CC Question.

Messages
1,812
Reactions
868
...Independence and Eugene, right?

IIRC, a motorhome is also your legal residence, so you don't need your CHL when you're carrying and cruising in the ol' Winnebago.
Independence yes, Eugene (Believe it or not) no. The rest that I know are Oregon City, Astoria, Newport? (I think, it's Newport,,, it is one of the coastal towns down that way,,Newport or Lincoln) Springfield and Bend, PARKS ONLY, not in town.
 
Messages
1,812
Reactions
868
Is the below site out of date? They only list Portland, Beaverton, Tigard, Oregon City, Salem, and Independence

Oregon | OpenCarry.org
Well they open ended the "parks"..Used to be Astoria was Parks only, but they have "upgraded" to the whole town...City ordenance 05.010.

Newport I "bumped into" when planning a trip to Seaside and Coos Bay, (We lived in Coos Bay 1960-1963, still have friends in Coos Bay and North Bend. lived in Seaside from 1955 to 1960)....that is why I can't remember if it was Newport or Lincoln, but it was one of those two beach communities. Oregon guys..come on- I know someone knows for sure.

I researched the Springfield parks because of a trip I was taking to see oldest Daughter and SIL while SIL was going to UO.
 
Messages
287
Reactions
119
There's a thread in the general firearm discussion forum called "The Direction of Law Enforcement". JGRuby asked why a nationwide CCW is a bad thing. My answer to that might be appropriate to your question. I'll let you decide.

"CCW is a "licensing" or "permit" thing right? You have, as most Citizens have, been trained from a young age to believe that the concept of "licensing" the public is legitimate and lawful. That training has been so effective that most people have no reason to question it. But they don't teach us even the basics of law in K-12 public education, like how to accurately read the law for ourselves to tell whether or not someone is blowing smoke. Sometimes words have different meanings in the law than what we think they do. "License" is a perfect example of that. Here is its definition in Oregon at ORS 183.310(5):

"183.310 Definitions for chapter. As used in this chapter:
(5) "License" includes the whole or part of any agency permit, certificate, approval, registration or similar form of permission required by law to pursue any commercial activity, trade, occupation or profession."

Notice how it only refers to "commercial" activity? The Legislature inserted no other words in this definition to cause it to apply to anything else. As a result, it applies to nothing else. And to make sure that readers don't take the liberty of putting words in their mouths, the Legislature has passed laws to prohibit even judges from adding words or omitting words from the law in order to suit their pre-conceived notions, personal biases or agendas. See ORS 174.010 below:

"CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES

174.010 General rule for construction of statutes. In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all."

Simply put, the law applies exclusively only to what is inserted into it by... the Legislature. If it is legitimate to insinuate the inclusion of other things into the law, then what's the point of writing the law to begin with if it can simply be added to or subtracted from in order to fit whatever special interest might come along. That would render the whole idea of having laws at all moot and make legislators irrelevant. And last I looked legislators are required in a Republican form of government.

When the Legislature chooses to omit words in a law, it's because they recognize that those words are not properly connected to the purpose or context of that law and its subject matter. They do this because the Oregon Constitution requires them to restrict any single law to one subject and matters that are properly connected to that one subject. See Or. Const. Art 4, Section 20:

"Section 20. Subject and title of Act. Every Act shall embrace but one subject, and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an Act which shall not be expressed in the title, such Act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be expressed in the title...."

Getting back to your question...now you know that a "license" or "permit" or "registration" pertains ONLY to people who want to pursue "commercial" activities, trades, occupations or professions. Your right to keep and bear arms is not a "commercial" activity. It's your right and you don't need "permission" to pursue it. If you do need permission, then it stops being a right, doesn't it? So if you insist on being enthusiastic about a national CCW program, you only have a passion for throwing your rights away, not to mention those of your fellow Americans. Rights that have already been paid for with the blood of our founding fathers and successive generations of our military.

By the way, Chapter 183 (see definition of "license" above) of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) is called the Administrative Procedures Act. This "Act" exists in all States. It governs how the laws are "administered", i.e. carried out, i.e. enforced, by the executive branch's various agencies in the performance of their lawful duties....including law enforcement agencies."

I'd be curious to know what the answer is if you ask Washington County what the lawful definition of "license" is? I'll wager that they do cart-wheels to avoid answering that question directly.
 
Messages
2,432
Reactions
550
Well they open ended the "parks"..Used to be Astoria was Parks only, but they have "upgraded" to the whole town...City ordenance 05.010.

Newport I "bumped into" when planning a trip to Seaside and Coos Bay, (We lived in Coos Bay 1960-1963, still have friends in Coos Bay and North Bend. lived in Seaside from 1955 to 1960)....that is why I can't remember if it was Newport or Lincoln, but it was one of those two beach communities. Oregon guys..come on- I know someone knows for sure.

I researched the Springfield parks because of a trip I was taking to see oldest Daughter and SIL while SIL was going to UO.
Newport has one :

CHAPTER 8.20
8.20.005
OFFENSES
Weapons
A. Loaded firearms and other weapons prohibited. No
person may carry a loaded firearm, spring or air-actuated
gun or rifle, or any other weapon that propels a projective
by use of gunpowder or other explosive, jet, or rocket
propulsion in any place open to the public, except for:
1. Law enforcement officers.
2. Members of the military in performance of official
duties.
3. A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.
4. Persons authorized under state law to have loaded
weapons in court facilities, while they are in or
traveling to court facilities.

http://newportoregon.gov/dept/adm/documents/newportmunicipalcode.pdf
 
Messages
1,812
Reactions
868
Newport has one :

CHAPTER 8.20
8.20.005
OFFENSES
Weapons
A. Loaded firearms and other weapons prohibited. No
person may carry a loaded firearm, spring or air-actuated
gun or rifle, or any other weapon that propels a projective
by use of gunpowder or other explosive, jet, or rocket
propulsion in any place open to the public, except for:
1. Law enforcement officers.
2. Members of the military in performance of official
duties.
3. A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.
4. Persons authorized under state law to have loaded
weapons in court facilities, while they are in or
traveling to court facilities.

http://newportoregon.gov/dept/adm/documents/newportmunicipalcode.pdf
Thanks, I thought it was Newport, I know I was really surprised to find it when I was looking. Astoria's 05.010 ordinance http://www.astoria.or.us/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=vXiABwd4i9k=&tabid=2002&mid=6163&language=en-US is very interesting, especially as it is written in clearer language than ORS 166.173...but written as I read ORS 166.173...very definately reads that ANY license to carry concealed allows you to loaded OC in Astoria. The Newport regulation is the exact wording in ORS 166.173 I highlighted it.

Astoria code exerpt from 05.010: (3) Any person having a valid permit issued to the person by lawful authority to carry or use concealed firearms;
 
Messages
2,432
Reactions
550
Thanks, I thought it was Newport, I know I was really surprised to find it when I was looking. Astoria's 05.010 ordenance is very interesting, especially as it is written in clearer language than ORS 166.173...but written as I read ORS 166.173...very definately reads that ANY license to carry concealed allows you to loaded OC in Astoria.
Did you get a law degree recently without telling anybody ? :D Seriously, that 05.010 is as vague as it gets :

"Any person having a valid permit issued to the person by lawful authority to carry or use concealed firearms"

Where is the definition of lawful authority ?
 
Messages
1,812
Reactions
868
Did you get a law degree recently without telling anybody ? :D Seriously, that 05.010 is as vague as it gets :

"Any person having a valid permit issued to the person by lawful authority to carry or use concealed firearms"

Where is the definition of lawful authority ?
I have gone around with you on this before...ORS 166.173 states "a license to carry a concealed weapon"

IMHO: This means that..for the purposes of loaded OC only...I can openly carry (as per ORS 166.250(3)) a loaded pistol without reguard to local prohibitions if I have a license to carry. I do, I have a WA CPL. It is a license to carry. I am not carrying concealed, I am carrying openly, loaded, and leagally, in a loaded carry restricted local government jurisdiction.

You, and others from OR, say, no, you cannot do that..it has to be an OR CHL...and I say, no, that is NOT what the law states...The law states..A license...not "a license issued under ORS 166.291 and 292".

Astoria's ordinance is clear..it specifically says "ANY license to carry a concealed firearm" is enough to get an exemption to their city restriction on loaded carry.

The only problem you have is you refuse to read the law as it was written. There is no ambiguity..if you have a license to carry..any license to carry from any lawful authority (any government, city, county, state, tribal government, whoever issues it), you are exempt from the ORS 166.173 restriction in Astoria. Read the LAW, do not read your bias into the law. We are not talking about a CONCEALED weapon here...we are talking about an openly carried, but loaded, firearms.
 
Messages
2,432
Reactions
550
You, and others from OR, say, no, you cannot do that..it has to be an OR CHL...and I say, no, that is NOT what the law states...The law states..A license...not "a license issued under ORS 166.291 and 292".
I said the law is vague, and asked you whether you have some other text to expand on the context. Apparently you do not. When the law is vague, interpreting it for the benefit of the citizen is a risky proposition :)
 
Messages
287
Reactions
119
Did you get a law degree recently without telling anybody ? :D Seriously, that 05.010 is as vague as it gets :

"Any person having a valid permit issued to the person by lawful authority to carry or use concealed firearms"

Where is the definition of lawful authority ?
Definition of lawful authority? It's defined by what "permit" and "person" applies to. Here we go again:

"183.310 Definitions for chapter. As used in this chapter:
(5) “License” includes the whole or part of any agency permit, certificate, approval, registration or similar form of permission required by law to pursue any commercial activity, trade, occupation or profession."

How 'bout "person"?:
ORS "183.310 Definitions for chapter. As used in this chapter:
(8) 'Person' means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, governmental subdivision or public or private organization of any character other than an agency."

Pretty much "commercial". What about "individual" you say? Can't that mean a Citizen? Not according to Oregon Constitution, Article 4, Section 20 (the single subject requirement):

"Section 20. Subject and title of Act. Every Act shall embrace but one subject, and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an Act which shall not be expressed in the title, such Act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be expressed in the title."

Are Citizens "properly connected" to commercial entities, you know the ones that are specifically cited in the definition of "person"? Those references to commercial entities are pretty particular aren't they? Here's what ORS 174.020(2) says about legislative intent of a law that mixes particular terms (commercial entities) and general terms like "individual":

ORS "174.020 Legislative intent; general and particular provisions; consideration of legislative history.
(2) When a general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former so that a particular intent controls a general intent that is inconsistent with the particular intent."

And we're not allowed to infer that other words are implied in a definition: See ORS 174.010...again:

ORS "174.010 General rule for construction of statutes. In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all."

Chapter 183 (above) is called the Administrative Procedures Act. I.e. this chapter governs those who "administer" the law. I.e. this chapter governs the executive branch's agencies who have a duty to carry out...administer.....enforce....the legislative intent of the law. So, lawful authority? By not paying attention to how the simple words are defined, you are not seeing that our Legislators have only allowed these laws to apply to commercial entities and their employees and agents. If logic has any say in how the law is read, and if you apply the legislative construction laws that our Legislators have given us to interpret them properly, the only conclusion to be drawn is that we are simply not subject to these laws. The fact that we Citizen types are so wrapped up in the conventional assertions about these laws is simply a reflection of how illiterate we are about our own Constitution(s), the laws and increasingly, even the most basic principles about what makes free people free. Free people, with rights, don't ASK to exercise something that is already theirs to exercise. They only get punished if they use their rights to injure others. That's where criminal and tort law comes in.
 

UPCOMING EVENTS

Cerberus Training Group - Skill Builder - Pistol/Rifle Combo
Cerberus Training Group
47 Cattle Dr, Goldendale, WA 98620, USA
Albany Rifle & Pistol Club (ARPC) Gun Show
Linn County Expo Center
3700 Knox Butte Rd E, Albany, OR 97322, USA
Cerberus Training Group - Skill Builder - Pistol/Rifle Combo
Cerberus Training Group
47 Cattle Dr, Goldendale, WA 98620, USA
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Gun Show
Battleground Community Center
912 E Main St, Battle Ground, WA 98604, USA

LATEST RESOURCE REVIEWS

  • J&B Firearm Sales
    5.00 star(s)
    Good local shop
    Picked up a rifle yesterday from J&B. This was the second or third gun purchase over the last few years from them. I always enjoy stopping by...
  • H&K Gun Shop
    5.00 star(s)
    The only place I have found 9mm in stock
    I’ll admit I didn’t even know this place existed, as I don’t tend to go into Forest Grove often. But it’s a giant (looks bigger from the...
  • Revelation Arms
    4.00 star(s)
    Depends who answers the phone
    I was given the number to Roger Loock by Beaver Creek Armory, as I needed parts I had ordered from MCarbo installed on a Kel-Tec Sub2000. On my...
  • Coastal Farm & Ranch - Cornelius
    3.00 star(s)
    Lesson learned
    I’ll take some responsibility here, as I took the employee at their word instead of doing a thorough inspection. Short story is that I asked for a...
  • MK Tactical
    5.00 star(s)
    Good guys!
    I stop in here every once in a while to see what Michael has in the clearance section, and to ask questions when I have a project in mind...
Top Bottom