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

[CamoDeafie]

A reasonable person standard.



Would a reasonable person seeing the text of ORS 166.250 (1) (a) and (b) and also ORS 166.262; conclude that yes ORS 166.260 does exempt valid CHL holders from 166.250, on plain reading of the text?

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..

 

[Stomper]

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.

In the words of Al Gore when called on the carpet for receiving "campaign donations" from those Tibetan monks (laundering for the PRC), "there is no controlling legal authority".

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

A reasonable person standard.

Serious question because I don't know, is there a "reasonable person standard" in OR statues?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Serious question because I don't know, is there a "reasonable person standard" in OR statues?

Not explicitly stated as such, but it is the very foundation of American legal theory it seems.

However.. these provide definitions for many things it seems.

ORS 161.015 – Gen. definitions

As used in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, and ORS 166.635 (Discharging weapon or throwing objects at trains), unless the context requires…

oregon.public.law

ORS 161.085 - Definitions with respect to culpability

ORS Title 16, Crimes and Punishments; Chapter 161, General Provisions; Section 161.085, Definitions with respect to culpability. Refreshed: 2023-06-16

oregon.public.law

Ah, there is this subsection in the above ORS
(10)"Criminal negligence" or "criminally negligent," when used with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. [1971 c.743 §7; 1973 c.139 §2]

 

[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

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.

You added the word "any" and added "portions". Again, where does it say any of what you opine?


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

 

[Yarome]

Serious question because I don't know, is there a "reasonable person standard" in OR statues?

It's not an OR statue. It is a legal principle/standard established in the 19th century in the case of Vaughn v. Menlove... applicable to all law interpretation.

 

[solv3nt]

@Moderators please close due to thread discussion violations.

 

[wombatz]

This is not an ORS citing, but I found this (and don't like it):

Frequently Asked Questions - Oregon Concealed Handgun Licensing

oregonchl.org

This site heading is: Oregon State Sheriffs' Association

Does a concealed handgun license allow me to carry any weapon?
No. This is a concealed handgun license only. See ORS 166.210(5) for the definition of a handgun.

 

[CamoDeafie]

You know... I don't see any "unless" language listed by ORS 166.260 in (4)

(4)The exceptions listed in subsection (1)(d) to (i) of this section constitute affirmative defenses to a charge of violating ORS 166.250 (Unlawful possession of firearms). [Amended by 1977 c.207 §1; 1991 c.67 §36; 1993 c.735 §1; 1995 c.670 §2; 1999 c.1040 §3; 2009 c.316 §2; 2009 c.499 §4; 2012 c.106 §3; 2015 c.709 §2]

 

[CamoDeafie]

This is not an ORS citing, but I found this (and don't like it):

Frequently Asked Questions - Oregon Concealed Handgun Licensing

oregonchl.org

This site heading is: Oregon State Sheriffs' Association

Does a concealed handgun license allow me to carry any weapon?
No. This is a concealed handgun license only. See ORS 166.210(5) for the definition of a handgun.

The problem.is that there's ORS 166.260 and 166.262

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

It's not an OR statue. It is a legal principle/standard established in the 19th century in the case of Vaughn v. Menlove... applicable to all law interpretation.

Yeah, I don't think that's correct Looking into it a bit more it really only applies to civil liability / negligence and not interpreting criminal statutes

 

[Koda]

This is not an ORS citing, but I found this (and don't like it):

Frequently Asked Questions - Oregon Concealed Handgun Licensing

oregonchl.org

This site heading is: Oregon State Sheriffs' Association

Does a concealed handgun license allow me to carry any weapon?
No. This is a concealed handgun license only. See ORS 166.210(5) for the definition of a handgun.

police officers are not lawyers though. They dont have a good track record of interpreting the law either...

They cited ORS166.210 for the definition of a handgun, but didnt cite 166-260 for its application of a CHL... two very different things.

So they got this one wrong. IMO of course and all that stuff about how it might play out in actual court.

 

[CamoDeafie]

police officers are not lawyers though. They dont have a good track record of interpreting the law either...

They cited ORS166.210 for the definition of a handgun, but didnt cite 166-260 for its application of a CHL... two very different things.

So they got this one wrong. IMO of course and all that stuff about how it might play out in actual court.

And ORS 166.262 which is actually relevant to the Sheriffs as it applies to ORS 166.250 and 166.260

 

[Yarome]

Yeah, I don't think that's correct Looking into it a bit more it really only applies to civil liability / negligence and not interpreting criminal statutes

This isn't "the legal brief" forum.... I said "first established"... and not going to go into the full history, adaptation or application from the 19th century to date.

Feel free to edify yourself.

It's sad that we actually have to have a legal standard that "reasonable understanding" must be a criteria in U.S. law though, hu.

 

[wombatz]

police officers are not lawyers though. They dont have a good track record of interpreting the law either...

Yup, 100% agree. I agree with solv3nt on this, but I don't want to be cited or taken in, so am pointing out that the Sheriff might not see it the same.

But this is a violation of the original intent of the post, sorry. Time to close it?

 

[CamoDeafie]

This isn't "the legal brief" forum.... I said "first established"... and not going to go into the full history, adaptation or application from the 19th century to date.

Feel free to edify yourself.

It's sad that we actually have to have a legal standard that "reasonable understanding" must be a criteria in U.S. law though, hu.

Indeed. Plain text seems to say a valid CHL holder is exempt from charge of violating ORS 166.250 (1) (a) (b) and an affirmative defense against charge of the rest of ORS 166.250, going from ORS 166.260 and 166.262...


All of which were revised and updated/as current as 2015 for 166.250 and 166.260, 2021 for 166.262


Plenty of time for Legislature to have added or revised to be more specific as in "only if the firearm in question is a handgun is a CHL holder exempt from violating 166.250"

 

[RX-79G]

You added the word "any" and added "portions". Again, where does it say any of what you opine?


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

It doesn't matter where it says anything. What matters is if your theory keeps you out of jail.

Care to test it?

 

[solv3nt]

It doesn't matter where it says anything. What matters is if your theory keeps you out of jail.

Care to test it?

Is it possible for you to obey the rules of this thread?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I said "first established"

No you didn't. What you said was

"It's not an OR statue. It is a legal principle/standard established in the 19th century in the case of Vaughn v. Menlove... applicable to all law interpretation."

The bold part is mine, and you may have intended to say "first" but it's not in there. And I did 'edify ' myself, and what I came up with is that it is not applicable to all law interpretation and really only applies to civil / liability issues

 

[solv3nt]

But to deviate, my SBR is too big to conceal. I carry concealed for the purpose of maintaining a hidden firearm.

Gun porn