City of Oregon, multiple ordinances

A sub-forum for the purpose of discussing ORC 9.68 compliance. This sub-forum is strictly for the discussion of progress in individual cities and their respective parks.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Forum rules
This sub-forum is strictly for the purpose of submitting of, and status updates related to, ORC 9.68 compliance. This could mean park bans, open carry bans, or anything that is a compliance issue. Note the format in which original threads were created. We'll track each individual case here and post updates if assistance is needed, etc. You may start a new thread here to notify us of a non-compliant scenario. Please try to research contact information for each city, village, etc, Email, fax, and postal addresses are great. Digital photos of infractions (Signs) are ideal. With limited exceptions this is NOT a discussion forum.

READ THIS BEFORE POSTING
Post Reply
User avatar
JustJack
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:17 am
Location: Findlay
Contact:

City of Oregon, multiple ordinances

Post by JustJack »

Codified Ordinances of the City of Oregon, OH
Seems all of these are bad, especially 549.18. Maybe a stroll is in order?

549.13 FIREARMS DEALER'S LICENSE; PURCHASE PERMITS
(a) Every firearms dealer in this City shall procure a license to engage in such business. Any firearms dealer engaged in such business at more than one permanent location in this City shall procure a separate license for each such permanent location. Application for such license shall be made under oath to the Chief of Police.


(b) Upon application and payment of the fee prescribed in Section 549.14, the Chief of Police shall issue a license to engage in business as a firearms dealer. No license shall be issued to any applicant whose license has been revoked nor to any applicant who has been convicted of a violation of any section of this chapter until the expiration of five years from the effective date of such revocation or five years from the date of conviction.


(c) No person shall engage in the business of selling, or shall sell or give away to any person within the City, any pistol, revolver, or other weapon of like character, which can be concealed on the person, nor shall any person doing business as a pawnbroker sell or give away or permit to be redeemed or removed from deposit or pledge, any of the deadly weapons hereinabove mentioned, without securing a license to do so. No person having secured such a license shall sell or give away, or permit to be redeemed or removed from deposit or pledge, any such weapon unless the person so purchasing, acquiring, redeeming or removing such property shall have secured a permit from the Mayor or Chief of Police to purchase, acquire, redeem or remove such weapon as provided by Section 549.131.


(d) Thirty days after the adoption of this section no person, firm or corporation shall engage in business as a firearms dealer in this City without a license as provided by this section.


(e) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree. Each day of continuing violation of this section shall be deemed a separate offense.

(Ord. 34-1982. Passed 5-10-82; ord. 61-1985. Passed 5-28-85.)

549.131 PURCHASE PERMIT APPLICATIONS; EXCEPTIONS.
No person shall purchase or redeem or remove from deposit or pledge, any pistol, revolver, derringer, or other weapon of like character which can be concealed on the person, without first securing from the Mayor or Chief of Police a permit to do so. Before any such permit is granted an application in writing shall be made therefor, setting forth in such application the name, address, age, height, weight, complexion, nationality and other elements of identification of the person desiring such permit. The application shall also contain a recommendation for the issuance of a permit from two persons who sh all be known to the Mayor or Chief of Police as persons of good reputation and residents of the City for at least one year, or who shall appear to be taxpayers residing within the City; except no recommendation shall be required where the application is by a United States marshal, a sheriff or the Chief of Police of the City.

In case the application is by a deputy United States marshal, or a deputy sheriff, the approval of his chief officer shall be sufficient recommendation. In case the application is by a regular or special police officer of the City, the approval of the Chief of Police shall be sufficient recommendation.
(Ord. 34-1982. Passed 5-10-82; Ord. 61-1985. Passed 5-28-85.)


549.14 FIREARMS DEALER'S LICENSE FEE.
The fee for a firearms dealer's license required by Section 549.13 shall be one hundred dollars ($100.00). The license so issued shall be good and considered to be in full force and effect for one year from the date of issuance unless such license is revoked, surrendered or the licensee discontinues the business of being a gun dealer prior to the expiration of the renewal date. Such licenses must be renewed annually. Licenses issued pursuant to the provisions of this chapter are not transferable.
(Ord. 201-1977. Passed 10-24-77.)


549.15 FIREARMS DEALER'S RECORDS.
(a) Every firearms dealer shall maintain a record of the sale of handguns. Such record of sale shall contain the name of the firearms dealer; the place and date of the sale; the name, address, age and social security number, driver's license number or other means of positive identification of the purchaser and shall identify such handgun by manufacturer, model, number or name, type, caliber and serial number. If such weapon does not bear a serial number or is other than a standard model or has been modified and improved, the record of sale shall give a brief description of the weapon including such information as may be necessary to identify it. Each such record of sale shall be signed by the purchaser and the salesman and no sale shall be made unless identification is exhibited by the purchaser.


(b) Every firearms dealer shall, on or before the fifth day of each month, furnish to the Chief of Police a copy of the record of sales of handguns made during the preceding month, and shall make available at all times to the Chief of Police or his duly authorized agents the record of sales of all firearms required to be kept pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Firearms Act. In the case of a wholesale distributor, its records shall be made available at all times in lieu of the foregoing.


(c) No firearms dealer or any agent or employee of such dealer shall fail to comply with this section or knowingly cause any false information to be entered on a record of sale of any handgun, and no purchaser of any handgun shall give any false information for entry on such record of sale.


(d) As used in this section the term "wholesale distributor" means an individual, partnership or corporation, selling only to licensed dealers and not at retail or otherwise to individual consumers.


(e) Whoever violates this section if guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(Ord. 34-1982. Passed 5-10-82.)


549.151 RECORDS.
No person shall sell any dangerous ordnance to any person unless that person exhibits a valid certificate of safety as provided by this chapter. In addition to the information required by Section 549.15(a), the seller of dangerous ordnance shall keep a record of the certificate number of the buyer and of the official who issued such certificate. A copy of the record of any sale of dangerous ordnance shall be forwarded at the end of each month to the Fire Prevention Bureau of the City.
(Ord. 34-1982. Passed 5-10-82.)


549.16 REVOCATION OF FIREARMS DEALER'S LICENSE.
(a) When any licensed firearms dealer has been convicted of a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, the Chief of Police shall revoke the license of such firearms dealer. A certified copy of the order of revocation shall be sent forthwith to the firearms dealer, who may appeal such order of revocation to the Mayor within ten days from the receipt of the order. The Mayor shall conduct a hearing upon the appeal within ten days from the receipt of a notice of appeal in writing from such order of revocation.


(b) No firearms dealer whose license has been revoked pursuant to this section shall engage in business as a firearms dealer in this City for a period of five years from the effective date of such revocation.


(c) No firearms dealer shall employ, or enter into any partnership or corporation with any person, firm or corporation, whose firearms dealer's license has been revoked pursuant to the provisions of this section.

(Ord. 3-1974. Passed 1-14-74; Ord. 61-1985. Passed 5-28-85.)

(d) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree. A separate offense shall be deemed committed each day during or on which a violation occurs or continues.


549.18 POSSESSION OF WEAPONS IN STREETS, ALLEYS, PUBLIC PLACES, ETC.
(a) No person, in and about the streets, alleys, public places of the City, or at any place other than the residence or fixed place of business of such person, or while on a suitable firing range or while being used for lawful hunting, or while unloaded at a public firearms display, show or exhibition shall be in possession of, carry, or have on or about his person, any pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun or any weapon by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of expanding gases, or any bowie knife, dirk, blackjack, billyclub, brass knuckles or any other weapon capable of inflicting bodily harm.

967.03 TRAFFIC AND CONDUCT.
...
(e) Firearms; Prohibited Activities. The following are prohibited: playing radios, picnicking, lounging and loafing, carrying firearms except at military funerals as part of a military escort.
IANAL, YMMV, other standard disclaimers, yada, yada, yada, etc, ad nauseum, in infinitum.
"If stupidity was painful, I would be deaf from all the screaming." - Samuel A. Grim
User avatar
wkdravenna
Posts: 3025
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Location: Toledo Ohio

Re: City of Oregon, multiple ordinances

Post by wkdravenna »

The last Oregon cop I spoke to let me sit in his police car armed.. So that I could borrow some of his AC since my truck broke and was waiting on the flatbed.

Oregon's pretty nice folks.. Unless you talk to my buddy Dan Sayers. :lol: I don't tell them I know him.
My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. - JFK
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: City of Oregon, multiple ordinances

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

Yeah, I know everyone wants to get in some more walks before the weather turns snowy, but we should still ask them nicely to amend their ordinances, at least as a first resort.

:mrgreen:
MyWifeSaidYes
User avatar
JustJack
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:17 am
Location: Findlay
Contact:

Re: City of Oregon, multiple ordinances

Post by JustJack »

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:Yeah, I know everyone wants to get in some more walks before the weather turns snowy, but we should still ask them nicely to amend their ordinances, at least as a first resort.

:mrgreen:
I agree, and didn't mean to sound like I was advocating jumping straight to an Open Carry Walk without any prior discussion. However, with so many laws on the books, I wonder if they're interested in discourse? The really strange thing is that 549.02 is the standard, near copy state Concealed Weapon law. So, they have a law allowing CHL's to carry, but a page an a half farther down, they have a law prohibiting ANY carry. Seems like someone's law director was asleep at the wheel.
IANAL, YMMV, other standard disclaimers, yada, yada, yada, etc, ad nauseum, in infinitum.
"If stupidity was painful, I would be deaf from all the screaming." - Samuel A. Grim
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: City of Oregon, multiple ordinances

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

You actually think these people READ the laws? :lol:

These towns buy their codified ordinances from American Legal, ConwayGreene, or similar company. That's why so many towns have identical ordinance numbers.

Then the town council modifies or adds to the ordinances.

Who's got time to read the laws BEFORE they pass a new one?

Don't you remember Obamacare?

"...we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
MyWifeSaidYes
User avatar
JustJack
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:17 am
Location: Findlay
Contact:

Re: City of Oregon, multiple ordinances

Post by JustJack »

Just sent off a mass email to the City Council, Mayor, City Administrator, and Asst. Chief of Police. We'll see what we see.
IANAL, YMMV, other standard disclaimers, yada, yada, yada, etc, ad nauseum, in infinitum.
"If stupidity was painful, I would be deaf from all the screaming." - Samuel A. Grim
User avatar
JustJack
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:17 am
Location: Findlay
Contact:

Re: City of Oregon, multiple ordinances

Post by JustJack »

Got replies from one of the Councilmen and the Asst. Chief of Police. Councilmen Walendzak said he'd take it up with the City Administrator and Law Director, Asst. Chief Magdich said he'd look into it and get back with me.
IANAL, YMMV, other standard disclaimers, yada, yada, yada, etc, ad nauseum, in infinitum.
"If stupidity was painful, I would be deaf from all the screaming." - Samuel A. Grim
User avatar
JustJack
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:17 am
Location: Findlay
Contact:

Re: City of Oregon, multiple ordinances

Post by JustJack »

Got another email from Councilman Walendzak this afternoon,
REDACTED,
I had an opportunity to speak with the Administrator, Mr. Beazley about your concerns regarding the Oregon Municipal Code being out of line with the State of Ohio ORC.

Every year, we contract a company to "clean up" our OMC to assure they align with the ORC, with direction from the City administration. These items were overlooked and are no longer enforced by the Oregon Police Department. I have been told that we will request that these items be removed from our OMC in the next annual revision pending review by our Law Director. This should occur early 2014.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Dennis Walendzak
Suspected as much honestly, but better safe than sorry. So it would appear Oregon is operating in accordance to 9.68, and will 'officially' fall in line early next year when they update their ords.
IANAL, YMMV, other standard disclaimers, yada, yada, yada, etc, ad nauseum, in infinitum.
"If stupidity was painful, I would be deaf from all the screaming." - Samuel A. Grim
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: City of Oregon, multiple ordinances

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

Funny. ORC 9.68 went into effect in 2007. It was confirmed as constitutional in 2010. But their illegal ordinances are just NOW going to be 'cleaned up'?

You may want to ask for a copy of the training they provided to their police regarding them 'not enforcing' their illegal law. Don't mention it being an open records request and see if you get a decent response.
MyWifeSaidYes
User avatar
JustJack
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:17 am
Location: Findlay
Contact:

Re: City of Oregon, multiple ordinances

Post by JustJack »

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:Funny. ORC 9.68 went into effect in 2007. It was confirmed as constitutional in 2010. But their illegal ordinances are just NOW going to be 'cleaned up'?
I agree, but as Werz has already pointed out to me, multiple times :oops: , these laws that seem so important to us are just 'one more thing' to them.
MyWifeSaidYes wrote:You may want to ask for a copy of the training they provided to their police regarding them 'not enforcing' their illegal law. Don't mention it being an open records request and see if you get a decent response.
I did. No response on that as of yet.

I did get an e-mail back from the Asst Chief of Police this morning:
REDACTED,

I have discussed your observation with our prosecutor who agrees that the local ordinances are in conflict with state law. He has in turn brought it to the attention of the city Law Director for a final disposition. I do not believe that any of the laws cited are being currently enforced and the prosecutor has confirmed this. Thank you for brining this to our attention. We will hopefully have the matter rectified in short order.

Kind regards,


Paul Magdich
Asst. Chief of Police
Oregon Division of Police
5330 Seaman Rd.
Oregon, OH 43616
Office: Removed per TOS
Cell: Removed per TOS

All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing!!
Since he mentioned that he did 'not believe that any of the laws were being enforced' I requested a copy of any training or memorandums issued in regards to the non-enforcement of these laws from him as well.
IANAL, YMMV, other standard disclaimers, yada, yada, yada, etc, ad nauseum, in infinitum.
"If stupidity was painful, I would be deaf from all the screaming." - Samuel A. Grim
User avatar
JustJack
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:17 am
Location: Findlay
Contact:

Re: City of Oregon, multiple ordinances

Post by JustJack »

Just checked the updated Codified Ordinances for Oregon and all the bad ones have been repealed. I will be sending thank you emails to all involved. Chalk one more up for the good guys. :D
IANAL, YMMV, other standard disclaimers, yada, yada, yada, etc, ad nauseum, in infinitum.
"If stupidity was painful, I would be deaf from all the screaming." - Samuel A. Grim
Post Reply