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

[sobo]

I suddenly feel grossly inadequate standing next to @CamoDeafie .

 

[solv3nt]

View attachment 1457684

"She" feels grossly inadequate? I guess your definition of "woman" is different from mine....

 

[solv3nt]

How is it that a guy that brings up a just closed thread to screw up an open thread and engages in nothing but personal attacks is the "troll hunter"?

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

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

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

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

Still waiting.....

 

[CamoDeafie]

It's a circular argument with certain forumites. Their entire argument is that since the CHL is expressly called a handgun license, it is applicable only to the concealed carry of handguns and no other firearms.. therefore they could well be arrested and charged for conceal carry of any firearm except a handgun... which.. runs counter to what @solv3nt and I have repeatedly pointed out... that ORS 166.250 (1) (a) expressly says "any firearm", that ORS 166.260 expressly says 166.250 does not apply or affect CHL holders, and ORS 166.262 expressly says valid CHL holders may not be arrested or charged for violating ORS 166.250 (1)(a) or (b); and indeed, uses the term "licensed to carry a firearm". As there are no Oregon State license to Open carry any firearm; we must assume it to be CHLs and indeed, it does refer to the other ORS relevant to CHLs.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

So.... Back to the topic. Do you have any ORS that says 166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250 doesn't apply?

No more than you do that it does

I'm not saying I totally disagree with your point of view, but ORS does not explicitly say that you can CC a non handgun and if I was a betting man I would say you would probably lose in court. Maybe a very good lawyer could use that defence, but that isn't a risk I would casually take


ETA Obligatory IANAL, and I would bet most of you aren't either, but I have talked to enough lawyers to know that *most* non lawyers would be better off and letting an ACTUAL lawyer do the talking if they end up in court

 

[solv3nt]

It's a circular argument with certain forumites. Their entire argument is that since the CHL is expressly called a handgun license, it is applicable only to the concealed carry of handguns and no other firearms.. therefore they could well be arrested and charged for conceal carry of any firearm except a handgun... which.. runs counter to what @solv3nt and I have repeatedly pointed out... that ORS 166.250 (1) (a) expressly says "any firearm", that ORS 166.260 expressly says 166.250 does not apply or affect CHL holders, and ORS 166.262 expressly says valid CHL holders may not be arrested or charged for violating ORS 166.250 (1)(a) or (b); and indeed, uses the term "licensed to carry a firearm". As there are no Oregon State license to Open carry any firearm; we must assume it to be CHLs and indeed, it does refer to the other ORS relevant to CHLs.

Nuh uh.

 

[solv3nt]

No more than you do that it does

I'm not saying I totally disagree with your point of view, but ORS does not explicitly say that you can CC a non handgun and if I was a betting man I would say you would probably lose in court. Maybe a very good lawyer could use that defence, but that isn't a risk I would casually take

Nope. It doesn't. Laws are written to tell you what you can't do, not what you can do. If you need a law to tell you what you 'can do', then I'm sorry, we can't have an intelligent conversation.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Nope. It doesn't. Laws are written to tell you what you can't do, not what you can do. If you need a law to tell you what you 'can do', then I'm sorry, we can't have an intelligent conversation.

One of the Oldest principles in American legal theory..

If not prohibited; it's permissible

 

[sobo]

I suddenly feel grossly inadequate standing next to @CamoDeafie .

View attachment 1457684

"She" feels grossly inadequate? I guess your definition of "woman" is different from mine....

I'll let you read it again, and you can try to weasel out of your inadequacies once more...
You said that you feel grossly inadequate. She said that you did, effectively agreeing with your supposition. Take it from there!

 

[RX-79G]

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

Dude, you don't obey the rules of the forum. And now you want to be like that?

You don't have anything to cite that is different than has been cited before, and I posted the problem with that logic.

 

[solv3nt]

I would say you would probably lose in court. Maybe a very good lawyer could use that defence, but that isn't a risk I would casually take

This is purely mental masturbation as my SBR is too big to conceal. It was also a test to see if @RX-79G could maintain a debate by following set parameters. It appears that is not the case.

 

[CamoDeafie]

To "solve" this, all Legislature has to do in one of their many anti gun bills, is to introduce a new subsection to the ORS or replace words; to make it abundantly clear that a CHL is only applicable to concealed carry of handguns and that CHL holders can be charged and arrested for violating ORS 166.250. It would be effectively a repeal of ORS 166.260 and 166.262.

 

[solv3nt]

I'll let you read it again, and you can try to weasel out of your inadequacies once more...
You said that you feel grossly inadequate. She said that you did, effectively agreeing with your supposition. Take it from there!

I think you date a different kind of women.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Nope. It doesn't. Laws are written to tell you what you can't do, not what you can do. If you need a law to tell you what you 'can do', then I'm sorry, we can't have an intelligent conversation.

Easy on the Ad Hominins

Never said I needed a law to tell me anything one way or the other, but maybe look at as "Laws are written to tell you what the State can/will punish you for" because that is how the State tends to look at them

 

[solv3nt]

Dude, you don't obey the rules of the forum. And now you want to be like that?

You don't have anything to cite that is different than has been cited before, and I posted the problem with that logic.

Do you even own any guns?

 

[solv3nt]

.

 

[CamoDeafie]

.

.

 

[solv3nt]

.

..

 

[CamoDeafie]

..

...

 

[solv3nt]

...

....