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

[CamoDeafie]

I could say...

Why yes.... I, a battle hardened street thug criminal... am dumb enough to go to a range where you people are.. to shoot my clearly illegal firearm with clearly illegal accessories and clearly illegal mags that I picked up clearly over State lines and didn't transfer... after clearly buying the illegal firearm from another street thug in nowhere, Wyoming and importing this clearly illegal gun and dared to go shoot at a range where State and local police are...

But I'd think some would take it at face value and call the cops on me

 

[solv3nt]

It never gets old...

Kind of like boomers

 

[CamoDeafie]

Kind of like boomers

There's a reason I don't go to most car shows anymore. They've become mostly all about the 50s to the 70s wit only a few 80s super cars or popular 80s-90s cars and nothing else....

Edit.. seeing the same 20 1955-1957 Chevys, the same 100 1960s muscle cars, the same Camaros and Trans Ams/Firebird, the same Corvettes..... its.. boring now.

 

[wired]

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.

There are laws that are not enforced for a reason. They are unenforceable because if they were enforced they would get tossed out for a variety of reasons. The switchblade law, sodomy laws, bumpstocks , The Mann Act for consensual adults etc. Stuff that has no place being in a law and were they to see the light of day would get thrown out by the first rational judge it came by. Those laws do not get prosecuted. Prosecutorial Discretion. . It happens all the time so when you see a law that you can't find case law on, theres a reason for that.

 

[RX-79G]

I could say...

Why yes.... I, a battle hardened street thug criminal... am dumb enough to go to a range where you people are.. to shoot my clearly illegal firearm with clearly illegal accessories and clearly illegal mags that I picked up clearly over State lines and didn't transfer... after clearly buying the illegal firearm from another street thug in nowhere, Wyoming and importing this clearly illegal gun and dared to go shoot at a range where State and local police are...

But I'd think some would take it at face value and call the cops on me

See, you say that, but it is almost verbatim what was being suggested by OR residents that wanted to bring their ARs to WA ranges.

 

[Member 84438]

Added emphasis. Some LEO's have no qualms with enforcing their own law.

Stay mad. Not my fault some of you can't seem to read the ORS and interpret them. The fact this thread has stretched into 17 pages of trying to figure out if you can conceal carry an SBR shows we aren't exactly dealing with Rhodes Scholars here.

 

[solv3nt]

Stay mad. Not my fault some of you can't seem to read the ORS and interpret them. The fact this thread has stretched into 17 pages of trying to figure out if you can conceal carry an SBR shows we aren't exactly dealing with Rhodes Scholars here.

Not mad, but you have failed to show how your incorrect reading is valid. The only thing that you showed us is that you had a badge at one point and have no problem with arresting people based on you being the one with the badge.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Stay mad. Not my fault some of you can't seem to read the ORS and interpret them. The fact this thread has stretched into 17 pages of trying to figure out if you can conceal carry an SBR shows we aren't exactly dealing with Rhodes Scholars here.

So.... ORS 166.260 is not valid defense even though it literally says that it's an affirmative defense against the charge of violating ORS 166.250 if you're one of the people listed; including CHL holders?

 

[msgriff]

Stay mad. Not my fault some of you can't seem to read the ORS and interpret them. The fact this thread has stretched into 17 pages of trying to figure out if you can conceal carry an SBR shows we aren't exactly dealing with Rhodes Scholars here.

Don't be so hard on yourself, bro, there's always night school.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The big question apparently is..

"Where in the ORS does it says that a "person licensed to conceal carry a handgun"; is not exempt from the charge of violating ORS 166.250 for concealed carrying of any other firearms such as SBRs?"

 

[solv3nt]

The fact this thread has stretched into 17 pages of trying to figure out if you can conceal carry an SBR shows we aren't exactly dealing with Rhodes Scholars here.

Don't be so hard on yourself, bro, there's always night school.

Yeah.... There's only two in here that have stretched it to 17 pages.....

 

[CamoDeafie]

Yeah.... There's only two in here that have stretched it to 17 pages.....

Guilty.. if only for repeatedly asking the same damn question a few different ways

 

[solv3nt]

Guilty.. if only for repeatedly asking the same damn question a few different ways

I was referring to the one person that kept questioning, and our new LEO

 

[CamoDeafie]

I was referring to the one person that kept questioning, and our new LEO

Didnt he say he's retired?

Anyways. So. Maybe this thread has run its course, unless it's like the Daytona 500 and it's all left turns on an oval of argument?

 

[msgriff]

I was referring to the one person that kept questioning, and our new LEO

Never trust an LEO to interpret the law. That's what out of court settlements are for.

 

[solv3nt]

Didnt he say he's retired?

Anyways. So. Maybe this thread has run its course, unless it's like the Daytona 500 and it's all left turns on an oval of argument?

"I feel therefore I am."

Yup, pretty circular....

 

[Member 84438]

The big question apparently is..

"Where in the ORS does it says that a "person licensed to conceal carry a handgun"; is not exempt from the charge of violating ORS 166.250 for concealed carrying of any other firearms such as SBRs?"

ORS 166.260(1)(i)
A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) and 166.292 (Procedure for issuing) to carry a concealed handgun.

ORS 166.210(5)/(11)
"Handgun" means any pistol or revolver using a fixed cartridge containing a propellant charge, primer and projectile, and designed to be aimed or fired otherwise than from the shoulder.

"Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels less than 16 inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle if the weapon has an overall length of less than 26 inches.

Everyone here is forgetting that each section of the ORS has definitions that explain what the words of each section mean. It's literally spelled out for you near the start of each section. It doesn't matter what everyone thinks a word means in an ORS when it has a definition section which is what will be used in court to determine what that section of the law means.

 

[CamoDeafie]

So... an affirmative defense against the charge of violating 166.250 only applies to your interpretation of each section, like if it says licensed to conceal carry a handgun. Its only a handgun that are exempt from a charge of violating 166.250....?

So from that..

Um. Let's break it down;



"(d)Any person summoned by an officer described in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace, while the summoned person is engaged in assisting the officer."
What exactly constitutes "concealed carry of firearms" in this sub section?



"(e)The possession or transportation by any merchant of unloaded firearms as merchandise."
So loaded firearms are not exempt here it seems.


"(f)Active or reserve members of:
(A)The Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard or Marine Corps of the United States, or of the National Guard, when on duty;
(B)The commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; or
(C)The Public Health Service of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, when detailed by proper authority for duty with the Army or Navy of the United States."
Again, what constitutes "concealed carry of any firearms" here? I myself have never seen concealed firearms issued to General military personnel... but VIP protection details does seem to involve concealed firearms. Maybe just that?



"(g)Organizations which are by law authorized to purchase or receive weapons described in ORS 166.250 (Unlawful possession of firearms) from the United States, or from this state."
Hm. So these organizations can buy firearms described in ORS 166.250 from Fed Govt, I've not seen any such sales advertised from the Fed Govt or even Oregon State except for LE contract sales? Probably just that?


"(h)Duly authorized military or civil organizations while parading, or the members thereof when going to and from the places of meeting of their organization."

So again... what constitutes "concealed carry of any firearms" here?

"
(4)The exceptions listed in subsection (1)(d) to (i) of this section constitute affirmative defenses to a charge of violating ORS 166.250 (Unlawful possession of firearms). [Amended by 1977 c.207 §1; 1991 c.67 §36; 1993 c.735 §1; 1995 c.670 §2; 1999 c.1040 §3; 2009 c.316 §2; 2009 c.499 §4; 2012 c.106 §3; 2015 c.709 §2]"


So again, I'm not a lawyer.. but...

None of these specific subsections defines what's considered OK for these people listed to conceal carry.... Other than the one for CHL holders..

So am I to take that because they dont specify what they can conceal carry, they can't just conceal carry any firearm even if the law literally says that these are not affected by ORS 166.250?

Edit. It's either these people are authorized or allowed to conceal carry any firearms, or none of them are really allowed unless specifically defined in each section like the one for CHL holders.

 

[solv3nt]

ORS 166.260(1)(i)
A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) and 166.292 (Procedure for issuing) to carry a concealed handgun.

ORS 166.210(5)/(11)
"Handgun" means any pistol or revolver using a fixed cartridge containing a propellant charge, primer and projectile, and designed to be aimed or fired otherwise than from the shoulder.

"Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels less than 16 inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle if the weapon has an overall length of less than 26 inches.

Everyone here is forgetting that each section of the ORS has definitions that explain what the words of each section mean. It's literally spelled out for you near the start of each section. It doesn't matter what everyone thinks a word means in an ORS when it has a definition section which is what will be used in court to determine what that section of the law means.

166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250. (1) ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affect:

(i) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.

166.250 Unlawful possession of firearms

How can you violate 166.250 if you're exempt?

 

[solv3nt]

I'm assuming that when one is cited or arrested, there is a section for their violation. What exactly would they be violating? ORS166.250? If so, a CHL holder is specifically exempt.