13 people carrying guns on Burnside Bridge?

[bolus]

what we really need to support open carry (and its a bit sad to say this) is a bunch of women walking around visible weapons. No one is going to see this and assume they're terrorists

 

[FireFighterChen]

Not an assault rifle...weak reporting

 

[Hawaiian]

When we know:
Did the individual have a CHL
Was the firearm loaded or unloaded

We can then discuss the legal ramifications.

 

[slicediceputinrice]

goes to show where peoples priorities are at, homeless junkies nodded out, pissing and crapping up and down the sidewalk on Burnside? YES! guy's who can afford gear and guns taking a photo shoot on the bridge? NO, CALL THE POLICE LIKE A GOOD SCARED LITTLE RABBIT

 

[Stumps]

I guess I will express a different idea about all this. If you want to wear plate carriers with mags stuffed in them and carry rifles through the city for a photo shoot, maybe you should let someone know what you are up to? I am not saying to throw yourself at " the man's" feet and beg. Just a simple, there are a bunch of us meeting at this place, taking pictures for a calendar, and we will be posing with guns.

There needs to be a common sense point that can be reached. There is a way to have freedom of speech and at the same time bear arms without creating a public panic. I do not want to see anyone charged in this, but they should not have been shocked by the response.

 

[davemata]

What would be the common sense point? I would think it's COMMON SENSE that someone wouldn't crap their pants anytime they see something different from what is normal.

The common sense would be to beat the antis in the area over their heads with the site of weapons at all times, so there's a normalization. Normalizing a carried rifle prevents the fetishists from fapping away and "seeing something and saying something" to hassle normal folk.

 

[hermannr]

I would assume there was no violation of the firearms laws...why? They were charged with "disorderly conduct" according to the report.

To the guys that were charged: Take no plee deal, let them prove it in court (bet they can't) then sue the city for everything you can get.

to the guys that were not charged...skip the first court case and raise some real money for cancer research..

 

[Stomper]

what we really need to support open carry (and its a bit sad to say this) is a bunch of women walking around visible weapons. No one is going to see this and assume they're terrorists

I've seen this photo before a few years ago and was taken in Israel for an article (IIRCC) pertaining to Israel's readiness and how they manage to keep terrorist attacks to a minimum. This is a VERY common site throughout the country. Those gals are IDF soldiers and/or reservists.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Interesting:

A. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess or carry a firearm, in or upon a public place, including while in a vehicle in a public place, recklessly having failed to remove all the ammunition from the firearm.

B. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess or carry a firearm and that firearm's clip or magazine, in or upon a public place, including while in a vehicle in a public place, recklessly having failed to remove all the ammunition from the clip or magazine.

Black's Law Dictionary defines recklessness in American law as "Conduct whereby the actor does not desire harmful consequence but...foresees the possibility and consciously takes the risk," or alternatively as "a state of mind in which a person does not care about the consequences of his or her actions."

What if, as an expert with firearms, I care very much about public safety, and I foresee no possibility of harmful consequence to anyone from me carrying a loaded weapon or especially a loaded magazine carried separately in public? I've just eliminated "recklessly" failing to unload the weapon or magazine, so logically, I'm not in violation of their statute.

 

[drew]

Interesting:



Black's Law Dictionary defines recklessness in American law as "Conduct whereby the actor does not desire harmful consequence but...foresees the possibility and consciously takes the risk," or alternatively as "a state of mind in which a person does not care about the consequences of his or her actions."

What if, as an expert with firearms, I care very much about public safety, and I foresee no possibility of harmful consequence to anyone from me carrying a loaded weapon in public? I've just eliminated "recklessly" failing to unload the weapon or magazine, so logically, I'm not in violation of their statute.

Portland's use of recklessly in their ordinance always annoys me. It looks like someone added language to try to make a point.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Portland's use of recklessly in their ordinance always annoys me. It looks like someone added language to try to make a point.

And in plain english it nullifies their ordinance unless they can prove a particular state of mind.

Also:

(10) Public place means a place to which the general public has access and includes, but is not limited to, hallways, lobbies and other parts of apartment houses and hotels not constituting rooms or apartments designed for actual residence, and highways, streets, schools, places of amusement, parks, playgrounds and premises used in connection with public passenger transportation. [1971 c.743 §3; 1973 c.139 §1; 1979 c.656 §3; 1991 c.67 §33; 1993 c.625 §4; 1995 c.651 §5; 2011 c.506 §22; 2011 c.641 §2; 2011 c.644 §23]

Again, in plain english, this does not include a motor vehicle that is privately owned. Unauthorized entry into such a vehicle would be a crime. Therefor, it is not a "public" place.

 

[mjbskwim]

When we know:
Did the individual have a CHL
Was the firearm loaded or unloaded

We can then discuss the legal ramifications.

HUH?
When has facts ever gotten in the way of solid legal advice on NWFA?
Come on

 

[drew]

And in plain english it nullifies their ordinance unless they can prove a particular state of mind.

Again, in plain english, this does not include a motor vehicle that is privately owned. Unauthorized entry into such a vehicle would be a crime. Therefor, it is not a "public" place.

I agree with you on the absurdity of including reckless as a behavioral modifier in the ordinances.

Unfortunately, the courts have decided a private vehicle can be a public place.

Local government may regulate possession of loaded firearms on streets and highways regardless of whether firearms are kept in location to which general public does not have access. State v. Ward, 224 Or App 421, 198 P3d 443 (2008), Sup Ct review denied

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I agree with you on the absurdity of including reckless as a behavioral modifier in the ordinances.

Unfortunately, the courts have decided a private vehicle can be a public place.

Yes, I knew about that case. I should have made it more clear that I disagree with that ruling and I think it could be successfully challenged.

 

[Darknight]

But the state also gave counties and cities latitude to ban open carry for non CHL holders.

Read Medic's post. The state of Oregon only gives the counties and cities the right to regulate LOADED firearms. LOADED also has to meet the state definition of LOADED, not what the city of Portlandia makes up. Better read it again, this time a little slower.

 

[Darknight]

I think people are missing the fact that the two charged weren't charged for a gun crime. They were charged for disorderly conduct. Which is basically a catch all when the cops don't have anything else.

The disorderly conduct charge will not stick. They probably just wanted a reason to get them and the firearm(s) off the street to make the Liberal elitist yuppies of Portlandia feel better. If enough people were walking around portlandia oc they wouldn't be able to arrest tham all. It would become the new norm like the naked Gay bicyclists. Sure there would be a little backlash at first, just like there was when the first naked gay bicyclist appeared on the streets, but it would be short lived.

 

[Darknight]

Again, in plain english, this does not include a motor vehicle that is privately owned. Unauthorized entry into such a vehicle would be a crime. Therefor, it is not a "public" place.[/QUOTE]

You should look up state v ward, according to it your vehicle most certainly is a public place. You may not carry a loaded firearm anywhere in your vehicle in Portlandia and a few other places in Oregon, without a CHL.

 

[Burt Gummer]

Oh government please save me from these scary people with guns! Boo hoo.

Oregon

Pros: tremendous natural beauty

Cons: high taxes, Portland, political correctness, ridiculous regulations, insane politicians, not enough jobs, huge drug problem, possible tsunami threat along the coast

Overall Rating: C-

(Economic Collapse Blog State Rating)

 

[Darknight]

Pros: tremendous natural beauty

Burt, Im confused, would you be refering to the natural beauty of the man-made freeways, man-made bridges, man-made buildings and the man-made signs or the man-made seawall that lines both sides of the river that you can barely see whilst all the other afore-mentioned man-made beauty by the portlandians?

 

[ereezy503]

Burt included Portland in his list of Cons. I would assume that includes all of the bridges, buildings, signs, and seawalls within city limits.