Loaded Firearm Carry Ban Cities

[We-the-People]

Hey bigtoe416,

You are correct. The work by "We the People" is excellent. I am making a trip through Oregon in one week. This info is helpful.

markm

Thanks

 

[We-the-People]

The document is now final and published. I opened a new thread for it and the link is available in the first post.

Here is the link to the thread with the Oregon Local Firearms Ordinances.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?123350-LOCAL-Oregon-Firearms-Ordinances-Comprehensive-Listing

 

[DaveT319]

Fantastic. Thanks for taking the time to put this together.

 

[We-the-People]

Since I the thread with the local ordinances hasn't been stickied, here's a link directly to the entire document.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-j8gKKfc-McaGdpcF84cFQyalU/edit

UPDATES:

MCMINNVILLE:
Loaded Carry ban has been passed under suspicious (i.e. possibly violating
open meeting law) circumstances

MULTNOMAH COUNTY:
Loaded Carry ban passed with basically the same unlawful (exceeds local
authority) provisions as Portland (i.e. loaded magazines not in weapon are banned)

 

[press1280]

I'm thinking there should be an OC/non-res CCW case brought against the state and/or some of these cities with the ban on non-licensed carry. Obviously a person not living in OR or another border state is banned from carrying in these various towns.
If Peruta and the other carry cases hold at CA9, this would seem to be an easy pickoff.

 

[We-the-People]

I'm thinking there should be an OC/non-res CCW case brought against the state and/or some of these cities with the ban on non-licensed carry. Obviously a person not living in OR or another border state is banned from carrying in these various towns.
If Peruta and the other carry cases hold at CA9, this would seem to be an easy pickoff.

Not necessisarilly an "easy pickoff" as loaded carry ban ordinances aren't able to prevent the non CHL holder from carrying a loaded magazine or speed loader (although Portland, Multnomah Co, and perhaps a few others have that restriction in THEIR ordinances). The jurisdiction challenged would either drop the charges (as Portland has repeatedly done) in order to remove standing from the person charged..... or perhaps argue that the person is not precluded from carrying, only from being loaded.

Either way, it's likely to be an expensive proposition.

 

[DaveT319]

Not necessisarilly an "easy pickoff" as loaded carry ban ordinances aren't able to prevent the non CHL holder from carrying a loaded magazine or speed loader (although Portland, Multnomah Co, and perhaps a few others have that restriction in THEIR ordinances). The jurisdiction challenged would either drop the charges (as Portland has repeatedly done) in order to remove standing from the person charged..... or perhaps argue that the person is not precluded from carrying, only from being loaded.

Either way, it's likely to be an expensive proposition.

I think the reason he's saying it could be is because you have these cities that ban open carry without a permit, but the state does not issue non-resident permits, and does not recognize any other state's permits. So effectively, in those towns, a non-resident of Oregon does not have their 2nd Amendment right.

Incidentally, that's the same as ALL of CA, which I take issue with, and summarily ignore. I have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms whether they like it or not. I have been considering a federal lawsuit, but don't have the resources for it. Maybe I should offer to be the chief petitioner for a suit brought by the NRA or NAGR or SAF. It would go a long way towards making national reciprocity happen (though I object to even having to have a permit)

ETA: yeah, it's a ban on loaded vs. outright open carry, but I think the argument could still be made that it's an infringement. Hell, it's an infringement on those of us who choose not to get a permit.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

I think the reason he's saying it could be is because you have these cities that ban open carry without a permit, but the state does not issue non-resident permits, and does not recognize any other state's permits. So effectively, in those towns, a non-resident of Oregon does not have their 2nd Amendment right.

Incidentally, that's the same as ALL of CA, which I take issue with, and summarily ignore. I have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms whether they like it or not. I have been considering a federal lawsuit, but don't have the resources for it. Maybe I should offer to be the chief petitioner for a suit brought by the NRA or NAGR or SAF. It would go a long way towards making national reciprocity happen (though I object to even having to have a permit)

ETA: yeah, it's a ban on loaded vs. outright open carry, but I think the argument could still be made that it's an infringement. Hell, it's an infringement on those of us who choose not to get a permit.

Oregon issues non resident permits, I have held one for over 5 years and I reside in WA.

 

[DaveT319]

Oregon issues non resident permits, I have held one for over 5 years and I reside in WA.

Didn't know that. I stand corrected.

 

[OC Freedom]

Didn't know that. I stand corrected.

It only applies to the four connecting states, otherwise you are correct.

 

[DaveT319]

It only applies to the four connecting states, otherwise you are correct.

OK, so those from anywhere further than that are still out of luck, huh? Yeah, that's not right... or legal, IMO.

 

[district9]

OK, so those from anywhere further than that are still out of luck, huh? Yeah, that's not right... or legal, IMO.

That's true, and like you I wonder how laws like this (and even more egregiously those in California as you mentioned earlier) are allowed to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

The question is who in Oregon would you sue? I've had conversations with sympathetic Oregon sheriffs, but their hands are tied. By law they cannot issue to residents of 45 states, and they have no power to overturn the law (unless they do their own version of jury nullification). And IIRC from the Peterson case in Colorado at least one federal court has already ruled there is no constitutional right to concealed carry. I guess the Norman case in Florida and the Peruta case in California may shed some light on just what the constitutional right is, but for SCOTUS has left us hanging on just what "bear" really means (although it should be obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of English).

 

[Robin47]

I think the reason he's saying it could be is because you have these cities that ban open carry without a permit, but the state does not issue non-resident permits, and does not recognize any other state's permits. So effectively, in those towns, a non-resident of Oregon does not have their 2nd Amendment right.

Incidentally, that's the same as ALL of CA, which I take issue with, and summarily ignore. I have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms whether they like it or not. I have been considering a federal lawsuit, but don't have the resources for it. Maybe I should offer to be the chief petitioner for a suit brought by the NRA or NAGR or SAF. It would go a long way towards making national reciprocity happen (though I object to even having to have a permit)

ETA: yeah, it's a ban on loaded vs. outright open carry, but I think the argument could still be made that it's an infringement. Hell, it's an infringement on those of us who choose not to get a permit.

I agree Dave, your right on !
The 2-A is a guarantee, and really don't give us a right, it only guarntee's us our God given right.
Jesus said i luke 22:36, to arm-up its our duty to be armed and protect outselves and love ones and its a natural law
of nature too. Its built in to all !
To deny a natural right is anti God, and plain foolishness.
So carry on Bro

 

[solus]

I agree Dave, your right on !
The 2-A is a guarantee, and really don't give us a right, it only guarntee's (sic) us our God given right.
Jesus said i luke 22:36, to arm-up its our duty to be armed and protect outselves (sic) and love ones and its a natural law
of nature too. Its built in to all !
To deny a natural right is anti God, and plain foolishness.
So carry on Bro

sorry say what?

according to the KJV, Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." This verse doesn't say a bloody thing about our duty to be armed, let alone to protect ourselves and loved ones...

added: quote: They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce than they had been, and they would need weapons. At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves. unquote http://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/22-36.htm Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

what in the world are you saying is a natural law of nature?

denying a natural right is anti god? a lot of agnostics, atheists, Buddhists, etc., are going to be extremely disappointed to hear they do not get to partake in the natural rights of life, liberty and property (Locke's concept) or the pursuit of happiness (Jefferson's version)

ipse

 

[press1280]

That's true, and like you I wonder how laws like this (and even more egregiously those in California as you mentioned earlier) are allowed to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

The question is who in Oregon would you sue? I've had conversations with sympathetic Oregon sheriffs, but their hands are tied. By law they cannot issue to residents of 45 states, and they have no power to overturn the law (unless they do their own version of jury nullification). And IIRC from the Peterson case in Colorado at least one federal court has already ruled there is no constitutional right to concealed carry. I guess the Norman case in Florida and the Peruta case in California may shed some light on just what the constitutional right is, but for SCOTUS has left us hanging on just what "bear" really means (although it should be obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of English).

This law stands because it hasn't been challenged yet. As far as who gets sued I think it would be the county sheriff since they are the ones that would deny the permit (even if they want to issue it).

I'm thinking the OR state courts may be the best place to go since the precedent cases are very good (State v. Blocker as an example). If it goes in Federal Courts it'll be years and years and if Peruta turns out bad it'll sink this case. The OR courts aren't bound by the Federal Courts (short of SCOTUS).