Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: City of Portland Illegally Bans Open Carry in City Parks

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    The Portland City Council passed a new Parks Ordinance, replacing Portland City Code 20.12. The new code, which can be found here, contains an offending provision that bans open carry in city parks.

    20.12.050 Possession of Weapons.

    No person shall possess in any Park any thing specifically designed for and presently capable of causing, or carried with the intent to threaten or cause, bodily harm to another. Things prohibited under this Section include, but are not limited to: any firearm, pellet gun, spring-loaded weapon, stun gun or taser, any knife having a blade that projects or swings into position by force of a spring or by centrifugal force, any knife with a blade longer than 3-½ inches, any dirk, dagger, ice-pick, sling shot, slungshot, metal knuckles, nunchaku, studded handcoverings, swords, straight razors, tear gas containers, saps, sap gloves, hatchets or axes. The prohibitions of this Section do not apply to concealed handguns lawfully carried by persons in accordance with valid concealed handgun permits. The prohibitions of this Section do not apply to any thing possessed or used to carry out actions authorized by any contract or permit in any Park.


    On top of this, this section of the new city code section is completely unneccesary in it's application to firearms due to Portland City Code 14A.60.010, which bans the possession of loaded firearms in "public places", including parks. Portland passed 14A.60.010 under the statutory provisions of ORS 166.173.

    However, 20.12.050 goes way beyond ORS 166.173 envisioned. Because of it going beyond ORS 166.173, ORS 166.170 applies, and it states:

    166.170 State preemption.
    (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.
    (2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]

    PCC 20.12.050 is void due to the fact that they have passed a civil ordinance that may result in exclusion from the park for violating their "open carry" ban. The ban is so wide ranging that it even bans law enforcement officers and members of the military from carrying in their official duty, nor does it allow those who are exempted per ORS 166.370 to be able to carry in parks, even concealed, as it only exempts concealed handgun license holders who are carrying concealed.

    PCC 20.12.050 was poorly thought out, and cannot possibly stand any scrutiny at any level.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    This is in error. More details to come...

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    The Portland City Council amended the proposed ordinance to comply fully with ORS 166.173. Thanks to Ken Kirkham and Deputy City Attorney Harry Auerbach for his professionalism in making the suggestion.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Congrats!



    Lonnie, are you affiliated with OFF?

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Malum Prohibitum wrote:
    Congrats!



    Lonnie, are you affiliated with OFF?
    No. I am considering joining the group personally.

    -Lonnie


  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Bite My Ass wrote:
    Open Carry of a firearm in municipal Portland city limits is unlawful. Same with Oregon City.
    It is not unlawful if a person possesses a concealed handgun license.

    See: Oregon Revised Statute 166.173, which I will post in entirety:

    166.173 Authority of city or county to regulate possession of loaded firearms in public places. (1) A city or county may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession of loaded firearms in public places as defined in ORS 161.015.
    (2) Ordinances adopted under subsection (1) of this section do not apply to or affect:
    (a) A law enforcement officer in the performance of official duty.
    (b) A member of the military in the performance of official duty.
    (c) A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.
    (d) A person authorized to possess a loaded firearm while in or on a public building or court facility under ORS 166.370. [1995 s.s. c.1 §4; 1999 c.782 §8]


    The law on this subject is clear as crystal: It states that it does not apply to a person who happens to be licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Before the semantic wordgames get played on "well it says carry a concealed handgun and therefor it must be concealed", the reason why "concealed handgun" is mentioned is only because open carry is not generally regulated and is not licensed.

    You notice in there a lack of an "armed security" exemption to the locally passed laws. The Portland City Council Code 14A.60.010, which enforces the provisions of ORS 166.173 as allowable, includes several exemptions beyond the state law (which is allowed, as Portland may pass as many additional exemptions as it wants because it's their law and their option), which includes armed security on duty at an FDIC insured banking institution.

    Armed Security Officers, who are openly carrying their duty weapons in Portland without CHL's at places other than an FDIC covered institution are in violation of the Portland ordinance and would find no protection in state law or in their DPSST licensing. They must comply with the Portland ordinance by another exemption either in the city code (which includes the issuance of a special license by the City Police Chief which to my understanding is never issued) or in the state code, which has a CHL exemption (the Portland code also has this exemption but I was trying to illustrate a point with the security licensing).

    Every armed security officer job I've ever seen posted in the Portland metro area require a CHL for this reason. As for as ORS 166.173 is concerned, armed security officers are nothing more than private civilians. Some cities may excercise the option to allow all DPSST armed security on duty to carry, and to and from duty (Beaverton has this exemption), however the cities are not required to pass this exemption.

Posting Permissions

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