Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Oregon State Fair - current rules

  1. #1
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317

    Oregon State Fair - current rules

    For those interested: LINK in pdf
    From the OSF webpage main page under Business Center / Rules and Policies.

    Edit: Any stories about carrying in the Oregon State Fair in the last few years?
    Last edited by Lord Sega; 08-19-2015 at 02:34 AM.
    "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

  2. #2
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Under the existing rules, from the official page, the prohibition on firearms does not apply to:

    Subsection (8)(2)

    2.
    Exceptions to the above prohibitions are limited to:
    1.
    Weapons of OSF law enforcement officials and those carried by persons authorized by law
    to carry them when carried in a manner authorized by law
    ;



    While state fair personnel may not realize that their own rules specifically allow weapons that are lawful, they do. And since no CHL is required to openly carry, it would seem that open carry without a CHL (and loaded) is also "authorized by law" and therefore not prohibited.

    HOWEVER:::::: Be very cautious of the "public building" restrictions for non CHL holders who are open carrying.

    But if you don't push the issue, I'm guessing they'll try to turn you away hoping you don't know the law and THEIR OWN RULES.
    Last edited by We-the-People; 08-20-2015 at 04:53 PM.
    "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
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    28
    I was at the state fair last year was OCing and walked past a couple OSP, they just looked at me and nothing.
    No one inside approached me in any manner.

  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 Dave H. View Post
    I was at the state fair last year was OCing and walked past a couple OSP, they just looked at me and nothing.
    No one inside approached me in any manner.
    I would think that if an OC'er had a problem it would be either,:

    1) at the gate and some ticket checker sees the weapon and says "no firearms allowed".

    or

    2) some mommie type pulls a swatting action on the OC'er once inside the venue. They have publicly stated that this tactic should be employed, it has been employed in the past, and is likely to be done again.

    Remember, the anti's think they are on some holy high ground in their hopolophobic state.
    "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 rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Under the existing rules, from the official page, the prohibition on firearms does not apply to:

    Subsection (8)(2)

    2.
    Exceptions to the above prohibitions are limited to:
    1.
    Weapons of OSF law enforcement officials and those carried by persons authorized by law
    to carry them when carried in a manner authorized by law
    ;



    While state fair personnel may not realize that their own rules specifically allow weapons that are lawful, they do. And since no CHL is required to openly carry, it would seem that open carry without a CHL (and loaded) is also "authorized by law" and therefore not prohibited.

    HOWEVER:::::: Be very cautious of the "public building" restrictions for non CHL holders who are open carrying.

    But if you don't push the issue, I'm guessing they'll try to turn you away hoping you don't know the law and THEIR OWN RULES.

    Isnt that a contradiction? By the very definition of public building the 2A is the standard. Private businesses can of course prohibit what they like and therefore not get a single cent
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  6. #6
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    Isnt that a contradiction? By the very definition of public building the 2A is the standard. Private businesses can of course prohibit what they like and therefore not get a single cent
    Here in Oregon "public building" is defined in the law for purposes of firearms carry and those without a CHL are prohibited from carrying "in or on" a "public building". Yes, the 2A says "shall not be infringed" and Oregon's Constitution says we have the right to carry for "defense of ourselves and the state". However, government owns the cops, the courts, and the jails, as well as manipulates the jury (try bringing up jury nullification).

    That's not RIGHT but it is the system we must deal with. Particularly those who have neither the time, money, or inclination to become a test case.
    "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.

  7. #7
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Here in Oregon "public building" is defined in the law for purposes of firearms carry and those without a CHL are prohibited from carrying "in or on" a "public building". Yes, the 2A says "shall not be infringed" and Oregon's Constitution says we have the right to carry for "defense of ourselves and the state". However, government owns the cops, the courts, and the jails, as well as manipulates the jury (try bringing up jury nullification).

    That's not RIGHT but it is the system we must deal with. Particularly those who have neither the time, money, or inclination to become a test case.
    We already know the state statute is illegal and therefore void. Only thing to do in the absence of 10s of thousands of dollars is rely on numbers. You think the police would mess with 50 armed men in a state fair with thousands of people and witnesses? I doubt it. Not unless they want a bloodbath and i'm very sure they won't go that far. Or again not with so many people and witnesses in close proximity. They would know as soon as a single shot is fired, they will have 49 others, most of whom would open fire. Noo I can't see them trying it, corrupt as many of them are
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  8. #8
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    We already know the state statute is illegal and therefore void. Only thing to do in the absence of 10s of thousands of dollars is rely on numbers. You think the police would mess with 50 armed men in a state fair with thousands of people and witnesses? I doubt it. Not unless they want a bloodbath and i'm very sure they won't go that far. Or again not with so many people and witnesses in close proximity. They would know as soon as a single shot is fired, they will have 49 others, most of whom would open fire. Noo I can't see them trying it, corrupt as many of them are
    That could work, or backfire. I prefer to go about our "war" with the gun grabbers the same way they've been waging it for decades.....one little bit at a time. Picking off the fringes and then looking at the newly frayed edges.

    With the potential for violence in the scenario you present, it would be far too easy to win the battle and lose the entire war. Far better to lose all the battles and win the war. Look at the TET offensive in Vietnam.......at almost every location the attacking forces were severely trounced.....yet through propaganda and political pressure.....things turned around and in the end, N Vietnam and its allies won the war....having won not a single major engagement.

    Or look at the anti smoking campaign....a little here, a little there, and where do we find ourselves? Smoking remains legal but also so curtailed that in many jurisdictions you can't even smoke in a freakin Cigar Bar. All through a long term campaign of a little here and a little there.....just like the grabbers.

    At this point, the grabbers and their ilk have had free reign within our schools, colleges, etc. for so long that there are large numbers of people who are simply all too happy to work on the machines and let government take care of them. We won't gain their support in large sweeping changes back to constitutional gun laws. And I fear that without changing some of those minds, we may well find ourselves in the minority. America is no longer an agrarian culture with 75% of the population living in rural environments....we are an urban culture with 75% of the population living in large cities and totally dependent upon government for their preservation.

    Thankfully, it takes a very large majority to push through a Constitutional amendment.....say thank you Founding Fathers...... so we still have some measure of safety from the potential of ammending the 2nd amendment out of existence.

    We must remain vigilant against new encroachments while simultaneously pushing back upon the encroachments allready made.
    "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 rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    That could work, or backfire. I prefer to go about our "war" with the gun grabbers the same way they've been waging it for decades.....one little bit at a time. Picking off the fringes and then looking at the newly frayed edges.

    With the potential for violence in the scenario you present, it would be far too easy to win the battle and lose the entire war.
    If the Founding Fathers worried about that, we might still be part of Britain. We should never wish or seek war, but if it is thrust on us by others, we can and should find for our freedom. But I really don't think the Oregon State Fair is where the first shots to the second American Revolution will take place. Fact if you have a Constitutionally guaranteed right and all reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that right is not infringed upon. You as a citizen are what the founding fathers knew as the militia.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

Posting Permissions

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