-
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.
College Student Arrested for Legally Carrying on Campus!
- Thread starter Orygunner
- Start date
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Five-Oh! wrote:
Five-Oh! wrote:
So a college is a school? i don't think so. Tell us the definition of "school."
rdinatal
Regular Member
imported post
Five-Oh! wrote:
You are correct up to a point.
In the law you cited, ORS 166.370, Subsection 1 is the basis and penalty. Subsection 3-d gives an exception.
Subsection f (including f-A and f-B) has nothing to do with subsection 3-d. If it did it would be sectioned under 3-d as an A and not at the same level as f.
Now the real question... Does ORS 166.291 and 166.292 define a license as a pistol permit that you and I can get or is it a 'special gov only' permit.
-R
Five-Oh! wrote:
You are correct up to a point.
In the law you cited, ORS 166.370, Subsection 1 is the basis and penalty. Subsection 3-d gives an exception.
Subsection f (including f-A and f-B) has nothing to do with subsection 3-d. If it did it would be sectioned under 3-d as an A and not at the same level as f.
Now the real question... Does ORS 166.291 and 166.292 define a license as a pistol permit that you and I can get or is it a 'special gov only' permit.
-R
Tawnos
Regular Member
imported post
Five-Oh! wrote:
Thanks.
Now, regarding what ORS 166.370 states. You've completely misread it, and that might be attributable to the horrible formatting of the text. He did not violate the law, here's how it breaks down:
Note that (f) is one of the affirmative defenses for possession of a firearm in a public building. It essentially states that "you cannot have a handgun in a public building unless b or c or d or e or f. Doing so may still get you charged, but you have an Affirmative Defense against those charges."
The provisions of (f) mean that, on school grounds, you may have a firearm (without a concealed permit) if you're not otherwise barred and the firearm is unloaded and locked within the motor vehicle. This does not affect the provisions granted in (d), which provides an affirmative defense against (1) if you have a CPL, REGARDLESS of the state of the weapon (loaded, unloaded, locked, unlocked, on you, in your vehicle, etc). They are two independent clauses, each providing separate exceptions to (1).
Five-Oh! wrote:
There's a button in between shift and tab that I'd like you to hit.
Thanks.
Now, regarding what ORS 166.370 states. You've completely misread it, and that might be attributable to the horrible formatting of the text. He did not violate the law, here's how it breaks down:
Code:
166.370 Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions;
discharging firearm at school.
(1) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument
used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a
Class C felony.
(2)
(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person who
intentionally possesses:
(A) A firearm in a court facility is guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C felony. A person
who intentionally possesses a firearm in a court facility shall surrender the firearm to a
law enforcement officer.
(B) A weapon, other than a firearm, in a court facility may be required to surrender the
weapon to a law enforcement officer or to immediately remove it from the court facility. A
person who fails to comply with this subparagraph is guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C
felony.
(b) The presiding judge of a judicial district may enter an order permitting the possession of
specified weapons in a court facility.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
(a) A sheriff, police officer, other duly appointed peace officers or a corrections officer
while acting within the scope of employment.
(b) A person summoned by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest or preserving the peace,
while the summoned person is engaged in assisting the officer.
(c) An active or reserve member of the military forces of this state or the United States, when
engaged in the performance of duty.
(d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.
(e) A person who is authorized by the officer or agency that controls the public building to
possess a firearm or dangerous weapon in that public building.
(f) Possession of a firearm on school property if the firearm:
(A) Is possessed by a person who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing the firearm; and
(B) Is unloaded and locked in a motor vehicle.
(4) The exceptions listed in subsection (3)(b) to (f) of this section constitute affirmative defenses
to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section.
...The provisions of (f) mean that, on school grounds, you may have a firearm (without a concealed permit) if you're not otherwise barred and the firearm is unloaded and locked within the motor vehicle. This does not affect the provisions granted in (d), which provides an affirmative defense against (1) if you have a CPL, REGARDLESS of the state of the weapon (loaded, unloaded, locked, unlocked, on you, in your vehicle, etc). They are two independent clauses, each providing separate exceptions to (1).
Orygunner
Regular Member
imported post
Uh, Five-oh, I believe you're incorrect. the sub-parts of 166.370 (3) are like OR statements, not AND statements. it means ANY ONE of the sub-parts (a) through (f) make section (1) not apply.
In addition, here's (4):
Note: I am not a lawyer, but that's my interpretation of it. Any lawyers out there (or other peeps) want to confirm?
...Orygunner...
Uh, Five-oh, I believe you're incorrect. the sub-parts of 166.370 (3) are like OR statements, not AND statements. it means ANY ONE of the sub-parts (a) through (f) make section (1) not apply.
(f) just addressesone subset (schools) of the restriction listed in (1). it does not override any of the other sub-sections of (3), because it is just one of the listed exceptions. It just means if you have a firearm you are not otherwised prohibited from possessing, you can be on school property IF it's unloaded and locked in a vehicle. This is for people who don't meet any of the other required exceptions.
In addition, here's (4):
So additionally, ANY one of the exceptions (b) through (f) listed are a defense against the charge.
Note: I am not a lawyer, but that's my interpretation of it. Any lawyers out there (or other peeps) want to confirm?
...Orygunner...
TFred
Regular Member
imported post
Wow, you folks are quick!
My carefully crafty reply will just have to fall into the bit bucket...
TFred
Wow, you folks are quick!
My carefully crafty reply will just have to fall into the bit bucket...
TFred
Orygunner
Regular Member
imported post
I put too much time into mine... I thought about removing it, sinceTawnos pretty much said the same thing, but I can't just wipe it out like that...
...Think of the pixels?...
...Orygunner...
I put too much time into mine... I thought about removing it, sinceTawnos pretty much said the same thing, but I can't just wipe it out like that...
...Think of the pixels?...
...Orygunner...
Orygunner
Regular Member
imported post
Hopefully this will be the case that sets it straight, and even gets the laws relaxed a little bit. I hope they not only go after them for violating Oregon Law and setting illegal Oregon Administrative Rules, but it would be nice to smack down all the restrictions against carrying in "public buildings," schools included.
There is absolutely no good reason why any law-abiding citizen with or without a CHL should be denied the right of self defense (including their RKBA) in any public building or school.
...Orygunner...
Hopefully this will be the case that sets it straight, and even gets the laws relaxed a little bit. I hope they not only go after them for violating Oregon Law and setting illegal Oregon Administrative Rules, but it would be nice to smack down all the restrictions against carrying in "public buildings," schools included.
There is absolutely no good reason why any law-abiding citizen with or without a CHL should be denied the right of self defense (including their RKBA) in any public building or school.
...Orygunner...
Tawnos
Regular Member
imported post
Five-Oh! wrote:
Five-Oh! wrote:
Seriously, turn the f'ing caps lock off. You're making the voices in my head yell at me when they read your posts.
Sietch Woolsey
New member
imported post
Five-Oh! wrote:
The breadth of a word in a written law is delineated by a section of definitions either within the text of that statute or in a separate statute declaring a term's intended meaning across a particular range of definitions.
How a term is defined in Law A has no bearing on its scope and meaning in Law B and Law C, unless the text of Law A specifically states the applicability of its definitions to Law B and Law C.
The text of ORS 163.730 is separate and of no consequence when considering ORS 166.370.
[/sup]
Five-Oh! wrote:
[sup]How terms are defined in statutes:
The breadth of a word in a written law is delineated by a section of definitions either within the text of that statute or in a separate statute declaring a term's intended meaning across a particular range of definitions.
How a term is defined in Law A has no bearing on its scope and meaning in Law B and Law C, unless the text of Law A specifically states the applicability of its definitions to Law B and Law C.
The text of ORS 163.730 is separate and of no consequence when considering ORS 166.370.
[/sup]
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Five-Oh! wrote:
Can you observe proper forum etiquette and TURN OFF THE CAPS, please?
Five-Oh! wrote:
He has a point. . . I mean...I am sure that even in Oregon if I went and rubbed my **** in your face you would be insulted.
Can you observe proper forum etiquette and TURN OFF THE CAPS, please?
Orygunner
Regular Member
imported post
Seriously, Five-Oh, it obviously doesn't bother you, but it bothers the rest of us. Please turn off your CAPS LOCK key. It's extremely bad manners and is considered to be shouting to the majority of people on the internet.
You're making a great discussion here, but your content is being lost and ignored because of your ALL CAPS delivery.
It would be like writing your college thesis on Scooby Doo stationary. The message is overridden by the delivery.
We don't even care if you forget to capitalize words or punctuate correctly. Just stop SHOUTING, please?
Thanks,
...Orygunner...
Seriously, Five-Oh, it obviously doesn't bother you, but it bothers the rest of us. Please turn off your CAPS LOCK key. It's extremely bad manners and is considered to be shouting to the majority of people on the internet.
You're making a great discussion here, but your content is being lost and ignored because of your ALL CAPS delivery.
It would be like writing your college thesis on Scooby Doo stationary. The message is overridden by the delivery.
We don't even care if you forget to capitalize words or punctuate correctly. Just stop SHOUTING, please?
Thanks,
...Orygunner...
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Orygunner wrote:
See Rule 8 (No shouting in Capital Letters).
Orygunner wrote:
Forum Rules Now Updated at http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum1/1.html.
See Rule 8 (No shouting in Capital Letters).
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
Five-Oh! wrote:
Five-Oh! wrote:
Ctrl+F4 would be a better option for you.
Tawnos
Regular Member
imported post
I'd choose win+L for the sheer annoyance of having to type a 15 character password, but that's just me.
CAD in any of the NT based OSes just brings up the winlogon screen... not too damaging. Perhaps he wanted me to do a ctrl alt del tab tab tab enter left enter (open the winlogon screen, tab to the power options, press enter to shutdown, press left to choose "yes, I'm sure" press enter to confirm).
OT, Anyone have an update on this case?
I'd choose win+L for the sheer annoyance of having to type a 15 character password, but that's just me.
CAD in any of the NT based OSes just brings up the winlogon screen... not too damaging. Perhaps he wanted me to do a ctrl alt del tab tab tab enter left enter (open the winlogon screen, tab to the power options, press enter to shutdown, press left to choose "yes, I'm sure" press enter to confirm).
OT, Anyone have an update on this case?