Posted: 12/9/2004 10:42:12 PM EDT
|
Oregon Firearms Federation P.O. Box 556 Canby, OR 97013 Voice: (503) 263-5830 <http://www.oregonfirearms.org> OFF ALERT 12/09/04 The Oregon Appeals Court dealt a major blow to the rights of Oregon gun owners yesterday. As you probably know, The Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation has been involved in a lawsuit against the City of Portland since 2001. In December of 2001, the city sponsored a tax-payer funded "New Year's" Party at Pioneer Courthouse Square in downtown Portland. They spent over $49,000.00 of tax-payer money to hire "Entercom Radio" to provide "production" help with things like sound and lighting. Persons with concealed handgun licenses were forbidden from coming to this free public event if they were in possession of their lawful concealed firearms. On New Year's Eve, we sought a temporary restraining order to stop the city from enforcing this rule, which was clearly in violation of Oregon's pre-emption statute. The Court refused to grant it and we sued. The case finally reached the Appeals Court and they have rendered their decision. You can read it at the link below. The short version is this: While the Court reaffirmed that the city may NOT restrict licensed, concealed carry, they MAY hire others to restrict it. There is NO QUESTION that this ruling is faulty and wrong. No person or entity can give a right to someone else that they don't have. We will be working on a detailed analysis of this decision, but two main points were discussed that should be mentioned here. First, was this a public event, or a private event? The City paid for the event, it was held on public property, advertised as "City" sponsored and open, at no charge, to everyone (except license holders exercising their rights.) The Court decided that they would not address this issue, based on the novel notion that it didn't matter because the event was over. The second issue was whether or not the city could allow someone who "leased" their property to restrict the rights of the public. This issue may be even more nonsensical. If you "lease" property, you pay for it. In this case, the City was claiming that "Entercom" "leased" the property. However, the CITY paid ENTERCOM, not the other way around. So the discussion of whether a party that leases property can deny the public civil rights has no bearing on this case. Clearly "Entercom" was in no way a traditional lease holder. The Court however, found that a lease holder COULD deny civil rights to the public. There are plenty of Federal Court decisions that flatly contradict this. Using the Court's logic, the City of Portland could pay "Basic RIghts Oregon" to hold a gay pride parade. Basic Rights could then forbid heterosexuals from being on the streets where the parade was being held. There are instances in this decision where the Appeals Court flatly misinterpreted cases quoted, particularly where they discuss (in a footnote) the Gathwright case. Here they get the decision exactly backwards and interpret the Gathwright decision to mean the exact opposite of what it did. We will follow up with a more detail analysis soon, including our future plans, but for now you can read this latest slam on your rights here. <http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A120898.htm> ________________________________________________________ I thought I should share this with everyone. It's also a plug for OFF. Some accuse them of being too "radical," but wanting a more civil guns rights group is like not fighting back against a bully because you might make him mad. Anyone who hasn't heard of them or isn't a member should check out their web site. Maybe even join, and help fight Ginny Burdick and her comrades. |
|
They're considered "radical" because they are a no compromise group. That means they oppose "common sense" gun laws, like background checks for private party sales, restrictions on concealed carry, etc. Thanks for your interest, barkinghound. We need more Oregonians like you. |