• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Portland Metro Zoo

DenWin

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
160
Location
San Francisco, CA
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:question: 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.
 

MrViles

Newbie
Joined
May 21, 2015
Messages
1
Location
McMinnville, Oregon
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:
Top