Carrying in portland

[etrain16]

As far as I understand it, there is no impact on CHL holders with this rule adopted by Multnomah County (adopted in April 2014 if I recall correctly). Have your CHL on you and the public place designation is meaningless due to state preemption.

 

[accessbob]

Felony flats!

I lived at 86th and Tolman for 4 years until we escaped almost 2 years ago when we moved to Molalla .

 

[salmonriverjohn]

Small world huh? Just four decades apart.

 

[NWGlockgal]

As far as I understand it, there is no impact on CHL holders with this rule adopted by Multnomah County (adopted in April 2014 if I recall correctly). Have your CHL on you and the public place designation is meaningless due to state preemption.

Correct, which is why everyone should have a CHL. Even if your spouse does not shoot or carry, they should have a CHL while in the car with you when guns are present to prevent issues. Cheap insurance.

 

[etrain16]

Correct, which is why everyone should have a CHL. Even if your spouse does not shoot or carry, they should have a CHL while in the car with you when guns are present to prevent issues. Cheap insurance.

Good point. My wife's CHL is expired - she doesn't carry, but in a situation where maybe I need to hand my gun over to her for some reason, she would be covered. Got to get her in to do that soon.

 

[Koda]

Correct, which is why everyone should have a CHL. Even if your spouse does not shoot or carry, they should have a CHL while in the car with you when guns are present to prevent issues. Cheap insurance.

Good point. My wife's CHL is expired - she doesn't carry, but in a situation where maybe I need to hand my gun over to her for some reason, she would be covered. Got to get her in to do that soon.

This is actually an example of why CHLs and the law that make YOUR car a "public place" an infringment on your constitutional rights both the 2nd and the 4th.

Currently, nobody needs a CHL to lawfull transport a gun home via automobile but they shouldnt be subject to unreasonable search just because they have one in the car.

 

[Onomea]

I have a CHL, and I have no issues carrying concealed in Portland. I don't open carry in Portland as I see no point in frightening and upsetting people I don't even know, nor do I want to go through the inevitable police interactions which surely, at the very least, would be a PITA.

I do occasionally see a "no concealed weapons even with a permit" sign downtown, but not yet in any place I have an interest in entering.

I like Portland. The food, the drink, and the people, who I find to be among the most civil and hardworking among the places I have lived and visited in the US.

Just my experience and my opinion, of course. YMMV.

 

[NWGlockgal]

This is actually an example of why CHLs and the law that make YOUR car a "public place" an infringment on your constitutional rights both the 2nd and the 4th.

Currently, nobody needs a CHL to lawfull transport a gun home via automobile but they shouldnt be subject to unreasonable search just because they have one in the car.

Agreed, however reality dictates the necessity of having one. I remember reading about a case where the husband had a CHL and the wife did not. He was pulled over for a traffic infraction and the police officer asked him if there was a gun in the car. The wife said there was one in the console. She was charged with concealed carry without a CHL because the gun was accessible to her and she knew it was there. If she either had not spoken or had a CHL, the problem would never have occured.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

Having worked in serious inner cities, Chicago and LA, Portland seems remarkably tame. I still carry except at work because it is illegal to carry there.

 

[The Quiet Man]

I avoid Portland for the most part but would never dream of going unarmed. Have never had a problem and can't imagine why I would. Most people have no idea what's going on around them.

 

[Jonnyuma]

Here we go, I knew I had read about it someplace:
12.14.08 OREGON COURT OF APPEALS DEALS MAJOR BLOW TO GUN RIGHTS.



http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/oregon.pdf

None of that nonsense effects CHL holders.

 

[Jonnyuma]

Agreed, however reality dictates the necessity of having one. I remember reading about a case where the husband had a CHL and the wife did not. He was pulled over for a traffic infraction and the police officer asked him if there was a gun in the car. The wife said there was one in the console. She was charged with concealed carry without a CHL because the gun was accessible to her and she knew it was there. If she either had not spoken or had a CHL, the problem would never have occured.

Yes, that can happen...and my guess is that it was in Multnomah county.
I had a similar "incident" when I moved here from AZ. I was following AZ law to the letter. Problem was, as eloquently stated by the helpful deputy, "This isn't Arizona".
I got pulled over for having a headlight out. Stone cold sober on my way home from work. Deputy #2 saw the pistol rug and asked me what was in it...he obviously knew and I wasn't trying to hide it. Had I known I was in violation I would have probably been more cagey.
A warning and an admonition to get my CHL to avoid future trouble would have been plenty sufficient...for ME.
For HIM, not so much.

 

[Ralgha]

The unbridled hate of everything Portland here is pretty shocking to me, especially since, if you have a CHL, you don't have to worry about any of the silly laws. I carry in Portland all the time and don't think twice about it.

 

[wired]

I see people carrying in Portland all the time. Mostly sloppily concealed but occasionally open. I fall in the sloppily concealed category and Ive carried in Portland countless times without an issue. If you want to see people carrying ride the light rail system.

 

[wired]

Agreed, however reality dictates the necessity of having one. I remember reading about a case where the husband had a CHL and the wife did not. He was pulled over for a traffic infraction and the police officer asked him if there was a gun in the car. The wife said there was one in the console. She was charged with concealed carry without a CHL because the gun was accessible to her and she knew it was there. If she either had not spoken or had a CHL, the problem would never have occured.

While she may have been charged by an officer who didnt know the law the case would have been thrown out by the first judge it got in front of.

 

[NWGlockgal]

None of that nonsense effects CHL holders.

Agreed, which is why everyone should have one.

 

[NWGlockgal]

While she may have been charged by an officer who didn't know the law the case would have been thrown out by the first judge it got in front of.

Actually, the officer did know the law.
I found the case in Oregon Concealed by Don Leach. The wife was arrested and charged with two misdemeanors. He managed to get the DA to reduce the charges to a violation where the gun was given up and a fine paid. He was concerned about it going to trial and it being the first case he lost, but a reasonable DA prevented that. An unreasonable one might not have.
He states Oregon has an "accessibility" statute which carries the presumption that a handgun in a vehicle is available to all those in the vehicle. He therefore recommends:
A licensed person keep the gun on their person, or in a place not accessible to others, and passengers are not told about it.
The spouse having a CHL is a better idea yet, in my opinion.

 

[wired]

Actually, the officer did know the law.
I found the case in Oregon Concealed by Don Leach. The wife was arrested and charged with two misdemeanors. He managed to get the DA to reduce the charges to a violation where the gun was given up and a fine paid. He was concerned about it going to trial and it being the first case he lost, but a reasonable DA prevented that. An unreasonable one might not have.
He states Oregon has an "accessibility" statute which carries the presumption that a handgun in a vehicle is available to all those in the vehicle. He therefore recommends:
A licensed person keep the gun on their person, or in a place not accessible to others, and passengers are not told about it.
The spouse having a CHL is a better idea yet, in my opinion.

I would have gone to court on that one. Accessibility in a vehicle that belongs to someone else without a formal transfer of the firearm does not mean the passenger needs a concealed carry license. They folded their hand early. No self respecting DA ( assuming those exist ) would prosecute that case and expect to win. Possession in that case being the key. The handgun was clearly in the possession of the permit holder.

 

[Koda]

Its a real dilemma actually... If your spose, friend, or passenger is riding with you and you for some reason need to disarm what do you do? What if the wife needs to drive the car back home with your gun? How does 941 play into this too?

 

[accessbob]

Its a real dilemma actually... If your spose, friend, or passenger is riding with you and you for some reason need to disarm what do you do? What if the wife needs to drive the car back home with your gun? How does 941 play into this too?

unload the gun and put it in the trunk. No problem transporting like that.