Repeal ORS 166.173

[ZigZagZeke]

I sent this message to OFF today. How many of you are willing to do the same?

With the proliferation of Portland style local gun regulation now spreading to Multnomah County and the City of Ashland, I'm concerned that Oregon will become a patchwork of unintelligible rules and regulations, making inadvertent criminals out of law abiding citizens, and in the process, chilling the exercise of our 2nd Amendment rights everywhere for fear of running afoul of these patchwork restrictions. Isn't it about time we decided that the provisions of ORS 166.173 are being abused by local government? The obvious remedy for such abuse would be to repeal ORS 166.173 either through lobbying the legislature, or via the initiative process. I'm willing to donate substantial time and energy, as well as some money to such a campaign. When do we get started?

ORS 166.173 states"166.173 Authority of city or county to regulate possession of loaded firearms in public places. (1) A city or county may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession of loaded firearms in public places as defined in ORS 161.015."

Read More

 

[pchewn]

Yes, it should be repealed.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

I like the way you worded this.
"chilling the exercise of our 2nd Amendment rights everywhere for fear of running afoul of these patchwork restrictions"
I have no doubt this already occurs. People are afraid that if they exercise their inherent right they will accidentally end up breaking the law because they can't keep up with all of them.

If Oregon can go the initiative route and win this then it would have a chilling effect on the gun prohibitionists trying to use initiatives to push their gun grabs. If we can both Stop I-594 here in WA and also get rid of this unconstitutional law in OR (It is in direct conflict with the OR constitution) then it would send a powerful message.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I've been talking via email with Kevin at OFF. There may be something in the works on this.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

It seems there is a state legislator who says he will introduce this bill. I hope he follows through on it. If a bill to repeal 166.173 is introduced, even if it doesn't fly maybe a bargain can be struck to exclude vehicles traveling or parked on public streets from being "public places" in an amendment to ORS 166.173. At least this is an offensive play for us on the pro-gun side, rather than firearms owners always being on the defensive.

 

[drew]

I've been saying this needs to be repealed for a long time. I'll send an email and dedicate what resources I can.

 

[fd15k]

Nice, but not a priority. I would rather concentrate on having the CHL law amended so that residents of all 50 states (plus territories) can get them, as well as the base for reciprocity agreements.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Nice, but not a priority. I would rather concentrate on having the CHL law amended so that residents of all 50 states (plus territories) can get them, as well as the base for reciprocity agreements.

My suggestion there would be to work with congress members to get a constitutional amendment then as that is what is required to do this. Any federal law that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms (Which is what requiring a permit to carry does) requires a constitutional amendment before it can have any real legal standing. The courts may say different however if they do then they are going against the constitution itself to do so. We already have enough "federal laws" that are unconstitutional. We don't need another one.

 

[fd15k]

My suggestion there would be to work with congress members to get a constitutional amendment then as that is what is required to do this. Any federal law that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms (Which is what requiring a permit to carry does) requires a constitutional amendment before it can have any real legal standing. The courts may say different however if they do then they are going against the constitution itself to do so. We already have enough "federal laws" that are unconstitutional. We don't need another one.

What are you talking about ? I meant changes to

ORS 166.291 (1)(c)

(c) Is a resident of the county;

and/or 166.291 (8)

(8) The county sheriff may waive the residency requirement in subsection (1)(c) of this section for a resident of a contiguous state who has a compelling business interest or other legitimate demonstrated need.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

What are you talking about ? I meant changes to

ORS 166.291 (1)(c)



and/or 166.291 (8)

Ah, I see what your getting at now. I thought you were referencing the universal permit valid in all states that has been suggested. While I don't agree as to the constitutionality of it at least there would be some good faith consistency there. It's kind of absurd that the very act of stepping over some invisible line while exercising a right can result in becoming a criminal.

 

[drew]

Nice, but not a priority. I would rather concentrate on having the CHL law amended so that residents of all 50 states (plus territories) can get them, as well as the base for reciprocity agreements.

I believe we should fix the laws for people without a permit first whether or not they reside in the state. I think expanded reciprocity is a good thing also but I'm a fan of not requiring permits to carry a firearm open or concealed.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I believe we should fix the laws for people without a permit first whether or not they reside in the state. I think expanded reciprocity is a good thing also but I'm a fan of not requiring permits to carry a firearm open or concealed.

Agreed. I'm particularly interested in removing the ability of localities like Portland to affect how people transport their weapons because they might be traveling through Portland. The way it now stands, if you have a loaded magazine in your car on I-5 within Portland city limits you are in violation of the local "loaded carry in public" ordinance. People who have to travel through Portland to somewhere else are discouraged from taking a firearm with them. The best outcome is we repeal this enabling legislation and give all control back to the state. A second best outcome would be to add a clause to 166.173 which declares a vehicle, moving or parked, as NOT a public space for purposes of local ordinances created under this section of the ORS.

 

[fd15k]

The way it now stands, if you have a loaded magazine in your car on I-5 within Portland city limits you are in violation of the local "loaded carry in public" ordinance.

Not if one is in compliance with FOPA, which I believe doesn't require for magazines to be unloaded. FOPA will supersede any local ordinance.

A second best outcome would be to add a clause to 166.173 which declares a vehicle, moving or parked, as NOT a public space for purposes of local ordinances created under this section of the ORS.

You would be better off arguing that restrictions on loaded carry are pointless altogether. Otherwise it makes little sense - one can have a negligent discharge while in confinement of a vehicle and injure/kill people on the street. Obviously not talking about a premeditated criminal action.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

So far the City of Portland seems to have ignored FOPA.

 

[fd15k]

So far the City of Portland seems to have ignored FOPA.

What do you mean they ignored FOPA ? Was somebody popped for transporting stuff in accordance with FOPA and then charged ? Or you mean they passed the ordinance without exemptions ?

Existence of FOPA or any other Federal law doesn't preclude local governments from passing laws that contradict it. It only means when the time comes for application of such local laws, Federal law supersedes all of them. That is not the same in the context of case law, where passing a law that contradicts a decision may be seen as contempt.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

What do you mean they ignored FOPA ? Was somebody popped for transporting stuff in accordance with FOPA and then charged ? Or you mean they passed the ordinance without exemptions ?

Existence of FOPA or any other Federal law doesn't preclude local governments from passing laws that contradict it. It only means when the time comes for application of such local laws, Federal law supersedes all of them. That is not the same in the context of case law, where passing a law that contradicts a decision may be seen as contempt.

There are at least two cases of people being convicted under this law for having loaded weapons or magazines in their cars.

 

[fd15k]

There are at least two cases of people being convicted under this law for having loaded weapons or magazines in their cars.

FOPA is not a broad vehicle provision. Stuff has to be locked away out of reach (like in the trunk) and the travel through prohibited jurisdiction has to be reasonably direct (no stops at the zoo). I doubt those two cases were like that.

 

[BAMCIS]

I usually support laws giving more authority closer to the people, (ie local government). And, I've never paid much attention to this statute because of exemptions provided under (2) (c).

Having said that, since most of us have a CHL, I think, as other have pointed out, there are higher priorities for us.

 

[SturgeonSlayer]

Agreed. I'm particularly interested in removing the ability of localities like Portland to affect how people transport their weapons because they might be traveling through Portland. The way it now stands, if you have a loaded magazine in your car on I-5 within Portland city limits you are in violation of the local "loaded carry in public" ordinance. People who have to travel through Portland to somewhere else are discouraged from taking a firearm with them. The best outcome is we repeal this enabling legislation and give all control back to the state. A second best outcome would be to add a clause to 166.173 which declares a vehicle, moving or parked, as NOT a public space for purposes of local ordinances created under this section of the ORS.

Are you not exempt from this law if you have a concealed carry permit ?

 

[fd15k]

Are you not exempt from this law if you have a concealed carry permit ?

You are exempt.