Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Portland Metro Zoo

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Let's see if we can't get some Oregon discussion going. The Washington forum has us beat 10:1!

    I read in a concealedcarry.org thread that the Portland Zoo seems to ban carrying there. (The same thread suggested that Beaverton Police would back them up which I found interesting since the Zoo is not in any way in Beaverton's district...) It seems to me that the Zoo is a municiple district and therefore subject to State pre-emption. Doesn't mean they can't post a sign, but they sure couldn't enforce it if that is the case.

    Any experiences or thoughts here?

    -adamsesq

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    I can shed a little light because I talked to the Beaverton captain. Your right that BPD doesnt have jurisdiction there, however he was stating what his departments policy on that kind of thing (chl) carry is.

    Portland Metro is a bunch of BS. Your tax dollars going to fund a group that makes arbitrary and groundless rules.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Junction City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    (The same thread suggested that Beaverton Police would back them up which I found interesting since the Zoo is not in any way in Beaverton's district...)
    That's not quite what was said in the post.


    I went to the Portland Zoo read through the rules and regulations and found A ban on weapons. I honestly thought CHL holders were exempt by ORS 166.291 and 166.292. I called just to check and was directed to someone not sure who but I was told I will be arrested, gun conficated and charged with diorderly conduct. Not beleiving they could do this I called a friend of mine retired LEO from Beaverton, I was shocked when he said yes you can and will be charged maybe not get your gun back and never have a CHL again. How can they do this I asked he said the officers will do as the arresting security asks book you and let you fight it out in court.
    Beaverton is in the area that is why I called him, but yeah I agree we do need to get some discussion going, OR sites seem to be dead around here. I called them again a little more armed with the laws,this time and the lady on phone was even more adamant about that there policy trumps state law. I did gether to admit that the zoo is public property, which might be a step in the right direction. It is ran by Tri Met there policies are above all state laws at this time.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Have looked all over their site (the zoo) but I don't see any policies on weapons. Do they have anything published?

    -adamsesq

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Junction City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    http://www.metro-region.org/files/about/chap401.pdf

    They don't say anything in there policy about CHL, that is why I called to get clarification, and you can't carry even with a CHL concealed or open.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Big Del wrote:
    http://www.metro-region.org/files/about/chap401.pdf

    They don't say anything in there policy about CHL, that is why I called to get clarification, and you can't carry even with a CHL concealed or open.
    WOW I kind of expected something like "no illegal weapons" or something. I can't say I have ever taken specific notice of their rules anywhere but thought what I had seen at the front gate was "no illegal weapons."

    So I guess the obvious question(s) is/are, has anyone every challenged this is any way? Has anyone ever been subjected to the enforcement of this? Do we have any support from any of the other Oregon firearm owners' groups to try and attack this?

    -adamsesq

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Junction City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    Yeah I was a little suprised about this myself, this is one of the reasons I don't visitOCC. They won't take anyone on they think if they conceal carryit doesn't matter if weapons aren't legal. There really is very little support at that site. I made a few calls to the zoo but it's more Metro then the zoo. Call the zoo and ask who you should talk to maybe with a few more calls and being questioned the issue might come up.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Cremator75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    393

    Post imported post

    Big Del wrote:
    It is ran by Tri Met there policies are above all state laws at this time.
    I'm sure grishnav could clarify, but I believe that Tri-met has finally agreed that guns can be carried one their buses and MAX. So why not the zoo? Not sure.

    Now here are the rules on weapons at the zoo. It does not say it excludes CHL holders, but it also does not say that it does not exclude CHL holders like most places that do like federal building and the like. I just CC there every time I go. I think at one time Lonnie Wilson said he was working on Metro.

    4.01.060 Rules of Conduct for Public Within Zoo Premises

    (m)
    Weapons and Explosives. No member of the public while
    on the premises shall:

    (1)
    Carry a firearm, loaded or unloaded. "Firearm" is
    defined to include a pistol, revolver, gun, rifle
    or other ordinance, including a miniature weapon,
    which projects a missile or shot by force of
    (Effective 1/1/07) 4.01 - 8 MARCH 2008 EDITION
    gunpowder or any other explosive, by spring or by
    compressed air.

    (2)
    Carry a dangerous or deadly weapon. "Dangerous or
    deadly weapon" includes a firearm, metal knuckles,
    straight razor, weapon of the type commonly known
    as a nunchaku, blackjack, sap or sap glove,
    slingshot, bomb or bombshell, and any type of
    knife other than an ordinary pocketknife with a
    blade not longer than three and one-half inches
    (3-1/2"). When carried with intent to use the
    same unlawfully against another, "dangerous or
    deadly weapon" also includes any instrument or
    device capable of inflicting injury to the person
    or property of another.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Junction City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    It does not say it excludes CHL holders, but it also does not say that it does not exclude CHL holders like most places that do like federal building and the like.

    Did you fully read my post, I wasn't certain on CC that is why I called they were very straight forward about NO WEAPONS legal or not. The problem I have with carring somewhere I know it's against there policyis if you are forced to use your weapon, you already have cards stacked against you (read the Harold Fisher case). Ifcarring against there policy I don't see how that could ever help your case in a justified shooting, I think they could portray someone as not concerend with the laws in the first place. The best case is to make sure they know there policies are not within state law before something happens.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    A, A
    Posts
    612

    Post imported post

    I agree we need to be more vocal here in Oregon, I just moved back here from a long dry stint in Kali and man am I happy to be home. I have been doing a lot of careful research into the whole OC movement and am excited to exercise my rights as a citizen. I am looking forward to meeting more like minded people and thank you all for being forward thinking enought to realize the possible dangers we face in todays world and plan for any and all possibilites..

    I know there are some partial lists of pro and anti gun establishments in this state and across the nation.. I'm thinking a more comprehensive list with actively updated information would be good.. start making it a badge of honor to make the pro list.. get commercial businessesto seek out our patronage. We need to continue our pro active stance on the subject and support those groupswho have been fighting this for us for years. Spread the word and recruit others to thecause.. J

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Portland/Beaverton/Hillsboro, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    Regarding the whole Beaverton police "disorderly conduct" charge, does this apply only because it's private property, or do you think they would threaten you with this around town as well...?

    If I'm a valid CHL holder, and somebody calls in a MWAG for no good reason, just because I have a firearm visible... May they still do this? I've had some serious conflicting reports from both LEO and you guys. I'm sorry, but unless it's cleared up - theres no way in hell I'm OCing in Beaverton.

    The one time I have OCed in beaverton was going to that gas station I posted about a few months ago, and the officer that called me said that they sent a handful of squad cars to that location... What the heck???

    I'm very familiar with the laws, but are they getting away with charging people like that or what? I'm assuming that regardless of if you're found guilty, good luck getting your firearm or even license back... right?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Junction City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    The reasontheywould try and charge you at the zoo is because you went in with a weapon where it is posted NO Weapons.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Scappoose, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    That may be, but signage means nothing in Oregon. And for the fact that it is public property - especially since it was just voted to pony up extra $'s from tax payers for up keep, it's still public property and protected under preemption. I guess it all comes down to who has deep pockets to fight it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Puddin99 wrote:
    That may be, but signage means nothing in Oregon.
    Signage may mean nothing in Oregon, but the rules adopted by METRO, which include the no weapons policy, have the force of law as the legislature granted METRO such a right.

    AT BEST we have one law (Metro's No Weapons) conflicting with another (Preemption.) Its just a bit more than "signage means nothing"when it comes to METRO.

    -adamsesq


  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Scappoose, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    And this metrorule is?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Puddin99 wrote:
    And this metrorule is?
    listed above ^



    -adamsesq

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Scappoose, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    Oops - spaced that.

    They can write anything they want, but they can't enforce it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Puddin - PM sent.

    -adamsesq

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Junction City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    adamsesq wrote:
    Puddin99 wrote:
    That may be, but signage means nothing in Oregon.
    Signage may mean nothing in Oregon, but the rules adopted by METRO, which include the no weapons policy, have the force of law as the legislature granted METRO such a right.

    AT BEST we have one law (Metro's No Weapons) conflicting with another (Preemption.) Its just a bit more than "signage means nothing"when it comes to METRO.

    -adamsesq


    What have you found on this. The legislature can grant a public owned office the power to make there own laws? If this is true then who in Metro makes the rules, they would be rules not laws If so I think it would be hard for legislature to decide what rules they allowed to trump state law. What if they made a law no gays allowed, I don't think Metro could enforce this. But yes deep pockets may be the answer.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Big Del wrote:
    What have you found on this. The legislature can grant a public owned office the power to make there own laws? If this is true then who in Metro makes the rules, they would be rules not laws If so I think it would be hard for legislature to decide what rules they allowed to trump state law. What if they made a law no gays allowed, I don't think Metro could enforce this. But yes deep pockets may be the answer.
    In summary, yes, the legislature can (and does) grant authority to certain entities to make their own rules which have the force and effect of laws. And they have done so with regard to METRO.

    Preemption applies unless the legislature gives another entity the right to make a rule relating to firearms. Both parts of the preemption statute start out:

    166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute,
    ...
    (2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute,

    This "exception" had me concerned when I viewed the legislature's grant of authority to METRO:

    268.360 Authority to exercise police power; ordinances; effective dates; enforcement. Subject to the provisions of a district charter: (1) For purposes of its authorized functions a district may exercise police power and in so doing adopt the ordinances that a majority of the members of its council considers necessary for the proper functioning of the district.

    BUT - after some more research and help from Lonnie I do not now believe that the mention of "police powers" is enough to be an express authorization. So METRO may make their own rules which have the effect of law, they canot with regard to firearms.

    -adamsesq

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    160

    Post imported post

    adamsesq wrote:
    Big Del wrote:
    What have you found on this. The legislature can grant a public owned office the power to make there own laws? If this is true then who in Metro makes the rules, they would be rules not laws If so I think it would be hard for legislature to decide what rules they allowed to trump state law. What if they made a law no gays allowed, I don't think Metro could enforce this. But yes deep pockets may be the answer.
    In summary, yes, the legislature can (and does) grant authority to certain entities to make their own rules which have the force and effect of laws. And they have done so with regard to METRO.

    Preemption applies unless the legislature gives another entity the right to make a rule relating to firearms. Both parts of the preemption statute start out:

    166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute,
    ...
    (2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute,

    This "exception" had me concerned when I viewed the legislature's grant of authority to METRO:

    268.360 Authority to exercise police power; ordinances; effective dates; enforcement. Subject to the provisions of a district charter: (1) For purposes of its authorized functions a district may exercise police power and in so doing adopt the ordinances that a majority of the members of its council considers necessary for the proper functioning of the district.

    BUT - after some more research and help from Lonnie I do not now believe that the mention of "police powers" is enough to be an express authorization. So METRO may make their own rules which have the effect of law, they canot with regard to firearms.

    -adamsesq
    You have to read 166.170 and the rest in its entirety:

    166.170 State preemption.[/b] (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.[/b]

    (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]

    Basically, 166.170 is saying what ever else is written, if it doesn't give them the power, they can't make the rule/regulation regarding it if they are a public entity.

    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.[/b]

    (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]

    This is the only statute I find regarding this, and it only gives cities and counties the ability to do so as long as you don't fall into one of the preemptions. Now I don't have the deep pockets, so I won't be testing this open carry, but as far as I can tell, you should be legally allowed to carry at the Oregon Zoo. As far as money goes, if some one with experience wants to try to fight this thing, I'd be willing to donate.

  22. #22
    Newbie
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    McMinnville, Oregon
    Posts
    1

    I went today, and if you have CHL, you are exempt.

    They have a sign now that states under certain ORS statutes, you may carry.
    I took pics of the sign with the ORS codes, but I can't upload, so they are:

    ORS 166.173(2)(C)
    ORS 166.370(3)(D)

    After researching those 2, I believe I'm exempt.

    May 21st, 2015
    Last edited by MrViles; 05-21-2015 at 04:56 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317
    MrViles, this is an old 2008 thread, there are several others that are much more recent.
    Last edited by Lord Sega; 06-04-2015 at 09:31 PM.
    "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

Posting Permissions

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