Oregon Does ORS 166.260 Specifically Exempt CHL Holders from ORS 166.250?

[solv3nt]

@RX-79G
Does ORS 166.260 specifically exempt one from breaking ORS 166.250?

Read More

 

[solv3nt]

This discussion is specifically CHL Holder exemption, I don't want to hear about the mentally unsound or members of the military.

 

[solv3nt]

This discussion will be based on ORS citations. Any counter-points will be ORS citations.

 

[solv3nt]

All counter-points will specifically address any and all discussion items.

 

[RX-79G]

@RX-79G
Does ORS 166.260 specifically exempt one from breaking ORS 166.250?

It exempts CHL holders from breaking the handgun portion of the 166.250s ban on concealed carry. It does not exempt CHL holders from breaking all the other possession or concealed carry bans that 166.250 illustrates, just the handgun concealed and in the car portion.

 

[solv3nt]

It exempts CHL holders from breaking the handgun portion of the 166.250s ban on concealed carry. It does not exempt CHL holders from breaking all the other possession or concealed carry bans that 166.250 illustrates, just the handgun concealed and in the car portion.

Please cite what law is broken, and how.

 

[solv3nt]

166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250. (1) ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affect:

ORS is written such that lower case is the primary, uppercase is secondary under the primary.

(i) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.

Lowercase 'i' stands alone.

 

[RX-79G]

Please cite what law is broken, and how.

When you carry a rifle concealed, you haven't gotten a exemption for all prohibitions under 166.250, you have a specific exemption that is titled Concealed Handgun License which is for concealing a handgun. There is no reason that a handgun license confers any powers outside of what it says it does, so the exemption is for a specific part of 166.250, not all of it.

 

[solv3nt]

When you carry a rifle concealed, you haven't gotten a exemption for all prohibitions under 166.250, you have a specific exemption that is titled Concealed Handgun License which is for concealing a handgun. There is no reason that a handgun license confers any powers outside of what it says it does, so the exemption is for a specific part of 166.250, not all of it.

166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250

How is it possible to break a part of an ordinance when you are exempt from the entire thing?

 

[RX-79G]

166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250

How is it possible to break a part of an ordinance when you are exempt from the entire thing?

Cite where it says that the exemptions are for the entire thing.

 

[solv3nt]

Cite where it says that the exemptions are for the entire thing.

166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250

 

[solv3nt]

The purpose of ORS 166.260 is to provide an exemption of ORS 166.250. ORS 166.260 provides complete and whole exemption from prosecution of individuals under ORS 166.250.

Again, the heading of ORS 166.260 is thus:
166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250

 

[RX-79G]

The purpose of ORS 166.260 is to provide an exemption of ORS 166.250. ORS 166.260 provides complete and whole exemption from prosecution of individuals under ORS 166.250.

Again, the heading of ORS 166.260 is thus:
166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250

Right. It neither says "persons not affected by any part of 166.250", nor does it say "persons not affected by portions of 166.250". This is ambiguous, which is why a DA or judge is going to expand their reading of the law to examine all the other ways exemptions might work given one reading or another. But you don't want to talk about that process.

 

[solv3nt]

Right. It neither says "persons not affected by any part of 166.250", nor does it say "persons not affected by portions of 166.250". This is ambiguous, which is why a DA or judge is going to expand their reading of the law to examine all the other ways exemptions might work given one reading or another. But you don't want to talk about that process.

So, by that logic, dropping into subset a and b, a judge will charge a police officer with violating 166.250? Please note, all lowercase items are Specifically Exempt.

(a) A parole and probation officer, police officer or reserve officer, as those terms are defined in ORS 181A.355.
(b) A federal officer, as defined in ORS 133.005, or a certified reserve officer or corrections officer, as those terms are defined in ORS 181A.355, while the federal officer, certified reserve officer or corrections officer is acting within the scope of employment.

In summary,
166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250
If this means a portion of, then a police officer could be charged with violating 166.250.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

In case anyone wants more than the clipped versions

Section 166.260 - Persons not affected by ORS 166.250, ORS § 166.260 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Section 166.260 - Persons not affected by ORS 166.250, ORS § 166.260, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

ORS 166.250 – Unlawful possession of firearms

Except as otherwise provided in this section or ORS 166.260 (Persons not affected by ORS 166.250), 166.270 (Possession of weapons by certain…

oregon.public.law

 

[RX-79G]

So, by that logic, dropping into subset a and b, a judge will charge a police officer with violating 166.250? Please note, all lowercase items are Specifically Exempt.

(a) A parole and probation officer, police officer or reserve officer, as those terms are defined in ORS 181A.355.
(b) A federal officer, as defined in ORS 133.005, or a certified reserve officer or corrections officer, as those terms are defined in ORS 181A.355, while the federal officer, certified reserve officer or corrections officer is acting within the scope of employment.

In summary,
166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250
If this means a portion of, then a police officer could be charged with violating 166.250.

No, it means that each exemption affects different prohibitions, even if they overlap. A CHL confers an exemption from the ban on concealing a handgun, while the police exemption confers a broader exemption - like having a rifle concealed in the passenger part of the car, or maybe having a MG as well as concealing a pistol.

 

[Koda]

Cite where it says that the exemptions are for the entire thing.

(forgive my crude cropped view editing, im not good with photoshopping stuff but this worked...)

 

[solv3nt]

No, it means that each exemption affects different prohibitions, even if they overlap. A CHL confers an exemption from the ban on concealing a handgun, while the police exemption confers a broader exemption - like having a rifle concealed in the passenger part of the car, or maybe having a MG as well as concealing a pistol.

166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250. (1) ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affect:

Please provide an explanation how part one of the ordinance does not apply in its entirety.

 

[Koda]

Right. It neither says "persons not affected by any part of 166.250", nor does it say "persons not affected by portions of 166.250". This is ambiguous, which is why a DA or judge is going to expand their reading of the law to examine all the other ways exemptions might work given one reading or another. But you don't want to talk about that process.

Isnt there some obscure Oregon law that says Oregon laws must be "interpretable" by like a 3rd grader or something?
I think your going out on a stretch here by -adding- hypothetical words to the written law. As an analagy only (please no discussions on the story itself) prosecutors charged Rittenhouse with illegally carrying his rifle but it was very quickly tossed out in court because the prosecutor tried to inject -possible- other ways he was not exempt but the basic text was clear, he was legal to carry the rifle.

Perhaps someone might try to "expand their reading of the law" but....

Eg: if its not codified in a law, its not illegal.

ORS 166.260... means the entirety of 166.250.

 

[RX-79G]

166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250. (1) ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affect:

Please provide an explanation how part one of the ordinance does not apply in its entirety.

A CHL names its exemption. It can't exempt what it doesn't say it exempts.

This law is not well written, that's clear. And that lack of flow-chart clarity may get someone out of a conviction, but the judge is still likely to look at the defense attorney and say "So your client thought his handgun license applies to rifles?", and find against the defendant.

The problem is that the other possibilities are just too damning. CHLs, for instance, are not automatically void when certain court processes mentioned in 166.250, yet you would have to believe a CHL then makes a felon exempt from 166.250 because their CHL is still in effect? That single example presented by a DA would cause the judge to immediately conclude that the 166.260 exemption is not across the board, because that would be insanity.

CHLs are intended to do one thing, regardless of how well the law is written. So you can either play stupid when caught concealing a rifle - which is a poor defense - or you can act like a legal expert, and just as effectively fall on your sword as someone who says they are a sophisticated interpreter of law, but ignored all the other ramifications of such a reading. Either way the judge isn't going to be impressed and you'll be charged.

Do you or anyone else actually believe the legislative intent of the law was to exempt CHL holders from a ban on concealed rifles? I hope not.


Does anyone in the OR judicial system think that "Sea Lawyering" is an effective defense when you misuse your CHL for other purposes? Probably not, which means that using a broad exemption interpretation is useful for forum debate, but a really losing strategy in the real world.

As always, I care much more about what happens in the real world than what internet commandos think should happen. I hope no one reading these arguments actually takes the advice that you can legally conceal a rifle in OR. If caught it will likely destroy their life.