Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by djaziatic, Aug 22, 2014.
Totally not surprised by this ruling. I'd be surprised if you could find a judge within Multnomah county that would allow this to go forward.
Time to invoke Heller and McDonald.
Kelly House | firstname.lastname@example.org 42 minutes ago
@tonyspdx Yes. Although the judge did not rule on that issue (she simply said these plaintiffs are unqualified to bring forth this lawsuit), so its legal merits have yet to be tested.
This went exactly like I said it was going to go. The law will only be able to be challenged when the case is brought forward by someone that has been damaged by the law.
How about the parents of the kid that shot up the school in Gresham. Have we heard what charges they will face under current Multnomah County law, considering they allowed a gun into his hands? They may be just the kind of case that could be used to challenge this law.
I doubt it. The judge would find they would be in similar jeopardy with or without the statute based on other laws. The person charged will have to commit no other crime besides violating that particular ordinance.
At least the judge ruled that cities do not have to be sub-servant to the county. I wonder how many city boards will cast a vote to tell the county to pound sand.
It indicates to me that the county is worried that if there was a lawsuit or defense that went forward on this issue, that they would be in danger of losing.
Therefore it sounds to me like a law that they would be afraid of enforcing on its own because they might lose.
Doesn't Oregon have State-level preemption?
Yes we do - but Multnomah county and Port of Portland (PDX) have passed laws that are in conflict with that pre-emption clause. Various people are trying to challenge various laws on this basis and for the most part they (the municipality) don't want it to go to court.
But municipalities can control certain things, like shooting inside city limits, some forms of open carry and so on.
Like Chee-to said, nothing has been decided, except that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.
So as i understand legal standing, If one of the plaintiffs had been attacked or some way harmed in the county where their firearm would have prevented the problem then they would have legal standing. Am i reading that correctly? Isn't that backwards. Is the judge who made the decision a complete tool or does she, like Obama hate Liberty.
Thanks for the responses. Convoluted, isn't it?
A similar issue will come up again eventually.
Here's the latest:
A challenge may yet make it to adjudication.
Apparently the judge decided the plaintiffs hadn't been "harmed" by the ordinance, perhaps because they have CHL's, so state preemption applies to them. I'm not as quick as some to claim the decision was politicized: I just don't know.
Separate names with a comma.