Oregon Interesting Subsection of ORS 18

[wewaits]

ORS 18.362 – Exemption for firearms

Every citizen of this state above the age of 16 years shall be entitled to have, hold and keep, for the own…

oregon.public.law

ORS 18.364 – Prohibition on demanding firearms

No officer, civil or military, or other person, shall take from or demand of the owner any firearms mentioned in ORS 18.362…

oregon.public.law

Judgments

ORS 18.362
Exemption for firearms

• TEXT
• ANNOTATIONS 1

Every citizen of this state above the age of 16 years shall be entitled to have, hold and keep, for the own use and defense of the citizen and shall have exempt from execution one rifle or shotgun and one pistol. The combined value of all firearms claimed as exempt under this section may not exceed $1,000. [Formerly 23.200]

ORS 18.364
Prohibition on demanding firearms

• TEXT
• ANNOTATIONS 1

No officer, civil or military, or other person, shall take from or demand of the owner any firearms mentioned in ORS 18.362 (Exemption for firearms), except where the services of the owner are also required to keep the peace or defend the state. [Formerly 23.210]

Read More

 

[wewaits]

I thought this was interesting, I was going over garnishee responsibilities under Oregon law and found this little nugget. So written into Oregon Revenue law is a section entitling 16 year olds and up to own one Shotgun, one Rifle and one Pistol, yes a pistol. How does that work when a 16 year old can't go buy one legally from an FFL. Loophole?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I thought this was interesting, I was going over garnishee responsibilities under Oregon law and found this little nugget. So written into Oregon Revenue law is a section entitling 16 year olds and up to own one Shotgun, one Rifle and one Pistol, yes a pistol. How does that work when a 16 year old can't go buy one legally from an FFL. Loophole?

Parental gift, totally legal

 

[The Heretic]

I thought this was interesting, I was going over garnishee responsibilities under Oregon law and found this little nugget. So written into Oregon Revenue law is a section entitling 16 year olds and up to own one Shotgun, one Rifle and one Pistol, yes a pistol. How does that work when a 16 year old can't go buy one legally from an FFL. Loophole?

Federal law trumps state law with regards to purchases. As for possession in Oregon (and many other states), a parent/guardian/et. al., can purchase a firearm for a minor.

 

[wewaits]

Parental gift, totally legal

I guess what I am getting at is the word Entitled, that one word changes it from receiving it as a gift to being entitled to own. So if a 16 year old wants a Rifle, a pistol and a shotgun, they don't have to wait to have it gifted to them, they are entitled to them. If a kid has anti-gun parents, or no parents He/She by use of the word entitled should by all rights be able to purchase one in the state of Oregon. I know federal law prohibits it but just like the Roe V Wade action if the SCOTUS ruled federal firearms laws unconstitutional and kicked them back to individual states to decide then in Oregon anyone over the age of 16 would be able to legally purchase and own firearms and would be able to keep at least one rifle, one shotgun and one pistol even if they lose everything else. I just thought it was interesting and a possible future back door or loophole should SCOTUS nullify current federal firearms laws. Not that I'm holding my breath.

 

[Kyrsen]

Volume 1, Title 2 is related entirely to Civil Procedures so it wouldn't likely be cited for use in a criminal proceeding. That's how I read it. The exemption is aimed at not allowing the courts to seize your firearms in the case of a civil judgement against you because you have a right to those firearms per the constitution to protect yourself and your community. Which somehow is a better argument in a civil proceeding than a criminal one. Crazy legal system.

 

[wewaits]

Federal law trumps state law with regards to purchases. As for possession in Oregon (and many other states), a parent/guardian/et. al., can purchase a firearm for a minor.

I get that federal law reigns supreme but if it was nullified by the SCOTUS and if the decisions were kicked back down to the state level this would mean in Oregon a 16 year old being entitled to said implements would be able to purchase them from a vendor and not be beholden to current regulations.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Volume 1, Title 2 is related entirely to Civil Procedures so it wouldn't likely be cited for use in a criminal proceeding. That's how I read it. The exemption is aimed at not allowing the courts to seize your firearms in the case of a civil judgement against you because you have a right to those firearms per the constitution to protect yourself and your community. Which somehow is a better argument in a civil proceeding than a criminal one. Crazy legal system.

It also applies to bankruptcy procedures

Source: Hooray for the recession

 

[Kyrsen]

It also applies to bankruptcy procedures

Source: Hooray for the recession

Which is a civil proceeding. My condolences.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Which is a civil proceeding. My condolences.

Meh, not like I was the only one.

 

[Kyrsen]

My parents went through one last recession. They survived and kept their house. Good luck!

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

My parents went through one last recession. They survived and kept their house. Good luck!

Mine was the last one as well, 2011 or so.
On a side note, I know what they think BofA stands for, but as far as I'm concerned the "B" stands for "Bunch" and if you ad the "of" I bet you can figure out what I think the "A" stands for.

 

[Stomper]

I thought this was interesting, I was going over garnishee responsibilities under Oregon law and found this little nugget. So written into Oregon Revenue law is a section entitling 16 year olds and up to own one Shotgun, one Rifle and one Pistol, yes a pistol. How does that work when a 16 year old can't go buy one legally from an FFL. Loophole?

I draft and review proposals and contracts a LOT in my profession, and splitting "legalese" hairs… it says one rifle OR one shogun, AND one pistol, with a combined value not to exceed $1,000…..



It does NOT one rifle AND one shotgun, AND one pistol……



It'd also be super easy to exceed that $1,000 mark between a decent rifle and pistol worthy of "duty".

 

[Librarian]

Thank you Stomper - obedience to laws lives and dies by the technicality. OR Statutes are mostly readable by english speakers, but legalese is not English.

 

[The Heretic]

It'd also be super easy to exceed that $1,000 mark between a decent rifle and pistol worthy of "duty".

Anymore it isn't hard to exceed $1K with a single firearm

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Anymore it isn't hard to exceed $1K with a single firearm

No one actually checked what I wrote down, but that is a sample size of one

 

[The Heretic]

I can't think of a "duty" pistol and rifle that I own, that I would count on, that would not greatly exceed $1K, and most of the rifles by themselves are worth well over $1K.

That is the issue when laws set a monetary figure in stone (law) like that - not too long afterwards that amount becomes more or less meaningless due to inflation. Like the $200 tax stamp meant to preclude most people from getting one, today it is just an annoyance for many people, not a barrier.

 

[The Heretic]

dupe

 

[arakboss]

Parental gift, totally legal

or they could make one.

 

[P7M13]

Thank you Stomper - obedience to laws lives and dies by the technicality. OR Statutes are mostly readable by english speakers, but legalese is not English.

And most legislators lack brains.