Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: You Beaver Staters better get on top of this pronto

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    You Beaver Staters better get on top of this pronto

    http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...sed_gun-c.html

    "The City Council on Nov. 18 will consider three new gun-control proposals and two changes to existing city code that Mayor Sam Adams is proposing in an effort to reduce shootings within the city limits.

    Adams sought input on the proposals from community groups, local and state officials, attorneys and criminal justice experts. On Monday, Adams was putting the finishing touches on his proposals after meeting with Chief Mike Reese and deputy city attorney Dave Woboril. He joins mayors across the country who are trying to pass gun-control laws that state lawmakers would not, or could not.

    "The state of Oregon has not sufficiently addressed the problems resulting from the increased availability and use of firearms in urban areas of the state, forcing cities such as Portland to enact, within the limits of Oregon state law, city code ordinances to address the threat to the public's health and safety posed by gang violence and illegal gun use," the mayor's proposed ordinance says. ..."

    The folks over on the Northwest Firearms forum are not very happy:

    http://www.northwestfirearms.com/for...-nov-18-a.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Typical OR ******* politician. Write more anti-gun laws so the gangs will turn theirs in, being law abiding in the first place. As everyone knows anti 2A laws worked so well in DC and Chicago. The criminals rush to obey them. Obviously, most in the state don't give a damn or they wouldn't have voted as they did in the election. OR is nothing more than a satellite of the PDR of Kalifornia anyway.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    yet another series of laws in portland that doesnt now and never will effect me.

    of course i am outraged but then again, i am outraged that portlanders have elected this man.

    vote him out or move away and leave portland to those who think that the laws and the mayor are right.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    160 views and NO outrage, its pretty obvious that the people of portland voted him into office and deserve to live under his rule.....

    the thing about politics is that you DO get what you ask for.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    A, A
    Posts
    612

    Angry Disgusting..

    I am ashamed of Oregon, after this last election cycle and the garbage coming out of Portland I left for Oklahoma for the time being. The unemployment rate in Oregon has not improved yet 'we' elected all the same old faces and Kitzhaber! I mean, really!? This guy said the state was ungovernable when he left Salem before and 'we' hire him back.
    Sam Adams needs to quit taking his lead from California, stop copying a failed state. I certainly hope Portlanders realize the crap they are being fed and do not agree with the continued restriction on their freedoms.

    I pray.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    208 views and still not a single outraged portlander??? this is a non issue..... they elected a "chickenhawk"..... a preditory man who had a sexual relationship with a child and lied about it and then admitted it but then rationalized it...... whats a few new gun laws matter?

    they derserve what they get because they asked for it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    I don't live in PDX, but close enough here in Woodburn.. I try to stay away from PDX in general. The traffic is horrendous and there are just too many people. Makes me feel uncomfortable.

    But again.. The people of PDX elected a liar / child molester. What do they care if he wants to disarm the people, so the criminals can continue on with less fear of retaliation.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    Typical OR ******* politician. Write more anti-gun laws so the gangs will turn theirs in, being law abiding in the first place. As everyone knows anti 2A laws worked so well in DC and Chicago. The criminals rush to obey them. Obviously, most in the state don't give a damn or they wouldn't have voted as they did in the election. OR is nothing more than a satellite of the PDR of Kalifornia anyway.

    Why the vitriol against a state that you have no stake in? OR is much more than simply a satellite of California; many of our political problems are from all of the MANY Californians who have migrated North.

    Many of us are working hard to stem the tide; turn your energies towards positive results in your own state (CO is no beacon of conservatism) and quit slandering the large number of good folks who are trying to hold the line in Oregon, Washington, yes, even California.

    Back on topic: no "gun control" law that the city of Portland passes will hold any water in a court of law. The State preempted firearms legislation quite some time ago.
    Last edited by American Rattlesnake; 11-20-2010 at 12:51 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by American Rattlesnake View Post
    Back on topic: no "gun control" law that the city of Portland passes will hold any water in a court of law. The State preempted firearms legislation quite some time ago.
    only for those with a concealed carry permit, to all others, it will hold enough water to drown portland

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by Teddybearfrmhell View Post
    only for those with a concealed carry permit, to all others, it will hold enough water to drown portland
    I just looked up the statutes; it appears that the State gave some leeway to local jurisdictions to regulate the carry of loaded firearms in public places (excepting CHL holders, of course.) See bolded section below.

    What I don't understand now is this: Portland already has a comprehensive ban on carrying loaded firearms in the city (again, CHL holders excepted.) What do the "new" rules do that the old regulations don't cover?

    From the ORS:

    AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS



    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]



    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.

    (f) An employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, acting within the scope of employment, discharging a firearm in the course of the lawful taking of wildlife. [1995 s.s. c.1 §2; 2009 c.556 §1]



    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.

    (c) An employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, acting within the scope of employment, discharging a firearm in the course of the lawful taking of wildlife. [1995 s.s. c.1 §3; 2009 c.556 §2]



    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.

    (e) An employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, acting within the scope of employment, who possesses a loaded firearm in the course of the lawful taking of wildlife. [1995 s.s. c.1 §4; 1999 c.782 §8; 2009 c.556 §3]



    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]



    166.175 Authority of city to regulate purchase of used firearms. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a city may continue to regulate the purchase of used firearms by pawnshops and secondhand stores.

    (2) As used in this section, “secondhand store” means a store or business whose primary source of revenue is the sale of used merchandise. [1995 s.s. c.1 §6]



    166.176 Exception to preemption for certain county ordinances. (1) Nothing in ORS 166.170 or 166.171 is intended to preempt, invalidate or in any way affect the operation of any provision of a county ordinance that was in effect on November 2, 1995, to the extent that the provision:

    (a) Established a procedure for regulating, restricting or prohibiting the discharge of firearms; or

    (b) Regulated, restricted or prohibited the discharge of firearms.

    (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:

    (a) Ordinances regulating, restricting or prohibiting the discharge of firearms on a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designed and built for the purpose of target shooting.

    (b) An employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, acting within the scope of employment, discharging a firearm in the course of the lawful taking of wildlife. [1997 c.403 §1; 2009 c.556 §4]

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    281
    Okay, some more thoughts:

    From the article:
    The three new laws that he's proposing: A child safety law that would hold adults responsible if their gun gets into a child's hands, a theft reporting law that would penalize gun owners who don't report the theft or loss of a firearm; and an exclusion zone measure that would designate shooting hot spots in the city, and allow the city to exclude gun offenders who are on probation or under juvenile authority from entering a public area or park within the hot spot locations, unless they live in the area, go to school, obtain social services or travel through it.
    None of the proposals have anything to do with the possession of loaded firearms in public places...which is one of the few areas of regulation specifically granted to the local jurisdiction. These proposals will be voided in court according to ORS 166.170(2).


    From the ORS:
    AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS



    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]

  12. #12
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by American Rattlesnake View Post
    I just looked up the statutes; it appears that the State gave some leeway to local jurisdictions to regulate the carry of loaded firearms in public places (excepting CHL holders, of course.) See bolded section below.

    What I don't understand now is this: Portland already has a comprehensive ban on carrying loaded firearms in the city (again, CHL holders excepted.) What do the "new" rules do that the old regulations don't cover?

    From the ORS:
    It really does nothing except to help make it appear that Adams is doing something to keep gangs from shooting at each other... While hurting the liberties of law abiding citizens..

    Eventually we hope that people will realize that criminals just don't care about the law. Thats generally why we call them criminals.. /bleh

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    thanks for posting the statutes.....

    again, since i dont live in portland and i avoid it like the plague and i have a CHL, the reigning chickenhawks attempt to pass gun laws do not effect me at all.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    288 views, still no outrage.... total apathy from portlanders

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by Teddybearfrmhell View Post
    288 views, still no outrage.... total apathy from portlanders
    I still don't understand why anyone needs to be outraged...the regulations under consideration are unlawful and not binding. If Portlanders want to raise a ruckus about the Mayor and company passing regulations in violation of ORS, they can do that...if not, that's fine too. The City is impotent with respect to firearms regulations.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by American Rattlesnake View Post
    I still don't understand why anyone needs to be outraged...the regulations under consideration are unlawful and not binding. If Portlanders want to raise a ruckus about the Mayor and company passing regulations in violation of ORS, they can do that...if not, that's fine too. The City is impotent with respect to firearms regulations.
    the "outrage" was poking fun at the OP with the call to get on this PRONTO..... to be honest, i dont care if portland can make the laws stick..... dont effect me at all.

  17. #17
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    I'm in Medford and Christmas break is coming. Anyone want to do some loaded OC up in Portland? I've got an audio recorder and wireless mic/transmitter (so the recorder itself can be in a safe location on a "backup" person in case the cops decide to illegally stop my recording (can't get the file).

    I don't think I want to OC that far from home without "backup" in case they get stupid. Any takers?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    I'm in Medford and Christmas break is coming. Anyone want to do some loaded OC up in Portland? I've got an audio recorder and wireless mic/transmitter (so the recorder itself can be in a safe location on a "backup" person in case the cops decide to illegally stop my recording (can't get the file).

    I don't think I want to OC that far from home without "backup" in case they get stupid. Any takers?
    Do you have a lawyer lined up, just in case? I'm not trying to be cute, just giving you something to think about.

  19. #19
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by American Rattlesnake View Post
    Do you have a lawyer lined up, just in case? I'm not trying to be cute, just giving you something to think about.
    I have a lawyer but he's here in the Medford area. I'll be checking into a "prepaid legal" service shortly but at this time it's not an option.

Posting Permissions

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