Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

OR concealed law history - nitpick

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by dallen1x, Dec 29, 2012.

  1. dallen1x

    dallen1x Wil_Val, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    46
    I've been trying to read up on why a license is required to bear concealed arms.
    There's alot of opinions across the country and some make sense and others do not.
    So....I did some digging into the history of Oregon law.
    It really gets put into black and white in 1885.
    I haven't found any statistics concerning what led up to this change in 1885.

    Oregon Journal of House of Reps, 1885
    Governor's message:
    A prolific source of crime is the too common habit of carrying concealed weapons. The presence of a weapon in case of personal encounters always presents a strong temptation for its use, and such use in the heat of passion has come to be too lightly regarded. Anything is to be commended which will tend to repress and restrain this too prevalent habit. If the mere carrying of a concealed weapon were, in public estimation and under the law, branded as criminal, fewer instances of justifiable homicide would be reported from our courts. A stringent law upon this matter is recommended.


    Wow, he wants to turn public opinion against those who carry concealed but he admits that the cases they're seeing in court are justifiable.

    H.B. No. 117 was introduced, read multiple times and passed:
    It shall be unlawful for any person to carry concealed about his person in any manner whatever any revolver, pistol, or other firearm, or any knife (other than an ordinary pocketknife), or any dirk or dagger, slung-shot, or metal knuckles, or any instrument by the use of which injury could be inflicted upon the person or property of any other person.

    For some reason the bill was referred to the wrong committee. Why did it not go to the Judicial Committee?
    H.B. No. 117 was read the second time, and on motion of Mr. Watts, was referred to the Committee on Education.

    The education committee agreed and sent it back to the House.
    Mr. Speaker - Your Committee on Education, to whom was referred H.B. No. 117, beg leave to report that they have had the same under consideration, and would respectfully report it back to the House with the recommendation that it do pass.

    The bill passed the Senate.
    The Governor signed the bill.

    I haven't fully formed my opinion on the CWL issue but I'm swayed by what an OR appellate court said:
    That rationale -- ensuring the public's ability to assess whether a person is presently in possession of a weapon -- is the legislative purpose often identified with the enactment of weapons concealment statutes around the country. The Iowa Supreme Court, for example, has stated:
    "We discern the policy underlying the prohibition against concealed weapons to be based on the protection of those persons who may come into contact with a weapon bearer. If a weapon is not concealed, one may take notice of the weapon and its owner and govern oneself accordingly. No such opportunity for cautious behavior or self-preservation exists for one encountering a bearer of a concealed weapon."


    It seems to come down to these issues:
    a. The hot-heads of yore would pull their weapon and shoot based on pride or honor.
    b. The newly minted State of Oregon wanted to protect its civilized citizens from the archaic mentality of the old west or the tradition of dueling.
    c. If you carry concealed you must have criminal intentions or tendencies.
    c. The general citizenry has a higher level of requirement to protect itself than do those who carry concealed.
     
  2. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    Can we blame Obama for this one ? Pretty please ?
     
  3. dallen1x

    dallen1x Wil_Val, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    46
    Gov. Moody was a Republican
    Rep. Watts was a Democrat
    The House was controlled by Republicans – 35/24
    The Senate was controlled by Republicans – 17/13

    I’m confused.
    Were the party ideologies different back then? Hmmm…..more thinking to do.
     
  4. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    Yes, ideologies were different back in the days, and even not that very long ago. For example, ban on open carrying of firearms in California was sponsored by a republican congressman, and signed into law by a republican governor (Ronald Reagan).

    Bee_A1-536x409.jpg
     
  5. hermannr

    hermannr Okanogan Highlands Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    871
    I submit, it wasn't the republicians or the democrats back then. It was the thought expressed by the Idaho Supreme Court in "in re Brickley" in 1902. it was a generally accepted concept of the time, that: "Those with criminal intent hide their weapons.". Common everyday LAC did not have a reason to hide his weapon, and generaly did not.
     
  6. mkwerx

    mkwerx Forest Grove, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,725
    Likes Received:
    2,050
    And now you're considered a weirdo and potential crazed gunman should you carry your guns openly. Hell, the anti gun folks think we're all a bunch of criminally insane killers-to-be for even owning a gun, let alone wanting to carry that gun.
     
  7. Father of four

    Father of four Portland, Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    1,687
    :eatpop:
     
  8. hermannr

    hermannr Okanogan Highlands Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    871
    Not where I live. The day of the Sandy Hook shooting I was in a store at the register when the news of the CT shooting came through...The owner of the store commented on the crazy story and I responded, and that is exactly why I carry....Her response...Exactly!

    PS: If you didn't already know from my other posts...I Open Carry all the time, unless it is so cold I need a heavy coat. Then the weapon and holster are the same, just a nice warm coat is a good thing when it is cold.
     
  9. BillB1960

    BillB1960 Hillsboro Active Member

    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    106
    Times change, used to be pretty common to see a big pile of horse apples in the middle of Main St, nowadays not so much. I'm sure Gun Free Zones seemed like a good idea at the time as well. Welcome to the law of unintended consequences.
     
  10. CounterOfBeans

    CounterOfBeans northwest Active Member

    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    117
    Dallen1x,

    Thank you for doing some research on Oregon's concealed carry history. And I'm glad to see you're on the fence about why a "license" is required to carry a firearm. In my opinion, that's your common sense and intuition at work. The public schools have done a very good job of pounding those things out of us as a society.

    Since we all know that the Governor is the commander and chief of the executive branch's duty to uphold and defend the Constitution(s), i.e. serve and protect the rights of Oregon Citizens, you are so on the mark to recognize that the Governor is pushing his oath bound duties aside by suggesting that there should be a law..... that he can enforce..... to stop people from committing "justifiable homocide"... i.e. defending themselves as a matter of right.

    If I'm reading HB 117 right, did you notice that it even appears to make it illegal for people to carry things that they might injure themselves with? I bolded and underlined the words that read that way to me. And yeah, why did they send it to the wrong committee? So far this is three things about concealed carry history that vindicates your suspicion about the legitimacy of concealed carry.

    You didn't cite the actual Oregon appeals case you referred to, so I don't have the full picture of what the case was about. But based on what I see, notice how the Oregon appellate court is using its prerogative (under US Constitution, Art. 4, Sec. 1) to give full faith and credit to the Iowa Supreme Court's decision, as a tool for creating Oregon case law precedent that imposes the seeming validity of Iowa's concealed carry "policies" onto the rights of Oregon's Citizens. And notice how the rationale for that Iowa Court's decision is upholding Iowa "policies" that are "based on the protection of those persons who may come into contact with a weapon bearer."...... i.e. "protection of persons who give concealed weapons bearers some reason to feel threatened enough to pull their concealed gun out and use it....in self-defense".

    Apparently this Oregon appeals court has more affection for the "policies" of another State than it does for it's own State's Constitution, which at Article 1, Section 27, reads:

    "Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]"

    This Oregon Constitutional provision makes NO, non, zero, 0 conditions to the right of "bearing" a weapon....for self-defense. And judges are not allowed legislate from the bench by inserting their own conditions on what that right entails. See ORS 174.010:

    "CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES
    174.010 General rule for construction of statutes. In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all."


    They are required to "ascertain WHAT IS contained in lawful provisions", and overturn laws that don't pass Constitutional scrutiny. The principle of "the rule of law" is the foundation of a Republic form of government. The function of "the rule of law" is to maintain logic and even-headedness in order to prevent the emotions of political excitement from being used as a pry bar to separate Citizens from their natural, fundamental and unalienable rights. But that is exactly what is happening with the excuses you are reading in the language you cited from the various historical sources.

    Also, notice how the word "licence" is lawfully defined in Oregon:

    "ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT
    (General Provisions)
    183.310 Definitions for chapter. As used in this chapter:
    (5) “License” includes the whole or part of any agency permit, certificate, approval, registration or similar form of permission required by law to pursue any commercial activity, trade, occupation or profession."


    The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) is the body of law that controls how executive branch agencies "administer" the law through enforcement and administration, which demonstrates exactly how or why you have such a natural suspicion about the validity of the word "license" being used to interfere with our right to "bear arms for the defense of ourselves". Also, take a look at chapter 181, which deals with the State Police:

    "181.400 Interference with personal and property rights of others. No member of the state police shall in any way interfere with the rights or property of any person, except for the prevention of crime, or the capture or arrest of persons committing crimes. [Amended by 1971 c.467 §25; 1991 c.145 §1]"

    AND

    "181.030 Powers and duties of department and its members.
    (3) Each member of the state police has the same general powers and authority as those conferred by law upon sheriffs, police officers, constables and peace officers. A member of the state police may be appointed as a deputy medical examiner."


    So if all police agencies have the same general powers and authority, and if they all swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution(s), and if the Oregon Constitution enshrines the right of Citizens to "bear" arms for self defense, then...unless someone is committing a crime with a gun, the only conclusion to draw from the law is that police agencies have absolutely NO, none, zero, 0 authority to interfere "IN ANY WAY" with how Citizens choose to "bear" their self-defense arms. If follows, that if law enforcement agencies that facilitate the acquisition of concealed handgun licenses are actually going to be sincere about administering or enforcing the legislative intent of the law that defines "license", those agencies have an oath-bound duty to stop making these "licenses" available to anyone other than those "commercial" agents who must lawfully get a "license" to carry concealed... like say private detectives, body guards, security firm employees, etc.
     
    Galant and (deleted member) like this.
  11. dallen1x

    dallen1x Wil_Val, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    46
  12. dallen1x

    dallen1x Wil_Val, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    46
    I just found another piece of this that I’m not happy with.
    It appears that once you apply for a CHL (and any other permit or license where you get fingerprinted), you may be forever entered into the same tracking database that is used to track actual criminals; The Computerized Criminal History unit.

    Oregon State Police Concealed Handgun License (CHL)
    All applications for Concealed Handgun Licenses are initiated through the county Sheriff’s office in your county of residence. Concealed Handgun License applicant fingerprint cards are processed and established in the Computerized Criminal History records of Oregon's Criminal Offender Information system

    Oregon State Police Computerized Criminal History (CCH)
    The Computerized Criminal History unit is responsible for maintaining criminal history information through LEDS (Law Enforcement Data System). The computerized criminal history is established based on fingerprints and includes arrest information, court information, and custody information received from the Department of Corrections. Law enforcement agencies are required by statute to submit a fingerprint card to ISS for all felony crimes as well as all sex and drug misdemeanor crimes.

    Oregon State Police - Identification Services Section About Us
    Oregon criminal history files date back to the 1920's and are retained indefinitely. These files can only be removed through expungement by court order or when a subject is reported as deceased and confirmed by fingerprints.
    Each day ISS receives approximately 400 criminal arrest fingerprint cards and approximately 300 applicant fingerprint cards for processing………….
    ………..Applicant cards are generally not retained at ISS unless a statute exists requiring an applicant card be maintained on file. Most applicant cards received are searched against the CCH files and returned to the submitting agency or requestor for further action, which may include: employment, certification, licensing or permits.


    Here is the statute. It makes no mention of the OSP not keeping the fingerprint card or not keeping your info in the database.

    ORS 166.291 Issuance of concealed handgun license; application; fees; liability.
    (3)(b) ….. The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall return the fingerprint cards used to conduct the criminal records check and may not keep any record of the fingerprints.

    Also in ORS 166.291
    (7) Immediately upon acceptance of an application for a concealed handgun license, the sheriff shall enter the applicant’s name into the Law Enforcement Data System indicating that the person is an applicant for a concealed handgun license or is a license holder.

    Ok, so when you submit your application you are immediately put into LEDS.
    What’s the purpose of LEDS? Why the APB on you when you hand in your paperwork?

    257-015-0040 LEDS Responsibilities
    The general responsibilities of the Law Enforcement Data System program are as follows:
    (1) Develop and operate a computerized criminal justice telecommunications and information system providing message switching and record storage and retrieval capabilities.
    (10) Provide assistance and information access to non-criminal justice user agencies for statutory licensing, employment and regulatory purposes and for other purposes authorized by law.


    This is the only part that makes sense so maybe they know when to send the renewal reminder.
    ORS 166.292 (Procedure for issuing; form of license; duration) states;
    (5) The sheriff shall keep a record of each license issued …….

    What’s with all the possible TRACKING of INFORMATION on 300 non-criminals per day?
     
  13. ArgyleAdams

    ArgyleAdams Portland, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    84
     
  14. CounterOfBeans

    CounterOfBeans northwest Active Member

    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    117
    Great points and thanks again for your research legwork in your #12 post, along with the Oregon v. Briney link. I noticed you didn’t make any comments about the information I provided in my first reply to your post, as far as how it weighs on your perception of the validity of concealed carry “license” laws. You only responded by correcting your citation of, and providing a link to, the Briney case that you felt “swayed” by. I have taken this as a request by you to postpone your remarks until I’ve had a chance to read the case and see everything in it that was so persuasive for you.

    In my opinion, the Oregon v. Briney case is a great education, for a number of reasons, on the legal injuries caused to Citizens because of the Constitutional and legal illiteracy public schools infect our society with.

    The issue that was made the centerpiece of the Briney case was about whether the non-functional firing pin in the defendant's gun gets him off the hook for violating “the prohibition” of concealed carry without a “license” at ORS 166.250(1)(a). When the cop requested to search the defendant (Briney), Briney said immediately, “All I have is this”… a non-functional pocket pistol. Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice De Muniz makes no mention of the record saying that Briney claimed an Oregon constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense when the cop accused him of violating the concealed carry law. He also makes no mention of Briney claiming the right at the trial court. If Briney were remotely informed about the Oregon Constitution, you can only presume that he would have used it in his defense to get out of hot water.

    It appears that Briney also didn’t have a concealed carry “license”, which is the fact that supposedly gets him in trouble for having a gun in his pocket. The Briney case opinion doesn’t let us know anything about what suspicions the cop had about Briney and his buddy’s when he got to the scene. All we know is that the cop wanted to search Briney, and Briney didn’t protest the search (surrendering his right to protection against illegal search and seizure). Briney also failed to protest to the cop or the trial court that the legislatively intended definition of “license” is solely for “commercial” purposes and therefore, the citation issued to him is based on the obscenely absurd falsity that exercising the right to bear arms for self-defense can be construed to violate a mere “commercial” regulation.

    Citizens rights cannot be arbitrarily reduced. Their maintenance and preservation is the reason why they are enshrined in the supreme law of the land, a Constitution, which legislative enactments must bow to.

    If Briney were remotely informed about the legal meaning of basic words used in society, like “license”, don’t you think he would have used it in his defense to put his errant public servants in their place in court? It’s also well worth noting that Briney’s “defense” attorney didn’t raise these issues either, even though he has a law education.

    So, with the unconstitutionality of the citation being left unraised, as well as the mis-guided enforcement of a “licensing” law, Briney’s defense strategy of saying “the gun couldn’t be fired” leaves the courtroom presumption in tact that his right to “bear arms for self-defense” wasn’t violated and that the concealed carry “licensing” law was properly enforced….which serves to reinforce the popular acceptance of the uninformed belief that concealed carry laws can legally trump the supreme law of the land in Oregon.

    Noticing how much time and energy the Chief Justice puts into parsing out the historical evolution and context behind the legislative intent of the definition of "firearm" and “readily” and “capable” to properly construe those words in the concealed carry law at 166.250(1)(a), one wonders if he would have done the same thing for the word “license” if Briney would have said from the beginning that the cop’s citation was BS because, based on the legislative intent of “license” at ORS 183.310(5), the effect of the citation is to reduce a Citizen’s gun right to “commercial” subject matter, which serves to generate revenue at Citizens’ expense and invades Citizens’ right to privacy by forcing them to surrender their control of their personal information, to be tracked by a government criminal database, in exchange for being allowed to do something they already have a natural, fundamental, unalienable right to do….according to the contract known as the Oregon Constitution.

    So I am not swayed in the least by the Briney case, as a vehicle for verifying the validity of concealed carry laws. For me it is only a demonstration of how intellectually defenseless Citizens are made by the constitutional illiteracy that is sowed in the young impressionable minds of budding Citizens who go to public schools. We don’t know what the right questions are or how to ask them. But we all know that “knowledge is power” and we all know that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. So in a nation that is based on “the rule of law”, how do we arrive in modern times as a People who have had decades of opportunity to cultivate and encourage literacy on the Constitutions and laws, but instead find ourselves no better prepared to wield them for our benefit in a world where information about them is at our fingertips everywhere.

    Instead, the usual refrain by many people is “I’m not a lawyer”… which is another way of saying, “I don’t know the law and am not interested in reading it or I am not confident in my ability to properly know what it says”. This disabled attitude is not something that just surfaces out of the blue. It is the product of years of having the Constitutions and laws made a low educational priority in our culture’s education systems. We The People have come to entrust OUR level of education on the Constitution and laws to public schools, in the same way we trust them to make us literate on other basic subjects. Below is what the law in Oregon requires our public schools to provide regarding Constitution and law education. Do the plainly-worded requirements of these laws match what you got in 8th through 12th grade?:

    “336.057 Courses in Constitution and history of United States. In all public schools courses of instruction shall be given in the Constitution of the United States and in the history of the United States. These courses shall:
    (1) Begin
    not later than the opening of the eighth grade and shall continue in grades 9 through 12.
    (2) Be required in all public universities listed in ORS 352.002, except the Oregon Health and Science University, and in all state and local institutions that provide education for patients or inmates to an extent to be determined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction.”

    AND

    “336.067 Topics given special emphasis in instruction. (1) In public schools special emphasis shall be given to instruction in:
    (a) Honesty, morality, courtesy, obedience to law, respect for the national flag, the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Oregon, respect for parents and the home, the dignity and necessity of honest labor and other lessons that tend to promote and develop an upright and desirable citizenry.
    (b) Respect for all humans, regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, religion, age, sex or disability.
    (c) Acknowledgment of the dignity and worth of individuals and groups and their participative roles in society.
    (d) Humane treatment of animals.
    (e) The effects of tobacco, alcohol, drugs and controlled substances upon the human system.
    (2) The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall prepare an outline with suggestions that will best accomplish the purpose of this section, and shall incorporate the outline in the courses of study for all public schools.”

    I know I got absolutely no exposure to the Oregon State Constitution or laws, let alone "special emphasis". I know I got nowhere near five full years of a class devoted to studying the US Constitution. Maybe a grand total of about a half year's worth. Since the curriculum policy architects are deemed to know the education laws they carry out, how does curriculum reality land so far away from curriculum law?
     
    Galant and (deleted member) like this.
  15. dallen1x

    dallen1x Wil_Val, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    46
    Please don’t take this post or my previously short response as offense. Your comment concerning the construction of legislation led me to again research the canons by which legislation is interpreted. That legwork along with thinking about the Briney case where a firearm that cannot ‘fire’ without a ‘firing’ pin is still a ‘fire’arm and, looking into the 1885 legislation have all kept me busy.

    An example of the different paths I have looked into, which have utilized my free time, is how the OR Constitution, Section 20 may apply to a CHL.
    Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.
    Since our Right to Bear Arms cannot be infringed, does the requirement of a license, and the associated fees, create a class of citizens?

    On the surface, I applaud your beliefs and interpretations. If you were to ask; What parts do you like? I’d have to respond with, Uh….I don’t know. That’s due to my need to more fully study and absorb instead of responding with unintelligent banter.
    Shortly, I hope to be able to keep up my end of the conversation.
     
  16. hermannr

    hermannr Okanogan Highlands Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    871
    Well, we have a special class of citizen that do not have to abide by the Gun Control laws...they are called Law Enforcement. So, do we have a volunteer to sue the state...you will have to be a CHL holder. Next, would be the "prohibited" persons...that are Prohibited via State law.
     
  17. dallen1x

    dallen1x Wil_Val, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    46
    I haven’t even looked into whether or not off duty officers need to have a CHL.
    Not ready to take this to court.....yet.:paranoid:
    Not about to start poking at the bureaucrats.:poke:

    ORS 183.310, with regards to a license, only applies to ‘State’ agencies and not to local governments such as a County Sheriff.
    (1) “Agency” means any state board, commission, department, or division thereof, or officer authorized by law to make rules or to issue orders, except those in the legislative and judicial branches.

    i.e. state board, state commission, state department, or division of these state agencies or officer of these state agencies.
     
  18. revmedia

    revmedia Dallas Member

    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    34
    LEOs do not need a CHL to carry concealed in OR.

    They do need to have their LEO ID on them when carrying IIRC.


     
  19. CounterOfBeans

    CounterOfBeans northwest Active Member

    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    117
    Hey Dallen1x,

    No offense taken at all. But regarding Or. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 20, keep in mind that the first ten amendments to the federal Constitution isn't called the "Bill of Privileges". We are not talking about "privileges" here. We're talking about "rights", specifically, rights that "State" Citizens inherently possess and which are automatically protected constitutionally by token of being "State" Citizens. If I may, I'd like to take a few words to explain what I mean, because there are some aspects of State Citizenship that I don't think public schools are interested in teaching us. I'll get back on point with your original "privileges and immunities" question, but I think there is some context that needs to be raised and discussed about this matter first.

    There is a contractual reason I make such a big deal out of putting quotes around "State", when I refer to "State" Citizens. Based on what I've read in case law, it's my observation about modern Citizens that we have lost track of the full measure of what the word "State" means.

    "State" and "nation" are synonymous terms. A "State" that is a member of a union of "States", is no less an independent sovereign nation-State as a result of belonging to a union. Just like Germany and France and Italy are no less independent, sovereign nations for their membership in the recently formed European Union. Because of our common heritage from coast to coast, We, as Americans, have just grown accustomed to thinking of our citizenship in national terms, rather than as a function of living in a State. But we have forgotten that our nation IS a contractual union of things called "States", and the only things that CAN enter into a contract are creatures that possess the power of autonomous, self-determination (i.e. sovereignty)

    A "State", technically speaking, is nothing more than a non-living construction of the human mind. As a non-living figment of the human imagination, a State technically can't do anything. A "State" only springs into life if human beings exercise their free-will to use their bodies and energy to fill its offices and use it as a legal fiction tool to achieve their intentions as a community with common interests. Therefore, a "State" is simply a conceptual platform... a vehicle... that gives the will of the free "People" who inhabit its boundaries, a medium through which to be expressed.

    At the end of the Revolutionary War, the colonies ceased being mere extensions of the British State (sovereign crown) and, by asserting and fighting to secure their own independence from the crown, they began their own existence as independent, sovereign, nation-"States" with Constitutions of their own, "State" Constitutions which pre-dated the US Constitution.

    Through their delegates (i.e. legal agents) at the Constitutional Convention, "State" Citizens chose to enter THEIR "States" into a union contract called the US Constitution. Through the vehicle of THEIR "State" apparatus, those "State" Citizens exerted THEIR collective sovereign will and power to commit THEIR communitys' interests to the benefits that THEY would enjoy by entering into the federal union contract called the US Constitution. "They" created that contract to protect "their" interests as "State" Citizens, and they alone, were and ARE the beneficiaries of all the protections established by that contract.

    It stands to reason that when a contract's signatory parties disappear, the contract simply becomes paper and ink with no purpose, because without beneficiaries to be satisfied, there are no more obligations to be met. Since "State" Citizens are THE only parties to the Constitution contract, it is only through THEIR maintenance of THEIR legal identity AS "State" Citizens that sustains the class of people who are the parties to the Constitution contract.

    It's a known fact that a pre-condition that was placed on ratification of the US Constitution contract, by State Citizens, was the inclusion of a "Bill of Rights", which was in addition to, and separate from, the Constitutional provisions that related to "privileges and immunities" (Article 4, Section 2). By this, these original State Citizens made a clear distinction between "rights" and "privileges" with this pre-ratification condition. Chafing from the abuses they had just freed themselves from with the British crown, they wanted to remove any doubt whatsoever about what they expected out of THEIR brand new federal government, which would spring to life upon ratification. And since their State Constitutions already provided protection against State-level rights abuse, they wanted to make sure that the federal government was going to be likewise kept in check.

    As a result, State Citizens are protected from State abuse by State Constitutions and from federal abuse by the federal Constitution. The federal Constitution was never intended to apply to State abuse.

    To lay some groundwork on what the Oregon Constitution says about the relationship between "State" Citizens and their State Government, take a look at Article 1, Section 1:

    "Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper."

    The Oregon Constitution's Article 1, Section 20 is the State-level equivalent of the federal Article 4, Section 2. As far as your inquiry about how Article 1, Section 20 relates to CHL laws, ask yourself if a "license" law (i.e. permission required by law to pursue a commercial activity) can logically be applied against the "rights" of a People in whom "all power is inherent".

    As far as the point you make that a Sheriff isn't subject to Chapter 183's definition of "license" because they are not a State "agency", this is a loose end that I have not tied up myself by finding out which definition of "license" counties use. I'm not satisfied with my search for county-level bodies of law, to be 100% positive that counties don't have their own definition of "license", but I'm not optimistic that I will find a county definition of "license" because of the following.

    I have gone to the Multnomah County Sheriff's website and looked at their CHL page (http://www.mcso.us/public/concealed_handgun.htm). At the bottom of this page, they cite their authority to issue CHLs with the following words:

    "Oregon Revised Statutes 166.291, 166.292, 166.293 and 166.295 governs the issuance of concealed handgun licenses in the State of Oregon."

    Which means they are citing "State" law as their authority to perform CHL duties. When you re-visit ORS 181.030, it says this about Sheriffs:

    "181.030 Powers and duties of department and its members.
    (3) Each member of the state police has the same general powers and authority as those conferred by law upon sheriffs, police officers, constables and peace officers. A member of the state police may be appointed as a deputy medical examiner."

    Since 181.030 says all levels of law enforcement bodies have the same authority (i.e. source in law) to act, it stands to reason that the State has merely exercised its sovereign discretion to delegate county Sheriff 's offices with the duty of issuing those "licenses" that State agencies would issue otherwise. Also, doesn't a CHL issued by one county have equal standing in the whole State? If so, this would mean that all counties' CHL issuances would have to be based on the same definition of what a "license" is. And when the State passed the laws that gives permission to Counties to issue CHLs (ORS 166.291), is it logical that it delegated more power to Sheriffs to interfere with Citizens' gun rights, than the State allows for its own agencies through the definition of "license" at 183.310(5)?
     
  20. dallen1x

    dallen1x Wil_Val, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    46
    When a situation arises that requires a similar explanation I have tried to put it into terms which those close to me will understand. This is usually to no avail. They are set in believing that we are in the community of Oregon within the Country called the U.S. Is this due to what seems like decades of training revolving around nationalism?

    The real estate that I own is the nation of Me, it is located within the precinct of Marion. We are also located geographically within the boundaries of the Nation (State) of Oregon and within the Union of Nations called the United States. I have agreed to abide by the laws of each respective community.

    Don’t misunderstand; I’m probably one of the most patriotic people that you’ll ever know. A short bio would read like; Cub Scout, Boy Scout, U.S.M.C., Public board member & Civic volunteer.

    Remind me sometime to tell you a story about Little League.