Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
Ms. [name redacted],
I was forwarded this email by [name redacted], and I wanted to bring forth your attention to ORS 166.170:
Oregon Revised Statute 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]
As TriMet as a district under state law, your agency has absolutely NO authority in any way to regulate firearms. Open carry is unregulated by state law per ORS166.250(3):
(3) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section.
The only regulation of open carry of firearms are that is allowed by state law is the banning of loaded firearms in public places by cities and counties. Districts are not given this authority.
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]
Both the Cities of Portland and Beaverton (two cities that have exercised their power under ORS 166.173) have acknowledged the legality of open carry by CHL holders as the exemption deals with an exemption of person, not carry method.
Insofar as TriMet is concerned, the existence of a lawfully carried handgun must be treated no differently than a person wearing a shirt with a religious symbol on it and someone being "alarmed" by it. You may not eject persons for wearing such a shirt due
to both US and Oregon constitutional protections because that encompasses a fundamental constitutional and statutorily protected civil right, similar to carrying a firearm under state law.
Recently, the Port of Portland repealed their illegal ordinance banning carry of firearms throughout airport property.
http://oregonfirearms.org/portofportland/
Given the recent Heller decision, the strength of Oregon's constitutional provision on the right to keep and bear arms (Article 1, Section 27), the strength of Oregon's preemption statute, and the existence of Title 42, US Code, Section 1983 (deprivation of civil rights under color of law), a legal minefield awaits TriMet if they attempt to enforce this ordinance to ban lawfully carried firearms that happen to be carried in an open belt holster, given the state's lack of regulation on the subject.
Open carriers are among the most visible and active members of the gun rights movement. Every illegal action against open carriers usually results in both complaints and litigation against the agency or officers responsible for the action, as well as a massive amount of rallying online for fundraisers for such litigation, picketing of the agency, and generally bad press for the agency clearly violating the law. Open carriers as a general rule practice the NATO doctrine: "An attack against one of us is an attack against us all". Here are some examples:
http://www.gnbrotz.com/revocation/
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/news-123/25612-dickson-city-group-s-lawsuit-names-dc-cops.html
I do hope that you will recognize the void nature of this regulation against open carry, and pass on that recognition to the rest of the security department in the form of a bulletin. Spare TriMet, and it's employees the embarrassment of a court battle that it cannot possibly hope to win, wasting taxpayer money in the process when your agency's in desperate need of service improvement in many areas.
Regards,
Lonnie Wilson
Ms. [name redacted],
I was forwarded this email by [name redacted], and I wanted to bring forth your attention to ORS 166.170:
Oregon Revised Statute 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]
As TriMet as a district under state law, your agency has absolutely NO authority in any way to regulate firearms. Open carry is unregulated by state law per ORS166.250(3):
(3) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section.
The only regulation of open carry of firearms are that is allowed by state law is the banning of loaded firearms in public places by cities and counties. Districts are not given this authority.
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]
Both the Cities of Portland and Beaverton (two cities that have exercised their power under ORS 166.173) have acknowledged the legality of open carry by CHL holders as the exemption deals with an exemption of person, not carry method.
Insofar as TriMet is concerned, the existence of a lawfully carried handgun must be treated no differently than a person wearing a shirt with a religious symbol on it and someone being "alarmed" by it. You may not eject persons for wearing such a shirt due
to both US and Oregon constitutional protections because that encompasses a fundamental constitutional and statutorily protected civil right, similar to carrying a firearm under state law.
Recently, the Port of Portland repealed their illegal ordinance banning carry of firearms throughout airport property.
http://oregonfirearms.org/portofportland/
Given the recent Heller decision, the strength of Oregon's constitutional provision on the right to keep and bear arms (Article 1, Section 27), the strength of Oregon's preemption statute, and the existence of Title 42, US Code, Section 1983 (deprivation of civil rights under color of law), a legal minefield awaits TriMet if they attempt to enforce this ordinance to ban lawfully carried firearms that happen to be carried in an open belt holster, given the state's lack of regulation on the subject.
Open carriers are among the most visible and active members of the gun rights movement. Every illegal action against open carriers usually results in both complaints and litigation against the agency or officers responsible for the action, as well as a massive amount of rallying online for fundraisers for such litigation, picketing of the agency, and generally bad press for the agency clearly violating the law. Open carriers as a general rule practice the NATO doctrine: "An attack against one of us is an attack against us all". Here are some examples:
http://www.gnbrotz.com/revocation/
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/news-123/25612-dickson-city-group-s-lawsuit-names-dc-cops.html
I do hope that you will recognize the void nature of this regulation against open carry, and pass on that recognition to the rest of the security department in the form of a bulletin. Spare TriMet, and it's employees the embarrassment of a court battle that it cannot possibly hope to win, wasting taxpayer money in the process when your agency's in desperate need of service improvement in many areas.
Regards,
Lonnie Wilson