Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Oregon Castle Doctrine

  1. #1
    Regular Member Christopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    McMinnville Oregon
    Posts
    58

    Oregon Castle Doctrine

    Does anyone know or have heard about the bill Common sense for oregon is gaining signatures on the Oregon Castle Doctrine? I would sure love to know where i can sign, if anyone knows please let me know.

  2. #2
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Here is their page about it http://commonsensefororegon.org/meas...stle-doctrine/

    It doesn't appear on their "2010 circulating petitions" page so I'm not sure of the status but it sounds great. They also have a method for downloading, signing, and mailing in your petition signatures due to a new law in 2007 that allows individual signature forms that the voters can send in via mail.

    Thanks for mentioning them, I signed up for their newsletter to stay abreast of their work and also sent them a message about the possibility of getting a few other firearms "fixes" into the fray. Specifically, repeal of ORS 166.380 which allows an officer to inspect a weapon to determine it's load condition when in a public building. Not needed, simply ask "do you have a CHL" and if one is provided end of story as it's legal whether it is loaded or not. No CHL, Ooops, not supposed to be in a public building with a firearm and then the officer can check the weapon during the process of citing/arresting the individual for violation of ORS 166.370.

    As it stands with 166.380 on the books, there is the potential for unnecessary handling of a firearm by an overzealous officer who thinks he HAS to check the load condition even if presented a CHL. A silly proposition but we all know some dumb things get done, particularly in certain areas of the state.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Christopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    McMinnville Oregon
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Here is their page about it http://commonsensefororegon.org/meas...stle-doctrine/

    It doesn't appear on their "2010 circulating petitions" page so I'm not sure of the status but it sounds great. They also have a method for downloading, signing, and mailing in your petition signatures due to a new law in 2007 that allows individual signature forms that the voters can send in via mail.

    Thanks for mentioning them, I signed up for their newsletter to stay abreast of their work and also sent them a message about the possibility of getting a few other firearms "fixes" into the fray. Specifically, repeal of ORS 166.380 which allows an officer to inspect a weapon to determine it's load condition when in a public building. Not needed, simply ask "do you have a CHL" and if one is provided end of story as it's legal whether it is loaded or not. No CHL, Ooops, not supposed to be in a public building with a firearm and then the officer can check the weapon during the process of citing/arresting the individual for violation of ORS 166.370.

    As it stands with 166.380 on the books, there is the potential for unnecessary handling of a firearm by an overzealous officer who thinks he HAS to check the load condition even if presented a CHL. A silly proposition but we all know some dumb things get done, particularly in certain areas of the state.
    I read an article on the internet saying they have collected some 61,000 signatures so far. Here's the link:
    http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpo..._doctrine.html

  4. #4
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    That article ws from JUNE and said they had until July to get the signatures. Maybe they got enough and it's on the ballot (doubt it as I'm sure we'd have heard about it). More likely they couldn't get sufficient signatures and so it's "not circulating"

  5. #5
    Regular Member Christopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    McMinnville Oregon
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    That article ws from JUNE and said they had until July to get the signatures. Maybe they got enough and it's on the ballot (doubt it as I'm sure we'd have heard about it). More likely they couldn't get sufficient signatures and so it's "not circulating"
    That's the problem in the first place we all should have known as soon as they started collecting signatures, but we all know politics they like to keep everybody in the dark about the stuff that benefits the people. But i bet all of the politicians that were going to oppose it if they collected enough signatures knew about it before anybody.
    Last edited by Christopher; 10-08-2010 at 07:04 PM.

Posting Permissions

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