- Messages
- 2,515
- Reactions
- 1,495
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.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.