Oregon Can you conceal carry a SBR in OR with a CHL?

[CamoDeafie]

Back to serious for a second...

Many months ago I search for the Oregon laws regarding a loaded rifle in a vehicle. I found FAQ info from Oregon law firms that stated that a CHL allows me to conceal a loaded rifle in the vehicle.

If this is true then we have an example of the CHL being applicable to something other than a handgun. I don't know if they specifically sited the ORS numbers that support the claim.

There are local ordinances that prohibits Open carry of loaded firearms, or in vehicles, unless the owner has a CHL.

 

[solv3nt]

Andy

 

[wired]

After you're arrested, jailed, pay for a lawyer and go in front of a judge. Who doesn't make case law when they dismiss it.

They can do that with anything. Case law is really all we have to rely on. I know you like to interpret law and feel that the wording of the law is important and absolute ...its not. If its dismissed thats what you want, right?

 

[RX-79G]

They can do that with anything. Case law is really all we have to rely on. I know you like to interpret law and feel that the wording of the law is important and absolute ...its not. If its dismissed thats what you want, right?

Well, no. I think that the laws are usually pretty straightforward to understand if you don't have an agenda or preconception. You just read it as if you were the one that wrote it.

Dismissed cases don't make case law. That was the point I was making about dismissed cases - they don't establish precedent - they avoid it.

What you really want is a judgement or law that is clear enough that enforcement stops, so you don't need "an affirmative defense" or "lenity" + attorney fees.

 

[wired]

Well, no. I think that the laws are usually pretty straightforward to understand if you don't have an agenda or preconception. You just read it as if you were the one that wrote it.

Dismissed cases don't make case law. That was the point I was making about dismissed cases - they don't establish precedent - they avoid it.

What you really want is a judgement or law that is clear enough that enforcement stops, so you don't need "an affirmative defense" or "lenity" + attorney fees.

Judges interpret laws. Its not up to you to read them and say ."oh its clear for everyone to see" because its often not. Often laws are contradicted by other laws or rarely theyre unconstitutional or are so vague as to be useless. If you are researching whether a law is one that prosecutors are proud of and want to prosecute and you find NOTHING to support the fact a law is even brought to trial or at least plea bargained out then you can bet that a law isn't worth the ink they print it with. Carrry on as if it doesn't exist because for all intents and purposes it doesnt no matter how clearly you as a lay person interpret the words in our weirdish little semi common law system.

 

[RX-79G]

Judges interpret laws. Its not up to you to read them and say ."oh its clear for everyone to see" because its often not. Often laws are contradicted by other laws or rarely theyre unconstitutional or are so vague as to be useless. If you are researching whether a law is one that prosecutors are proud of and want to prosecute and you find NOTHING to support the fact a law is even brought to trial or at least plea bargained out then you can bet that a law isn't worth the ink they print it with. Carrry on as if it doesn't exist because for all intents and purposes it doesnt no matter how clearly you as a lay person interpret the words in our weirdish little semi common law system.

I'm talking about reading a gun law like 1240 and understanding what it says, not trying peel the onion of constitutional law.

But you're also conflating what a law is supposed to make LE do, what kind of verdict you might receive under that law and then what kind of punishment you might get. Those really are three completely separate things. And then you have stuff like the switchblade law and a host of others that simply aren't enforced, despite being legal and enforceable. See "ice cream cone in the back pocket law."

You really want to avoid any situation where you'll have "a really good defense". That is rather late in the game.

 

[CamoDeafie]

"An affirmative defense against the charge of violating ORS 166.250" for a person with a CHL somehow isn't good enough? I mean sure, LEOs could cite a CHL holder but don't they usually get that info automatically when running tags or IDs? In any case... the absence of case law where CHL holders have indeed been charged, prosecuted and convicted for violating ORS 166.250 seems to indicate that criminal court Judges knows that ORS 166.260 practically exempts CHL holders from violating ORS 166.250.

 

[solv3nt]

"An affirmative defense against the charge of violating ORS 166.250" for a person with a CHL somehow isn't good enough? I mean sure, LEOs could cite a CHL holder but don't they usually get that info automatically when running tags or IDs? In any case... the absence of case law where CHL holders have indeed been charged, prosecuted and convicted for violating ORS 166.250 seems to indicate that criminal court Judges knows that ORS 166.260 practically exempts CHL holders from violating ORS 166.250.

 

[sobo]

I think Camo is just doing it for fun now...

 

[solv3nt]

I think Camo is just doing it for fun now...

At this point, I think we can all agree that you can't carry an SBR concealed in Oregon without pissing someone off.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

At this point, I think we can all agree that you can't carry an SBR concealed in Oregon without pissing someone off.

In real life they won't see it so no pissy pissy. But if you mention it on the internet then it attracts trolls, apparently.

 

[CamoDeafie]

At this point, I think we can all agree that you can't carry an SBR concealed in Oregon without pissing someone off.

Range Karens? Edit. The same people who asks "do you have the license/papers for that illegal gun!?

 

[solv3nt]

Range Karens?

I was more referring to local smokies and trolls, but Karen's too?

 

[CamoDeafie]

I was more referring to local smokies and trolls, but Karen's too?

The people who try to kick other gun owners out of the ranges for having "illegal" guns or accessories or for daring to dress for gun safety (armor vests)

 

[sobo]

Range Karens? Edit. The same people who asks "do you have the license/papers for that illegal gun!?

Correct retort: "You got a badge from AFT for asking that stupid question?"

 

[CamoDeafie]

Correct retort: "You got a badge from AFT for asking that stupid question?"

Or... "you have Level 4 plates on?"

 

[solv3nt]

Correct retort: "You got a badge from AFT for asking that stupid question?"

 

[CamoDeafie]

There is that pesky ORS 166.272....

ORS 166.272 – Unlawful possession of machine guns, certain short-barreled firearms & firearms silencers

A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer if the person…

oregon.public.law

So... may also ask "you have badge from OSP for asking that stupid question?"

 

[solv3nt]

So... may also ask "you have badge from OSP for asking that stupid question?"

 

[sobo]

It never gets old...