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

[RX-79G]

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.

The text is clear here, too. It is illegal to conceal guns, and there is a license that exempts that for handguns. The argument otherwise is as convoluted as the charge the Rittenhouse judge threw out.

 

[solv3nt]

The text is clear here, too. It is illegal to conceal guns, and there is a license that exempts that for handguns. The argument otherwise is as convoluted as the charge the Rittenhouse judge threw out.

Where? Please cite.

 

[RX-79G]

Where? Please cite.

I already did.

Look, going in front a judge and telling him that you violated the law knowingly based on a theory you have about the poor phrasing of the law is just going to make him ask "So when you thought the law was unclear, what legal counsel did you seek to clarify it?" And that's when you get convicted.

Ask a lawyer, ask the state AG, ask a DA or ask the Sheriff if your CHL let's you conceal carry a rifle. If even one of them agrees - you might have a shot at not going to jail and losing your gun rights.

 

[Koda]

The text is clear here, too. It is illegal to conceal guns, and there is a license that exempts that for handguns.

the text is pretty clear, -250 applies to "any" firearm, -260 exempts CHL holders from -250. There is no clear text that says a handgun license only applies to handguns.

Its also not unreasonable to allow a handgun license to apply to concealing other types of firearms.

I will give you that a prosecutor might try, and you have a point with that especially with the liberal anti gun judges here that have exposed their anti gun bias over the law. But consider this, the people who write prohibition type laws can never figure out how to write such a law in a way that covers all loopholes (I think its impossible). I dont know the timeline history of how or why -250 and -260 came into law, but it wouldn't surprise me if when they decided to add -260 they didnt look deep enough at -250 and saying the "handgun" license only applies to handguns or they would have added that then and there.

 

[RX-79G]

the text is pretty clear, -250 applies to "any" firearm, -260 exempts CHL holders from -250. There is no clear text that says a handgun license only applies to handguns.

Its also not unreasonable to allow a handgun license to apply to concealing other types of firearms.

I will give you that a prosecutor might try, and you have a point with that especially with the liberal anti gun judges here that have exposed their anti gun bias over the law. But consider this, the people who write prohibition type laws can never figure out how to write such a law in a way that covers all loopholes (I think its impossible). I dont know the timeline history of how or why -250 and -260 came into law, but it wouldn't surprise me if when they decided to add -260 they didnt look deep enough at -250 and saying the "handgun" license only applies to handguns or they would have added that then and there.

There is no real world application of this interpretation. Lawyers exist to help people navigate laws, and no lawyer is pushing this idea that a CHL is for other things. Advising people to read it the way that is being suggesting is just playing chicken with a felony.

It will get you just as far as Sovereign Citizen theory.

 

[Koda]

There is no real world application of this interpretation. Lawyers exist to help people navigate laws, and no lawyer is pushing this idea that a CHL is for other things. Advising people to read it the way that is being suggesting is just playing chicken with a felony.

It will get you just as far as Sovereign Citizen theory.

except im not advising people to read any law in any way. Im just pointing to the text of the law.

At some point, the people, are responsible for knowing and interpreting the law or everything would be chaos. Discussions like this are not uncommon and normal for people to figure things out.

 

[CamoDeafie]

ORS 166.262 – Limitation on peace officer’s authority to arrest for violating ORS 166.250 or 166.370

A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating ORS 166.250 (Unlawful possession of firearms) (1)(a) or (b) or…

oregon.public.law

"A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating ORS 166.250 (Unlawful possession of firearms) (1)(a) or (b) or 166.370 (Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility) (1)(a) if the person has in the person's immediate possession:


(1)A valid license to carry a firearm as provided in ORS 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) and 166.292 (Procedure for issuing), unless the person possesses a firearm within the Capitol, within the passenger terminal of a commercial service airport with over one million passenger boardings per year or on school grounds subject to a policy described in ORS 166.377 (Possession of firearms in certain public buildings by concealed handgun licensees);"

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

Since ORS 166.250 (1) (a) and (b) says..

"(1)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 felons), 166.273 (Relief from firearm prohibitions related to mental health), 166.274 (Relief from prohibition against possessing or receiving firearm), 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license), 166.292 (Procedure for issuing) or 166.410 (Manufacture, importation or sale of firearms) to 166.470 (Limitations and conditions for sales of firearms), a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly:


(a)Carries any firearm concealed upon the person;


(b)Possesses a handgun that is concealed and readily accessible to the person within any vehicle;"


Emphasis added by me..


It sure does look like a valid CHL holder is exempt from violating (1) (a) and (b) as well as most of the other Statute ORS 166.370

 

[RX-79G]

except im not advising people to read any law in any way. Im just pointing to the text of the law.

At some point, the people, are responsible for knowing and interpreting the law or everything would be chaos. Discussions like this are not uncommon and normal for people to figure things out.

The people includes attorneys, government employees and elected officials. They are citizens as well. The state AG has a duty to reply to any inquiry about the law, and will do so in writing.

Anyone relying on a problematic interpretation of the law (and I've pointed out what is problematic) better upgrade to some sort of official or expert advice before they do something dumb based on layman's intuition.

 

[RX-79G]

ORS 166.262 – Limitation on peace officer’s authority to arrest for violating ORS 166.250 or 166.370

A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating ORS 166.250 (Unlawful possession of firearms) (1)(a) or (b) or…

oregon.public.law

"A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating ORS 166.250 (Unlawful possession of firearms) (1)(a) or (b) or 166.370 (Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility) (1)(a) if the person has in the person's immediate possession:


(1)A valid license to carry a firearm as provided in ORS 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) and 166.292 (Procedure for issuing), unless the person possesses a firearm within the Capitol, within the passenger terminal of a commercial service airport with over one million passenger boardings per year or on school grounds subject to a policy described in ORS 166.377 (Possession of firearms in certain public buildings by concealed handgun licensees);"

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

Since ORS 166.250 (1) (a) and (b) says..

"(1)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 felons), 166.273 (Relief from firearm prohibitions related to mental health), 166.274 (Relief from prohibition against possessing or receiving firearm), 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license), 166.292 (Procedure for issuing) or 166.410 (Manufacture, importation or sale of firearms) to 166.470 (Limitations and conditions for sales of firearms), a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly:


(a)Carries any firearm concealed upon the person;


(b)Possesses a handgun that is concealed and readily accessible to the person within any vehicle;"


Emphasis added by me..


It sure does look like a valid CHL holder is exempt from violating (1) (a) and (b) as well as most of the other Statute ORS 166.370

Would you agree that a CHL is valid until revoked, and a Sheriff has no legal obligation to revoke it? They "may" revoke?


Would you then agree that a valid CHL is then an exemption from being barred from possession of any kind under 166.250?

 

[Koda]

The people includes attorneys, government employees and elected officials. They are citizens as well. The state AG has a duty to reply to any inquiry about the law, and will do so in writing.

Anyone relying on a problematic interpretation of the law (and I've pointed out what is problematic) better upgrade to some sort of official or expert advice before they do something dumb based on layman's intuition.

Youve only pointed out your opinion of the law.

Agree if its important enough for someone to consult an actual lawyer. But then it would be interesting to see the difference in opinions between a pro gun lawyer and an anti gun lawyer...

 

[RX-79G]

Youve only pointed out your opinion of the law.

Agree if its important enough for someone to consult an actual lawyer. But then it would be interesting to see the difference in opinions between a pro gun lawyer and an anti gun lawyer...

People don't remain pro-gun lawyers if they keep losing gun cases.

And I have pointed out the two ways of reading the law, and the consequences of both. With a strict reading, an insane person who hasn't yet had their CHL revoked can violate 166.250 with impunity despite being adjudicated unable to possess firearms. Does that seem like the way the law was written on purpose?

 

[solv3nt]

People don't remain pro-gun lawyers if they keep losing gun cases.

And I have pointed out the two ways of reading the law, and the consequences of both. With a strict reading, an insane person who hasn't yet had their CHL revoked can violate 166.250 with impunity despite being adjudicated unable to possess firearms. Does that seem like the way the law was written on purpose?

Closing thread.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Would you agree that a CHL is valid until revoked, and a Sheriff has no legal obligation to revoke it. They "may" revoke?

Valid until revoked, the same as having an access badge for military, civil, or private businesses. Or having a valid driver's license to drive on public roadways.

Would then agree that a valid CHL is than an exemption from being barred from possession of any kind under 166.250?

I don't know about "any kind", certainly can see where you're trying to "trap" the debate to invalidate the explicitly, expressly stated exemptions in the cited ORS.

A peace officer may be able to arrest and charge a valid CHL holder for violating (1) (c)? But then again that seems to be pretty broad and also a lot of these seem to also provide good causes for Sheriff to revoke..


I have never heard nor read of City or State LEOs not notifying the accused's County Sheriff for charges or arrests.

 

[solv3nt]

@Moderators
Please close

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Youve only pointed out your opinion of the law.

Has anyone in this thread done anything different?

 

[Koda]

People don't remain pro-gun lawyers if they keep losing gun cases.

your use of non sequitors to "prove" your point is why people here get frustrated with you.

 

[Koda]

Has anyone in this tread done anything different?

no, but I suggested that in full context. Its normal for people to discuss laws to try to interpret them.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Has anyone in this tread done anything different?

I've only cited the ORS that does support the view that ORS 166.260 exempts CHL holders from 166.250... the opposition hasn't cited any other ORS that support a more limited/restricted application of the exemption and hasn't shown ORS citation where 166.260 does not exempt CHL holders from the whole of 166.250

 

[solv3nt]

Has anyone in this tread done anything different?

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

 

[RX-79G]

your use of non sequitors to "prove" your point is why people here get frustrated with you.

What non sequiturs? If you keep losing cases on you legal theories, you aren't going to be practicing law.