- Messages
- 5,184
- Reactions
- 8,913
My point was that only opinions are being offered here and the final say would take place in an OR courtroom
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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
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.What non sequiturs? If you keep losing cases on you legal theories, you aren't going to be practicing law.
If such poorly written, it's as current as 2015 for 166.250 and 166.260. And 2021 for 166.262.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.
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 beYour 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.
Isnt that another subject though?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
It is. @Moderators, please close.Isnt that another subject though?
Maybe, but he's not the one that introduced the new topicIsnt that another subject though?
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.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.
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.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)
JMHO, but I think the "condition of the conversation" was that you were supposed to lose quickly and quietly slink away to hide your embarrassmentYou brought up pro gun lawyers in this thread. If you can't stand off topic, don't post off topic. You're the problem.
Without case law backing it up, there is no indication of what is "likely"... it's purely speculative...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
lost me.Maybe, but he's not the one that introduced the new topic
Right. Which is just another way of saying what I have been saying, which is . . .Without case law backing it up, there is no indication of what is "likely"... it's purely speculative...
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.@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?".
Fixed it for you….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.
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.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"