The magazine information is very incorrect. (This is for Portland, but the other cities have similar statutes)
<broken link removed>
Copied and pasted from another forum:
Follow my logic:
*******************************************************************
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]
********************************************************************
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]
********************************************************************
Note that nowhere in ORS 166.170 - 176 is there any authorization for a "county, city or other municipal corporation or district" to restrict or prohibit the possession or transportation of ammunition, or magazines (empty or not)...only firearms.
A magazine is NOT a firearm...it is a component, and as such is specifically exempt from regulation by the above mentioned political subdivisions.
IMO, so long as the magazine is not attached to the firearm then neither Portland nor any other political subdivision has any lawful authority to dictate whether it may contain ammunition or not as to do so would be regulating the 'possession' of ammunition, and (firearm) components.
It is worthy to note, however, that Portland's ordinance probably is unenforceable as it conflicts with state preemption regarding the possession and transportation of ammunition and firearms components....something the state HAS NOT specifically granted governmental subdivisions the authority to do.
Yet.
******************************************
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]
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]
*******************************************
A magazine is NOT a firearm...it is a COMPONENT.
Neither Portland nor Beaverton, nor any other city, county, or municipality has the authority to regulate or prohibit carry of a loaded magazine so long as said magazine is NOT inserted into the firearm, as to do so would be regulating the 'possession, storage, or transportation of firearm components (and) ammunition' . Authorization to do so MUST be EXPRESSLY granted by state statute, which means it would be listed in the ORS's.
It's not.
Such prohibitions on loaded, unattached magazines, IMO, directly conflict with state preemption and are unenforceable.
EDIT: Also, this remains untested, I Am Not A Lawyer, etc. But from what I can gather, the poster of the quotes I've provided above would be logically and legally correct.
Carrying a weapon is an inherently dangerous activity, and we must always DO SO AT OUR OWN RISK, although this part of the thread outlines a particular risk that isn't necessarily the first one that comes to mind...
