Conceal carry yes, buy firearms no.

[The B]

Posession of less than one ounce of marijuana was decriminalized in Oregon in 1973. It is not a misdemeanor, it is an infraction comparable to getting a ticket for jaywalking or allowing your dog to run loose, with a fine not to exceed $500. Posession of a roach at a concert in 1979 would not be the sole basis for denial of a CHL renewal unless there is more to the story that we are not hearing.

Indeed... Oregon Decriminalization Bill of 1973

I stand corrected

 

[fd15k]

I am told by the Marion Sherrif's Dept. and other knowledgable sources that the issue is with a technicality of the law. There is no expiration date of misdemeanor drug convictions.

166.470;
(L) Has not been convicted of an offense involving controlled substances or participated in a court-supervised drug diversion program, except this disability does not operate to exclude a person if:

Conviction of any other misdemeanor has an expiration date of 4 years as identified in the following:

166.291 Issuance of concealed handgun license; application; fees; liability.
(h) Has not been convicted of a misdemeanor or found guilty, except for insanity under ORS 161.295, of a misdemeanor within the four years prior to the application;

Yes, it seems like there is no expiration on drug convictions. However, there seems to be an exemption for a SINGLE MARIJUANA possession conviction :

Has not been convicted of an offense involving controlled substances or participated in a court-supervised drug diversion program, except this disability does not operate to exclude a person if:

The person has been convicted only once of violating ORS 475.864 (Unlawful possession of marijuana) (3) and has not completed a court-supervised drug diversion program under ORS 135.907 (Notification of availability of diversion); or

(B) The person has completed a court-supervised drug diversion program under ORS 135.907 (Notification of availability of diversion) and has not been convicted of violating ORS 475.864 (Unlawful possession of marijuana) (3);

 

[Guilty]

Posession of less than one ounce of marijuana was decriminalized in Oregon in 1973. It is not a misdemeanor, it is an infraction comparable to getting a ticket for jaywalking or allowing your dog to run loose, with a fine not to exceed $500. Posession of a roach at a concert in 1979 would not be the sole basis for denial of a CHL renewal unless there is more to the story that we are not hearing.

Unfortuantely, the misdomemeanor was in Washington State, not Oregon. 1979 WSU Eric Clapton concert.

 

[Hamilton Felix]

I hate to say it, because you're looking at dollar signs, but get a lawyer, a good one who specializes in firearms law and rights restoration.

 

[fd15k]

Unfortuantely, the misdomemeanor was in Washington State, not Oregon. 1979 WSU Eric Clapton concert.

You need to get it expunged in Washington.

There was a bill last year that would address the jurisdiction issue, but it died in the committee :

Authorizes issuance of concealed handgun license to person
convicted or diverted for certain marijuana offenses in another
jurisdiction, if conviction or diversion is equivalent to
conviction or diversion that does not operate as bar to obtaining
license under Oregon law.
Expands class of marijuana convictions that do not operate as
bar to obtaining concealed handgun license to include misdemeanor
conviction for possession of marijuana that was committed before
possession of less than ounce was made punishable solely by fine
under Oregon law.

<broken link removed>

 

[LoneStar]

I am not surprised. I wasn't able to renew my conceal carry permit last November because of the new Oregon gun laws. I got busted for smoking a joint being passed down the row at a concert in 1979 so I am not eligible to own a conceal carry license in Oregon any longer. F'n stupid liberal lawmakers do not represent me. It's OK for marijuana card holders to obtain conceal carry permits in Oregon but I can't be trusted to conceal carry any longer because I have a record for getting busted for a roach. Ridiculous laws like this make me want to take my business and move out of this bleeding heart liberal state, unfortunately my wife isn't too receptive on moving because she has family in the area.

Drug laws in conservative Southern states tend to be harsher than in liberal states.

 

[aslinged]

License to carry from the state of Oregon: 79 bucks (approx.)
Decent carry set up: 5-600 bucks.
Ripping experience of seeing Clapton in 1979: priceless.


By the way, I'd see a lawyer about that situation. There's got to be a way around it.

 

[Guilty]

Yes, I am going to have to spend about a grand to get my record expunged. This seems to be my only recourse.

 

[MilitantBEEMER]

Is the misdemeanor or one drug possession confusion up to each sheriff to decide or is it a state thing? The reason I ask is because the Washington County website says the misdemeanor in last four years and maximum of one drug offense ever. I have a friend that got hit with a small amount of MJ about 15 years ago (misdemeanor) in the midwest. Based on the Wash Cnty website we figured they were good to go.

 

[eganx]

Drug laws in conservative Southern states tend to be harsher than in liberal states.

Ya but in a conservative southern state you can get anything done(expunged, or dropped) with money......the legal system down there is very different than here.

Yes, I am going to have to spend about a grand to get my record expunged. This seems to be my only recourse.

I had to do the same in Mason County, cost about $1500 but well worth it.

 

[kyzug]

Don't take this in the wrong way, because I'm a follower of the non-agression principle myself, but with things like this restriction on the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms for trivial issues, I'm suprised more people don't have a "Joe Stack moment" and water the tree of liberty more often in America.

These tyrants who write these laws have no fear of the sheeple.

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." -T.J.

 

[fd15k]

Is the misdemeanor or one drug possession confusion up to each sheriff to decide or is it a state thing? The reason I ask is because the Washington County website says the misdemeanor in last four years and maximum of one drug offense ever. I have a friend that got hit with a small amount of MJ about 15 years ago (misdemeanor) in the midwest. Based on the Wash Cnty website we figured they were good to go.

They are correct, except they need to clarify that MJ offense had to be in Oregon, under Oregon law. Otherwise the exception doesn't kick in, and it's a general prohibitive "drug offense" which is a lifetime restriction for CHL purposes.

 

[fd15k]

Don't take this in the wrong way, because I'm a follower of the non-agression principle myself, but with things like this restriction on the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms for trivial issues, I'm suprised more people don't have a "Joe Stack moment" and water the tree of liberty more often in America.

These tyrants who write these laws have no fear of the sheeple.

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." -T.J.

This law has been passed a while ago, while your "Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms" was re-invented just 2 years ago, and is still being shaped. Anybody who feels like their rights are being infringed has ability to file a civil rights suit and have it straightened up (assuming their argument is valid).

 

[kyzug]

Philosophically, from a natural rights point of view, the right to keep and bear arms is just that - a right. A "right" being inherent, as part of our humanity. I define a right as a freedom to act without seeking permission from a higher authority.

The only moral reason for restricting a right is in response to violating someone else's rights. As such, the proper role of government in protecting our rights would be to have no laws against guns, but rather the ability to impose case by case bans on weapons for people who have violated others rights by using force or threats of the same.

 

[fd15k]

Philosophically, from a natural rights point of view, the right to keep and bear arms is just that - a right. A "right" being inherent, as part of our humanity. I define a right as a freedom to act without seeking permission from a higher authority.

The only moral reason for restricting a right is in response to violating someone else's rights. As such, the proper role of government in protecting our rights would be to have no laws against guns, but rather the ability to impose case by case bans on weapons for people who have violated others rights by using force or threats of the same.

We could debate this philosophically over a beer, but I will just say that legally speaking government does not recognize most of your rights as being unlimited. Regulations and restrictions can be imposed on a lot of things you believe you have inherent claim to. And the best part is the government doesn't do that as an "abstract evil entity looking for every opportunity to bend you over", instead it's projecting the will of the people derived from specific situations and problems.

 

[kyzug]

...government does not recognize most of your rights as being unlimited.

I think it is more correct to say that they see no area where they can intervene as being limited.

What I think you are saying then is that government does not recognize that people have rights. Rather, they see most actions we do as requiring grants of privilege that requires their permission.

Kneel before Zod citizen!

 

[fd15k]

What I think you are saying then is that government does not recognize that people have rights.

Kneel before Zod citizen!

That's not correct. My favorite quote :

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

 

[kyzug]

If it is a right, you don't need anyone's permission.

If a right is limited and requires someone else permission it isn't a right, by definition. I'm not just arguing semantics.

I remember that SCOTUS opinion sickening me when it came out. When Scalia wrote it, he formalized there really are no rights in the eyes of the state. EVERYTHING we do, is ultimately a privilege in their eyes. And now it is written in the case law, to be forever used against us when other rights come into question.

 

[Felt Lizard]

Guilty, pursue it.

 

[mjbskwim]

Hate it when people "fix" other's statements,but you set it up so perfectly......

We could debate this philosophically over a beer, but I will just say that legally speaking government does not recognize most of your rights as being RIGHTS......They are an "abstract evil entity looking for every opportunity to bend you over"