Man arrested for open carry at a Klamath County, OR Library

[We-the-People]

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

SoldierBoi wrote:

Ok to answer all of your questions about this episode. This individually did not just OC into the library. He was showing it off to other patrons(brandishing). As well as talking about it in inappropriate manners. How it was loaded and such. The cause for alarm was his overall attitude. He is a disgrace and this should not be an open carry case. But a stupidity trial.

Video of it outside the holster?

SOURCE please!

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

SoldierBoi wrote:

Ok to answer all of your questions about this episode. This individually did not just OC into the library. He was showing it off to other patrons(brandishing). As well as talking about it in inappropriate manners. How it was loaded and such. The cause for alarm was his overall attitude. He is a disgrace and this should not be an open carry case. But a stupidity trial.

Video of it outside the holster?

Cite to source.

Yata hey

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

SoldierBoi wrote:

Ok to answer all of your questions about this episode. This individually did not just OC into the library. He was showing it off to other patrons(brandishing). As well as talking about it in inappropriate manners. How it was loaded and such. The cause for alarm was his overall attitude. He is a disgrace and this should not be an open carry case. But a stupidity trial.

Video of it outside the holster?

Cite to source.

Yata hey

Exactly. SoldierBoi claims he was brandishing. Where's the video proof? Victim disarmers will often claim holstered firearms with hands off are brandishing, despite the law.

 

[We-the-People]

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

Exactly. SoldierBoi claims he was brandishing. Where's the video proof? Victim disarmers will often claim holstered firearms with hands off are brandishing, despite the law.

And Oregon has no brandishing law. We do have 163.190 MENACING but the statute requires intent.

163.190 (1) A person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.

And we have 166.190 Pointing firearm at another; courts having jurisdiction over offense. Any person over the age of 12 years who, with or without malice, purposely points or aims any loaded or empty pistol, gun, revolver or other firearm, at or toward any other person within range of the firearm, except in self-defense, shall be fined upon conviction in any sum not less than $10 nor more than $500, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than 10 days nor more than six months, or both.



Unless the subject INTENDED to cause fear in others 163.190 does not apply.

Unless the subject PURPOSELY pointed or aimed at someone else, 16.190 doesn't apply.



"Showing it off" is not brandishing, we don't even have such a statute. And it doesn't fit either 163.190 or 166.190. It's not particularly smart, arguably even quite stupid, but it is not illegal under either of those statutes......IF he had a CHL.

It is perfectly legal for me to strap my FN 5.7 to my side and take a leisurly stroll across the playground of my nearest K-12 school. But like I learned in flight school, legal doesn't always mean smart! I expect that should I take such a stroll I'd be eating some dirt when the entire police force showed up. However, it is legal and while they'd be fuming at the mouth and looking for ANYTHING to haul me off for, the fact that I walked across the playground with a firearm WOULD NOT BE LEGAL CAUSE. Not that that has ever stopped "the system" from violating the law and the civil rights of individuals.



So, we are back to square one. Did the individual involved in the originally posted incident have a CHL or not?

What are the charges?



SOURCES, not the random posting of a two post member with no sources PLEASE

 

[Gray Peterson]

imported post

Capn Camo wrote:

Y'all are citing the WRONG SECTION of Oregon Code. Read the PREEPMTION statute:

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]

The question is "where" and the answer is "County Library."

Fortunately they cant get away with that crap in WA. WA preemption doesnt allow any more restrictive.... You all need to work on the OR Legislature to fix that.Push the Legislature to adopt the "not make more restrictive LAWS and PENALTIES.

The OR Legislature has made a MESS of this because it provides for a myriad of laws that are against the idea of pre-emption which means (or should) 'same laws everywhere.' The purpose of pre-emption in WA is that there are no conflicting laws in Counties and Cities.

CapnCamo,

The issue here is not the Oregon State Preemption statute. As posted repeatedly by We-The-People, there is a STATE STATUTE which prohibits one from carrying in any "public building" at state/county/municipal/public level. Even if ORS 166.173 were completely stricken from the books, if this guy in Klamath was carrying in a public building without a concealed handgun license, whether open carrying or concealed carry, he would be in violation of the state statute, period.

 

[Anthony_I_Am]

imported post

Poor guy. He should sue.