sv_libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
YARGH!!! Lawsuit time??
YARGH!!! Lawsuit time??
-
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.
March 15th OC Activities: Tri-Met: Some succes, lots of failure - Arrested
- Thread starter grishnav
- Start date
grishnav
Regular Member
imported post
sv_libertarian wrote:
Wonder if there's any attorneys that would be willing to take it on contingent?
sv_libertarian wrote:
After I've succesfully defended myself of the charges.
Wonder if there's any attorneys that would be willing to take it on contingent?
Puddin99
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Did Lonnie or OFF provide any initial insight?
Did Lonnie or OFF provide any initial insight?
grishnav
Regular Member
imported post
Puddin99 wrote:
Haven't heard back from Lonnie yet.
Puddin99 wrote:
OFF provided me the name of the lawyer they use, and also of one that's good with police abuses. We're looking into them. They had no other insight.
Haven't heard back from Lonnie yet.
Euromutt
Regular Member
imported post
I'm looking at ORS 166.293 here, and as far as I can tell, your CHL can't be revoked merely on the basis of your being arrested or cited. It can however, be seized for a period of 30 days.
Now, the law says that, in this event:
I wouldn't be overly concerned about losing your CHL at this point, but the use of incorrect terminology just adds to the impression that Portland's finest aren't overly familiar with the laws they're supposed to be enforcing.
I'm looking at ORS 166.293 here, and as far as I can tell, your CHL can't be revoked merely on the basis of your being arrested or cited. It can however, be seized for a period of 30 days.
Now, the law says that, in this event:
Again, IANAL, but I read this to mean that the sheriff can only revoke your license if you're still out on pretrial release, or have been convicted, by the time the thirty days are up, but not before ("the issuing sheriff shall hold for 30 days"). The downside that he can't return it to you sooner if you aren't charged.
I wouldn't be overly concerned about losing your CHL at this point, but the use of incorrect terminology just adds to the impression that Portland's finest aren't overly familiar with the laws they're supposed to be enforcing.
grishnav
Regular Member
imported post
Euromutt wrote:
That said, I guess this is where I'm starting to get confused about the legal process. We were arrested and cited. Is the citation a charge, or is the DA the only one who can charge with crimes? Does waiting for the arraignment (I think that's where we are now, though I'm not sure...) constitute a form of pretrial release, or is that purely the time between pleading and the actual trial?
I was hoping to open carry during my vacation to Seaside this year, but I don't want to be doing it without a CHL. Sounds like, unless we can get the trial somehow expedited, I may be SOL?
Fark.
Euromutt wrote:
Appreciate the insight. Looking at it again, you may be right. I'm reading it with some emotion now. I keep my CHL proudly as a symbol of my liberty and my government's trust in me, and the prospect of having it revoked is devastating in some sense... even if it will eventually return.
That said, I guess this is where I'm starting to get confused about the legal process. We were arrested and cited. Is the citation a charge, or is the DA the only one who can charge with crimes? Does waiting for the arraignment (I think that's where we are now, though I'm not sure...) constitute a form of pretrial release, or is that purely the time between pleading and the actual trial?
I was hoping to open carry during my vacation to Seaside this year, but I don't want to be doing it without a CHL. Sounds like, unless we can get the trial somehow expedited, I may be SOL?
Fark.
grishnav
Regular Member
imported post
Euromutt wrote:
Being on "any form of pretrial release" is grounds for denial of a CHL, and any grounds for denial is also grounds for revocation.
Ick. Ick ick ick.
Euromutt wrote:
Reading it again, it seems that section is for the licensed being siezed by a police officer during the interaction. IE, if they'd taken it at the jail rather than giving it back to me, then it shall be held for 30 days pending charges.
Being on "any form of pretrial release" is grounds for denial of a CHL, and any grounds for denial is also grounds for revocation.
Ick. Ick ick ick.
SetivaSicWood
Regular Member
imported post
Hey buddy,
Your free to open carry in Seaside on your vacation. There are no laws preventing you from doing so. It's Portlands ban on loaded handguns that nessitate the need to have a CHL to openly carry loaded .
I travel to central and easter Oregon often. I always open carry and have never had any problems.
If you happen to have a Oregon hunting or Fishing License and perhaps plan to do some fishing while in Seaside you can legally carry concealed while in route to, during, and on your return from said adventures. Just keep a salmon rod and a pair of waders in the back seat.
Hey buddy,
Your free to open carry in Seaside on your vacation. There are no laws preventing you from doing so. It's Portlands ban on loaded handguns that nessitate the need to have a CHL to openly carry loaded .
I travel to central and easter Oregon often. I always open carry and have never had any problems.
If you happen to have a Oregon hunting or Fishing License and perhaps plan to do some fishing while in Seaside you can legally carry concealed while in route to, during, and on your return from said adventures. Just keep a salmon rod and a pair of waders in the back seat.
Attachments
grishnav
Regular Member
imported post
SetivaSicWood wrote:
I'm aware, but having the license makes it so much easier if you do run into a cop.
And I fully expect Seaside PD to take an interest, considering they have nothing better to do.
So yeah. If I haven't gotten the CHL back by the time I'm going down there, I guess I won't be carrying. :banghead:
SetivaSicWood wrote:
I'm aware, but having the license makes it so much easier if you do run into a cop.
And I fully expect Seaside PD to take an interest, considering they have nothing better to do.
So yeah. If I haven't gotten the CHL back by the time I'm going down there, I guess I won't be carrying. :banghead:
thebastidge
Regular Member
imported post
So, forgive me if this is in the thread somewhere?
1. Did they phsyically seize your CHL and refuse to return it to you? that is, you do not phsyically posess it at this moment?
2. Did they formally (either in writing or in a formal proceeding)inform you that your rights as a CHL holder have been rescinded?
If neither of these circumstances obtains, then what is the concern? You could, I suppose, ask for clarification from the department. I wouldn't necessarily trust that info too far, unless you can get it in writing. I would also ask the lawyer, either the one OFF recommends or a public defender for advice.
Whatever you do, do not try to go without benefit of counsel. Good luck.
So, forgive me if this is in the thread somewhere?
1. Did they phsyically seize your CHL and refuse to return it to you? that is, you do not phsyically posess it at this moment?
2. Did they formally (either in writing or in a formal proceeding)inform you that your rights as a CHL holder have been rescinded?
If neither of these circumstances obtains, then what is the concern? You could, I suppose, ask for clarification from the department. I wouldn't necessarily trust that info too far, unless you can get it in writing. I would also ask the lawyer, either the one OFF recommends or a public defender for advice.
Whatever you do, do not try to go without benefit of counsel. Good luck.
pdxwarrior
Regular Member
imported post
Thebastige brings up a good point. I am assuming your physical card was not taken during the original arrest otherwise you would have expected it to be gone.
On the other hand, have you heard this from somone other than the guy at the evidence counter? Did he provide you with some written notice or just the speculation that it might be gone?
If you don't have a copy of "Understanding Oregon's Gun Laws" I suggest you pick one up. There's a chapter on dealing with Denials and Revocations. On page 40 There is the following paragraph:
If your concealed handgun license is revoked, you must be notified by the County Sheriff. The revocation does not take deffect until you have received notification. That's an important point. It odesn't matter when the sheriff sent it, before the revocation is in effect, you must have received notice.
Now, I am not a lawyer by any means. I don't know if the evidence clerks notice would be sufficient to qualify as "notice". Additionally, this book was written by Kevin Starrett of OFF and he says this book should not be your legal guide, but it is a place to start.
Thebastige brings up a good point. I am assuming your physical card was not taken during the original arrest otherwise you would have expected it to be gone.
On the other hand, have you heard this from somone other than the guy at the evidence counter? Did he provide you with some written notice or just the speculation that it might be gone?
If you don't have a copy of "Understanding Oregon's Gun Laws" I suggest you pick one up. There's a chapter on dealing with Denials and Revocations. On page 40 There is the following paragraph:
If your concealed handgun license is revoked, you must be notified by the County Sheriff. The revocation does not take deffect until you have received notification. That's an important point. It odesn't matter when the sheriff sent it, before the revocation is in effect, you must have received notice.
Now, I am not a lawyer by any means. I don't know if the evidence clerks notice would be sufficient to qualify as "notice". Additionally, this book was written by Kevin Starrett of OFF and he says this book should not be your legal guide, but it is a place to start.
imported post
SetivaSicWood wrote:
Lisa Freeman
PR - Redirected to customer service
Naomia Dubose -
(thought i was talking about open container when I specifically said open carry)
Customer Service - tried to redirect to security, then spoke about legal. When I requested names of manager/director, gave up the following:
Carolyn Young - Director
Tim Ennis - Manager - Discussed the issues at hand for a moment, when he said he needed to investigate, I gave him my name and phone number and requested a call back before monday.
SetivaSicWood wrote:
People I spoke to seeking clarification of Tri-Met policies:
Lisa Freeman
PR - Redirected to customer service
Naomia Dubose -
(thought i was talking about open container when I specifically said open carry)
Customer Service - tried to redirect to security, then spoke about legal. When I requested names of manager/director, gave up the following:
Carolyn Young - Director
Tim Ennis - Manager - Discussed the issues at hand for a moment, when he said he needed to investigate, I gave him my name and phone number and requested a call back before monday.
Puddin99
Campaign Veteran
imported post
http://trimet.org/pdfs/code/TriMet_Code_Chapter_28.pdf
I don't think it can be much clearer than this:
[align=justify]B. Weapons: No person, except a peace officer, shall bring or carry aboard a District Vehicle any firearm, knife (except a folding knife with a blade less than 3 ½ inches in length), or any other weapon, except in accordance with administrative rules as may be promulgated by the General Manager or otherwise provided by law. Where possession of such weapons cannot be prohibited by law, a person in possession of a weapon may not display or carry the weapon in a manner which is likely to result in fear or alarm by other persons or District employees. [/align]
http://trimet.org/pdfs/code/TriMet_Code_Chapter_28.pdf
I don't think it can be much clearer than this:
[align=justify]B. Weapons: No person, except a peace officer, shall bring or carry aboard a District Vehicle any firearm, knife (except a folding knife with a blade less than 3 ½ inches in length), or any other weapon, except in accordance with administrative rules as may be promulgated by the General Manager or otherwise provided by law. Where possession of such weapons cannot be prohibited by law, a person in possession of a weapon may not display or carry the weapon in a manner which is likely to result in fear or alarm by other persons or District employees. [/align]
SetivaSicWood
Regular Member
imported post
Puddin99 wrote:
Is it just me, or is this as clear as mud....
Where possession of such weapons cannot be prohibited by law, a person in possession of a weapon may not display or carry the weapon in a manner which is likely to result in fear or alarm by other persons or District employees.
Ok.... Open carry is legal in Oregon,
Unlawful possession is defined in ORS 166.250 Basically it says..... you can't
a) posses a concealed firearm
b) posses concealed in a car orhave it readily accessible in the vehicle
c) posses a firearm and
A)be under 18
B)as a minor committed acts considered felonies as an adult
C) convicted of a felony
D) committed to DHS
E) found mentally ill
If this isn't you, then you can legally carry a firearm in Oregon. Unless you have a CHL the only option is to carry openly. Which is exactly what you have to do until you get a CHL.
However if you happen to alarm or make district officals or others fearful because you open carry, you are not allowed to.
Are they writing policies in contradiction to ORS 166.170? (The legislature makes the rules and no others) or am I missing something
Puddin99 wrote:
Is it just me, or is this as clear as mud....
Where possession of such weapons cannot be prohibited by law, a person in possession of a weapon may not display or carry the weapon in a manner which is likely to result in fear or alarm by other persons or District employees.
Ok.... Open carry is legal in Oregon,
Unlawful possession is defined in ORS 166.250 Basically it says..... you can't
a) posses a concealed firearm
b) posses concealed in a car orhave it readily accessible in the vehicle
c) posses a firearm and
A)be under 18
B)as a minor committed acts considered felonies as an adult
C) convicted of a felony
D) committed to DHS
E) found mentally ill
If this isn't you, then you can legally carry a firearm in Oregon. Unless you have a CHL the only option is to carry openly. Which is exactly what you have to do until you get a CHL.
However if you happen to alarm or make district officals or others fearful because you open carry, you are not allowed to.
Are they writing policies in contradiction to ORS 166.170? (The legislature makes the rules and no others) or am I missing something
Attachments
Puddin99
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I agree, it is clear as mud, but it also states that they can't prevent anyone from carrying weapons. I thought that much was clear. Ultimatley it is public property and therefore, by statute, can't prevent weapons from being on the premises.
I agree, it is clear as mud, but it also states that they can't prevent anyone from carrying weapons. I thought that much was clear. Ultimatley it is public property and therefore, by statute, can't prevent weapons from being on the premises.
imported post
You know.....I wounder if they realize just how bad this might backfire on them? (at least in my case)
I have no intention of backing down from OC, so this will have absolutely ZERO chilling effect on me. HOWEVER... if the worst should happen and a conviction is forthcoming, then I would be prohibited from obtaining a CCW in Oregon for the next FOUR YEARS (possibly forever sin out of staters are 'may' issue)....which would me that I'd be REQUIRED to OC EVERYWHERE. They want me to conceal, then make it impossible for me to do so?
Way to stamp out us uppity rights-exercisers there.
You know.....I wounder if they realize just how bad this might backfire on them? (at least in my case)
I have no intention of backing down from OC, so this will have absolutely ZERO chilling effect on me. HOWEVER... if the worst should happen and a conviction is forthcoming, then I would be prohibited from obtaining a CCW in Oregon for the next FOUR YEARS (possibly forever sin out of staters are 'may' issue)....which would me that I'd be REQUIRED to OC EVERYWHERE. They want me to conceal, then make it impossible for me to do so?
Way to stamp out us uppity rights-exercisers there.
pdxwarrior
Regular Member
imported post
True, but the unfortunate part becomes when you have to travel to cities in Oregon that ban open carry without having a CHL. Then you are stuck either not carrying there, not visiting there or having to walk around with an empty mag in one pocket, a separate pocket full of loose rounds and an empty holstered gun on your hip.
Sorta makes it inconvenient.
True, but the unfortunate part becomes when you have to travel to cities in Oregon that ban open carry without having a CHL. Then you are stuck either not carrying there, not visiting there or having to walk around with an empty mag in one pocket, a separate pocket full of loose rounds and an empty holstered gun on your hip.
Sorta makes it inconvenient.
pdxwarrior
Regular Member
imported post
True enough.
True enough.
SetivaSicWood
Regular Member
imported post
Finally got a reply fromfrom Tri-Met. I intend to follow this up and keep on them untill they stop violating State law.
RE: Handguns on light rail CSI# 234713
Dear Daniel:
Thanks so much for contacting TriMet with your comments. I have sent this memo to our security office and to our fare inspection manager. Your reference number to your concerns is listed in the subject area of this memo.
Sincerely,
Naomia Johnson-Dubose
TriMet Customer Services
503-962-2444
----Original Message-----
From: Freeman, Lisa
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:47 AM
To: Customer Comments
Cc: Fetsch, Mary; LaPoint, Peggy
Subject: FW: Handguns on light rail
Please respond.
Lisa Freeman
TriMet, Communications Specialist
4012 SE 17th Ave.
[align=left]Portland, OR 97202
[/align]
[align=left]503-962-4910
[/align]
[align=left]FreemanL@trimet.org[/align]
[line]
From: Daniel Ford [mailto:danielford223@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 2:44 PM
To: PR
Subject: Handguns on light rail
On 3/15/08 two CHL permit holders were removed from the Max train after being told they were breaking Tri Met policy regarding the possession of handguns. I suggest you notify your staff that according to ORS 160.177 only the legislature has the authority to establish rules pertaining to handgun possession and transportationin public in the state of Oregon.
Suggesting such as you have, "to cover that up to ride the train or it has to be in a case" is reckless and criminal. Only CHL permit holders can carry a concealed handgun. To suggest one do so without being licensed is absolutely wrong.
Oregon is a "Open Carry" state. A citizen can legally carry a handgun openly on their hip in a holster and in plain view. Portland has a city ordinance which prohibits loaded open carry with out holding a CHL permit.
I urge you to get the correct information out to your security personal to avoid occurrences such as this in the future.
Respectfully submitted,
Daniel Ford
Finally got a reply fromfrom Tri-Met. I intend to follow this up and keep on them untill they stop violating State law.
RE: Handguns on light rail CSI# 234713
Dear Daniel:
Thanks so much for contacting TriMet with your comments. I have sent this memo to our security office and to our fare inspection manager. Your reference number to your concerns is listed in the subject area of this memo.
Sincerely,
Naomia Johnson-Dubose
TriMet Customer Services
503-962-2444
----Original Message-----
From: Freeman, Lisa
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:47 AM
To: Customer Comments
Cc: Fetsch, Mary; LaPoint, Peggy
Subject: FW: Handguns on light rail
Please respond.
Lisa Freeman
TriMet, Communications Specialist
4012 SE 17th Ave.
[align=left]Portland, OR 97202
[/align]
[align=left]503-962-4910
[/align]
[align=left]FreemanL@trimet.org[/align]
[line]
From: Daniel Ford [mailto:danielford223@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 2:44 PM
To: PR
Subject: Handguns on light rail
On 3/15/08 two CHL permit holders were removed from the Max train after being told they were breaking Tri Met policy regarding the possession of handguns. I suggest you notify your staff that according to ORS 160.177 only the legislature has the authority to establish rules pertaining to handgun possession and transportationin public in the state of Oregon.
Suggesting such as you have, "to cover that up to ride the train or it has to be in a case" is reckless and criminal. Only CHL permit holders can carry a concealed handgun. To suggest one do so without being licensed is absolutely wrong.
Oregon is a "Open Carry" state. A citizen can legally carry a handgun openly on their hip in a holster and in plain view. Portland has a city ordinance which prohibits loaded open carry with out holding a CHL permit.
I urge you to get the correct information out to your security personal to avoid occurrences such as this in the future.
Respectfully submitted,
Daniel Ford
