Oregon Open carry loaded in portland?

[cpt_neckbeard]

Young v. Hawaii - Harvard Law Review

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court definitively proclaimed that the Second Amendment guarantees a core individual right to keep handguns...

harvardlawreview.org

Considering the recent case of Young VS Hawaii I don't know if Portland Oregons city ordinance requiring that open carriers to keep their weapons unloaded still stands.. It states that the right to carry is for the purpose of defense in violent confrontation. This requires the weapon be loaded. The law specifically calls it reckless to have 'failed' to unload it. But I loaded it on purpose.... That's the point.

14A.60.010 Possession of a Loaded Firearm in a Public Place.
(Amended by Ordinance No. 184274, effective December 31, 2010.)

A. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess or carry a firearm, in or upon a public place, including while in a vehicle in a public place, recklessly having failed to remove all the ammunition from the firearm.

B. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess or carry a firearm and that firearm's clip or magazine, in or upon a public place, including while in a vehicle in a public place, recklessly having failed to remove all the ammunition from the clip or magazine.

Read More

 

[awshoot]

Reckless does not refer to how the gun was loaded, but to failing to remove the ammo, so your non-reckless loading is irrelevant to the question. The law defines as reckless, failing to unload. Secondly, if you intentionally and safely loaded it, you certainly "knowingly possess" the loaded firearm (and it is doing that which is defined as reckless).

The way to go about this is to draft up an affidavit that says you are a law abiding citizen, that if the law as written did not exist, you'd carry a loaded gun, and you would do so for personal safety reasons. Then file a lawsuit to get the Portland ordinance reversed.

The way to not go about this is to guess that a court in the future would follow your line of reasoning with respect the HI case, and chance it by getting yourself arrested for violating that ordinance.

 

[solv3nt]

Welcome to the forum. I can't help but notice that your first post is one that May be construed as you asking if anybody agrees with your interpretation of an issue, which if anybody agrees, provides justification that we as a gun forum recommend breaking the law; forgive me if I'm wrong.

That said, under no circumstance does anybody from this community recommend you breaking the law, even if it is unconstitutional. That said, with a carry permit you can open carry loaded in any local jurisdiction that had additional restrictions as allowed by ORS 166.

With the current sentiment towards guns, especially in Portland, you will likely have a very negative response from the Portland PD, your mileage may vary.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[cpt_neckbeard]

this has nothing to do with breaking the law and everything to do with challenging it in court. I've already emailed the city of Portland regarding their unconstitutional law. I want this to go away.

 

[OldTengu]

this has nothing to do with breaking the law and everything to do with challenging it in court. I've already emailed the city of Portland regarding their unconstitutional law. I want this to go away.

You may want to take that to the county level, because, as I recall, it's a Multnomah county law, not just city of Portland.

 

[bbbass]

Wow, that is some "charged" language in that ordnance!!! Never seen the likes of it anywhere else... hard to believe people wanna live there!!!

 

[cpt_neckbeard]

I find it very disturbing that this entire community interprets things in the worst possible way if there is anything left open to interpret. if these unconstitutional laws are to be challenged they must be discussed and they must be discussed openly. every place where these are supposed to be discussed these conversations get shut down buy scared people who assume the worst in one another. usually boomers. until we can talk like grown adults about these issues we can't come together and challenge them in the waist necessary to take them down. that is what I'm interested in being a part of. I don't want to stand around on a street corner holding a sign I don't really think that does anything. I want to be much more strategic with my time, effort and resources.

 

[OldTengu]

I find it very disturbing that this entire community interprets things in the worst possible way if there is anything left open to interpret. if these unconstitutional laws are to be challenged they must be discussed and they must be discussed openly. every place where these are supposed to be discussed these conversations get shut down buy scared people who assume the worst in one another. usually boomers. until we can talk like grown adults about these issues we can't come together and challenge them in the waist necessary to take them down. that is what I'm interested in being a part of. I don't want to stand around on a street corner holding a sign I don't really think that does anything. I want to be much more strategic with my time, effort and resources.

No offense, but you are currently engaged in the internet equivalent of standing on a corner holding a sign.
If you want to be engaged in the process of change, go do that instead of just talking about it in a way that appears to be trolling. Many here have been, and still are engaged in the process at the local, county and state levels. Please, come at this from a different angle and approach the subject in a way that may foster good relations with those here that can help you along.

 

[cpt_neckbeard]

I posted a very fair question. why I got back was a fairly hostile response. people here aren't seemingly interested in discussion as they are interested finding as many reasons as they can why someone is wrong and shoving that in their face. even when those reasons are projections. I came here looking for conversation. what the hell else am I supposed to do.

 

[OldTengu]

I posted a very fair question. why I got back was a fairly hostile response. people here aren't seemingly interested in discussion as they are interested finding as many reasons as they can why someone is wrong and shoving that in their face. even when those reasons are projections. I came here looking for conversation. what the hell else am I supposed to do.

I don't see anything that could be construed as hostile. Again, have a look through the "Firearm laws & legal" section, figure out who has been most active in trying to affect change and work with them.
Edit: In the meantime, if you wish to open carry a loaded firearm in Multnomah county, I'd suggest getting your CHL if you haven't.

 

[cpt_neckbeard]

I wonder if they consider a speed loader to be a clip.

 

[OldTengu]

I wonder if they consider a speed loader to be a clip.

Yes. It is the revolver equivalent of a magazine.

 

[solv3nt]

I posted a very fair question. why I got back was a fairly hostile response. people here aren't seemingly interested in discussion as they are interested finding as many reasons as they can why someone is wrong and shoving that in their face. even when those reasons are projections. I came here looking for conversation. what the hell else am I supposed to do.

I apologise if my response came across as hostile. We don't want to be possibly viewed as a community of law breakers, so when a new person comes in with a controversial first post, it raises flags.

Your question is completely valid, the next step would be to bring the issue to local court. That said, the issue with the Hawaii ruling, is that Hawaii is may issue state, and they do not issue, but they also do not allow open carry. The State government has a supermajority, and Ginny Burdick has indicated that she would like to remove the state preemption.

Again, I apologise if my post came across as hostile. Welcome to the forum and good luck in Oregon.

 

[solv3nt]

Yes. It is the revolver equivalent of a magazine.

I believe the Portland definition is anything that holds a bullet. Please refer to the Portland ordinance for more information, as it's been over 4 years since I've looked at it.

 

[cpt_neckbeard]

well the 9th circuit Court doesn't just cover Hawaii, what they decided ultimately at least my understanding of it is that any licensing requirement for open carry is unconstitutional and that ruling applies not just to Hawaii but also to Oregon California Washington and a few other states. but also that that applies to caring for the purpose of defence a loaded firearm. yes I could go get my CHL and carry loaded legally according to the city of Portland until they come up with some new bullbubblegum. I'm signed up for the class I'm kind of new to the gun world as it is. the thing is if I do get my CHL I will not have standing to challenge it. as long as I don't have my chl that I am still in a position where my rights are being infringed and us could challenge the law. the moment I take that step the courts would not hear my case. I hate narcissistic people and anyone who thinks it's someone else doesn't have the right to defend themself is supremely narcissistic. my primary interest in this particular instance is to take a perceived power away from those who have wrongfully carved it out for themselves.

 

[bbbass]

Please try to understand that the forum has had it share of troubles that come from new members. We get trolled, we get deception, we get people hostile to the 2A posing and trying to trick us into writing something that can be used to embarrass gun owners. We're a bit defensive at times, it's not personal.

But on a personal note, I resent the attack on "boomers" and your painting "this entire community" when you have not interacted with the entire community. IMO in general, you get what you put out, with a few exceptions by people engaging in bad behavior. I would encourage you to be patient with us, not attack groups such as "boomers", and not paint with such a broad brush.

Welcome to the community!

 

[terdog]

I saw nothing other than well intended information being shared.

 

[OldTengu]

Please try to understand that the forum has had it share of troubles that come from new members. We get trolled, we get deception, we get people hostile to the 2A posing and trying to trick us into writing something that can be used to embarrass gun owners. We're a bit defensive at times, it's not personal.

But on a personal note, I resent the attack on "boomers" and your painting "this entire community" when you have not interacted with the entire community. IMO in general, you get what you put out, with a few exceptions by people engaging in bad behavior. I would encourage you to be patient with us, not attack groups such as "boomers", and not paint with such a broad brush.

Welcome to the community!

The best part to me?
I'm 34. Nowhere near a "Boomer"

 

[bbbass]

The best part to me?
I'm 34. Nowhere near a "Boomer"

But I'm definitely a "boomer" at age 67. So I took the comment as an unwarranted personal insult. I know it's popular today to blame Boomers for everybody's problems, but I don't have to tolerate that kind of bias/bigotry here. At least I don't think so...

 

[solv3nt]

I'm 35, and carried for 10 years in Oregon....