Thread: Oregon CHL machine gun Legal?

Fun scenario to get this going:

A man standing in Pioneer Courthouse square in Portland. He is drinking a coffee from the Starbucks, enjoying a fleeting period of sunshine, and is in no way acting strange. On his person is a valid CHL and a concealed full-auto subgun (Uzi, MP-5, etc...) with valid form 4.

Is he legal?

Provide quoted portions of applicable codes, statutes, and case law to back up your claim.

CHL= concealed HANDGUN license.

I've been looking for the law that makes the distinction between handgun and machinegun and so far I can't find it.
a hand

From everything I can find, a handgun is simply a gun designed to be fired with one hand. I'm pretty sure there's something about AOW's and machineguns being classified differently though.
But the more I look, The more I think I might be mistaken. I cant find anything in the law that distinguishes between the two.

This is all assuming that Pioneer Courthouse square isnt an actual courthouse. I'm not familiar with it so I dont know.

Open carry is another story. If you own the machinegun legally and have the papers to prove it, you can open carry pretty much anything. I wouldnt recommend it though.

A f/a or aow are not handguns... That being said what laws would this person be guilty of breaking?

Open carry is another story. If you own the machinegun legally and have the papers to prove it, you can open carry pretty much anything. I wouldnt recommend it though.[/QUOTE]

In regards to open carry, Oregon does NOT have a law prohibiting open carry. However, many counties have ordinances that prohibit this. I know that both Multnomah and Clackamas counties have such ordinances. Hopefully this is not to far off the original subject. I am searching through the ORS to find how they define a handgun. Will post if I can find it.

There is one thing I can think of that may make a difference. A machine pistol and a subgun are in fact two diferent things.

Originally Posted by steyr 50

Open carry is another story. If you own the machinegun legally and have the papers to prove it, you can open carry pretty much anything. I wouldnt recommend it though.

In regards to open carry, Oregon does NOT have a law prohibiting open carry. However, many counties have ordinances that prohibit this. I know that both Multnomah and Clackamas counties have such ordinances. Hopefully this is not to far off the original subject. I am searching through the ORS to find how they define a handgun. Will post if I can find it.

There is one thing I can think of that may make a difference. A machine pistol and a subgun are in fact two diferent things.[/QUOTE]

You're close... Cities within Oregon such as Portland and most other large cities ban loaded carry. and your Oregon CHL exempts you from those bans.

I believe that your CHL exempts you from the open carry ordinances for handguns only. Too early and on my iPhone, so I can't easily look it up in the ORS, but since a handgun (pistol), machine-gun, and SBR all have different definitions within the ORS, a Form 4 ain't gonna cut it.

Yes, that would be legal. Here are the appropriate laws:

166.250 Unlawful possession of firearms. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section or ORS 166.260, 166.270, 166.274, 166.291, 166.292 or 166.410 to 166.470, a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly:
(a) Carries any firearm concealed upon the person;

166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250. (1) ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affect:
(h) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.

Note that the 1st law outlaws concealed carry of "ANY FIREARM"
Note that the 2nd law exempts CHL holders from the 1st law.

So far only pchewn has provided a satisfactory response.

'Promptcritical', eh? Are you an ex-nuke?

Back on topic: Legal? Most likely. Stupid in so many ways? Absolutely.

keith

Originally Posted by trainsktg

'Promptcritical', eh? Are you an ex-nuke?

yup. EM1, submarine type.

And I really don't see how it's stupid if you aren't doing anything provocative or threatening.

Originally Posted by PromptCritical

yup. EM1, submarine type.

And I really don't see how it's stupid if you aren't doing anything provocative or threatening.

Ah...I figured . Not to many civilians know the lingo. ET1/SS.

Stupid, in that the whole reason to carry a concealed weapon is for protection. In the scenario described, the use of a full auto firearm in a typically crowded Pioneer Square is...well...unless a fellow expects Pioneer Square is going to suddenly be populated by a crowd of undead...you see what I mean.

Keith

Originally Posted by trainsktg

Ah...I figured . Not to many civilians know the lingo. ET1/SS.

Stupid, in that the whole reason to carry a concealed weapon is for protection. In the scenario described, the use of a full auto firearm in a typically crowded Pioneer Square is...well...unless a fellow expects Pioneer Square is going to suddenly be populated by a crowd of undead...you see what I mean.

Keith

Full-autos are only regulated as such because they have the capability of full-auto. The vast majority are also capable of semi-auto. Hence, carrying the Uzi is not stupid, but self defense using full auto mode would be stupid unless defending against a mob of zombies.

FWIW: I have personally stood in Pioneer Courthouse Square with an AR-15 surrounded by the "undead". Luckily for me they were dancing to "Thriller" and could not be bothered to eat my brains.

Originally Posted by pchewn

Yes, that would be legal. Here are the appropriate laws:

166.250 Unlawful possession of firearms. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section or ORS 166.260, 166.270, 166.274, 166.291, 166.292 or 166.410 to 166.470, a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly:
(a) Carries any firearm concealed upon the person;

166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250. (1) ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affect:
(h) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.

Note that the 1st law outlaws concealed carry of "ANY FIREARM"
Note that the 2nd law exempts CHL holders from the 1st law.

But only for a handgun.

8 US Presidents have been NRA members
80 MILLION gun owners didn't shoot anyone today, a few criminals did!!

----------------------------------------------------------

The "Feedback Score" is low by 4, not everyone posts it I guess.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
Washington Arms Collector member
Arms Collectors of South West Washington member

Originally Posted by deen_ad

But only for a handgun.

I dissagree. I think pchewn has it right. Regardless of the name of the license the ORS associated with 166.291/292 is the qualifications and the process for getting your CHL. 166.250 uses the term firearm and 166.260 says if you are licensed you are exempt from 166.250.

Not sure I'd want to go to court over it but as the law is written I do not believe it would be a violation.

I'm also not sure I would do it in the Portland city limits based on they reference 'concealed handgun' instead of licensed under ORS 166.291:

14A.60.010 Possession of a Loaded Firearm in a Public Place. - Printable Version

A. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess or carry a firearm, in or upon a public place, including while in a vehicle in a public place, recklessly having failed to remove all the ammunition from the firearm.
B. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess or carry a firearm and that firearm’s clip or magazine, in or upon a public place, including while in a vehicle in a public place, recklessly having failed to remove all the ammunition from the clip or magazine.
C. The following are exceptions and constitute affirmative defenses to a violation of this Section:

3. A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.

Well besides the fact of being legal or illegal, you have to remember that in any self defense shooting, you can find yourself facing charges against you. I'm betting prosecutors would have a field day with that one. Just food for thought.

Anything other than "legal" or "illegal" is beyond the scope.

The point here is to illustrate that law is based on definitions and must be enforced as written. Any deviation opens the door to abuse. Hence, carrying a machinegun is legal because it isn't illegal provided the carrier has a CHL. Also it is necessary sometimes to recognize and disregard certain assumptions like poster number two in this thread. The name of the license probably signifies the intent of the law but that intent was not carried over into the text.

I'm sure if one was caught doing this and a public spectacle made of it, the law would be changed in short order.

and if the "machine gun" were a Glock 18 ?

Originally Posted by asiparks

and if the "machine gun" were a Glock 18 ?

Then it is still a firearm and is no different according to the law than a minigun.

I just read an article about this where a guy that worked at HK had to use a full-auto gun in self defense and basically got his world rocked even though charges were dropped. The second you use a class III weapon for self defense the prosecution is going to have a field day with you especially since you can "fire up to 30 rounds with one pull of the trigger" which sounds really scary to juries that don't have any experience in firearms. Remember the medias write-up of a kel-tec sub 2k? That wasn't even fully automatic either.