Malum Prohibitum
Regular Member
imported post
166.173 overrides such ordinances.
166.173 overrides such ordinances.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
OC'd in DT Portland last night
- Thread starter Phssthpok
- Start date
imported post
I figured that would be the first response....
Ok...it's "think like a lawyer" time...
class="contentHeader" class="contentHeaderDetail"
First off...who can provide the ordinace/code section that defines "reckless"? (or do we operate under the 'common useage' rule?)
Secondly...who can provide the ordinance/code section that requires me to perform the action that I would have to 'fail' to perfom in order to be in violation of this ordinance? (In order to 'fail' to do something there must be an action that I am 'required' to perform. How can I 'fail' to do something that is not required?)
Ready?..... GO!
I figured that would be the first response....
Ok...it's "think like a lawyer" time...
class="contentHeader" class="contentHeaderDetail"
First off...who can provide the ordinace/code section that defines "reckless"? (or do we operate under the 'common useage' rule?)
Secondly...who can provide the ordinance/code section that requires me to perform the action that I would have to 'fail' to perfom in order to be in violation of this ordinance? (In order to 'fail' to do something there must be an action that I am 'required' to perform. How can I 'fail' to do something that is not required?)
Ready?..... GO!
Heartless_Conservative
Regular Member
imported post
You raise an interesting point, now all we gotta do is find some guy we can sucker into being a test case (I call 'not it').
You raise an interesting point, now all we gotta do is find some guy we can sucker into being a test case (I call 'not it').
SetivaSicWood
Regular Member
imported post
Perhaps a better bet trying "it" in Portland as Tigards definations are more "specific"
7.32.125 Carrying Loaded Firearms.
As used in this section, "firearm" means a
pistol, revolver, gun, rifle or other mechanism,
including a miniature weapon which projects a
missile or shot by force of gunpowder or any
other explosive, or by spring or by compressed
air.
(a) It is unlawful for any person to possess a
firearm in a public place as that term is defined in
ORS 161.015 unless all ammunition has been
removed from the chamber and from the cylinder,
clip or magazine. This section does not apply to
or affect:
(1) a law enforcement officer in the performance of official duty;
(2) a member of the military in the performance of official duty;
(3) a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun;
(4) a person authorized to possess a
loaded firearm while in or on a public building
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
7-32-5 SE Update: 12/01
under ORS 166.370.
(b) It is unlawful for any person possessing
a firearm in a public place to refuse to permit a
peace officer to inspect that firearm after the
peace officer has identified himself as such.
(c) Violation of any portion of subsections
(a) and (b) is a Class A misdemeanor. (Ord. 96-
28; Ord. 76-22 §1, 1976).
Perhaps a better bet trying "it" in Portland as Tigards definations are more "specific"
7.32.125 Carrying Loaded Firearms.
As used in this section, "firearm" means a
pistol, revolver, gun, rifle or other mechanism,
including a miniature weapon which projects a
missile or shot by force of gunpowder or any
other explosive, or by spring or by compressed
air.
(a) It is unlawful for any person to possess a
firearm in a public place as that term is defined in
ORS 161.015 unless all ammunition has been
removed from the chamber and from the cylinder,
clip or magazine. This section does not apply to
or affect:
(1) a law enforcement officer in the performance of official duty;
(2) a member of the military in the performance of official duty;
(3) a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun;
(4) a person authorized to possess a
loaded firearm while in or on a public building
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
7-32-5 SE Update: 12/01
under ORS 166.370.
(b) It is unlawful for any person possessing
a firearm in a public place to refuse to permit a
peace officer to inspect that firearm after the
peace officer has identified himself as such.
(c) Violation of any portion of subsections
(a) and (b) is a Class A misdemeanor. (Ord. 96-
28; Ord. 76-22 §1, 1976).
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
This is one of the reasons that I urge anyone who open carries in the Portland area of Oregon to get a CHL.
This is one of the reasons that I urge anyone who open carries in the Portland area of Oregon to get a CHL.
Malum Prohibitum
Regular Member
imported post
Lonnie Wilson wrote:
Why on earth would anybody not do so?
The CHL in Oregon lets you carry almost everywhere (not beyond the metal detectors at the airport or into courthouses). People in Oregon may not realize how special that is compared to other states (Georgia = 10-20 years in prison for carrying within "a reasonable distance adjacent to" a bus stop even with a firearms license! Felony to carry in schools, even private and universities, misdemeanor to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, which is all of them, illegal even to have a firearm on you when you go into the restroom at the Interstate rest stops!).
I cannot get an Oregon license, since I am no longer a resident, which is why I always fly into Eugene instead of Portland.
Lonnie Wilson wrote:
Why on earth would anybody not do so?
The CHL in Oregon lets you carry almost everywhere (not beyond the metal detectors at the airport or into courthouses). People in Oregon may not realize how special that is compared to other states (Georgia = 10-20 years in prison for carrying within "a reasonable distance adjacent to" a bus stop even with a firearms license! Felony to carry in schools, even private and universities, misdemeanor to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, which is all of them, illegal even to have a firearm on you when you go into the restroom at the Interstate rest stops!).
I cannot get an Oregon license, since I am no longer a resident, which is why I always fly into Eugene instead of Portland.
Heartless_Conservative
Regular Member
imported post
Actually you can*, its just that the sheriff has discretion to deny that he wouldn't have if you were a resident. I'm not up to speed, but I'm pretty sure you can apply in any county, so someone here might be able to tell which counties are most likely to issue to non-residents.
*Just remembered before I hit the post button; I'm pretty sure that only residents of adjacent states are eligable for non-resident permits, but I'm not positive.
Actually you can*, its just that the sheriff has discretion to deny that he wouldn't have if you were a resident. I'm not up to speed, but I'm pretty sure you can apply in any county, so someone here might be able to tell which counties are most likely to issue to non-residents.
*Just remembered before I hit the post button; I'm pretty sure that only residents of adjacent states are eligable for non-resident permits, but I'm not positive.
Malum Prohibitum
Regular Member
imported post
Heartless_Conservative wrote:
Heartless_Conservative wrote:
Yeah, Georgia is not adjacent. I wish they would fix that.
UTOC-45-44
Regular Member
imported post
yankees98a wrote:
Well..,
I can agree with you to a certain extent.
Let me explain...
Me knowing the Gun Laws would not have a problem with somebody having a beer or two I would probably keep an eye out but wouldn't be too worried. He has the Right to enjoy himself/herself with a beer within the perimeter of the Law.
I probably wouldn't be as gutsy, but I respect them exercising the Right to "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness".
I know that I have had my 1911 on while in my residence when I've had a drink or 2.
Either we have Rights or not.
yankees98a wrote:
Well..,
I can agree with you to a certain extent.
Let me explain...
Me knowing the Gun Laws would not have a problem with somebody having a beer or two I would probably keep an eye out but wouldn't be too worried. He has the Right to enjoy himself/herself with a beer within the perimeter of the Law.
I probably wouldn't be as gutsy, but I respect them exercising the Right to "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness".
I know that I have had my 1911 on while in my residence when I've had a drink or 2.
Either we have Rights or not.
jonnyjeeps
Regular Member
imported post
Am I the only one who thinks carrying an unloaded gun is the stupidest thing you have ever heard. Why doesnt the law just say "NO GUNS" same thing!
Am I the only one who thinks carrying an unloaded gun is the stupidest thing you have ever heard. Why doesnt the law just say "NO GUNS" same thing!
Gray2Hairs
Regular Member
imported post
An unload gun is basically a rock. You wouldn't take a rock to a gun fight so why advertise that you are that foolish?
As for drinking and guns. I participated in a study where we all drove cars through a course then did the same course after drinking 1, 2, 3, 4 beers. It was interesting that after 1 beer the results were obvious; your abilities and motor skills are absolutley hindered with a single beer.
I take carrying a gun seriously and do not myself drink EVER when guns are involved. I also do not participate in any event where another person is drinking while armed...period. That is my choice; you can choose to be as irresponsible as you wish but I won't be there to watch you do something foolish.
So yes, I do believe that drinking, even one beer, and driving or have a gun in your posession is both irresponsible and foolish.
An unload gun is basically a rock. You wouldn't take a rock to a gun fight so why advertise that you are that foolish?
As for drinking and guns. I participated in a study where we all drove cars through a course then did the same course after drinking 1, 2, 3, 4 beers. It was interesting that after 1 beer the results were obvious; your abilities and motor skills are absolutley hindered with a single beer.
I take carrying a gun seriously and do not myself drink EVER when guns are involved. I also do not participate in any event where another person is drinking while armed...period. That is my choice; you can choose to be as irresponsible as you wish but I won't be there to watch you do something foolish.
So yes, I do believe that drinking, even one beer, and driving or have a gun in your posession is both irresponsible and foolish.