Oregon OC Pamphlet

[Puddin99]

The other one.

 

[We-the-People]

Ordnance is the proper spelling of the word. Ordinance is how the government screwed it up many years ago....which is quite fitting considering many ordinances.

I may be a bit biased however as I was an Aviation Ordnanceman in the Corps. SMILE

 

[cobalt503]

missinformation Ordnance vs Ordinance

Ordnance is the proper spelling of the word. Ordinance is how the government screwed it up many years ago....which is quite fitting considering many ordinances.

I may be a bit biased however as I was an Aviation Ordnanceman in the Corps. SMILE

I had to google it since I never take anything at face value.

So to be clear they're both are actual words that apply to two different meanings.
Ordinance is a regulation/law/rule & Ordnance is munitions/ammo/weapons etc..

I'd imagine an Ordnanceman worked with weapons? As opposed to writing Ordinances?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knowledge/google is power.

Don't be mad at me if I'm smart than you. It is not my fault

 

[We-the-People]

I had to google it since I never take anything at face value.

So to be clear they're both are actual words that apply to two different meanings.
Ordinance is a regulation/law/rule & Ordnance is munitions/ammo/weapons etc..

I'd imagine an Ordnanceman worked with weapons? As opposed to writing Ordinances?

You would be imagining correctly. Ordnance has to do with munitions, explosives, weapons, and the like.
Ordinance has to do with rules and regulations.

I worked with weapons from the 9mm to 50cal full auto and hand grenades up to 2000 pound bombs, as well as the systems that controlled them and the aircraft that deliver them.

 

[TheOneCalledDoc]

You guys rock! I'm transfering back to Ca. in 65 days and I plan on taking 30 days of leave back in Oregon. I have a .45 back home and chose not to bring it out here with me becasue Illinois has some of the most retarded gun laws I have ever seen. I fully plan on spending some quality time with my gun but was concerned about confrontation if I open cary. This will be my first open cary (insert "virgin" joke here) and honestly I'm a little nervous about it. I'm not big on confrontation but I took an oath to lay down my life defending the constitution and I'm going to get my monies worth, so to speak. This site and this OR OC Pamphlet make life a little easier. Thanks a million guys.

 

[Grapeshot]

You guys rock! I'm transfering back to Ca. in 65 days and I plan on taking 30 days of leave back in Oregon. I have a .45 back home and chose not to bring it out here with me becasue Illinois has some of the most retarded gun laws I have ever seen. I fully plan on spending some quality time with my gun but was concerned about confrontation if I open cary. This will be my first open cary (insert "virgin" joke here) and honestly I'm a little nervous about it. I'm not big on confrontation but I took an oath to lay down my life defending the constitution and I'm going to get my monies worth, so to speak. This site and this OR OC Pamphlet make life a little easier. Thanks a million guys.

Welcome to OCDO Doc - also thanks for your service.

Enjoy your leave time and the opportunity to exercise your RKBA. Recommend that you try to catch some meet n' greet time with some of the local enthusiasts - does wonders for your confidence level.

There is hope for CA, but it's going to be a while coming.

 

[Puddin99]

Updated - Added Springfield Oregon

Wondering if there be any value in adding a trespassing section.
Any other recommendations?

 

[Dogbait]

Updated - Added Springfield Oregon

Wondering if there be any value in adding a trespassing section.
Any other recommendations?

I am looking at the Springfield Municipal Code and based on my reading its for public parks and recreation district facility. Maybe add a clarification to pamphlet similar to Oregon city?

5.286 Possession of Loaded Firearms Prohibited.

Except as provided in ORS 166.173(2), it shall be unlawful for any person to possess any loaded: firearm, rifle, shotgun, revolver, pistol, air gun, air rifle or any similar mechanism by whatever name known which is designed to expel a projectile through a gun barrel by the action of any explosive powder, gas, compressed air, spring or elastic mechanism at any public park and recreation district facility open to or frequented by the public, including, but not limited to, parks, roads, buildings, and parking lots. This prohibition shall not apply to activities sponsored or authorized by a park district. The above offense is punishable as a violation and subject to a fine not exceeding $720.00 pursuant to SMC section 1.205. [Section 5.286 amended by Ordinance No. 6169, enacted May 15, 2006; further amended by Ordinance No. 6173, enacted May 15, 2006.]

 

[Puddin99]

Good suggestion. Does everyone agree? Do we assume that it is everyone's individual responsibility to know the laws? As Oregonian's with permits, we know that we are prempted of these ordinances.

Feedback?

 

[We-the-People]

I feel like the pamphlet is supposed to be a "down and dirty" informational handout to let people know the basics of open carry being legal. While it's nice to have the list of ban cities and puting in the "parks" type notes on them, it realy only serves to add info to an already info packed flyer. At some point, we lose the power of the other information. Also, we don't want people to get a flyer to think that it has "everything you need to know".

I think keeping it simple is the better way to go. Otherwise the flyer will lose effectiveness. City and section of code, with the exception of the Metro Rules (as they aren't city code). Those who get a flyer need to do their own due diligence prior to carrying.

 

[Taz480]

Pamphlet Correction

Hi, been here many times mostly just looking for info as I open carry often. Also downloaded and printed off your pamphlet many times. Glad there's an updated version.

There is one correction to be made, however, if everyone wishes it to have accurate information. First, I assume that since most of this information and the pamphlet itself is mostly for the "open-carrier", the first part about "Concealed Handgun Licensing Prerequisites", is just there for extra info for the open-carrier who may wish to go concealed instead of, or in addition to open carrying. That's great!! All for it. However, and not sure how it's been missed by so many for so long, but prerequisite #4 is inaccurate. It states....

"4. Not convicted or found guilty of a misdemeanor."

It should read.....

"4. Not convicted or found guilty of a misdemeanor within four(4) years."

In the state of Oregon, a misdemeanor will only bar you from getting your CHL if it is within 4 years of applying. Felony? Ya...PERIOD!! But misdemeanor? Nah, it's four years. Just a friendly heads up!!!

Great site, great forum!!!

C-yuz!!!

(PS- haven't really done anything with my profile, yet. Really just joined real quick for that, but also been meaning to anyway. But also I happen to belong to about a million different internet forums. Hard to keep up with all of them.)

Sincerely,
Taz

 

[American1]

Hi, been here many times mostly just looking for info as I open carry often. Also downloaded and printed off your pamphlet many times. Glad there's an updated version.

There is one correction to be made, however, if everyone wishes it to have accurate information. First, I assume that since most of this information and the pamphlet itself is mostly for the "open-carrier", the first part about "Concealed Handgun Licensing Prerequisites", is just there for extra info for the open-carrier who may wish to go concealed instead of, or in addition to open carrying. That's great!! All for it. However, and not sure how it's been missed by so many for so long, but prerequisite #4 is inaccurate. It states....

"4. Not convicted or found guilty of a misdemeanor."

It should read.....

"4. Not convicted or found guilty of a misdemeanor within four(4) years."

In the state of Oregon, a misdemeanor will only bar you from getting your CHL if it is within 4 years of applying. Felony? Ya...PERIOD!! But misdemeanor? Nah, it's four years. Just a friendly heads up!!!

Great site, great forum!!!

C-yuz!!!

(PS- haven't really done anything with my profile, yet. Really just joined real quick for that, but also been meaning to anyway. But also I happen to belong to about a million different internet forums. Hard to keep up with all of them.)

Sincerely,
Taz

Under O.R.S. 166.270 Possession of weapons by certain felons.
(a) Convicted of only one felony under the law of this state or any other state, or who has been convicted of only one felony under the laws of the United States, which felony did not involve criminal homicide, as defined in ORS 163.005, or the possession or use of a firearm or a weapon having a blade that projects or swings into position by force of a spring or by centrifugal force, and who has been discharged from imprisonment, parole or probation for said offense for a period of 15 years prior to the date of alleged violation of subsection (1) of this section; or

(b) Granted relief from the disability under 18 U.S.C. 925(c) or ORS 166.274 or has had the person’s record expunged under the laws of this state or equivalent laws of another jurisdiction.
Just FYI

 

[Taz480]

Under O.R.S. 166.270 Possession of weapons by certain felons.
(a) Convicted of only one felony under the law of this state or any other state, or who has been convicted of only one felony under the laws of the United States, which felony did not involve criminal homicide, as defined in ORS 163.005, or the possession or use of a firearm or a weapon having a blade that projects or swings into position by force of a spring or by centrifugal force, and who has been discharged from imprisonment, parole or probation for said offense for a period of 15 years prior to the date of alleged violation of subsection (1) of this section; or

(b) Granted relief from the disability under 18 U.S.C. 925(c) or ORS 166.274 or has had the person’s record expunged under the laws of this state or equivalent laws of another jurisdiction.
Just FYI

Uuummmm..... not sure what that has to do with my post. I was simply pointing out that if anyone reads the current pamphlet and doesn't already know, they may think they can't get an OR CHL if they have a misdemeanor, period. That's not the case. The words, "within four years" needs to be added to #4 of the prerequisites for obtaining an OR CHL, in the pamphlet. Not sure what that has to do with the ORS you quoted. If you're a felon, no CHL, period. Has nothing to do with possessing weapons as a felon, which is what the statute you quoted has to do with.

**EDIT-
You forgot to add... "(4) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to any person who has been:", so I didn't know which part you were quoting off hand until I reread the actual statute. Still, it has nothing to do with the point I was making. You may be able to have a weapon in your possession with only one felony that didn't involve homicide, but you're still not going to get a concealed handgun license in Oregon. And as I said, I was only pointing out the issue with the misdemeanor thing in the pamphlet. Thanks for the feedback, though!

 

[We-the-People]

I think the point of the pamphlet is to address the majority of citizens with the most often encountered questions they might have.

If you're prohibited from having a firearm you obviously can't open carry and you damn well should already know that. The majority of Americans are not prohibited.

If we try to put everything into a pamphlet intended to be "down and dirty" info, we may as well right a book.

 

[Taz480]

I think the point of the pamphlet is to address the majority of citizens with the most often encountered questions they might have.

If you're prohibited from having a firearm you obviously can't open carry and you damn well should already know that. The majority of Americans are not prohibited.

If we try to put everything into a pamphlet intended to be "down and dirty" info, we may as well right a book.

Oh I totally agree. And like I said, this site and the pamphlet is mainly for the people who wish to open carry.
I just assumed everyone wanted accurate information in the pamphlet. I came here looking for info on, not only open carrying, but concealed as well. Logic only suggests that others will too. And what about the people who get handed the pamphlet on the street? If I didn't know better or hadn't looked elsewhere as well, I might have seen the pamphlet and thought since I've had a misdemeanor, I can't have a concealed handgun license and not even bothered trying, not realizing all the while that that wasn't true at all. Otherwise, if it's all about open carry only, then why even bother having the prerequisites for an OR CHL in the pamphlet at all? My point was just a heads up, an FYI, maybe not even for this version, but maybe for the next revision. If you're going to have a pamphlet intended to inform people, then why not have that info accurate? And it wouldn't really take much to add 3 little words. Hardly a "book". Lastly, I know I want to make sure people get the most accurate info, whether it's about open carrying or concealed, and let them make the choice for themselves. I won't hand out anymore until it's fixed, but that's just me. Like I said, just a FYI!
Just my .02 cents!
Cheers!

EDIT-
If you guys really want the pamphlet to be a powerful informational tool to inform people of the legality of open carry, then like I said earlier, why not just take the concealed handgun license prerequisites out of it altogether? It would certainly make the open carry part stand out more.

 

[We-the-People]

CHL info is in the pamphlet because CHL's strengthen OC by giving access to almost any place in the state. Local and state government buildings, airport terminals, schools, police departments, etc. I OC daily and while I try to carry sterile at all times, when I have to go on to government facilities, I carry the CHL, knowing that it trumps any desire they may have to prevent me from OCing in their buildings and on their grounds.

 

[Taz480]

Very good! Exactly why I thought it was in there!
Soooo, why not have accurate info if it's going to be in there.

So basically, we want people to learn that.....
You can open carry, you should open carry. Oh and for those places where you can't open carry, get a CHL and keep on open carrying. But wait!! You CANNOT have one if you EVER had a misdemeanor.

You just said the CHL prerequisites are in the pamphlet to help strengthen O.C. by giving people more places to carry openly, but you're also telling people that they CANNOT have one if they have EVER had a misdemeanor. That is entirely untrue!

What good is it to have a side effect that strengthens if it's impossible to get?? That's what lot's of people with maybe only one misdemeanor, 20 years old, will be thinking. You'd be surprised how many people are not felons but have one or two misdemeanors and don't now how the CHL process works. They see this pamphlet and they'll lose all hope!

I really don't mean to sound anal about this. I just don't understand why everyone wouldn't want accurate info in there. And I know the main purpose of the pamphlet is just to get people thinking and make them go look it up themselves, but still, if you're going to hand out information, it needs to be accurate information. There's another angle to think about, too. You hand me the pamphlet and I understand it's just to get me to go look it up myself, and I do, then I see that the pamphlet has false info in it, then I'm gonna assume the rest of it's inaccurate or false as well and throw the thing away.

I'm sorry. I guess I just don't get it.
(not an invitation to more clarification)
Thank you! Have a nice day!!

 

[nilla]

what about business cards?

pamplets are great, but i think het same goal can be achieved with business cards which may be more convienient for one to carry and distribute. i know some info is gonna hafta be trimmed down to fit on a business card, and still be legible.
a small card may seem less intimidating than a pamphlet (as intimidating as tri-folded sheets of paper can be), but still promote thought/discussion on the topic ... and be more environmemtally to boot (less paper product) ?

ED makes some awesome business cards and they are wildly popular. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...pen-Carry-Flyers-amp-Information-Cards-STICKY
i have a coulpe in my wallet, as a matter of fact.

so what are your guys's thoughts on 'fun-sizing' this pamphlet?

 

[We-the-People]

pamplets are great, but i think het same goal can be achieved with business cards which may be more convienient for one to carry and distribute. i know some info is gonna hafta be trimmed down to fit on a business card, and still be legible.
a small card may seem less intimidating than a pamphlet (as intimidating as tri-folded sheets of paper can be), but still promote thought/discussion on the topic ... and be more environmemtally to boot (less paper product) ?

ED makes some awesome business cards and they are wildly popular. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...pen-Carry-Flyers-amp-Information-Cards-STICKY
i have a coulpe in my wallet, as a matter of fact.

so what are your guys's thoughts on 'fun-sizing' this pamphlet?

You had me interested until you mentioned the G word. ACK This is Oregon, we want to support our ailing timber industry by cutting more trees!!!!

 

[nilla]

okay, well ... ... then print twice as many of them on double thick cards and ... and ... and ... ... wipe twice before you flush.

seriously, tho. i think these are a good idea and worth pursuing. it's not for me, but for yourselves.