Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Oregon carry (OC/CC) at protests / rallys / marches, can police legally prevent?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    311

    Oregon carry (OC/CC) at protests / rallys / marches, can police legally prevent?

    For any 1A get-together, but using the recent event in Portland as an example:

    Portland Patriot Prayer gets a permit for a rally / protest / march.
    You want a peacful event, but you know counter-protesters, possibly armed, will also show up.
    Portland Patriot Prayer voluntarily disarm at the request of Portland Police.
    Antifa does show up, they are not disarmed prior, but only during / after fighting breaks out.
    Multiple fights do break out. Difficult, if not impossible, to tell who the aggressors are (from a legal standpoint).
    Hard to identify anyone, on both sides, but especially Antifa (all wearing simular clothes & masks).
    So unless arrested while in the fight, very difficult to ID and arrest later.
    Portland police declare a riot, cancel the permit (hecklers veto), and clear out the crowds, both sides.

    So, here's my question... What if Portland Patriot Prayer had not voluntarily disarmed? Then what?
    They are legally on public streets, with a legal permit, in a somewhat 2A friendly open carry / CHL state.
    If Portland Patriot Prayer, or any individual had said no to voluntarily disarming what would the Portland Police be legally authorized to do about it? I can't find an ORS that could or would apply. Pull the permit? Then what?

    I know that it is not a smart move to go into that kind of situation in the first place. It can hit the fan easily.
    But I carry everywhere I legally can, just in case. (2A armed, not just firearms)
    If I want to go to an event, rally, protest, (1A speech & assembly/association) I should be able to carry, just in case.
    I know some other states have laws prohibiting carry at protests / rallys / marches, but I'm fairly sure Oregon does not.

    Thoughts?
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

  2. #2
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,609
    MiLord, first doesn’t Portland have an 2010 ordinance which mandates against carrying loaded firearms in public, 14A.60.010, which was found constitutional, 2012 by the OR SC? [yes, section D states CC exempt]

    https://www.portlandoregon.gov/citycode/article/332592

    Constitutional commentary:
    http://www.portlandcriminaldefensebl...tutional.shtml

    Second, this same ordinance specifically states in section “D” citizens must “...permit a police officer to inspect that firearm after the police officer has identified him or herself as a police officer. [CC exempt]

    The city’s ordinance does not specify if the nice LE will return said citizen’s firearm after ‘inspection”!

    [sidebar regarding definition of public place: 14A.10.010
    O. Public Place: a publicly or privately owned place to which the general public has access and may include but is not limited to public property and areas of private property open to the public, such as spaces within apartment houses and hotels not constituting rooms or apartments designed for actual residence, schools, places of amusement, parks, playgrounds, and premises used in connection with public passenger transportation.]

    I am unable to locate ordinances regarding parade/gathering permitting but recognize the policy might be in ‘administrative code’ buried in some Portland clerk’s desk.
    Last edited by solus; 07-07-2018 at 08:02 AM.
    I cannot allow your ignorance, however great, to take precedence over my knowledge, however small. Bacon’s great-grandson.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,837
    ^^^^^^What solus posted above is misleading, that is the article posted by solus is what is misleading.^^^^^^

    I believe if challenged today the Portland code 14A.60.010 would be found unconstitutional. Jon Christian was charged in September of 2008. Heller was decided in June of 2008. At that time Heller only applied in federal territories not the states. McDonald v. Chicago was not decides until 2010 applying the second amendment to the states. The Oregon appeals court and Oregon Supreme court decided the issue based only on the Oregon constitution.
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=4,38
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=4,38

    The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 177. (1803) stated: “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.” And, in their closing the Marbury court, at page 179, stated: “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

    The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

    Then 134 years later the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment applies to the states. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

    In 2008 the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

    More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

    Additionally, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. ____ (2016) unanimously held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    543
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    ^^^^^^What solus posted above is misleading, that is the article posted by solus is what is misleading.^^^^^^

    I believe if challenged today the Portland code 14A.60.010 would be found unconstitutional. Jon Christian was charged in September of 2008. Heller was decided in June of 2008. At that time Heller only applied in federal territories not the states. McDonald v. Chicago was not decides until 2010 applying the second amendment to the states. The Oregon appeals court and Oregon Supreme court decided the issue based only on the Oregon constitution.
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=4,38
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=4,38

    The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 177. (1803) stated: “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.” And, in their closing the Marbury court, at page 179, stated: “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

    The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

    Then 134 years later the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment applies to the states. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

    In 2008 the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

    More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

    Additionally, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. ____ (2016) unanimously held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”

    Your right on "Color of Law" also check out how to make them comply to there oath of office,

    Remind them of : http://www.article5.org/Federal%20Laws.htm

    And more info on it > https://samssimplefacts.wordpress.co...-5-u-s-c-7311/

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,362

    Not So Fast

    166.015 Riot. (1) A person commits the crime of riot if while participating with five or more other persons the person engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm.

    166.023 Disorderly conduct in the first degree. (1) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct in the first degree if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or knowingly creating a risk thereof, the person initiates or circulates a report, knowing it to be false:

    166.025 Disorderly conduct in the second degree. (1) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct in the second degree if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:

    https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bi...rs/ors166.html
    Post Heien, a LEO has far more latitude to misunderstand the law. We individual liberty respecting citizens never have the prerogative to define statute statutes meaning and enforcement while on the public streets.

    Carry IAW the law(s), having a CC permit certainly would help mitigate (after the fact) any legal entanglements, and let LE do what the do then seek a redress via the courts if required.

    ...by the way, this did happen in Portland...Oregon...rapidly becoming known as not being a 2A friendly environment/government.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,609
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    ^^^^^^What solus posted above is misleading, that is the article posted by solus is what is misleading.^^^^^^

    I believe if challenged today...

    snippp...”
    Alas CoL 'IF' we both had a quid, inflation you know, for things which might occur surely we would be rich by now!

    Most are aware, for 'IF' to become reality someone must have the $$$ & time & most of all the inclination to initiate the 'IF' in the first place which is where the problem lie doesn't it?

    as previously stated, 'plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose'. [Karr 1848]
    I cannot allow your ignorance, however great, to take precedence over my knowledge, however small. Bacon’s great-grandson.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,837
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    Alas CoL 'IF' we both had a quid, inflation you know, for things which might occur surely we would be rich by now!

    Most are aware, for 'IF' to become reality someone must have the $$$ & time & most of all the inclination to initiate the 'IF' in the first place which is where the problem lie doesn't it?

    as previously stated, 'plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose'. [Karr 1848]
    Well, you get the blue ribbon award. Most people never acknowledge the word "IF" when used in a sentence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •