Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Who / how do I contact a city about fixing their illegal ordinance (city code)

  1. #1
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317

    Who / how do I contact a city about fixing their illegal ordinance (city code)

    IANAL... but the State Preemption (see highlight) makes the unloaded clip/magazine city ordinances null & void. Cities (and counties) are expressly authorized by state statute to pass ordinances of "loaded firearms in public places", it does not authorize clip/magazine or ammo ordinances.

    So my question... who or how do I contact the city about this "void" city code and get the wording changed to be within the state law? Letter to the city attorney / mayor / city council? Is there a form / formal request to bring this to a council meeting? Does it require court action? Just looking for the proper procedure to follow and how to elevate it should the first attempt fail. I'm starting with Astoria since it's close to where I live, but once I know the system, I will work on other cities that are trying to regulate loaded clip/magazine.

    ----------

    OREGON STATE
    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.

    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:
    ...
    (c) A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.

    ASTORIA
    5.010 Carrying Loaded Firearm Unlawful.
    (A) No person shall knowingly carry a firearm, loaded or unloaded, in a park, school ground or public building.
    (B) No person on a public street or in a public place shall knowingly carry a firearm upon the person, or in a vehicle under the person's control or in which the person is an occupant, unless all ammunition or missile has been removed from the chamber and from the cylinder, clip or magazine.
    (C) Subsections (A) and (B) of this section shall not apply to:
    ...
    (3) Any person having a valid permit issued to the person by lawful authority to carry or use concealed firearms;

    Re-written by me to meet state law:

    ASTORIA
    5.010 Carrying Loaded Firearm Unlawful.
    (A) No person shall knowingly carry a loaded firearm in a park, school ground or public building.
    (B) No person shall knowingly carry a loaded firearm on a public street or in a public place, or in a vehicle under the person's control or in which the person is an occupant.
    (C) Subsections (A) and (B) of this section shall not apply to:
    ...
    (3) Any person having a valid permit issued to the person by lawful authority to carry or use concealed firearms;

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    155
    We're happy to help you in the Oregon forum too.

    I do believe We-The-People had mentioned the same exact issue here . I don't know if he had wrote a letter. I can't find information on their website to signup as a speaker so you may have to call them.

    http://www.astoria.or.us/

    The section "school ground or public building." is redundant in my opinion. Without a permit a person couldn't carry near(school) or in a public building anyways.

    Paul Benoit, City Manager
    City Hall
    1095 Duane St.
    Astoria, OR 97103
    (503)-325-5824

    HOW TO CONTACT US:

    • Reach us by phone at: (503) 325-5824
    • Fax us at: (503) 325-2017
    • E-mail us at: jlampi@astoria.or.us
    • Mail your inquiries to:
    City Manager’s Office
    Astoria City Hall
    1095 Duane Street
    Astoria, OR 97103
    Last edited by Dogbait; 09-04-2011 at 07:00 PM. Reason: Because I can't read.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    PDX, Oregon
    Posts
    6
    What really matters is the legal definition of "Loaded" in the ORS. Which just happens to be covered under ORS 166.360(3)(a):

    (3) “Loaded firearm” means:

    (a) A breech-loading firearm in which there is an unexpended cartridge or shell in or attached to the firearm including but not limited to, in a ch amber, magazine or clip which is attached to the firearm.

    So in my opinion... Yes... They are overstepping their lawful authority... Just like Portland is... However... Since I have my CHL, I am exempt and therefore I can't be the test case....

    I would try contacting the DA and going from there...

    IANAL
    YMMY

    Etc Etc

  4. #4
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Don't forget to discuss section D of the Astoria code as well. It is void by state preemption as it does not exempt CHL holders who, by state law, only have to submit to a "load condition check" when in public buildings. The Astoria ordinance goes beyond that and in therefore void. Since it is void, it technically can't be used against anyone as VOID means is INVALID. Can't enforce and invalid ordinance now can you?

    Oh wait, they own the courts....so you take your chances. LOL

    My reading of the unloaded part is that it's saying you have to remove the ammunition from the chamber, cylinder, and mag....NOT that you have to remove it from all magazines as the Portland (VOID) ordinance states.

    Just my opinion.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  5. #5
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Can a moderator move this to the OREGON forum as the issue is very specific to Oregon law.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317
    I put this in the general category because the question wasn't about the city's void due to state preemption ordinance, but about the general process to get a city ordinance corrected or removed. Who to write and the order (ie chain of command) to carry the issue upwards should be the roughly same state to state, ie start with city attorney, then mayor, then city council, then actually have it put on the city council's agenda... and so on. I'm looking for the process/procedure to have this reviewed by the right people who can actually make the changes required to meet state law.

  7. #7
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Sega View Post
    I put this in the general category because the question wasn't about the city's void due to state preemption ordinance, but about the general process to get a city ordinance corrected or removed. Who to write and the order (ie chain of command) to carry the issue upwards should be the roughly same state to state, ie start with city attorney, then mayor, then city council, then actually have it put on the city council's agenda... and so on. I'm looking for the process/procedure to have this reviewed by the right people who can actually make the changes required to meet state law.
    That procedure is also very State/county/city specific. A general forum is not the place to get good advice, unless you just happen to get very lucky. You need to get your advice very locally.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  8. #8
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    As a former small town politician I would say that your best bet is to contact the city attorny and/or a single city council member and ask for an appointment to talk with them. If that fails, use the "comments from the public" portion of any city council meeting to make a very brief and concise statement of the facts and ask them to take the appropriate action to remove the offending sections. You don't need to be on the agenda but they also can not take any action at that time as it's not on the agenda. They may ask the city attorney or manager questions (most likely the attorney) so you might want to e-mail him/her ahead of time even if they refused you an appointment, and let them know that you plan to speak on the issue at the particular meeting so that they can look up the law and (hopefully) agree that yes, the ordinance is VOID so it should be removed.....don't hold your breath though. IF the attorney agrees with you the council can't take any action but they can get it put on the agenda for correction.

    I would ask around and see if any of the council members are TRULY pro-gum and bring it to their attention if you happen to find one rather than just randomly contacting one.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

Posting Permissions

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