Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
Parts 2 and 3 are Oregon specific.
Dear all,
1. Tukwila PD has finally responded, they will be doing shift briefings and perhaps a formal training bulletin using the Federal Way bulletin. This is good news. Also, Lynnwood PD gave me a status update, they will get back to me this week on the issues addressed. Commander Stanifer at Lynnwood PD has been very professional in his dealings with me on this issue. I finally also made contact with Bellevue PD, with Lt. Lynch. I will be calling and asking for the email address and sending him an email myself addressing the issues.
2. I just wanted to let all of you know, I made a serious error in a previous email. The previous email stated that the Portland City Council passed a Parks Ordinance that required concealed carry only in a draft of the ordinances. The wording of the ordinance and the statement that it was going to the City Council in November and that it was going to be passed. It would appear that there was a delay in voting on the ordinance and it is NOT LAW. I apologize for this error.
I received the following email from the Portland Parks and Recreation contact that I've made on the issue:
Dear Mr. Wilson, Thank you for your messages regarding weapons in Portland Parks. The prohibition of weapons in city parks has been a park rule under Portland City Code 20.04.040 since June 1988. Portland Parks and Recreation (PP&R) wants to incorporate this and certain other park rules into the revised City Code Chapter 20.12 for clarity and ease of reference. We appreciate your comments on the earlier draft 20.12.050 and will take the following amended section to City Council on January 11, 2007. Proposed 20.12.050 Possession of Weapons. "No person shall possess in any Park any thing specifically designed for and presently capable of causing, or carried with the intent to threaten or cause, bodily harm to another. Things prohibited under this Section include, but are not limited to: any firearm, pellet gun, spring-loaded weapon, stun gun or taser, any knife having a blade that projects or swings into position by force of a spring or by centrifugal force, any knife with a blade longer than 3-½ inches, any dirk, dagger, ice-pick, sling shot, slungshot, metal knuckles, nunchaku, studded handcoverings, swords, straight razors, tear gas containers, saps, sap gloves, hatchets or axes. *The prohibitions of this Section do not apply to handguns lawfully carried by persons in accordance with valid concealed handgun permits. *The prohibitions of this Section do not apply to any thing possessed or used to carry out actions authorized by any contract or permit in any Park." If you have other comments or concerns, you are welcome to testify on this matter at City Council on 1-11-07. Please check http://www.portlandonline. com click on Auditors office for the Council agenda, times, etc. Once again, many thanks for your interest in Portland Parks and Recreation. Mark M. Warrington, CPP Public Safety Manager Portland Parks & Recreation
Though this draft is certainly better than what was proposed before (concealed was removed), there still can be points of confusion with the "in accordance". There is a Portland City Council Meeting that he does talk about, that occurs on 1/11/2007.
http://www.portland online.com/ auditor/index. cfm?a=63123&c=34447#1
http://www.portland online.com/ auditor/index. cfm?c=26998
There is going to be a hearing at 2PM, apparently. Per the rules above, any person wanting to speak with the Council on an agenda item must sign up 30 minutes ahead of the scheduled hearing. Though the language in of itself is not threatening directly, it would be better to let PCC 14A.60.010 address firearms controls in parks (as parks are specifically identified as public places), with all of the exemptions kept thereto.
Talking Point:
There is already a law in regards to firearms in parks, contained in PCC 14A.60.010. Allowing the ordinance to pass as currently written may subject the language of the parks ordinance to possible preemption challenge by law enforcement officers and other statutorily exempt persons under ORS 166.173, who are NOT exempt from the language of the parks ordinance, to have the entire ordinance struck down. Stripping out firearms entirely from the proposed city code would preserve it from statutory preemption challenge, as there is no general weapons preemption of weapon rules in state statute for weapons other than firearms.
The reason I don't use any wording about rights is because Portland City Council is entirely anti-gun. Addressing them from a "gun rights" perspective is entirely futile. Addressing it from "Oh, we have to re-write the code due to a court striking it down" and giving them more work is not futile, however.
I do thank Mr. Warrington for his professionalism, however. He did get the word "concealed" out of the section, and from my discussions with him, he does understand that open carry of a handgun with a CHL is legal in Portland Parks. This was after consultation with the City Attorney's Office, which is good and hopefully they will give the same answer when they address the issues with Portland PD (still in process, no response from the Citizens Review Committee on my appeal request).
Per the last email, has anyone done any recon of 1221 SW 4th Avenue, or the "City of Portland" building which is a separate building? See if there's any security screening or anything of the sort?
3. Beaverton, Oregon replica ban hearing:
In the previous email, I had cautioned against carrying into the City Hall due to the existence of a municipal court in City Hall. In Washington State, all courts (including municipal courts) are verboten to carry in however they are required (except for the federal courts) to give safe storage for carry while doing your business there. Oregon has no such provision In Washington this is a misdemeanor, however under ORS 166.370(2), this is a felony, which will destroy your gun rights.
It would appear, however, that the language of Oregon law defines "court facility" in a more narrow form than Washington State law. Here is the language of the statute:
166.360 Definitions for ORS 166.360 to 166.380. As used in ORS 166.360 to 166.380, unless the context requires otherwise:
(2) "Court facility" means a courthouse or that portion of any other building occupied by a circuit court, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court or the Oregon Tax Court or occupied by personnel related to the operations of those courts, or in which activities related to the operations of those courts take place.
It would appear that municipal courts are NOT included in the definition of court facility. However this does not mean that a presiding judge of the Beaverton municipal court may not have entered an order, similar to what happened in Hennepin County, Minnesota, where violating the order means contempt of court. These orders are obviously illegal and subject to attack in a higher court (Circuit Court in this case), but cooling your jets in a jailcell should be left to the people who are really willing to stick their neck out.
If someone would like to scout the Beaverton City Hall unarmed to see to what extent the "court" goes to within the building, metal detector or other forms of weapon screening see if there are any obvious "no guns" signs, or anything along those lines, it would be greatly appreciated. I say "unarmed" because the point of scouting is to do recon, not test the waters ahead.
The Beaverton City hall is located at 4755 SW Griffith Dr. Beaverton, OR 97076.
I will unfortunately not be able to attend the hearing that's supposedly scheduled on the 22nd (I will not be in the Northwest at that point), however I have heard that a few Beaverton area residents on this list will attend. Once I have more solid answers as to where and when the 22nd hearing will occur, I will post on this list.
Regards,
Lonnie Wilson
Founder, Pacific Northwest Open Carry Group
lonnie.wilson@ comcast.net
yahoo IM: lonnie.wilson
Parts 2 and 3 are Oregon specific.
Dear all,
1. Tukwila PD has finally responded, they will be doing shift briefings and perhaps a formal training bulletin using the Federal Way bulletin. This is good news. Also, Lynnwood PD gave me a status update, they will get back to me this week on the issues addressed. Commander Stanifer at Lynnwood PD has been very professional in his dealings with me on this issue. I finally also made contact with Bellevue PD, with Lt. Lynch. I will be calling and asking for the email address and sending him an email myself addressing the issues.
2. I just wanted to let all of you know, I made a serious error in a previous email. The previous email stated that the Portland City Council passed a Parks Ordinance that required concealed carry only in a draft of the ordinances. The wording of the ordinance and the statement that it was going to the City Council in November and that it was going to be passed. It would appear that there was a delay in voting on the ordinance and it is NOT LAW. I apologize for this error.
I received the following email from the Portland Parks and Recreation contact that I've made on the issue:
Dear Mr. Wilson, Thank you for your messages regarding weapons in Portland Parks. The prohibition of weapons in city parks has been a park rule under Portland City Code 20.04.040 since June 1988. Portland Parks and Recreation (PP&R) wants to incorporate this and certain other park rules into the revised City Code Chapter 20.12 for clarity and ease of reference. We appreciate your comments on the earlier draft 20.12.050 and will take the following amended section to City Council on January 11, 2007. Proposed 20.12.050 Possession of Weapons. "No person shall possess in any Park any thing specifically designed for and presently capable of causing, or carried with the intent to threaten or cause, bodily harm to another. Things prohibited under this Section include, but are not limited to: any firearm, pellet gun, spring-loaded weapon, stun gun or taser, any knife having a blade that projects or swings into position by force of a spring or by centrifugal force, any knife with a blade longer than 3-½ inches, any dirk, dagger, ice-pick, sling shot, slungshot, metal knuckles, nunchaku, studded handcoverings, swords, straight razors, tear gas containers, saps, sap gloves, hatchets or axes. *The prohibitions of this Section do not apply to handguns lawfully carried by persons in accordance with valid concealed handgun permits. *The prohibitions of this Section do not apply to any thing possessed or used to carry out actions authorized by any contract or permit in any Park." If you have other comments or concerns, you are welcome to testify on this matter at City Council on 1-11-07. Please check http://www.portlandonline. com click on Auditors office for the Council agenda, times, etc. Once again, many thanks for your interest in Portland Parks and Recreation. Mark M. Warrington, CPP Public Safety Manager Portland Parks & Recreation
Though this draft is certainly better than what was proposed before (concealed was removed), there still can be points of confusion with the "in accordance". There is a Portland City Council Meeting that he does talk about, that occurs on 1/11/2007.
http://www.portland online.com/ auditor/index. cfm?a=63123&c=34447#1
http://www.portland online.com/ auditor/index. cfm?c=26998
There is going to be a hearing at 2PM, apparently. Per the rules above, any person wanting to speak with the Council on an agenda item must sign up 30 minutes ahead of the scheduled hearing. Though the language in of itself is not threatening directly, it would be better to let PCC 14A.60.010 address firearms controls in parks (as parks are specifically identified as public places), with all of the exemptions kept thereto.
Talking Point:
There is already a law in regards to firearms in parks, contained in PCC 14A.60.010. Allowing the ordinance to pass as currently written may subject the language of the parks ordinance to possible preemption challenge by law enforcement officers and other statutorily exempt persons under ORS 166.173, who are NOT exempt from the language of the parks ordinance, to have the entire ordinance struck down. Stripping out firearms entirely from the proposed city code would preserve it from statutory preemption challenge, as there is no general weapons preemption of weapon rules in state statute for weapons other than firearms.
The reason I don't use any wording about rights is because Portland City Council is entirely anti-gun. Addressing them from a "gun rights" perspective is entirely futile. Addressing it from "Oh, we have to re-write the code due to a court striking it down" and giving them more work is not futile, however.
I do thank Mr. Warrington for his professionalism, however. He did get the word "concealed" out of the section, and from my discussions with him, he does understand that open carry of a handgun with a CHL is legal in Portland Parks. This was after consultation with the City Attorney's Office, which is good and hopefully they will give the same answer when they address the issues with Portland PD (still in process, no response from the Citizens Review Committee on my appeal request).
Per the last email, has anyone done any recon of 1221 SW 4th Avenue, or the "City of Portland" building which is a separate building? See if there's any security screening or anything of the sort?
3. Beaverton, Oregon replica ban hearing:
In the previous email, I had cautioned against carrying into the City Hall due to the existence of a municipal court in City Hall. In Washington State, all courts (including municipal courts) are verboten to carry in however they are required (except for the federal courts) to give safe storage for carry while doing your business there. Oregon has no such provision In Washington this is a misdemeanor, however under ORS 166.370(2), this is a felony, which will destroy your gun rights.
It would appear, however, that the language of Oregon law defines "court facility" in a more narrow form than Washington State law. Here is the language of the statute:
166.360 Definitions for ORS 166.360 to 166.380. As used in ORS 166.360 to 166.380, unless the context requires otherwise:
(2) "Court facility" means a courthouse or that portion of any other building occupied by a circuit court, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court or the Oregon Tax Court or occupied by personnel related to the operations of those courts, or in which activities related to the operations of those courts take place.
It would appear that municipal courts are NOT included in the definition of court facility. However this does not mean that a presiding judge of the Beaverton municipal court may not have entered an order, similar to what happened in Hennepin County, Minnesota, where violating the order means contempt of court. These orders are obviously illegal and subject to attack in a higher court (Circuit Court in this case), but cooling your jets in a jailcell should be left to the people who are really willing to stick their neck out.
If someone would like to scout the Beaverton City Hall unarmed to see to what extent the "court" goes to within the building, metal detector or other forms of weapon screening see if there are any obvious "no guns" signs, or anything along those lines, it would be greatly appreciated. I say "unarmed" because the point of scouting is to do recon, not test the waters ahead.
The Beaverton City hall is located at 4755 SW Griffith Dr. Beaverton, OR 97076.
I will unfortunately not be able to attend the hearing that's supposedly scheduled on the 22nd (I will not be in the Northwest at that point), however I have heard that a few Beaverton area residents on this list will attend. Once I have more solid answers as to where and when the 22nd hearing will occur, I will post on this list.
Regards,
Lonnie Wilson
Founder, Pacific Northwest Open Carry Group
lonnie.wilson@ comcast.net
yahoo IM: lonnie.wilson