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

[RX-79G]

I'm pretty sure felons aren't allowed to own a gun, let alone receive a CHL, what else have you got?

Everything on the list, like the mental adjudication. You can have a CHL before either court process. So unless any of the mental health adjudications automatically kill your CHL, the CHL is an exemption from those prohibitions as well.

Everything Camo posted is about issuing a CHL, not keeping it

 

[solv3nt]

Everything on the list, like the mental adjudication. You can have a CHL before either court process. So unless any of the mental health adjudications automatically kill your CHL, the CHL is an exemption from those prohibitions as well.

Everything Camo posted is about issuing a CHL, not keeping it

Then yes. Unless there's a law that says you can't, you are yet to demonstrate anything but feelings, then someone that hasn't had mental health adjudication can.

Last I checked, you can't be cited for breaking a definition.

 

[CamoDeafie]

ORS 166.293 – Denial or revocation of license

If the application for the concealed handgun license is denied, the sheriff shall set forth in writing the reasons for the denial.…

oregon.public.law

"(a)Any act or condition that would prevent the issuance of a concealed handgun license is cause for revoking a concealed handgun license.


(b)A sheriff may revoke a concealed handgun license by serving upon the licensee a notice of revocation. The notice must contain the grounds for the revocation and must be served either personally or by certified mail, restricted delivery. The notice and return of service shall be included in the file of the licensee. The revocation is effective upon the licensee's receipt of the notice.



(4)Any peace officer or corrections officer may seize a concealed handgun license and return it to the issuing sheriff if the license is held by a person who has been arrested or cited for a crime that can or would otherwise disqualify the person from being issued a concealed handgun license. The issuing sheriff shall hold the license for 30 days. If the person is not charged with a crime within the 30 days, the sheriff shall return the license unless the sheriff revokes the license as provided in subsection (3) of this section."

Emphasis added., this is for keeping a CHL. The only ORS I've cited all have to do with prohibition of firearms possession, or relief from firearms possession.

None of the ORS says that a person committed to a mental health facility, nor a person convicted of a felony, can keep a CHL, or qualify to get a CHL, except for those who have applied for relief from prohibitions which does have some pretty steep conditions

 

[solv3nt]

Isn't it great that in America, you can't lose your gun rights until AFTER you are declared mentally unsound?

 

[solv3nt]

Again, you're running in circles. Rather than confronting ORS 166.260, you're taking the discussion to mental health.

 

[solv3nt]

I think the Republicans were on to something, the laws should definitely be written so an eighth grader could understand it.

 

[RX-79G]

Then yes. Unless there's a law that says you can't, you are yet to demonstrate anything but feelings, then someone that hasn't had mental health adjudication can.

Last I checked, you can't be cited for breaking a definition.

I'm not sure which feelings you're talking about. Either CHLs provide blanket exemptions or they don't.

 

[solv3nt]

I'm not sure which feelings you're talking about. Either CHLs provide blanket exemptions or they don't.

They do. You're the only one that said they don't.

 

[CamoDeafie]

They do. You're the only one that said they don't.

There are places where even CHLs don't apply but these are in separate ORS listed and not relevant to ORS 166.250.

 

[solv3nt]

There are places where even CHLs don't apply but these are in separate ORS listed and not relevant to ORS 166.250.

I could care less about mentally adjudicated or felons concealing an SBR, I'm pretty sure the Fed's would take them too.

The discussion is for the legal card carrying CHL individual. @RX-79G or @PNW Scout can you cite anything other than your feelings that says a legal CHL individual is NOT exempt from ORS 166.250?

 

[CamoDeafie]

I could care less about mentally adjudicated or felons concealing an SBR, I'm pretty sure the Fed's would take them too.

The discussion is for the legal card carrying CHL individual. @RX-79G or @PNW Scout can you cite anything other than your feelings that says a legal CHL individual is NOT exempt from ORS 166.250?

Didn't I literally posted the relevant ORS that prevents LEOs from arresting or charging a person with violating 166.250 if the person produces a valid CHL or proof of LEO status (active or retired)?

 

[RX-79G]

They do. You're the only one that said they don't.

And Scout. Because we both think this theory you two cooked up that any exemption is a blanket exemption would be laughed at by a judge for obvious reasons. Based on the judge having feelings called legal interpretation of what the intent of the law is as written, not what it could be dubiously misconstrued as by an unreasonable person.

 

[CamoDeafie]

ORS 166.262 – Limitation on peace officer’s authority to arrest for violating ORS 166.250 or 166.370

A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating ORS 166.250 (Unlawful possession of firearms) (1)(a) or (b) or…

oregon.public.law

So ORS 166.262 which does say that a peace officer cannot arrest or charge a person for violating 166.250, if the person has in immediate possession;

(1)A valid license to carry a firearm as provided in ORS 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) and 166.292 (Procedure for issuing), unless the person possesses a firearm within the Capitol, within the passenger terminal of a commercial service airport with over one million passenger boardings per year or on school grounds subject to a policy described in ORS 166.377 (Possession of firearms in certain public buildings by concealed handgun licensees);


Doesn't count?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Just something to consider :

It is wise to not be so entrenched in your position...that you drown in your own moat.

Don't really have a dog in this here fight...
I do get tired of "circular discussions" .

In any event carry on...as y'all wish...or not...it could be beer time ya know....
Andy

 

[CamoDeafie]

So.

Let us recap yet again for 19 pages...


Question is "can a person with a valid CHL conceal carry SBR?"



ORS 166.250 says it's a crime to conceal carry any firearms.

ORS 166.260 says people with valid CHLs are not affected, and ORS 166.250 does not apply.

ORS 166.262 says LEOs cannot arrest or charge persons with violating ORS 166.250 if they have valid CHLs, or proof of active LEO status or honorably retired LEO status.

Some are saying that due to the term "handgun" the CHL is a very specific exception in that it only applies if the person is conceal carrying a handgun and no other firearm type.

Some are saying that ORS 166.260 doesn't define what specific exceptions are available to the other listed people in said Statute, therefore it has to be blanket exception.

Some are saying having valid CHL does indeed exempt person from being charged with violating ORS 166.250.

 

[solv3nt]

So.

Let us recap yet again for 19 pages...


Question is "can a person with a valid CHL conceal carry SBR?"



ORS 166.250 says it's a crime to conceal carry any firearms.

ORS 166.260 says people with valid CHLs are not affected, and ORS 166.250 does not apply.

ORS 166.262 says LEOs cannot arrest or charge persons with violating ORS 166.250 if they have valid CHLs, or proof of active LEO status or honorably retired LEO status.

Some are saying that due to the term "handgun" the CHL is a very specific exception in that it only applies if the person is conceal carrying a handgun and no other firearm type.

Some are saying that ORS 166.260 doesn't define what specific exceptions are available to the other listed people in said Statute, therefore it has to be blanket exception.

Some are saying having valid CHL does indeed exempt person from being charged with violating ORS 166.250.

But, it's illegal to have an SBR in Hawaii. So you're Wong.

 

[CamoDeafie]

But, it's illegal to have an SBR in Hawaii. So you're Wong.

We are not yet a suburb of Hawaii

Edit. It also appears that a SBR is illegal to own/possess in California.. and formerly in WA at least until 2014 and then there's still the ornery specifics of that WA bill, plus the WA AWB thing

 

[solv3nt]

We are not yet a suburb of Hawaii

It doesn't matter. I feel like you're breaking a law. So you can't do it. It doesn't matter what the law says. It only matters how I feel.

 

[solv3nt]

We are not yet a suburb of Hawaii

Also, I might add, the State of New York considers the concealment of firearms to be illegal in public, so I don't care what you, your laws and your Constitution say.

 

[solv3nt]

Just something to consider :

It is wise to not be so entrenched in your position...that you drown in your own moat.

Don't really have a dog in this here fight...
I do get tired of "circular discussions" .

In any event carry on...as y'all wish...or not...it could be beer time ya know....
Andy

In Washington, it's illegal to have a loaded long gun in public, so you can't do that in Oregon.