| Author | Post |
|---|
Cremator75
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10th, 2009 03:19 am |
|
Just back from a nice weekend at Oxbow Regional Park in Multnomah County. This place is run by Metro, which is an elected regional government funded by taxpayer dollars. However they have signs all over the place saying it is against the rules to possess a firearm in the park. To the best of my knowledge, Metro would have no authority under Oregon State law to regulate the carry of firearms. Maybe the use of I can see.
Metro owns and operates the Oregon Zoo as well as the Oregon Convention Center, Portland Center for the Performing Arts and the Portland Metropolitan Exposition Center, which are managed by the Metropolitan Exposition Recreation Commission (MERC), a subsidiary of Metro.
I think this is a big fish, that to the best I can tell, needs to be brought in line with state law.
I wanted to get some feedback before I sent off an email to them about this. Or better yet, is there anyone who knows more about this that is willing to start the communication.
More about Metro can be found here -----> http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=1
|
Ironbar
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 6th, 2009 |
| Location: | Oregon USA |
| Posts: | 166 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10th, 2009 04:16 am |
|
If I'm not mistaken, they have no authority to ban the carrying of firearms within any area park.
If you don't have it already, get yourself a copy of Understanding Oregon Gun Laws.
|
FREEDOM_FOREVER
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Oregon |
| Posts: | 39 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10th, 2009 04:21 pm |
|
I sent an email to METRO a few weeks ago regarding exactly the same concern about Oxbow park. Surprisingly? I have not received any response yet. I think we should do an open carry picnic/BBQ there sometime!
BTW, you are correct they (METRO being a district) have no authority to regulate firearms in any manor. Please see the ORS below.
Oregon Revised Statute 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 ยง1]
|
FREEDOM_FOREVER
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Oregon |
| Posts: | 39 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10th, 2009 04:30 pm |
|
Please send them an email voicing your concerns. We may need to be a squeaky wheel in the case of METRO. I will also send an email following up on the one I sent out earlier.
Seriously... OC BBQ at Oxbow?
|
Autonym
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | Oregon USA |
| Posts: | 115 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10th, 2009 05:36 pm |
|
I also sent an email to Metro asking about this.
Perhaps with enough pressure we can get a response...
|
Cremator75
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10th, 2009 11:53 pm |
|
An OC event at the Zoo would be nice too, if we can get them to let us in.
|
Autonym
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | Oregon USA |
| Posts: | 115 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10th, 2009 11:58 pm |
|
I'm a member!
P.S. - I don't see anywhere on the Zoo website any mention of firearms.
Last edited on Tue Aug 11th, 2009 12:06 am by Autonym
|
Autonym
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | Oregon USA |
| Posts: | 115 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 12:11 am |
|
Hmmm... Looking on the map, it appears that the Oregon Zoo is inside the Portland city limits.
Portland has a no-carry ban for non CHL holders.
|
Cremator75
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 12:29 am |
|
Autonym wrote: Portland has a no-carry ban for non CHL holders.
It's actually no "loaded" open carry in Portland without a CHL.
The last time I was at the zoo I saw it on a sign somewhere at the entrance about the "No Weapons"
|
Autonym
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | Oregon USA |
| Posts: | 115 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 12:30 am |
|
Heh, point taken.
But would you carry an unloaded firearm? Somewhat defeats the purpose...
|
Cremator75
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 01:13 am |
|
Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning it. 
That's why I got my CHL.
|
Autonym
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | Oregon USA |
| Posts: | 115 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 01:23 am |
|
Yeah, still waiting on mine. I have my glamor shots and 10-card appointment next week. Who knows how long after that, though?
|
Autonym
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | Oregon USA |
| Posts: | 115 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 09:09 pm |
|
Just got this from Metro:
Mr. Killion:
I am in receipt of your e-mails sent to Metro regarding the carrying of firearms in Oxbow park. I would very much like to speak with you regarding this matter.
Please feel free to call me at 503-XXX-XXXX at your convenience.
Mike Brown
Director of Property Stewardship
Metro
Did he respond to anyone else's emails yet?
I'll give him a call soon...
|
Autonym
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | Oregon USA |
| Posts: | 115 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 09:27 pm |
|
Ok, I know what you folks will say about this next bit here, "We don't need to justify our reasons for carrying firearms - they are a PROTECTED RIGHT".
I totally get that.
For the less Constitutionally-minded, however, they like reasons for why we carry. And the more reasonable, the better.
The "A crazed meth-head might jump out of the bushes at me" reason is decidedly possible (given the predilection for meth-heads in the greater Portland metro), but for an even better one, try...
"A fracken 200 lbs bear might try to rip my face off":
http://www.portlandmercury.com/news/in-the-shadows/Content?oid=868686
"We have a few 200-pound bears and a cougar," explained a park ranger at Oxbow's entrance, when I asked if she knew what, exactly, it was that the trackers tended to track. That's right: bears. Verdugo looked less nervous than I'd expected, on hearing the news.
I'll be using this as part of my ammunition for my talk with Mike Brown...
(Edits: Grammar mistakes)
Last edited on Thu Aug 13th, 2009 09:36 pm by Autonym
|
Autonym
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | Oregon USA |
| Posts: | 115 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 09:57 pm |
|
<BOINK>
Despite trying to call him back about an hour after he emailed me, sadly, I had to leave a voicemail.
|
Cremator75
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14th, 2009 12:17 am |
|
No response for me as of yet.
When you do get to talk to him, mention carrying at the other locations that Metro runs if the conversation allows.
I you can PM me that phone number, I will try to call also and just let him know I was "directed to him" for my questions.
|
Autonym
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | Oregon USA |
| Posts: | 115 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14th, 2009 03:54 am |
|
He left me a VM while I was driving to the OC meetup at Bomber's and I missed his call.
In it, he said he'd be out for the rest of the week but be available again on Tuesday.
I have a huge email prepared to send to him, but so far he's being cordial, so I'll give him the courtesy of waiting until if I can't talk to him on Tuesday to give him the novel-length email.
If/When I do get a hold of him, I'll use the email as my talking points.
|
FREEDOM_FOREVER
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Oregon |
| Posts: | 39 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 15th, 2009 04:32 pm |
|
| Yes. I received the same email. I'll give him a call on Tuesday. Last edited on Sat Aug 15th, 2009 04:33 pm by FREEDOM_FOREVER
|
Autonym
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | Oregon USA |
| Posts: | 115 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18th, 2009 10:10 pm |
|
Just got off the phone with Mike.
He seemed like a nice enough guy. Incidentally, he is a CHL holder, and mentioned to me he does conceal carry sometimes while at Oxbow.
Here's his points:
1. Metro's lawyers claim they are a 'regional government' and claim right to exercise ORS 166.173, despite the wording of ORS 166.173 stating it applies to "city or county" and nothing else.
Important to note that ORS 166.170 (state preemption) uses similar language: "county, city or other municipal corporation or district" when talking about not having the ability to pass laws regulating firearms unless otherwise stated in state statute.
In my mind, Metro would be a "municipal district" at best - and definitely not a "city" nor a "county". The fact that both these laws (166.170 and 166.173) were written at the same time and are .003 apart in the books - I consider the language difference between 170 and 173 to be significant. That is, a city or county may enact ordinances, but a municipal corporation or district may never restrict firearms.
2. He contends that ORS 166.173 allows concealed carry, but does not allow open
carry.
In this, he is very mistaken. For those of you who do have CHL's, this is something we need to keep challenging over and over again.
ORS 166.173 is very clear on this issue - any city or county attempting to regulate firearms using 166.173 cannot regulate police (while in the course of their duties), military personnel (while in the course of their duties), and a person licensed to carry concealed firearms. The same law that gives the police to carry firearms also gives CHL holders that same right.
3. He wants a "positive experience" for all who visit Oxbow. He's concerned about people getting scared or intimidated by those who would Open Carry.
I understand his point, even if I don't agree with it. I know how this will go over here amongst most of you (Lead Balloon, anyone?), but that's his position.
I tried hard to keep our conversation moving forward and not bogged down in differences of opinion - I realized I wasn't going to be able to convince him over the phone. I mostly needed to understand where they were coming from, and by what rules they thought they had a leg to stand on with.
At the end of our conversation I explained that I thought Metro's position was still incorrect. I also mentioned that there was a "web site" (I neglected to mention which one, but anyone with half a brain can find it) that this issue was a current discussion topic on.
Mike, if you've found this site, welcome! I hope we can eventually find common ground.
I also mentioned to Mike that there might be a BBQ at Oxbow in the near future with people Open Carrying. He didn't really have a response for that, but I was clear about possibility of that occurring, and emphasized that I wasn't trying to threaten him with that - just informing him that it was being considered.
So, now... next steps.
Metro thinks they can use ORS 166.173 to ban open carry, even with a CHL.
There are two points to fight over this - the right for CHL's to unrestricted open carry and the right for Metro to even use 166.173 in the first place.
I personally recommend taking these points on one at a time.
For those of you who have CHL's, perhaps you should consider doing an Open Carry BBQ to make a point. This will challenge the first point, and with previous legal precedences to support you, it should be just fine.
Once we've established the right to open carry with CHL's, then we can address the bigger issue of whether or not Metro can legally use 166.173 at all.
Comments/Opinions/Ideas?
~Auto
Last edited on Tue Aug 18th, 2009 10:12 pm by Autonym
|
We-the-People
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18th, 2009 10:25 pm |
|
Autonym wrote: For those of you who have CHL's, perhaps you should consider doing an Open Carry BBQ to make a point. This will challenge the first point, and with previous legal precedences to support you, it should be just fine.
Once we've established the right to open carry with CHL's, then we can address the bigger issue of whether or not Metro can legally use 166.173 at all.
Comments/Opinions/Ideas?
~Auto
Open carry of UNLOADED firearms can not be regulated so while the CHL holders could open carry loaded. Those without CHL's could open carry unloaded.
While an OC unloaded pistol is useless, arguably a detriment, it could serve to increase the numbers for any particular event in "liberalville".
|
Current time is 07:22 pm | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
