Corvallis to continue pursuing “open carry” ordinance

http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/lo...cle_60348740-070c-11e4-bfe0-001a4bcf887a.html

The article mentions a Portland ordinance which was upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court, does anyone know which case they're referring to?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't state law pre-empt local municipalities in Oregon by exempting any open carry ordinance by those who have a CHL?

david.ross said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't state law pre-empt local municipalities in Oregon by exempting any open carry ordinance by those who have a CHL?

Click to expand...

Yes. It specifically allows cities and counties to enact laws regulating the possession of a loaded firearm, with certain exceptions including those with a CHL.

The case you are referring to was a challenge to the Portland ordinance on the basis that it violated the Oregon Constitution. We have very liberal judges in the area so you can imagine how they ruled on that.

Today there is a court case where citizens of incorporated cities are suing the county of Multnomah for applying their loaded firearm ordinance within city limits when those cities have their own right by State law to enact their own ordinance, or no ordinance as the case may be. So who knows where people without a CHL will be able to carry tomorrow.

SteveM said:

Today there is a court case where citizens of incorporated cities are suing the county of Multnomah for applying their loaded firearm ordinance within city limits when those cities have their own right by State law to enact their own ordinance, or no ordinance as the case may be. So who knows where people without a CHL will be able to carry tomorrow.

Click to expand...

Well that's rather bleak to know. I'd love Oregon to become a gold state, but we know that'll never happen. They might as well just make the whole state licensed to carry only that way it pleases the native liberals and there's less confusion over laws.

david.ross said:

They might as well just make the whole state licensed to carry only that way it pleases the native liberals and there's less confusion over laws.

Click to expand...

US Constitution be dammed.... I finished your sentence.

david.ross said:

They might as well just make the whole state licensed to carry only that way it pleases the native liberals and there's less confusion over laws.

Click to expand...

Or we could get rid of the silly requirement to have a permit to exercise our rights across the whole state, haters of freedom can relocate back to California whence they came from.

Most of these bans are in the Portland-metro area so in fact most of the state is still free. The bans are unenforceable so they accomplish nothing other than convey "community values". Kind of like a ban on gay marriage if you ask me, doesn't stop people from acting how they please and only promotes ignorance and bigotry.

State required "permission slips" to exercise a God Given/Natural Right, are 100% unconstitutional. "Shall not be infringed".


BTW: david.ross, your sig line is hilariously contradictory.

"I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building."


So YOU dont tolerate people who dont agree with homosexuality??????

Jeff. State said:

BTW: david.ross, your sig line is hilariously contradictory.

"I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building."


So YOU dont tolerate people who dont agree with homosexuality??????

Click to expand...

As with all things liberal (the new perverted definition of 'liberal', that is) - "Tolerance = Agree With Me".....

Corvallis already has unlawful regulations on the books. I have previously documented the below listed transgressions of the City of Corvallis.

Municipal code

Section 5.03.120.020 Concealed weapons.
1) No person, other than, with regard to firearms, a person described by ORS 166.260 or licensed pursuant to ORS 166.291 through 166.293, shall carry concealed on or about the person, or carry concealed and readily accessible about the person within any vehicle, any firearm; any gun; . . .

NOTE: This ordinance exceeds local authority under 166.170 and 166.173. While the majority of the ordinance merely parrots state law, it attempts to expand concealed carry to “on or about the person” by a non CHL holder AND attempts to expand concealed vehicle carry to all firearms where state law only prohibits handguns. This is an expansion of state law and exceeds 166.173 authorities.


Section 5.03.120.030 Discharge of weapons.
1) No person, other than a police officer or animal control officer, shall fire or discharge within the City any bow and arrow, firearm, or gun.

NOTE: This ordinance exceeds local authority under 166.170 and 166.172. While the city can regulate discharge of weapons, this ordinance does not provide an exception for SD discharge as required by state law.


Section 5.03.120.050 Forfeiture of weapons.
1) Any weapon carried in violation of Section 5.03.120.020 or 5.03.120.060 or discharged in violation of Section 5.03.120.030 is a nuisance. Any such weapon taken from any person unlawfully carrying or discharging the weapon shall be surrendered to the Chief of Police.

NOTE: This ordinance exceeds local authority under 166.170, 166.172, and 166.173. Because section (1) relies upon 5.03.120.020 and 5.03.120.030 which are VOID due to exceeding local authority, this ordinance is also VOID.


Transit system rules

Section III Regulations
7. Weapons. No person, except a peace officer or person with a valid concealed weapon permit, shall bring into or carry aboard a City transit vehicle, or bring in to a shelter, any fire arm, knife (except a folding knife with a blade less than 3 ½ inches in length), any explosive device or material, or any other weapon.

NOTE: This ordinance exceeds local authority under 166.170, 166.173. Local ordinances can ONLY regulate the carry of LOADED weapons in “public places” (defined by ORS 161.015) by those who do not hold CHL. While the buses and shelters listed in this transit rule fall in the category of “public places,” the rule attempts to exclude non CHL holders carrying unloaded weapons. This is not allowed. In addition, it should be noted that these locations do NOT fall into the category of “Public Buildings” as defined in ORS 166.360.

SOURCE:

We-the-People said:

Corvallis already has unlawful regulations on the books. I have previously documented the below listed transgressions of the City of Corvallis.

Click to expand...

The City of Corvallis appears to have declared war on it's citizens as well as those of us who pass through. Anyone attempting to enFORCE those codes is a direct enemy of The People's Constitutional Rights.

Anything new on this?