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

[solv3nt]

And Scout. Because we both think.

I didn't know you had it in you.....

 

[CamoDeafie]

But we have permitless carry in Idaho, and 26 other States, so we shouldn't care about what the State of Oregon claims to be the law! well that's more sad than true

 

[Andy54Hawken]

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

Well yeabut....what if...awww....fergitboutit ....
Andy

 

[solv3nt]

Well yeabut....what if...awww....fergitboutit ....
Andy

Did you know it's illegal to diddle yourself in some states?

 

[solv3nt]

But we have permitless carry in Idaho, and 26 other States, so we shouldn't care about what the State of Oregon claims to be the law! well that's more sad than true

Butt, butt, butt....

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Did you know it's illegal to diddle yourself in some states?

Well now...
That might make for a world of difference come singles night at the local bar...
Andy

 

[solv3nt]

Well now...
That might make for a world of difference come singles night at the local bar...
Andy

But I thought you were supposed to use the singles in the string thingies.

 

[solv3nt]

Because we both think this theory you two cooked up

There's a an old Microsoft saying, "if you run into a donkey during the day, tough, it happens. But if everyone you run into us a donkey, you might be the donkey."



Just saying.....

 

[Andy54Hawken]

There's a an old Microsoft saying, "if you run into a donkey during the day, tough, it happens. But if everyone you run into us a donkey, you might be the donkey."

View attachment 1457032

Just saying.....

Wait...isn't ewe a sheep.....Oh damn...wrong you....
Andy

 

[solv3nt]

Wait...isn't ewe a sheep.....Oh damn...wrong you....
Andy

Found the Welshmen.

 

[solv3nt]

All I can say is thank God @PNW Scout no longer has a badge, and you're not a cop. In this country, we're governed by laws, not what some local focal "thinks".

Because we both think

 

[RX-79G]

All I can say is thank God @PNW Scout no longer has a badge, and you're not a cop. In this country, we're governed by laws, not what some local focal "thinks".

And you're a nobody as well. That's we are having (what ought to be) a civil discussion about how this particular law works. But you just keep insulting and not saying anything.

 

[CamoDeafie]

So far... no one have provided the relevant ORS that expressly says that a valid CHL holder is not exempt from violating ORS 166.250 if they conceal carried any other type of firearm.

We have found a very relevant ORS, ORS 166.262 that expressly says that a peace officer cannot arrest or charge a valid CHL holder for violating ORS 166.250.

 

[RX-79G]

Let us recap yet again for 19 pages...

Yeah, let's.

According to the way you are following the logic of the law, answer this:

If you are:
The commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
Which is a 166.260 exempt person under 166.250, can you then possess and conceal a machine pistol?

If not, why not?

And if they can do so, do you think that's what was intended when the law was written?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Yeah, let's.

According to the way you are following the logic of the law, answer this:

If you are:
The commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
Which is a 166.260 exempt person under 166.250, can you then possess and conceal a machine pistol?

If not, why not?

And if they can do so, do you think that's what was intended when the law was written?

Direct from that ORS 166.260..

(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.


(B) is taken to be read together with (C) and taken together, only if detailed by proper authority for duty with the Army or Navy of the United States.

Because (A) specifies Army, Navy, Coast Guard and Marine Corps when on duty; as part of the (f) subsection; it's taken together as a whole.. ergo. (f) being Active Duty members of military, when on duty and members of the two other organizations, when detailed by proper authority for duty with the Army or Navy.

So.. yes they can when they're detailed for duty with the Army or Navy.

Edit. No further distinction regarding duty or circumstances or such is made for (i) which is a person licensed to conceal carry a handgun. You also have ORS 166.262 which does limit LEO from arresting or charging specific people for violating ORS 166.250.

 

[RX-79G]

Direct from that ORS 166.260..

(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.


(B) is taken to be read together with (C) and taken together, only if detailed by proper authority for duty with the Army or Navy of the United States.

Because (A) specifies Army, Navy, Coast Guard and Marine Corps when on duty; as part of the (f) subsection; it's taken together as a whole.. ergo. (f) being Active Duty members of military, when on duty and members of the two other organizations, when detailed by proper authority for duty with the Army or Navy.

So.. yes they can when they're detailed for duty with the Army or Navy.

Edit. No further distinction regarding duty or circumstances or such is made for (i) which is a person licensed to conceal carry a handgun. You also have ORS 166.262 which does limit LEO from arresting or charging specific people for violating ORS 166.250.

That's not the case. This is a list of three items in classic Chicken, Fish, or Steak format. Each would be considered complete because the other two have their own "on duty". And you can tell that is the case because of the use of semicolons rather than commas to separate the three, since a semicolon is used when you have there are already commas inside each idea. If B and C were the same part, they would not be walled off with the semicolon since the Navy part is after a mere comma.

 

[CamoDeafie]

That's not the case. This is a list of three items in classic Chicken, Fish, or Steak format. Each would be considered complete because the other two have their own "on duty". And you can tell that is the case because of the use of semicolons rather than commas to separate the three, since a semicolon is used when you have there are already commas inside each idea. If B and C were the same part, they would not be walled off with the semicolon since the Navy part is after a mere comma.

LOL
Then why are these 3 in the same (f) subsection..? Instead of their own subsections like (a),(b), (c), (d), (e) ,(g), (h),(i)?

Edit. Again, not a lawyer.
Are you? Also, not a legislator. Are you?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Again, not really relevant to the discussion, though I'd say yes they can conceal carry.

The relevant thing is CHL and SBRs.

ORS 166.262 is specific.. in that it tells LEOs that they can't be going around arresting or charging people who have either a valid CHL, or proof of being LEOs or proof of honorably discharged/retired LEOs. There are no other carveouts in this specific law for anyone else in ORS 166.260 from what I could find.

 

[RX-79G]

LOL
Then why are these 3 in the same (f) subsection..? Instead of their own subsections like (a),(b), (c), (d), (e) ,(g), (h),(i)?

Edit. Again, not a lawyer.
Are you? Also, not a legislator. Are you?

You know why, because you quoted it. They are all "(f) Active and reserve members of:"

You have a funny way of sticking strictly to how something is written, until you suddenly don't want to.


I have some legal training, but I'm not claiming anything other than being able to read and reason. I see why you are saying that a CHL gives an exemption to other things, because that is the specific way the law would be read literally. My point is that a literal reading the law as if it were a computer program leads to other rather strange effects beyond believing you can conceal a rifle. And this might suggest that the law has to be read in a less mechanical manner.

 

[CamoDeafie]

So... CITE the relevant ORS that says a CHL holder can be arrested or charged for violating ORS 166.250.