Autonym
Regular Member
imported post
Will you hold my mags for me?
In case something goes down, you can just toss them to me.
Will you hold my mags for me?
In case something goes down, you can just toss them to me.
-
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.
Metro Regional Regulating Guns
- Thread starter Cremator75
- Start date
Puddin99
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Should I bring dogs or hamburgers? Date for the picnic?
Ken
Should I bring dogs or hamburgers? Date for the picnic?
Ken
We-the-People
Regular Member
imported post
Autonym wrote:
Well, if I lived up there I would. Wifey and are are "fighting the fight" down here. Just yesterday, as my wife and I were launching to go fishing,I went out of my way to read the "rules" at the boat launch in the state park we were at.
tsk tsk tsk firearm possession is prohibited. I'll we getting ahold of them. Incidentally, I was OC.
We're also planning to "do" City Hall and the County offices as they're both posted "except for police officers on official duty".
Autonym wrote:
Will you hold my mags for me?
In case something goes down, you can just toss them to me.
Well, if I lived up there I would. Wifey and are are "fighting the fight" down here. Just yesterday, as my wife and I were launching to go fishing,I went out of my way to read the "rules" at the boat launch in the state park we were at.
tsk tsk tsk firearm possession is prohibited. I'll we getting ahold of them. Incidentally, I was OC.
We're also planning to "do" City Hall and the County offices as they're both posted "except for police officers on official duty".
Cremator75
Regular Member
imported post
We-the-People wrote:
I believe that Oxbow is within Troutdale city limits (someone correct me if I am wrong) Does that city have an ordinance banning loaded OC? If not, everyone without a CHL would be good to go.
We-the-People wrote:
I believe that Oxbow is within Troutdale city limits (someone correct me if I am wrong) Does that city have an ordinance banning loaded OC? If not, everyone without a CHL would be good to go.
Autonym
Regular Member
imported post
Cremator75 wrote:
Mike Brown from Metro seems to think that Metro can claim ORS 166.173 and ban loaded OC on Metro parkgrounds, despite not being a city or a county.
Oxbow is outside of Troutdale city limits. I think it's considered Multnomah County.
The only concurrent jurisdiction I know of would be State -> County -> City, not a "Regional Governmental Body".
I'm up for a BBQ.
~Auto
Cremator75 wrote:
Yeah, see.. that's the contention.
Mike Brown from Metro seems to think that Metro can claim ORS 166.173 and ban loaded OC on Metro parkgrounds, despite not being a city or a county.
Oxbow is outside of Troutdale city limits. I think it's considered Multnomah County.
The only concurrent jurisdiction I know of would be State -> County -> City, not a "Regional Governmental Body".
I'm up for a BBQ.
~Auto
imported post
To counter the contention that METRO (a municipal corporation) may enact such an ordinance under ORS 166.173, I would point out the following:
166.170 State preemption.
(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.
(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]
Note that in ORS 166.170 Cities, Counties, and Municipal Corporations are all SPECIFICALLY mentioned.
166.171 Authority of county to regulate discharge of firearms.
(1) A county may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the discharge of firearms within their boundaries.
(2) Ordinances adopted under subsection (1) of this section may not apply to or affect:
(a) A person discharging a firearm in the lawful defense of person or property.
(b) A person discharging a firearm in the course of lawful hunting.
(c) A landowner and guests of the landowner discharging a firearm, when the discharge will not endanger adjacent persons or property.
(d) A person discharging a firearm on a public or private shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designed and built for the purpose of target shooting.
(e) A person discharging a firearm in the course of target shooting on public land that is not inside an urban growth boundary or the boundary of a city, if the discharge will not endanger persons or property. [1995 s.s. c.1 §2]
Note the SPECIFIC naming of the political body addressed by this statute. Cities are not included here, nor are Municipal Corporations.
166.172 Authority of city to regulate discharge of firearms.
(1) A city may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the discharge of firearms within the city’s boundaries.
(2) Ordinances adopted under subsection (1) of this section may not apply to or affect:
(a) A person discharging a firearm in the lawful defense of person or property.
(b) A person discharging a firearm on a public or private shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designed and built for the purpose of target shooting. [1995 s.s. c.1 §3]
Note again the SPECIFIC naming of the political body addressed by this statute. Municipal Corporations are not included here...nor are Counties.
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.
(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]
Note also the SPECIFIC naming of cities and counties and the glaring LACK of reference to Municipal Corporations. And immediately following:
166.174 Authority of city, county, municipal corporation or district to regulate possession or sale of firearms.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a city, county or other municipal corporation or district may not adopt ordinances that regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession or sale of firearms in a public building that is rented or leased to a person during the term of the lease. [1995 s.s. c.1 §5]
Suddenly the statutes SPECIFICALLY include Municipal Corporations again! Coincidence? I think not.
MC's ARE NOT AUTHORIZED BY STATE LAW TO RESTRICT CARRY IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.
To counter the contention that METRO (a municipal corporation) may enact such an ordinance under ORS 166.173, I would point out the following:
166.170 State preemption.
(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.
(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]
Note that in ORS 166.170 Cities, Counties, and Municipal Corporations are all SPECIFICALLY mentioned.
166.171 Authority of county to regulate discharge of firearms.
(1) A county may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the discharge of firearms within their boundaries.
(2) Ordinances adopted under subsection (1) of this section may not apply to or affect:
(a) A person discharging a firearm in the lawful defense of person or property.
(b) A person discharging a firearm in the course of lawful hunting.
(c) A landowner and guests of the landowner discharging a firearm, when the discharge will not endanger adjacent persons or property.
(d) A person discharging a firearm on a public or private shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designed and built for the purpose of target shooting.
(e) A person discharging a firearm in the course of target shooting on public land that is not inside an urban growth boundary or the boundary of a city, if the discharge will not endanger persons or property. [1995 s.s. c.1 §2]
Note the SPECIFIC naming of the political body addressed by this statute. Cities are not included here, nor are Municipal Corporations.
166.172 Authority of city to regulate discharge of firearms.
(1) A city may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the discharge of firearms within the city’s boundaries.
(2) Ordinances adopted under subsection (1) of this section may not apply to or affect:
(a) A person discharging a firearm in the lawful defense of person or property.
(b) A person discharging a firearm on a public or private shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designed and built for the purpose of target shooting. [1995 s.s. c.1 §3]
Note again the SPECIFIC naming of the political body addressed by this statute. Municipal Corporations are not included here...nor are Counties.
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.
(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]
Note also the SPECIFIC naming of cities and counties and the glaring LACK of reference to Municipal Corporations. And immediately following:
166.174 Authority of city, county, municipal corporation or district to regulate possession or sale of firearms.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a city, county or other municipal corporation or district may not adopt ordinances that regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession or sale of firearms in a public building that is rented or leased to a person during the term of the lease. [1995 s.s. c.1 §5]
Suddenly the statutes SPECIFICALLY include Municipal Corporations again! Coincidence? I think not.
MC's ARE NOT AUTHORIZED BY STATE LAW TO RESTRICT CARRY IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.
Cremator75
Regular Member
imported post
Well, when you put it that way. OK. LOL
I think I am going to print out what you posted including all color emphisis to carry with me when I go back to Oxbow. You really covered it all. Thanks
Phssthpok,
Did you ever got you Oregon CHL?
Well, when you put it that way. OK. LOL
I think I am going to print out what you posted including all color emphisis to carry with me when I go back to Oxbow. You really covered it all. Thanks
Phssthpok,
Did you ever got you Oregon CHL?
Autonym
Regular Member
imported post
Phssthpok:
YES! Exactly my point. The different statutes through the 166.170-series change slightly from statute to statute, and do so for a reason.
It's not a legislative oversight. It's just how the law is written. "Regional Governments" don't have the same rights as counties or cities.
This will be an interesting BBQ...
Phssthpok:
YES! Exactly my point. The different statutes through the 166.170-series change slightly from statute to statute, and do so for a reason.
It's not a legislative oversight. It's just how the law is written. "Regional Governments" don't have the same rights as counties or cities.
This will be an interesting BBQ...
Autonym
Regular Member
imported post
As pleasant as Mike was, I still think he is incorrect. Since he's not going to do anything more for me, I've decided to go over his head.
I just sent an email to Rod Park, Councilor for District 1, which includes Oxbow park.
I'll let you know how it goes...
~Auto
As pleasant as Mike was, I still think he is incorrect. Since he's not going to do anything more for me, I've decided to go over his head.
I just sent an email to Rod Park, Councilor for District 1, which includes Oxbow park.
I'll let you know how it goes...
~Auto
imported post
Digging deeper I find in METRO's code the following RE parks:
10.01.030 Policy
The Council has determined that it is necessary to adopt these
Code provisions in order to insure the efficient operation,
protection and maintenance of Regional Parks and Greenspaces and
to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public;
therefore, this chapter shall be liberally construed to
effectuate this purpose.
(Ordinance No. 96-659A, Sec. 1.)
Guess we already found out what THAT means to them. It means what we SAY it means regardless of whats actually printed on the page.
10.01.040 Enforcement Authority/Park Rules
(a) The Director shall have the authority to enforce all of
the provisions of this chapter, including but not limited to the
authority to enforce any park rules adopted pursuant to this
chapter.
(b) The Director shall have the authority to adopt park
rules which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this
chapter, including but not limited to park rules governing fees.
Park rules shall be in writing, shall be posted as otherwise
required by this chapter, and shall be filed with the Metro
Council.
(c) No person shall violate any park rule which has been
adopted by the Director pursuant to this chapter.
(Ordinance No. 96-659A, Sec. 1.)
We can do this because, well.. because WE SAY SO! Nyah! And not only that, we'll make it an additional violation to NOT do what we tell you. Two violations for the price of one!
10.01.160 Hunting and Firearms Prohibitions
No person shall discharge a firearm, air rifle, spring gun, bow
and arrow or other weapon in or over any park except in areas
specifically designed for that purpose. All weapons which are
brought into parks areas shall be completely unloaded and kept in
the owner’s vehicle at all times.
(Ordinance No. 96-659A, Sec. 1.)
Sounds pretty official dunnit? Darn...looks like they get to do what they want because of the 'we say so' mentality. But, what? UH OH..... what do we have here?
10.01.430 Other Laws Applicable
This chapter shall in no way be a substitute for or eliminate the
necessity of conforming with any and all state laws and rules and
other ordinances which are now or may be in the future in effect
which relate to the activities regulated in this chapter.
(Ordinance No. 96-659A, Sec. 1.)
Who's the sad panda now? Looks like the truth is right there in black and white.....METRO CANNOT SUPERCED STATE LAW.
And here is where they try to flex their muscle:
10.01.400 Ejectment and Exclusion
The Director and authorized enforcement personnel shall:
(a) Have the authority to arrest, cite in lieu of arrest or
eject from the park any person acting in violation of this
chapter or the laws of the State of Oregon.
(b) Exclude from the park any person acting in violation of
this chapter or the laws of the State of Oregon.
(c) Exclusions exceeding one (1) year shall be approved by
the Director.
(Ordinance No. 96-659A, Sec. 1.)
OHHh... booga booga.
10.01.410 Seizure of Property
The Director and any authorized enforcement personnel shall have
the authority to seize and confiscate any property, thing or
device, including but not limited to motor vehicles and chain
saws, used in violation of this chapter.
(Ordinance No. 96-659A, Sec. 1.)
Good luck with that.. your firearms restriction is null and void. Try to take my stuff (sidearm) and I'll have you charged with theft.
10.01.600 Penalties
Any person convicted of a violation of this chapter shall be
punished by a term of not more than one (1) year in jail or by a
fine of not more than $500, or both. Each day of a continuous
violation of this chapter shall be considered a new, separate and
distinct violation. Restitution shall be made in cases involving
damage or destruction to park property or improvements.
(Ordinance No. 96-659A, Sec. 1.)
Ditto.
10.01.610 Bail and Fine Collection
The Circuit Court of the metropolitan region judicial districts
of all three (3) Circuit Courts (District 4 Multnomah County;
District No. 5 Clackamas County; or District 20 Washington
County) shall be responsible for the collection of any bails
and/or fines set for penalties described in this chapter. Any
bail or fine remaining after disbursement through the Circuit
Court shall be returned to Metro for training of authorized
enforcement personnel.
(Ordinance No. 96-659A, Sec. 1. Amended by Ordinance No. 02-978,
Sec. 1.)
I got an idea... how about you start with training your administrators as to applicability of state law and the limitations on METRO's authority to regulate firearms thereunder?
Digging deeper I find in METRO's code the following RE parks:
10.01.030 Policy
The Council has determined that it is necessary to adopt these
Code provisions in order to insure the efficient operation,
protection and maintenance of Regional Parks and Greenspaces and
to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public;
therefore, this chapter shall be liberally construed to
effectuate this purpose.
(Ordinance No. 96-659A, Sec. 1.)
Guess we already found out what THAT means to them. It means what we SAY it means regardless of whats actually printed on the page.
10.01.040 Enforcement Authority/Park Rules
(a) The Director shall have the authority to enforce all of
the provisions of this chapter, including but not limited to the
authority to enforce any park rules adopted pursuant to this
chapter.
(b) The Director shall have the authority to adopt park
rules which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this
chapter, including but not limited to park rules governing fees.
Park rules shall be in writing, shall be posted as otherwise
required by this chapter, and shall be filed with the Metro
Council.
(c) No person shall violate any park rule which has been
adopted by the Director pursuant to this chapter.
(Ordinance No. 96-659A, Sec. 1.)
We can do this because, well.. because WE SAY SO! Nyah!
And not only that, we'll make it an additional violation to NOT do what we tell you. Two violations for the price of one!10.01.160 Hunting and Firearms Prohibitions
No person shall discharge a firearm, air rifle, spring gun, bow
and arrow or other weapon in or over any park except in areas
specifically designed for that purpose. All weapons which are
brought into parks areas shall be completely unloaded and kept in
the owner’s vehicle at all times.
(Ordinance No. 96-659A, Sec. 1.)
Sounds pretty official dunnit? Darn...looks like they get to do what they want because of the 'we say so' mentality. But, what? UH OH..... what do we have here?
10.01.430 Other Laws Applicable
This chapter shall in no way be a substitute for or eliminate the
necessity of conforming with any and all state laws and rules and
other ordinances which are now or may be in the future in effect
which relate to the activities regulated in this chapter.
(Ordinance No. 96-659A, Sec. 1.)
Who's the sad panda now? Looks like the truth is right there in black and white.....METRO CANNOT SUPERCED STATE LAW.
And here is where they try to flex their muscle:
10.01.400 Ejectment and Exclusion
The Director and authorized enforcement personnel shall:
(a) Have the authority to arrest, cite in lieu of arrest or
eject from the park any person acting in violation of this
chapter or the laws of the State of Oregon.
(b) Exclude from the park any person acting in violation of
this chapter or the laws of the State of Oregon.
(c) Exclusions exceeding one (1) year shall be approved by
the Director.
(Ordinance No. 96-659A, Sec. 1.)
OHHh... booga booga.
10.01.410 Seizure of Property
The Director and any authorized enforcement personnel shall have
the authority to seize and confiscate any property, thing or
device, including but not limited to motor vehicles and chain
saws, used in violation of this chapter.
(Ordinance No. 96-659A, Sec. 1.)
Good luck with that.. your firearms restriction is null and void. Try to take my stuff (sidearm) and I'll have you charged with theft.
10.01.600 Penalties
Any person convicted of a violation of this chapter shall be
punished by a term of not more than one (1) year in jail or by a
fine of not more than $500, or both. Each day of a continuous
violation of this chapter shall be considered a new, separate and
distinct violation. Restitution shall be made in cases involving
damage or destruction to park property or improvements.
(Ordinance No. 96-659A, Sec. 1.)
Ditto.
10.01.610 Bail and Fine Collection
The Circuit Court of the metropolitan region judicial districts
of all three (3) Circuit Courts (District 4 Multnomah County;
District No. 5 Clackamas County; or District 20 Washington
County) shall be responsible for the collection of any bails
and/or fines set for penalties described in this chapter. Any
bail or fine remaining after disbursement through the Circuit
Court shall be returned to Metro for training of authorized
enforcement personnel.
(Ordinance No. 96-659A, Sec. 1. Amended by Ordinance No. 02-978,
Sec. 1.)
I got an idea... how about you start with training your administrators as to applicability of state law and the limitations on METRO's authority to regulate firearms thereunder?
Autonym
Regular Member
imported post
Phssthpok:
Great stuff man.
It makes me wonder, really.
They have this "official" sounding Code, complete with repercussions spelled out for violating it. Yet, we already know they cannot legally enforce 10.01.160 - they don't have the authority to do so.
Which begs the question... where do they get the authority to do anything?
They aren't a city. They aren't a county. What legal artifice provides them with the ability to enforce any of their charter?
From their own webpage, they describe themselves as "the only directly elected regional government in the country".
What the hell is that, anyway?
Phssthpok:
Great stuff man.
It makes me wonder, really.
They have this "official" sounding Code, complete with repercussions spelled out for violating it. Yet, we already know they cannot legally enforce 10.01.160 - they don't have the authority to do so.
Which begs the question... where do they get the authority to do anything?
They aren't a city. They aren't a county. What legal artifice provides them with the ability to enforce any of their charter?
From their own webpage, they describe themselves as "the only directly elected regional government in the country".
What the hell is that, anyway?
Autonym
Regular Member
imported post
You said "thereunder".
You said "thereunder".
We-the-People
Regular Member
imported post
We ALL need to take on the signs, regulations, and such that violate state law. It's all just an attempt to intimidate law abiding citizens. Just yesterday I found a sign in a state park that banned firearms. I'll be "making inquiries".
We ALL need to take on the signs, regulations, and such that violate state law. It's all just an attempt to intimidate law abiding citizens. Just yesterday I found a sign in a state park that banned firearms. I'll be "making inquiries".
Autonym
Regular Member
imported post
~Auto
So... progress, of a sort. I'll keep you posted on what/when I hear back from either Rod Park or Dan Cooper.
~Auto
Autonym
Regular Member
imported post
freak21 wrote:
freak21 wrote:
Nothing figured out just yet...
Cremator75
Regular Member
imported post
Any update?
Any update?