RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
igot_it's comments:
on Unpacking Heat
While the court has not ruled such things as the 1934 NFA , The Roberti-Roos act numerous Assualt Weapon Bans all of which happened at the federal level. I'm not saying that the court endorsed these laws I'm simply saying they didn't find sufficent issue to rule on them. The recent 2nd amendment ruling is the only Supreme court ruling that I know of dealing with the second amendment specificaly. Other rulings were based on interstate commerce, etc.l
posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
Not a lawyer but.... CAREFUL here. You are mostly correct in your reading of the chl portion of the ORS. Mall's are genraley private property. There have been free speech rulings defining them as "public places" but the text of the CHL statute is more narrow. The section related to public place in the Chl statute is pretty clearly spelled out. I say be careful because carrying a firearm into an area posted no firearms is criminal tresspass ( no warning needed first). As opposed to simple tresspass. You can go to jail for that. Schools probably have no justification for denying firearms on the premise, since they are specifically mentioned in the CHL statute. I believe there is a case in the courts related to that now. Airports have a complicated jurisdiction that puts them partly under federal control and in todays enviornment....don't be an idiot. If you carry your pistol into PDX your getting arrested tased and pepper sprayed...if your lucky. There are lots of other places that do post with the posting having no legal authority. You really have to know what entity owns the place your talking about. Take hospitals for instance, Salem memorial has a sign that says no weapons. Pack there and you could get cited. OHSU is a different story. It's a hospital that is state administered and it's a school....as you can see it can get complicated. State parks used to have signs that said no weapons untill they figured out it wasn't legal. Just make sure you do your homework first. The preemption clause in the CHL statute is pretty hard for agencies to get around....but private property can do whatever they want.
posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
Ok so here we go off topic buuuut.....got to disaggre GoDawg. The silence of the supreme court is not an interpretation of anything. The court can only rule on specific cases brought before it. The recent case involving Washington DC's de facto gun ban (and thats EXACTLY what it was, no matter what my fellow democrats might say.) Was the first time that I am aware that the specific issue of indivdual second amendment rights, was addressed.. There have been other descions that did away with federal gun restrictions (gun free school zone anyone....completley stupid by the way) or peicemealed legislation. For the most part the states have been given pretty free riegn over their citezens gun rights. The supreme courts silence on these issues untill recently, is how we ended up in the crazy situation were in now, this poorly written washinton law just the latest example. Sorry for the wordy reply.
posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
actualy the constitoution says what ever it wants. The supreme court interprets the constitution for us (represenative democracy and all) so the wording of it and the specific wording doesn't realy matter what matters is how the court interprets it. Currently the court says that the 2nd amendment DOES cofer an individual right independent of the militia. So stop this pointless argument. If you don't like the court composition then vote to change it through your choice of reps and president.
posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
I think that concealed carry permits should have more stringent requirements. A competency portion would also be nice. Mind the cost of what you wish for though, a license already costs a couple hundred bucks to get. Concealed carry permit holders should be held to a higher standard than other gun owners. Permits should remain "shall issue". Open carry is more tricky though. When I originaly got my chl open carry was understood to be "legal but stupid". It was technicaly legal but you ran the risk of being subject to all the town ordinances and city "policies" etc. State preemption protected chl holders from that nonsense. It was kind of neat chl "perk". Now everything seems a little unclear legalwise.
posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
@slak_r007
"All of that experience has taught me one thing: do not trust a person with a gun." It sounds from your post that you relly don't trust anyone period. I agree with you. >05% sounds about right actualy...unfortunatley in that .05% of the time...the gun is your best chance. Don't take away the tool best suited for the task.
posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
Intimidation is something done to other people. If peolpe are frightened by the mere passive prescence of a weapon thats a response from them. It's not his fualt that people are scared. I carry concealed beacause I don't wan't people to freak out. It's out of respect for thier ignorance that I do so.
posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
I am a lifelong liberal and democrat. I have a CWP permit and worked as a range officer at a shooting range for 6 years. We used to carry openly (mainly for the oppurtuinty to shoot on lunch breaks ;)) I am not a vigalantee or a loose cannon.Carrying a concealed weapon has made me much more cautios about conflict and bad sitations because I know the potential consequence of them. I can tell you from personal experience that a gun is seldom the answer. But the truth is that in the tiny percent of cases when it is needed it is the only tool for the job. I carry concealed because I don't want to make it an issue, and scare the uneducated.
posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context
