Firearms Federation.

    Ashland City Council members said the ordinance would only apply to people who do not have concealed weapon licenses. Those people would not be allowed to carry a loaded gun in Ashland if it passed.
    -------
    my comment - I think you Oregon guys need to mass focus on this Ashland proposal - key point to make is that the ordinance is unenforceable and will lead to law suits against police and city since 4th Amendment precludes police officers from checking load status of guns unless the officers have 2 sets of RAS simultaneously - that the guns are loaded AND that the person does not have a license to carry a concealed handgun. Every police stop of an open carrier is actionable under the Fourth Amendment for damages and injunctive relief. The ordinance is unenforceable (illegal police stops + suppression of evidence) and will cause a war between the people and the police we don't need.

  2. #2
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    http://www.chinookobserver.com/news/...f911e0f47.html

    SNIP

    Ashland, Ore.-- An ordinance in Ashland against loaded open carry guns will be voted on May 6th. But not everyone is happy about that.

    Saturday at Ashland's Lithia Park a group got together with their guns to demonstrate that open carrying can be safe and peaceful.

    It was called 'Open Carry Day' and a barbecue put together by Liberty Ashland and the Oregon Firearms Federation.

    Ashland City Council members said the ordinance would only apply to people who do not have concealed weapon licenses. Those people would not be allowed to carry a loaded gun in Ashland if it passed.
    -------
    my comment - I think you Oregon guys need to mass focus on this Ashland proposal - key point to make is that the ordinance is unenforceable and will lead to law suits against police and city since 4th Amendment precludes police officers from checking load status of guns unless the officers have 2 sets of RAS simultaneously - that the guns are loaded AND that the person does not have a license to carry a concealed handgun. Every police stop of an open carrier is actionable under the Fourth Amendment for damages and injunctive relief. The ordinance is unenforceable (illegal police stops + suppression of evidence) and will cause a war between the people and the police we don't need.
    These points were made preemptively with the first "shot across the bow" which I made prior to the ordinance making the council agenda. Video of that "presentation" can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmDbOBfgzyA

    After that presentation, another local made a masterful satirical presentation to the council advocating the banning of items which kill far more children.....knives, buckets, swimming pools, etc. Delivered in his native UK accent and with a totally straight face and unwavering voice, video of that 5 minute presentation went viral with 225,000 hits on youtube in 3 1/2 days (402,000 hits to date).

    The Chief of police is on record to the council stating that Ashland does not have a problem with gun violence and that while the occasional open carrier does generate calls, they have never had an issue with any open carrier. When asked if it the proposed ordinances would be a useful tool for his department he said that they did not need it and that it would be basically little more than a statement of community values.

    The initial ordinances, there were two of them, included a ban on loaded carry, a requirement to have magazines empty of ammunition even if not in the weapon, and a requirement to produce documentation of an exemption or allow an inspection of the weapon. As Oregon state law preempts local ordinances and states that they cannot affect CHL holders this would have been a can of worms as was pointed out and verified by the Chief. The second ordinance was an attempt at an "end around" on state preemption which prohibits local government from regulating the storage of firearms, ammunition, etc. by calling it a "child protection" ordinance.

    In the first session (a study session) in which the council considered the ordinances, the city attorney explained the legalities (which had previously been pointed out by activists) and the litigious nightmare they might find themselves in. As a result, the council directed the attorney to redraft the ordinance(s) (they had been written by anti gun activists) in a way which would be likely to survive any legal challenge. At their next meeting, he presented a single ordinance covering ONLY loaded carry by non CHL holders and dropping all other provisions and the second ordinance entirely. The sponsoring councilor was visibly upset and basically made herself look like an idiot (again).

    As it stands, the council has sent the attorney back to redraft and insert wording to also exempt those driving through the city. This to placate the concerns of one councilor in order to try to save something from the anti's efforts.

    This weekend's large open carry get together, as well as the numerous individuals who walked their tourist laden streets after the BBQ, some even bearing "assault rifles", was intended to give the city a little taste of what they are likely to see on a weekly basis should they attempt to restrict the most basic rights of self defense from the people. I personally walked the streets with my big black scary non handgun. Numerous people asked if it was real, was it loaded, why, etc. To all, I explained that the ONLY reason we were all there was the city council was considering an ordinance to address a problem which didn't exist but would actually increase the number of firearms carried openly on their streets and that yes, it was real, it was loaded with M855 military armor piercing ammunition, and it could fire 600 rounds per minute. BUT, that I wouldn't even be there if their council wasn't considering, and looking like they might pass, an ordinance infringing upon the rights of those who didn't have a permission slip from the government. I also advised them that, if they didn't want to see this every weekend, that they might want to contact their council members and tell them to drop the issue.

    We're on it here in Southern Oregon and we will be on this issue until it fails to pass or until it is repealed!!!!! Besides, Ashland is a lot closer drive than going to some of the VERY FEW other ban cities in the state so it makes it very convenient for the many open carriers in southern Oregon to know where they need to go to do the most politically.

    There is also talk of recall petitions for any councilor voting for the ban and for the one who brought it before the council in the first place. I suspect that if the streets end up with more, and much more visible, open carriers that those petitions might just find enough support to go through.
    "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.

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711
    great summary - sounds like some Ashland council members are proposing a solution in search of a problem that will actually CREATE a problem for the police who are busy fighting crime!

    If any open carrier - absent RAS of crime - is seized by police to check load status or license status, the council needs to know that the officers and city will be sued!

    See Terry v. Ohio (no seizing people unless RAS that crime is afoot) & Delaware v. Prouse (no stopping vehicles just to check for driver's license).
    Last edited by Mike; 03-31-2014 at 09:04 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    great summary - sounds like some Ashland council members are proposing a solution in search of a problem that will actually CREATE a problem for the police who are busy fighting crime!

    If any open carrier - absent RAS of crime - is seized by police to check load status or license status, the council needs to know that the officers and city will be sued!

    See Terry v. Ohio (no seizing people unless RAS that crime is afoot) & Delaware v. Prouse (no stopping vehicles just to check for driver's license).
    The open carry activists have made the RAS point and the Chief has said that it would be problematic although he did get it a bit wrong. He's a good guy and we'll straighten that out. Basically he thought that if the magazine was in it he'd have RAS that it was loaded. Problem is, he needs that "DOUBLE RAS".....that it's loaded AND that the bearer doesn't have a CHL. Anything less and he is detaining an individual without any particularized suspicion of a crime having been committed.

    We have statewide support and I'm fairly certain that several firearms groups are thinking that if they do pass this thing, it will be far easier to get a win out of a small town that could affect the larger ones up north with their bans that exceed state and federal restrictions on local enforcement. (state preemption and 4th amendment jurisprudence).
    "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.

  5. #5
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    The ordinance died on a 5-1 vote to support an "objection to consider". That basically is an immediate vote, support of which states that the Council will no longer consider the matter and it is DEAD.

    This was a coordinated effort between extreme open carriers, moderate gun rights activists, and engaging the Council with legitimate proposals that might actually do something.

    My thanks to Liberty Ashland and it's members for "playing" the moderate role.

    My thanks to the long gun carriers who showed the city what passage of their ban would look like.

    And my thanks to five of the Councilors, and the Mayor, who went on record stating that this ordinance would have done nothing to promote safety.
    "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
  •