Conceal from Washington to Oregon?

[Botte Hork]

Too complicated. No need to wait for Sheriff Palmer. Just go apply in Multnomah or Washington county. You don't need to reside or work in Oregon. You simply need to write the letter with your reason, which could be "travelling regularly in Oregon" which is what I used. I haev not heard of anyone being turned down in Washington or Multnomah county for any reason except legal requirements not being met- for example a misdemeanour within the last 4 years.

Or in my case, file a nonsense piece of paperwork stating my intent to naturalize (USCIS N300 form). $250 plus a few weeks/months of waiting for papers that have no real meaning (as it won't do anything for my actual naturalization, nor does it commit me to naturalize, it only states my intent). Oh well, I'll do it anyway, as I live close enough to Oregon to not want to screw myself (and my immigration status by getting some charge for unlicensed CC) in case I forget to unholster and comply with all regulations.

Which reminds me, I think I'll start filing that baby.

 

[FireFighterChen]

I am going to start by saying...Read Oregon State Law...in particular read ORS 166.250(3), and ORS 166.260. Then move on to ORS 166.360-380. As a visitor to Oregon for WA, those are the ones that make the biggest difference.

I will start by agreeing....DO NOT conceal a loaded handgun anywhere on your person, or in your luggage, in Portland, Salem, Beverton, or actually anywhere in OR etc...without an OR CHL. That is an absolute...do not do it...it is not worth the risk. (unless you meet an exemption in ORS 166.260,) but I still would not do it...OK? CC in OR without a CHL is asking for trouble. This takes care of Concealed...get a OR CHL, or just don't conceal...or be covered by LEOSA

OC is a completely different subject. ORS 166.250(3) specifically exempts a pistol openly carried in a holster on your hip from the prohibitions in ORS 166.250.

Then, to understand Portland, Salem etc, you need to read ORS 166.173. OK, now that you understand the bare basics...remember unlicensed, loaded, OC in a vehicle, or on foot is legal except in those cities (like Portland0 that have taken advantage of ORS 166.173.

OK, here is the contravercial part. LOADED OC anywhere is OR is legal if you have a License,,,ORS 166.173(2)(c) says, this does not effect or apply to "anyone that has a license to carry a concealed handgun"... Remember, this applies to OPEN CARRY ONLY...(and does not exempt you from ORS 166.360-380...see ORS 166.173(2)(d))

And all you Oregon CHL only detractors...read your own law...(2)(c) says NOTHING about ORS 166.291-292...however, (2)(d) does...please explain that difference, and if my reading is not correct, why are their two different exemptions?

REMEMBER....this concerns loaded OC only.

The controvercial part is...

This is what I have pulled together so far.
Red is my way of describing it in layman terms.




166.173 Authority of city or county to regulate possession of loaded firearms in public places. (1) A city or county may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession of loaded firearms in public places as defined in ORS 161.015. Allows cities to make ordinances that restrict loaded possession of firearms within their city limits.
(2) Ordinances adopted under subsection (1) of this section do not apply to or affect:
(c) A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Any license to carry a concealed handgun exempts the carrier from the ordinances, not just licenses defined in 166.290 and 166.291? No implied meaning here?


166.250 (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;


166.250 (3) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section. So openly carried in a belt holster is not considered (166.250 (1)(a)) knowingly concealed.


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. Specifically requires an OR concealed handgun license is needed to (166.250) conceal carry.


166.360 Definitions for ORS 166.360 to 166.380. As used in ORS 166.360 to 166.380, unless the context requires otherwise:
(1) "Capitol building" means the Capitol, the State Office Building, the State Library Building, the Labor and Industries Building, the State Transportation Building, the Agriculture Building or the Public Service Building and includes any new buildings which may be constructed on the same grounds as an addition to the group of buildings listed in this subsection.
(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.
(3) "Loaded firearm" means:
(a) A breech-loading firearm in which there is an unexpended cartridge or shell in or attached to the firearm including but not limited to, in a chamber, magazine or clip which is attached to the firearm.
(b) A muzzle-loading firearm which is capped or primed and has a powder charge and ball, shot or projectile in the barrel or cylinder.
(4) "Public building" means a hospital, a capitol building, a public or private school, as defined in ORS 339.315, a college or university, a city hall or the residence of any state official elected by the state at large, and the grounds adjacent to each such building. The term also includes that portion of any other building occupied by an agency of the state or a municipal corporation, as defined in ORS 297.405, other than a court facility.
(5) "Weapon" means:
(a) A firearm;


166.370 Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging firearm at school. (1) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
(d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.

According to 166.360 and 166.370 I need a (166.290 and 166.291) OR concealed handgun license to carry in public buildings.

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

I contacted Oregon Firearms Federation and they contacted a lawyer. This is what they add to say.

First email:

Well wel have lawyers, but I am pretty confident that the cannot answer the question, although I will forward it to them. The reason I don't think they can answer it is because they would have to be guessing just like you or I would be.

The exact letter of the law says "a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun." As you pointed out, it does not say licensed in Oregon. So it would be up to the courts. The courts would have to decide what the legislature intended. And you simply never know with the courts.

They might very well say, "Well in other places, the legislature specifically said 'A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun'. So when they DON'T say that they mean licensed anywhere" But I would not want to be the one to test that.

Kevin Starrett

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

Second email:

Follow up. Here is what I got from our lawyers.

> Kevin,
>
> I am just now working with a client with a Washington State CHL who was in Portland with a Concealed/Loaded firearm (2 misdemeanors). He thought about fighting this (on the arguments you presented), but with a mandatory minimum 30 days on the loaded firearms, we were able to work a ‘diversion like' program for him. In looking into the statute (and the similarly worded Portland code 14A.60.010), I believe the DDA would argue that ‘license' has to refer to only an Oregon license as Oregon has no reciprocity with any state. Therefore the State in crafting their statute could have only taken into account Oregon licenses as all other licenses are invalid here.
> Now we would argue a more rigid reading of the statute to its text alone, and that it should be interpreted broadly in favor of the defense, but I don't know if too many in our judiciary branch would buy into our arguments on gun policies. Additionally, the legislatures are aware that there are different kinds of licenses and could have stated Oregon only but they did not do that, and their silence speaks to that argument.
> All that's to say I think it's an argument, but maybe not one that would be accepted, unless there is some legislative history to the contrary. Did you have any luck determining jurisdiction for the Coast Guard? I could not find much.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Shawn A. Kollie
> Attorney at Law


So... be careful.

Kevin Starrett

So, I guess who wants to be the guinea pig? My best bet is to open carry as usual and just avoid those cities...shouldn't be too hard except for Portland where my family goes out to eat often.

Special thanks to OFF, they did a great job at contacting me and getting me the information I asked. Great bunch of people there.

 

[hermannr]

This is what I have pulled together so far.
Red is my way of describing it in layman terms.




166.250 (3) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section. So openly carried in a belt holster is not considered (166.250 (1)(a)) knowingly concealed.


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. Specifically requires an OR concealed handgun license is needed to (166.250) conceal carry.


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

The exact letter of the law says “a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.” As you pointed out, it does not say licensed in Oregon. So it would be up to the courts. The courts would have to decide what the legislature intended. And you simply never know with the courts.

They might very well say, “Well in other places, the legislature specifically said 'A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun’. So when they DON’T say that they mean licensed anywhere” But I would not want to be the one to test that.

Kevin Starrett

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

Second email:

Follow up. Here is what I got from our lawyers.

> Kevin,
>
> I am just now working with a client with a Washington State CHL who was in Portland with a Concealed/Loaded firearm (2 misdemeanors). .

Ok, for the first part: ORS 166.260...yes having a OR CHL exempts you from both .173 and .250, but if you will read .260 more carefully, there are other exemption, like hunting and fishing..Law enforcement...etc. The OR CHL IS THE way to get exemption from .173 and .250... of that there is no doubt. so now to the second part...

You will not that I "bold"ed two words in the lawyers answer..CONCEALED and loaded...If you remember I originally said...DO NOT Conceal in OR without a CHL....especially in one of the named cities...

I have OC'd in Portland, but I have never been stopped by anyone while doing so, so I cannot state specifically for Portland...but I can specifically state for Astoria...Astoria inturperates "any license" as just that "any license" to carry a concealed weapon...BUT remember!!!! this applies to Open Carry ONLY. Never even went to court. Astoria's law specifically states:

5.010 (C) Subsections (A) and (B) of this section shall not apply to:
(1) A peace officer acting within the scope of the officer's duty:
(2) Any government employee authorized or required by the employee's employment or office to carry or use firearms; or
(3) Any person having a valid permit issued to the person by lawful authority to carry or use concealed firearms;

My bold. you can look up the whole code is you wish at City of Astoria Home select "code" and "5" crimial code and download the whole code

 

[Father of four]

No its not! Im not trying to tell you how to live your life, but read the laws before you travel. I don’t think you want to go thru the hassle if for some reason you should be discovered with a concealed weapon on your person or within reach in your vehicle as defined by Oregon law (link below) without an Oregon permit.

I travel to Oregon regularly and finally just decided to get an Oregon permit instead of chancing it and running with the bulls after crossing the river every trip down, problem solved.

Safe travels! G

ORS 166.250 - Unlawful possession of firearms - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes

Way to stand up for you 2nd Amendment right.

 

[Father of four]

Concealed Handgun, License to Carry

4 years
Fees - application, exam, etc.: $50 for the Sheriff's department plus
$15 to the Oregon State Police for the background check.

Renewal: $50 for the Sheriff's department.
Responsible Agency: Police, Oregon State (OSP)
Examination Information: Investigation may be necessary to corroborate the applicants required information. Please see ORS 166.291.
Bonding Requirements: None
Insurance Requirements: None
Prerequisites: 1. Citizen of the United States; or
Is a legal resident alien who can document continuous residency in the county for at least six months and has declared in writing to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services the intent to acquire citizenship status and can present proof of the written declaration to the sheriff at the time of application for the license.
2. 21 or older.
3. Not a convicted felon.
4. Not convicted or found guilty of a misdemeanor.
5. No outstanding warrants for your arrest or free on any form of pretrial release.
6. Demonstrates competence with a handgun per ORS 166.291(f).
Application Form: Application for License to Carry Concealed Handgun (issued at the county Sheriff's Department)
Renewals: A concealed handgun license is renewable by repeating the procedures set out in "Prerequisites" and "Required Docs" sections above, except for the requirement to submit fingerprints and provide character references.
Service Links: [Concealed Handgun License webpage] Concealed Handgun License webpage
[Oregon Sheriffs] Oregon Sheriffs' Offices and locations
contact Agency Contact Information
Required Documentation: 1. 2 pieces of current identification, one of which must bear photo of applicant.
2. Completed application (done at county Sheriff's offices).
3. The sheriff shall finger print and photograph the applicant.


Yep that sounds really close compared to the 2nd Amendment....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Thebastidge]

What's a better idea:

Criticzing the law and working to change it, or criticizing an individual for not wanting to go to jail, lose their freedom, their abilty to vote, and to carry a firearm in defense of themselves, their family, and their community?

I really don't "get" why people spend all their time criticizing other people's choices on this forum. Crabs in a pot, people. Let's not pull people down- let's normalize the firearms culture.

 

[Father of four]

What is the better idea? Criticizing the law and working to change it.

How to normalize the firearms culture? Help people to know their rights. Show them the evidence that when laws are made to take away their 2nd Amendment right to bear firearms the criminals win and the law abiding citizen looses. Remind The People that the government works for Us. That the 2nd Amendment is for Our Own protection. The People will then know when Unconstitutional laws have been passed to take their 2nd Amendment rights away. Then We The People can take actions to get Our 2nd Amendment Rights back.

Having firearms is normal. Many hundreds of thousands of Americans are around and handle them everyday. And have been for many years.

 

[Thebastidge]

What is the better idea? Criticizing the law and working to change it.

How to normalize the firearms culture? Help people to know their rights. Show them the evidence that when laws are made to take away their 2nd Amendment right to bear firearms the criminals win and the law abiding citizen looses. Remind The People that the government works for Us. That the 2nd Amendment is for Our Own protection. The People will then know when Unconstitutional laws have been passed to take their 2nd Amendment rights away. Then We The People can take actions to get Our 2nd Amendment Rights back.

Having firearms is normal. Many hundreds of thousands of Americans are around and handle them everyday. And have been for many years.

I agree, but being obstreperous about it to people is not the way to go, whether they're already on your side or on the fence. People who are firmly in the opposite camp are not the target. We need to convince the fence-sitters and those who haven't really considered the quesiton. One way to do that is by rationally and politely debating the ones in the opposite camp. But the hostility towards people who may not agree 100% in every tiny detail isn't helpful. There's room for a lot of fellow travellers going in roughly the same direction.

Having firearms is normal. Carrying a firearm every day is not common or ordinary. Nearly every jurisdiction requires a permit to do it concealed, and too many require it just to posess a firearm. I would like to see all of that changed. In the meantime, one very good strategy to convince the undecided is to conform to laws that don't require any actually immoral actions, and demonstrate the positive benefits of carrying firearms as a distributed, robust system of reducing crime and ensuring liberty. I highly encourage people to get their concealed carry permits. It's a number I can point to, for people new to the issue, and say "Look at this. Many of your neighbours are ALREADY carrying unknown to you, and there's no blood running in the streets." I can take that number and the crime stats for the area and compare them for people. I can show not only the right and the theory behind the principle, I can show actual results. This is powerful ammunition for the cause. I can allay worries about crmininality and short tempers, and irresponsibility.

 

[Father of four]

I apologize for my lack of tactfulness. I am sometimes rough around the edges but I mean well.

 

[Father of four]

I do BTW totally 100% disagree with CHLs. I am not a felon, I have not had a misdemeanor in 15+ years and I don't think I'm crazy. But my 2nd Amendment rights are infringed once I walk out my front door and step off my property. I can no longer protect myself with my firearm unless I use it as a club. The only way I can exercise my Right is to ask for permission, take a class and pay a fee. And what every 4 years do it again? That is not what Our founding fathers meant when they penned the 2nd Amendment. So if i just cave in and go get that CHL permission then why do I even need to stand up for the 2nd Amendment or any amendment if the government can just pass laws to take it away?

 

[Thebastidge]

I do BTW totally 100% disagree with CHLs. I am not a felon, I have not had a misdemeanor in 15+ years and I don't think I'm crazy. But my 2nd Amendment rights are infringed once I walk out my front door and step off my property. I can no longer protect myself with my firearm unless I use it as a club. The only way I can exercise my Right is to ask for permission, take a class and pay a fee. And what every 4 years do it again? That is not what Our founding fathers meant when they penned the 2nd Amendment. So if i just cave in and go get that CHL permission then why do I even need to stand up for the 2nd Amendment or any amendment if the government can just pass laws to take it away?

For the same reasons I posted above- to make it common and accepted by familiarizing people with the fact that other people around them are carrying firearms for defense of life. Sometimes, the system is so broken you can't work within it. In this particular case, I personally don't think that aspect is so broken I cannot work within it. Your mileage may vary, and I'm not going to criticize you for it. I believe I will be more effective promoting concealed carry with permits than I will be promoting opposition to concealed carry permits. Again, that's my personal take on it.

 

[Thebastidge]

I apologize for my lack of tactfulness. I am sometimes rough around the edges but I mean well.

I figured that you do. No worries, amigo.

 

[Botte Hork]

For the same reasons I posted above- to make it common and accepted by familiarizing people with the fact that other people around them are carrying firearms for defense of life. Sometimes, the system is so broken you can't work within it. In this particular case, I personally don't think that aspect is so broken I cannot work within it. Your mileage may vary, and I'm not going to criticize you for it. I believe I will be more effective promoting concealed carry with permits than I will be promoting opposition to concealed carry permits. Again, that's my personal take on it.

Agreed, plus it's a non-gun-nut attitude in my view. Many "gunnies" are very gung-ho and outspoken about 2A, sometimes to a level where the emotions might scare people away. For us it's fine, but here one is among friends, it's like preaching to the choir. Yet outside our (not so) little congregation, there's a flock that needs conversion. Stats and ratio like thebastidge shows here work better I think. Many people are not very interested in firearms at all and a moderate tone does more than going full crazy. It'd be like me talking to you guys about coffee and how instant coffee is just the worst excuse you could drink. Many will shrug, think "go away crazy boy" and sip from a lukewarm re-microwaved Folgers quart mug.