Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

CC Question.

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by lowly monk, Nov 24, 2012.

  1. lowly monk

    lowly monk Beaverton, Oregon. Just a guy. Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,229
    Likes Received:
    331
    Apon re-reading my acceptance letter from washington county. It states, "You are required to be in possession of your license whenever you carry a concealed handgun". My question is, Do I have to carry it on my property, In my house? Kevin Sterret's book does not cover this or maybe I missed somthing.Oregon Firearms Federation | FAQ's. A Gun Owner's Guide In The Beaver State
     
  2. Hawaiian

    Hawaiian Tigard Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    1,653
    No. You don't need a CHL to carry inside your own home or back yard.
     
    lowly monk, Redcap, Riot and 3 others like this.
  3. hermannr

    hermannr Okanogan Highlands Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    871
    You also do not need your license when you OC, except in Portand, Beverton, Tigard, Salem and a couple other cities in the same general area of OR.
     
    lowly monk and (deleted member) like this.
  4. chemist

    chemist Beaverton OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    Likes Received:
    644
    ...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.
     
  5. hermannr

    hermannr Okanogan Highlands Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    871
    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.
     
  6. hermannr

    hermannr Okanogan Highlands Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    871
    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.
     
  7. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    Not so, when in motion and/or not hooked up to utilities it's considered a motor vehicle in most states and subject to those laws.
     
  8. CounterOfBeans

    CounterOfBeans northwest Active Member

    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    117
    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.
     
  9. Misterbill

    Misterbill Yakima County, Washington New Member

    Messages:
    1,308
    Likes Received:
    1,013
    Nothing like knowing what the law is so you can abide by it is there? Oregon's gun laws, while they DO allow SBS, SBR and full Auto, are abysmal. Even MASSACHUSETTS has universal laws regarding carry.
     
  10. chris61182

    chris61182 A little west of Portland Active Member

    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    38
    They're universal once you have your CHL.
     
    fd15k and (deleted member) like this.
  11. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    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
     
  12. hermannr

    hermannr Okanogan Highlands Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    871
    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;
     
  13. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    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 ?
     
  14. hermannr

    hermannr Okanogan Highlands Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    871
    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.
     
  15. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    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 :)
     
  16. CounterOfBeans

    CounterOfBeans northwest Active Member

    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    117
    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.