JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Status
Of course, I am not a lawyer, and the above is not to be construed as legal advice. It's worth exactly what you paid for it. Which, at current paralegal billing rates, would be approximately $50 for the actual time I spent researching the law and writing this post, plus another $50 to make it seem like it took longer than it really did.

If you're saying "this is what the law is and how it affects you" to anyone other than yourself, then you're practicing law. If you're practicing law in Oregon I'm pretty sure you need a license and malpractice insurance. Of course, this is a "Northwest" site and Idaho and Washington may be more liberal in their ways.

And I'm pretty sure - though I haven't checked - that there's no defense of "I was just posting things on the internet."

You might want to look up the penalties, just to be on the safe side.

Or not. :s0131:
 
If you're saying "this is what the law is and how it affects you" to anyone other than yourself, then you're practicing law. If you're practicing law in Oregon I'm pretty sure you need a license and malpractice insurance. Of course, this is a "Northwest" site and Idaho and Washington may be more liberal in their ways.

And I'm pretty sure - though I haven't checked - that there's no defense of "I was just posting things on the internet."

You might want to look up the penalties, just to be on the safe side.

Or not. :s0131:

"ORS 9.162 Practice of law by persons other than active members prohibited
(1). . . [a] person may not practice law or represent that person as qualified to practice law unless that person is an active member of the Oregon State Bar. "


"[T]he mere general dissemination of legal information by nonlawyers does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law." Oregon State Bar v. Smith, 149 Or App 171 (1997).


Generally, a person is not held to be practicing law unless he provides individual services to particular clients.


Of course, you sound like quite an expert - maybe you can point out where I practiced law or held myself out as qualified? Or maybe you can provide a contrary citation?

:s0114::s0112::s0114::s0112::s0114:
 
So the question has been long answered: A CHL doesn't limit you to one firearm. I agree.

So, Captain, what's up with you? You sure do post a lot of blank posts that include this eating of popcorn. Do you need help figuring out the other emoticons?

And Dred Scott decison "long answered" the question of the rights of slaves. Didn't mean it was right.

You do know about the Dred Scott decision, right? Need a link to help you out?

I like popcorn. And I like watching people ramble on on the internet. Occasionally it's fun to help the ramble. Sometimes it's more fun to snipe at the ramblers, not that I expect them to learn anything.

But since we're sharing this personal moment, let me ask you a question - do you always troll forums, sounding like an insufferable twit, or is that something you save for NWFA?

Let's see...legal and political issues regarding firearms, discussion of legal issue regarding multiple carry, question about where there is authority for that, challenge to posters to make the assertion without practicing law...Ah. Just to keep the thread on track and within the bounds of the less-than-diligently enforced rules of engagement here - do YOU have a legal citation (that would be "statute" or "case law"), other than your own opinion, as to the legality of multiple firearms or are you just guessing like everyone else? And the insurance - both in Oregon - to back it up?

Let me freshen my refreshments while I allow you to amaze me with the depth of your "legal scholarship." Or you can go right to the nasty ad hominem attacks that dodge my question entirely.

:s0093:
 
Last Edited:
Let me freshen my refreshments while I allow you to amaze me with the depth of your "legal scholarship." Or you can go right to the nasty ad hominem attacks that dodge my question entirely.

Actually, you're the one who dodged my question:

Of course, you sound like quite an expert - maybe you can point out where I practiced law or held myself out as qualified? Or maybe you can provide a contrary citation?

:s0114::s0112::s0114::s0112::s0114:

I'm still waiting for your answer.

:s0093: :s0114::s0112::s0114:
 
Actually, you're the one who dodged my question:



I'm still waiting for your answer.

:s0093: :s0114::s0112::s0114:

Silly rabbit. If I were to advise you on the effects of law then I'd be violating my own point. You could well be right - or you may not be. Only a lawyer is going to have any good guess at that.

Pass the popcorn.

:s0093:
 
Silly rabbit. If I were to advise you on the effects of law then I'd be violating my own point. You could well be right - or you may not be. Only a lawyer is going to have any good guess at that.

Pass the popcorn.

:s0093:

The dean made sure that us law students know where the boundaries are. And she's a pretty good lawyer.
 
And Dred Scott decison "long answered" the question of the rights of slaves. Didn't mean it was right.

You do know about the Dred Scott decision, right? Need a link to help you out?

So current principles of Oregon statutory law on gun possession are just like Dred Scott's 1857 decision on ownership of slaves?

Henry, please tell me you aren't a lawyer inflicting this crap on actual clients. I'm begging you to reassure me.
 
So current principles of Oregon statutory law on gun possession are just like Dred Scott's 1857 decision on ownership of slaves?

Please tell me you aren't a lawyer. I'm begging you to reassure me.

Figured you'd duck my question. And add in the ad hominem.

Boy, do I know my trolls or what?

Answer my question or GTF out of the thread, monkey-boy, 'cause, unlike Zach, you aren't making any thoughtful points I need to be aware of, and I can get all the insults I need in my day job.
 
You forgot your popcorn, Henry. And you don't know your backside from a wormhole when it comes to what lawyers can and cannot say.

You just graduated from law school, didn't you Henry? Come on. There's no shame in being a newbie both here and in your profession.

I'd be surprised if he's ever set foot inside a law school.
 
Henry can tell us, then educate us on the Second Amendment.

Henry, I say you just graduated from law school and therefore know TONS about everything, presumably including the Second Amendment. ZachS says no. But my take is that any guy who busts out Dred Scott within 20 posts of showing up as a newbie contributor is not only a lawyer, but a newbie lawyer. Who's right?

Henry? I have popcorn.... Henry?
 
Yes it is legal in the State of Oregon to carry as many concealed handguns as you like, as long as you have the CCL of course.

I once knew a gentleman that carried NO LESS than SIX concealed handguns on him at any given time.

Reminds me of the scene in The Two Towers where they ask Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas to leave their weapons outside Theoden's lodge... 10 minutes later (and about 12 weapons each) they enter...
 
Who's is this Henry you speak of?

That would be myself. Unable to form a cogent argument in answer to a question, CEF has nothing better to do to try and incite by calling names. It's his whole modus operandi.

Sort of like debating a five year old, it is. If he ever gets around to answering my question, I'll resume the conversation. In the meantime, I'll just ignore him.
 
Last Edited:
Status

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top