Loaded rifle cased in back seat legal????

[chariot13]

You haven't answered my question. Most important thing that 166.250 does, is it disallows concealment of firearms. It doesn't deal with loaded/unloaded, which is exactly the reason Oregon is an Open Carry state. 166.260, which you cited above, provides a few exceptions to unlawful concealment. Certain municipalities ban loaded firearms in public (vehicle is a public place), and the only exemption is provided in the same statute that authorizes such regulation, 166.173, to persons who are CHL holders. Now may I have a clarification to my original question ?

The guy charged from that perticular municipality was not exempt by any of the exemptions so anotherwards take another exemption on the list of exemptions such as; (a) Sheriffs, constables, marshals, parole and probation officers, police officers, whether active or honorably retired, or other duly appointed peace officers.

They are also exempt by any local municipality within the state and are subject to the same protections I listed under 166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250. (1) ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affect:

(a) Members of any club or organization, for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets upon the established target ranges, whether public or private, while such members are using any of the firearms referred to in ORS 166.250 upon such target ranges, or while going to and from such ranges.

(b) Licensed hunters or fishermen while engaged in hunting or fishing, or while going to or returning from a hunting or fishing expedition.

 

[fd15k]

The guy charged from that perticular municipality was not exempt by any of the exemptions so anotherwards take another exemption on the list of exemptions such as; (a) Sheriffs, constables, marshals, parole and probation officers, police officers, whether active or honorably retired, or other duly appointed peace officers.

They are also exempt by any state municipality and are subject to the same protections I listed under 166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250. (1) ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affect:

(a) Members of any club or organization, for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets upon the established target ranges, whether public or private, while such members are using any of the firearms referred to in ORS 166.250 upon such target ranges, or while going to and from such ranges.

(b) Licensed hunters or fishermen while engaged in hunting or fishing, or while going to or returning from a hunting or fishing expedition.

I have no idea what you're talking about now. I will make it simple. Here is what I believe you said :

Under Oregon law one can have a firearm in the vehicle loaded or unloaded, concealed or unconcealed when going to/from fishing, hunting, target shooting.

To which I objected :

Certain municipalities ban loaded firearms in public, and fishing/hunting/target shooting exemption does not preempt such prohibition. Only CHL does.

 

[chariot13]

I have no idea what you're talking about now. I will make it simple. Here is what I believe you said :

Under Oregon law one can have a firearm in the vehicle loaded or unloaded, concealed or unconcealed when going to/from fishing, hunting, target shooting.

To which I objected :

Certain municipalities ban loaded firearms in public, and fishing/hunting/target shooting exemption does not preempt such prohibition. Only CHL does.

Now you've lost me. I guess if there's a future case like the last one of someone legally doing what state law says they can do and a local municipality says no they can't, then they can all keep going back to court. Obviously not all judges interpret the law the same as the next, so whatever. Do what you know is right and let em keep sorting it out

 

[fd15k]

Now you've lost me. I guess if there's a future case like the last one of someone legally doing what state law says they can do and a local municipality says no they can't, then they can all keep going back to court. Obviously not all judges interpret the law the same as the next, so whatever. Do what you know is right and let em keep sorting it out

I'm fine with you doing that. I just want other members of the forum to note that you suggest breaking the law, and risk becoming the "defendants".

 

[chariot13]

I'm fine with you doing that. I just want other members of the forum to note that you suggest breaking the law, and risk becoming the "defendants".

I dont suggest doing anything other than what you know is right. If you indicate the preememption exclusion is because it states local municipalities can go ahead & dictate its own laws, well then you understand perfectly that there is no preemption clause in the Constitution regarding federal, state or local laws when you read the 2nd ammendment. Now it appears you are fine with me letting other members of the forum take note "that you suggest breaking the law, and risk becoming the defendants" & its a-ok with you.

 

[chariot13]

I'm fine with you doing that. I just want other members of the forum to note that you suggest breaking the law, and risk becoming the "defendants".

I found "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" ratified by Congress. Oh and i found it reiterated by the states & Thomas Jefferson as such "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

But nothing in it saying it can be infringed with the following exemptions... When you read it, you can't help but think how necessary it is to remain a free state, that the people within that state shall not be infringed in regards to this specific ammendment. Not by Congress (Federal) nor the State, Let alone a municipality.

 

[chariot13]

I'm fine with you doing that. I just want other members of the forum to note that you suggest breaking the law, and risk becoming the "defendants".

Oh and another thing just so you are properly informed about what preemption means. Since you seem to think its the latter preemption that trumps the original preemption. Preemption stems from that there doctrine that you apparently hate so much. It is, its own prememption to everything that you can make up or imagine when talking about something that comes after such as Federal, State & Local laws.