Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Police encounter -- not revelant to Washington

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    Just had a nasty little police encounter in Seaside, Oregon. Cops say they are going to revoke my CHL because I refused to show it even though I'm "lawfully required to do so" (Hint: Maybe in Washington; not in Oregon). I'm posting a link here because I know some of you might be interested. See the thread over in the Oregon forum if you're interested, and please post replies there:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...mp;forum_id=45

    Oh, and maybe the mods can fix my title typo.

  2. #2
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Keep us updated brother. That's a seriously messed up situation. Did you suggest they harass...er...."talk" to your hotel neighbors too? Probably a little kid in the room above or below you.

    I really take exception to the LEOs attitude that you were guilty, they just hadn't proven it yet. :X

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    Thing is...it isn't even a crime (in Oregon) to flash people in general...just uniformed police and security guards while in the commission of their duties.

    The Officers LIED (Gosh..whodathunkit?) to intimidate their way into a room they had no lawful authority to enter.

  4. #4
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Phssthpok wrote:
    Thing is...it isn't even a crime (in Oregon) to flash people in general...just uniformed police and security guards while in the commission of their duties.

    The Officers LIED (Gosh..whodathunkit?) to intimidate their way into a room they had no lawful authority to enter.
    grishnav is at a bit of a disadvantage coming from a State that IT IS in fact, against the law to point a laser at people under certain circumstances.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.49

    RCW 9A.49.001Findings.
    The legislature finds that lasers are becoming both less expensive and more accessible in our technologically advanced society. Laser devices are being used by individuals in a manner so as to intimidate and harass. This creates an especially serious problem for law enforcement officers who reasonably believe they are the target of a laser sighting device on a firearm. Additionally, emergency service providers, service providers, and others who operate aircraft or motor vehicles may be negatively affected to the point of jeopardizing their safety as well as the safety of others. In order to address the misuse of lasers, the legislature hereby finds it necessary to criminalize the discharge of lasers under certain circumstances.


  5. #5
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    I did find this.... not sure how the NOTE at the bottom applies.

    ORS 163.709 Unlawful directing of light from a laser pointer. (1) A person commits the offense of unlawful directing of light from a laser pointer if the person knowingly directs light from a laser pointer at another person without the consent of the other person and the other person is: (a) A peace officer as defined in ORS 161.015 who is acting in the course of official duty; or
    (b) A uniformed private security professional as defined in ORS 181.870 who is on duty.
    (2) The offense described in this section, unlawful directing of light from a laser pointer, is a Class A misdemeanor.
    (3) As used in this section, “laser pointer” means a device that emits light amplified by the stimulated emission of radiation that is visible to the human eye. [1999 c.757 §1; 2005 c.447 §9]

    Note: 163.709 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 163 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

  6. #6
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Ahh.... here is what the Note means.

    “Not added to and made a part of.” Notes may indicate that a particular ORS section was not added to and made a part of the ORS chapter or series in which the section appears. These notes mean that the placement of the section was editorial and not by legislative action. Notes also are used when the series references are either too numerous or too complex to bear further adjustment. However, the note does not mean that the section not added to a series or a chapter is any less the law. The note is intended only to remind the user that definitions, penalties and other references to the series should be examined carefully to determine whether they apply to the noted section.
    For example, Oregon Revised Statutes contains chapter 137 relating to judgment, execution, parole and probation. A law relating to any of those subjects may be enacted but not legislatively added to ORS chapter 137, even though the section clearly belongs with the related materials found in that chapter. The Legislative Counsel compiles the section where it logically belongs and provides the “not added to” note.


Posting Permissions

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