Oregon Can you conceal carry a SBR in OR with a CHL?

[RX-79G]

ORS 166.260 – Persons not affected by ORS 166.250

ORS 166.250 (Unlawful possession of firearms) does not apply to or affect, (a) A parole and probation officer, police officer or reserve…

oregon.public.law

The exceptions.

ORS 166.240 – Carrying of concealed weapons

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, any person who carries concealed upon the person any knife having a blade…

oregon.public.law

Only conceal of specific weapons prohibited but openly carry of these weapons seems to be legal.

In 166.250 it only states "any firearm concealed" as an offense.

If you're talking about 166.272;
It only says that it's an affirmative defense if the person possessing these specific firearms have registered them with the Federals (ATF stamped).

ORS 166.272 – Unlawful possession of machine guns, certain short-barreled firearms & firearms silencers

A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer if the person…

oregon.public.law

I think you realize that it isn't legal to CC anything but a handgun under the CHL, but I get why you are looking at it the way you are.

However, the way you are reading this (one exception confers exceptions to every listed type of possession), would imply that merely having an SBR tax stamp means that you are no longer subject to a court determination of mental illness. And that's certainly not the case.

The law seems reasonably clear, and the way it is unclear doesn't leave enough "reasonable" interpretation that a jury would agree that your way of looking at it is legal.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I think you realize that it isn't legal to CC anything but a handgun under the CHL, but I get why you are looking at it the way you are.

However, the way you are reading this (one exception confers exceptions to every listed type of possession), would imply that merely having an SBR tax stamp means that you are no longer subject to a court determination of mental illness. And that's certainly not the case.

The law seems reasonably clear, and the way it is unclear doesn't leave enough "reasonable" interpretation that a jury would agree that your way of looking at it is legal.

Not how I'm reading it, so you're mistaken in your interpretation of how I read it.

I'm not arguing about mental illness. I am simply arguing that the "unlawful possession of firearms " section, clearly states that it is unlawful to conceal carry any firearms.. and taken with the 166.260, the exceptions to this includes a person licensed to conceal carry a handgun.

But nothing in the conceal carry section (166.291) seems to expressly prohibit the carry of any other firearm except handguns. It only does talk about handguns yes.

The problem is that 166.260 seems to indicate that a person licensed to conceal carry a handgun, may also conceal carry any other firearm on their person, since 166.250 has two separate clauses, "any firearm concealed on the person" and "a handgun that is concealed and readily accessible to the person in any vehicle".

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Not how I'm reading it, so you're mistaken in your interpretation of how I read it.

I'm not arguing about mental illness. I am simply arguing that the "unlawful possession of firearms " section, clearly states that it is unlawful to conceal carry any firearms.. and taken with the 166.260, the exceptions to this includes a person licensed to conceal carry a handgun.

But nothing in the conceal carry section (166.291) seems to expressly prohibit the carry of any other firearm except handguns. It only does talk about handguns yes.

The problem is that 166.260 seems to indicate that a person licensed to conceal carry a handgun, may also conceal carry any other firearm on their person, since 166.250 has two separate clauses, "any firearm concealed on the person" and "a handgun that is concealed and readily accessible to the person in any vehicle".

Sounds like you are responding to the troll (I can't see the worthless troll message thank goodness). Let's not screw up this thread by feeding the troll's need for mental stimulation and getting other people to argue. Thx!

 

[solv3nt]

Not how I'm reading it, so you're mistaken in your interpretation of how I read it.

I'm not arguing about mental illness. I am simply arguing that the "unlawful possession of firearms " section, clearly states that it is unlawful to conceal carry any firearms.. and taken with the 166.260, the exceptions to this includes a person licensed to conceal carry a handgun.

But nothing in the conceal carry section (166.291) seems to expressly prohibit the carry of any other firearm except handguns. It only does talk about handguns yes.

The problem is that 166.260 seems to indicate that a person licensed to conceal carry a handgun, may also conceal carry any other firearm on their person, since 166.250 has two separate clauses, "any firearm concealed on the person" and "a handgun that is concealed and readily accessible to the person in any vehicle".

Sounds like you are responding to the troll (I can't see the worthless troll message thank goodness). Let's not screw up this thread by feeding the troll's need for mental stimulation and getting other people to argue. Thx!

 

[eustace_stelio]

"I think the way you're reading it..." "I think what you're thinking is..." "so what you're saying is..."

Dude is a mind reading clairvoyant

 

[RX-79G]

Not how I'm reading it, so you're mistaken in your interpretation of how I read it.

I'm not arguing about mental illness. I am simply arguing that the "unlawful possession of firearms " section, clearly states that it is unlawful to conceal carry any firearms.. and taken with the 166.260, the exceptions to this includes a person licensed to conceal carry a handgun.

But nothing in the conceal carry section (166.291) seems to expressly prohibit the carry of any other firearm except handguns. It only does talk about handguns yes.

The problem is that 166.260 seems to indicate that a person licensed to conceal carry a handgun, may also conceal carry any other firearm on their person, since 166.250 has two separate clauses, "any firearm concealed on the person" and "a handgun that is concealed and readily accessible to the person in any vehicle".

Right. You seem to be saying that the CHL exception has powers to provide exceptions to more items on the illegal possession page than just concealing a handgun.

I was using the mental illness thing as an example of a prohibition that doesn't go away simply because you have been granted an exception.

You are expressly prohibited from CCing any firearm. There is a handgun exception with a CHL. Like how a driver's license doesn't let you fly a plane, a CHL has a self evident function - to allow you to conceal carry a handgun. Not conceal carry a sword cane. It is a license, not an articulation of a right.

You are expressly prohibited from possessing an SBR. Having the SBR federal tax stamp is only an exception to that specific prohibition. It doesn't allow you to possess an MG or conceal carry a pistol or any of the other prohibited kinds of possession.


So while I get that it doesn't say a handgun conceal carry license is only for handguns, the fact that it says "handgun", and we know that all firearms are otherwise prohibited from concealed carry. I can't imagine any lawyer arguing with a straight face that it isn't clear that a handgun conceal carry license only offers an exception to a prohibition on handgun conceal carry.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Right. You seem to be saying that the CHL exception has powers to provide exceptions to more items on the illegal possession page than just concealing a handgun.

I was using the mental illness thing as an example of a prohibition that doesn't go away simply because you have been granted an exception.

You are expressly prohibited from CCing any firearm. There is a handgun exception with a CHL. Like how a driver's license doesn't let you fly a plane, a CHL has a self evident function - to allow you to carry a handgun. Not carry cane sword. It is a license, not an articulation of a right.

You are expressly prohibited from possessing an SBR. Having the SBR federal tax stamp is only an exception to that specific prohibition. It doesn't allow you to possess an MG or carry a pistol or any of the other prohibited kinds of possession.


So while I get that it doesn't say a handgun license is only for handguns, the fact that it says "handgun", and we know that all firearms are otherwise prohibited from carry. I can't imagine any lawyer arguing with a straight face that it isn't clear that a handgun carry license only offers an exception to a prohibition on handguns.

concealed carry.

In the ORS actually, there is this term "(3)Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section."


Using your logic... no one can openly carry any firearms unless it's in a belt holster

Also... Portland,Salem, others limit open carry to CHL holders.

Edit. Easy
Call the County Sheriff, ask them if CHL is expressly only for carry of handguns and noting else

 

[RX-79G]

concealed carry.

In the ORS actually, there is this term "(3)Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section."


Using your logic... no one can openly carry any firearms unless it's in a belt holster

Also... Portland,Salem, others limit open carry to CHL holders.

Yes, concealed carry. I wrote that so many times that I thought I could say "carry" in the same sentence without any confusion. But I will edit my post because it confused you.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

concealed carry.

In the ORS actually, there is this term "(3)Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section."


Using your logic... no one can openly carry any firearms unless it's in a belt holster

Also... Portland,Salem, others limit open carry to CHL holders.

Edit. Easy
Call the County Sheriff, ask them if CHL is expressly only for carry of handguns and noting else

Last time I will ask.



Thanks

 

[solv3nt]

Last time I will ask.



Thanks

Hear here.

 

[TTSX]

CAN you? Sure. Are you ALLOWED to? No.

The difference between allowed and able is significant

 

[solv3nt]

CAN you? Sure. Are you ALLOWED to? No.

The difference between allowed and able is significant

Please cite your sources.....

 

[CamoDeafie]

CAN you? Sure. Are you ALLOWED to? No.

The difference between allowed and able is significant

Well if you call the Sheriff in your County that issues the CHLs, you could get either a clear answer or no real answer

If you want to go by the letter of the law in ORS 166.250; it seems to also say open carry of any firearms except those in belt holsters, and concealed carry of any firearms except handguns if duly licensed; are expressly prohibited yeah, why doesn't the OSP arrest everyone openly carrying rifles and shotguns at gun shows since they aren't in belt holsters..

But also.. ORS 166.260 seems to say that a person licensed to conceal carry a handgun, is also exempted from ORS 166.250 along with the usual LEOS/Active Military, and licensed hunters/fishers going to hunt/fish or some other exceptions listed in 166.260....

 

[solv3nt]

Well if you call the Sheriff in your County that issues the CHLs, you could get either a clear answer or no real answer

If you want to go by the letter of the law in ORS 166.250; it seems to also say open carry of any firearms except those in belt holsters, and concealed carry of any firearms except handguns if duly licensed; are expressly prohibited yeah, why doesn't the OSP arrest everyone openly carrying rifles and shotguns at gun shows since they aren't in belt holsters..

But also.. ORS 166.260 seems to say that a person licensed to conceal carry a handgun, is also exempted from ORS 166.250 along with the usual LEOS/Active Military, and licensed hunters/fishers going to hunt/fish or some other exceptions listed in 166.260....

I think, therefore I am.

 

[TTSX]

Please cite your sources.....

IDK... Wikimedia? Pronhub? Oh oh! It's www.deeznutz.gov

 

[solv3nt]

IDK... Wikimedia? Pronhub? Oh oh! It's www.deeznutz.gov

So.... You don't have anything that says you can't conceal a long gun or SBR with a CHL in Oregon?

 

[CamoDeafie]

So.... You don't have anything that says you can't conceal a long gun or SBR with a CHL in Oregon?

I dunno. Again.. ORS 166.250-166.260; but again.... call the damn Sheriff to get answer from the people whose job is literally issuing CHLs and enforcing the Oregon laws

 

[eustace_stelio]

I'm not sure about legality of concealed carry of a sbr but I would be willing to bet if any LEO sees you trying to conceal carry a sbr they will at a minimum come up and question you. Most likely with their gun pointed at you.

 

[TTSX]

So.... You don't have anything that says you can't conceal a long gun or SBR with a CHL in Oregon?

I have a wooden spoon with the 10 commandments on it in a south Canadian dialect. Close enough.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I'm not sure about legality of concealed carry of a sbr but I would be willing to bet if any LEO sees you trying to conceal carry a sbr they will at a minimum come up and question you. Most likely with their gun pointed at you.

They could also be called in if you're openly carrying any firearm not in a belt holster