User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/21/2015 6:16:18 PM EDT
[#1]
2 words "private sale".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2015 7:06:46 PM EDT
[#2]
The old Gunbroker had to abide by that rule too. Nothing new really but it does suck.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2015 8:12:15 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The old Gunbroker had to abide by that rule too. Nothing new really but it does suck. No they didn't. They had to abide by a 15 day rule, but they were able to display and pre-sell the firearms. The last 3-4 years prior to closing the city had suspended the rule. The city now figures that since it's on the books it's a "great rule", to recover all those stolen firearms and bad guys selling them. 
Yes, it does suck.....big time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2015 11:53:47 PM EDT
[#4]
I'm still trying to figure out what sucks about this, or how it negatively affects people, other than pawn or gun shops in Tigard. Maybe I'm missing something tho.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2015 11:57:32 PM EDT
[#5]
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] 166.174 Authority of city, county, municipal corporation or district to regulate possession or sale of firearms. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a city, county or other municipal corporation or district may not adopt ordinances that regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession or sale of firearms in a public building that is rented or leased to a person during the term of the lease. [1995 s.s. c.1 §5] I just play a lawyer on the internet but it would appear to me that Tigard's is void according to the actual laws. Not that silly laws seem to make much difference these days. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2015 1:36:46 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just play a lawyer on the internet but it would appear to me that Tigard's is void according to the actual laws. Not that silly laws seem to make much difference these days. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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] 166.174 Authority of city, county, municipal corporation or district to regulate possession or sale of firearms. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a city, county or other municipal corporation or district may not adopt ordinances that regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession or sale of firearms in a public building that is rented or leased to a person during the term of the lease. [1995 s.s. c.1 §5] I just play a lawyer on the internet but it would appear to me that Tigard's is void according to the actual laws. Not that silly laws seem to make much difference these days. This didn't stop Portland & Multnomah from enacting their own more encroaching restrictions. Like carrying a loaded magazine or weapon & the gun free zone anywhere in PDX & surrounding area that was ruled as illegal & had to stop, but they still haven't fully complied. This is what's wrong, every jurisdiction wants to be their own authoritarian democratic dictatorship nanny state, checks & balances have totally failed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2015 4:55:45 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just play a lawyer on the internet but it would appear to me that Tigard's is void according to the actual laws. Not that silly laws seem to make much difference these days. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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] 166.174 Authority of city, county, municipal corporation or district to regulate possession or sale of firearms. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a city, county or other municipal corporation or district may not adopt ordinances that regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession or sale of firearms in a public building that is rented or leased to a person during the term of the lease. [1995 s.s. c.1 §5] I just play a lawyer on the internet but it would appear to me that Tigard's is void according to the actual laws. Not that silly laws seem to make much difference these days. I'm not certain that's true. If the intent was simply to ensure local governments made no laws regulating firearms, it would read: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a city, county or other municipal corporation or district may not adopt ordinances that regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession or sale of firearms." But it doesn't end there. There's a curious bit of language on the end: "...in a public building that is rented or leased to a person during the term of the lease." That last bit of wording suggests to me this law was written for a very specific and narrow purpose, and was intended to be applied only to that specific and narrow purpose. Otherwise, that last bit of wording makes no sense in the context of the first part of the sentence. This law reads like it came about as the result of some type of landlord/tenant dispute. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
