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

[VinnieBoomBah]

My point was that only opinions are being offered here and the final say would take place in an OR courtroom

 

[RX-79G]

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

And that's fine, because - as I mentioned - the law is poorly written. That doesn't forgive acting on a legal interpretation that will not hold up in court. And it won't hold up because - as I demonstrated - the law was not written with the intent being suggested.

 

[Koda]

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

I didnt ask about lawyers who lost gun cases. Discussing that does not follow the premise of my statement and is off topic, probably why the OP is asking the mods to close the thread.

 

[CamoDeafie]

And that's fine, because - as I mentioned - the law is poorly written. That doesn't forgive acting on a legal interpretation that will not hold up in court. And it won't hold up because - as I demonstrated - the law was not written with the intent being suggested.

If such poorly written, it's as current as 2015 for 166.250 and 166.260. And 2021 for 166.262.

If you claim poorly written, then for criminal cases, the criminal court judges need to apply rule of lenity here, which would again support the view that 260 applies wholly to 250, and 262 limits arrests and charges to violating (1), (c)

 

[CamoDeafie]

Your interpretation and views seem to favor government/LEO interpretation in that they want to restrict further than what's written and available; which frankly.. is not how US, or Oregon criminal cases are supposed to go.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Your interpretation and views seem to favor government/LEO interpretation in that they want to restrict further than what's written and available; which frankly.. is not how US, or Oregon criminal cases are supposed to go.

He's not favoring them, as in that's the way he wants things to be, he is recognising that that is the way things are likely to be

And how they are supposed to go or not go, that is the way they are likely to go

 

[Koda]

He's not favoring them, as in that's the way he wants things to be, he is recognising that that is the way things are likely to be

And how they are supposed to go or not go, that is the way they are likely to go

Isnt that another subject though?

 

[solv3nt]

Isnt that another subject though?

It is. @Moderators, please close.

 

[Yarome]

It's only poorly written if the plain english doesn't support your opinion. That's where supposed subjective "opinions" come into play, but the law, as written is clear. That's what lawyers do. Use word play to attempt to support the outcome they desire.... regardless of the plain text.

Plain and simple.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Isnt that another subject though?

Maybe, but he's not the one that introduced the new topic

 

[Flopsweat]

So the Mazda Muppet has proven he can't argue his case without violating every condition of the conversation. Quelle surprise.

 

[RX-79G]

I didnt ask about lawyers who lost gun cases. Discussing that does not follow the premise of my statement and is off topic, probably why the OP is asking the mods to close the thread.

You brought up pro gun lawyers in this thread. If you can't stand off topic, don't post off topic. You're the problem.

 

[RX-79G]

If such poorly written, it's as current as 2015 for 166.250 and 166.260. And 2021 for 166.262.

If you claim poorly written, then for criminal cases, the criminal court judges need to apply rule of lenity here, which would again support the view that 260 applies wholly to 250, and 262 limits arrests and charges to violating (1), (c)

Sure, if the judge thinks you are legitimately confused about the law. Not if you were given every opportunity to seek counsel and decided to use your CHL for a rifle based on a theory.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

You brought up pro gun lawyers in this thread. If you can't stand off topic, don't post off topic. You're the problem.

JMHO, but I think the "condition of the conversation" was that you were supposed to lose quickly and quietly slink away to hide your embarrassment

How dare you sir, not abide by the "condition of the conversation"

 

[Yarome]

He's not favoring them, as in that's the way he wants things to be, he is recognising that that is the way things are likely to be

And how they are supposed to go or not go, that is the way they are likely to go

Without case law backing it up, there is no indication of what is "likely"... it's purely speculative...

...and....

@solv3nt was very clear when opening the thread that he was only interested in the text of the law.... not opinions or hypotheticals, right(?) Simply... "What does the law say and how do they overlap/interact?".

 

[Koda]

Maybe, but he's not the one that introduced the new topic

lost me.

The topic is the OPs topic, and he asked about specifics. Not probabilites of interpretations.

The law does specifically exempt CHLs from -250.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Without case law backing it up, there is no indication of what is "likely"... it's purely speculative...

Right. Which is just another way of saying what I have been saying, which is . . .

@solv3nt was very clear when opening the thread that he was only interested in the text of the law.... not opinions or hypotheticals, right(?) Simply... "What does the law say and how do they overlap/interact?".

Nope, he may have intended to be clear in that, but in the absence of a specifically worded law (which we don't have) that question either requires a personal opinion or a court ruling.

 

[PiratePast40]

self censored - potential CoC violation

ETA - should we have a totally separate "argue with xyz" section since the argument will never end?

 

[Stomper]

There is no real world application of this interpretation. Lawyers exist to help people manipulate 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.

Fixed it for you….

 

[Yarome]

JMHO, but I think the "condition of the conversation" was that you were supposed to lose quickly and quietly slink away to hide your embarrassment

How dare you sir, not abide by the "condition of the conversation"

I didn't get that impression at all. It seemed a genuine question to clarify his own understanding... and if he was overlooking something that it seemed whatsistroll might be aware of. Outside of the previously convoluted threads where it's easy to get lost and loose the plot.

Starting with a "clean page" as it were....