guns

[soberups]

Sure you are. It wouldn't be prosecuted, but it doesn't make you innocent or even not guilty.

I will quote the law;

166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.
(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]

 

[soberups]

Strange. Right after Aurora you said just the opposite.

I believe you are wrong.

 

[soberups]

I think you should read the definition of "criminal trespass" again. And you're right. Criminals just ignore the law...like Brett.

If we take your "interpretation" of the law to its ultimate conclusion, a mall or theater owner could write "no shoelaces allowed" on a little 3x5 index card, tape it to a pole in the back of the parking lot, and then demand that every person who went to the mall or theater wearing laces on their shoes be charged with criminal trespassing.

The law doesn't work that way. Private property owners who run businesses that are open to the public cannot put up signs prohibiting legal items under the force of law. If the property is open to the public, then trespass only occurs when a person is told to leave and refuses to do so.

 

[bbsam]

I will quote the law;

166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.
(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]

164.255

 

[bbsam]

If we take your "interpretation" of the law to its ultimate conclusion, a mall or theater owner could write "no shoelaces allowed" on a little 3x5 index card, tape it to a pole in the back of the parking lot, and then demand that every person who went to the mall or theater wearing laces on their shoes be charged with criminal trespassing.

The law doesn't work that way. Private property owners who run businesses that are open to the public cannot put up signs prohibiting legal items under the force of law. If the property is open to the public, then trespass only occurs when a person is told to leave and refuses to do so.

164.255

 

[bbsam]

Oregon has a "pre-emption" law that prohibits cities, counties or municipalities from enacting gun laws that are stricter than or that contravene state law. This also applies to school districts, which is why persons with concealed handgun licenses can legally carry on school property even when there are "no guns allowed" signs on the door.

You are free to "interpret" the statute however you wish but I am going to rely on the information that was given to me by the sheriff's deputy who taught the class I took to get my permit.

Do as you wish. I am simply pointing out that the law is written in such a way as to invite a significant challenge should any private business wish to do so.

 

[wayfair]

If you don't know the answer, just say so...or you don't have to say anything at all.

instead of trolling this thread for the last 5 years , a class would do you good

and BTW, I do know the answer

 

[soberups]

164.255

ORS 164.255 says nothing about firearms or concealed weapons.

ORS 164.265 refers to criminal trespassing while in possession of a firearm, and I quote;
------------------------------------------------------------
§ 164.265¹
Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm
(1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.

(2) Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. [1979 c.603 §2]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Since I have a carry permit, it is not unlawful for me to carry a concealed handgun.

2. It is not trespassing to enter a property... such as a mall or a restaurant... that is open to the public if I am there during normal business hours.

3. A property owner who runs a business that is open to the public such as a mall or a theater cannot change state law simply by posting a sign.

Therefore, I am only on the premises unlawfully if I am told to leave and I refuse to do so.

 

[Brown echo]

YOU NOT ONLY MAKE YOUSELF A TARGET BUT MORE "LUNATICS" WITH GUNS INCREASE THE POSSIBILITY OF MASS KILLINGS.....BUT WAIT MORE GUNS MEANS MORE CRIME OR MORE "LUNATICS" MEANS MORE KILLING.

 

[Brown echo]

MOST PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT BASED ON AN EMOTIONAL REACTION, BUT OBVIOUS WE ALL DISAGREE ON WHAT THE BEST SOLUTIONS ARE..........

 

[BrownArmy]

instead of trolling this thread for the last 5 years , a class would do you good

and BTW, I do know the answer

Dude, are you a Professor?

You keep telling everyone to go to class...

Perhaps you should get your Doctorate.

 

[Brown echo]

You must be "special needs".

SOME TIMES IT'S HARD TO ACCEPT WHAT YOU TRULY ARE!!!!!

 

[wayfair]

ORS 164.255 says nothing about firearms or concealed weapons.

ORS 164.265 refers to criminal trespassing while in possession of a firearm, and I quote;
------------------------------------------------------------
§ 164.265¹
Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm
(1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.

(2) Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. [1979 c.603 §2]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Since I have a carry permit, it is not unlawful for me to carry a concealed handgun.

2. It is not trespassing to enter a property... such as a mall or a restaurant... that is open to the public if I am there during normal business hours.

3. A property owner who runs a business that is open to the public such as a mall or a theater cannot change state law simply by posting a sign.

Therefore, I am only on the premises unlawfully if I am told to leave and I refuse to do so.

$250. ticket

 

[soberups]

$250. ticket

Not if you leave when asked to....

 

[wayfair]

Dude, are you a Professor?

You keep telling everyone to go to class...

Perhaps you should get your Doctorate.

already went to class flunky....

you waste five years persuing sheet you don't know about... um, try to get some real training so you can understand it. don't be skeered

 

[wayfair]

Not if you leave when asked to....

riight, just letting THEM know the consequences....

 

[soberups]

A couple of years ago, a teacher here in Oregon filed a lawsuit against the school district that employed her because of their policy prohibiting teachers from being armed.

This teacher had a concealed handgun license, and a psycho ex husband whom she had taken out a restraining order against. By law, she was legally allowed to carry her gun on school property, but doing so violated the terms of her employment and subjected her to being terminated.

The court ruled against her, but only on the basis of being in violation of her terms of employment. She wasn't breaking any law by carrying the gun but she could still get fired. In other words...concealed means concealed and if she would have just kept silent about carrying the gun the worst thing that could have happened to her was losing her job.

There are a couple of teachers I know who are members of my gun club and they have permits and carry concealed while at school. They have made the decision that saving their own lives and the lives of their students takes priority over their future employment status in the event that a lunatic ever shows up and starts shooting up their school. I agree with their choice.

 

[BrownArmy]

already went to class flunky....

you waste five years persuing sheet you don't know about... um, try to get some real training so you can understand it. don't be skeered

Me thinks you mistake me for someone else.

Exactly which five years have I wasted, and what real training do I need, so that I can understand what?

Thanks for the advice, I certainly won't be 'skeered'.

Cheers.

(P.S. stop telling people to go to class, you clearly need some remedial learning...)

 

[Babagounj]

YOU NOT ONLY MAKE YOUSELF A TARGET BUT MORE "LUNATICS" WITH GUNS INCREASE THE POSSIBILITY OF MASS KILLINGS.....BUT WAIT MORE GUNS MEANS MORE CRIME OR MORE "LUNATICS" MEANS MORE KILLING.

According to the lastest FBI stats , states that have RTC (right to carry ) laws have seen a decrease in violent crimes .

 

[wayfair]

Me thinks you mistake me for someone else.

Exactly which five years have I wasted, and what real training do I need, so that I can understand what?

Thanks for the advice, I certainly won't be 'skeered'.

Cheers.

(P.S. stop telling people to go to class, you clearly need some remedial learning...)

that post was to you and the other troll.
And what do you mean by remedial learning?? I don't carry a talisman around.