Clarification Needed on Oregon Carry Laws

[gimpy51]

Could they not open carry in a public building? Or, is it possibly in violation of one law to carry a gun without a CHL in a public building, but violating yet another law if it is loaded?

Read the law. The details are almost always there. Sometimes, you have to read court decisions. I have open carried in public buildings without incident many times. I think it would be a challenge to come up with something like what you are referring to.

Then again, we have one sheriff that has made it illegal for any civilian to carry a weapon into his office, even a CC Licensed individual. Any charges for the offense would be costly for the Sheriff, but he has said it is his Right.

 

[PDX1953]

I honestly don't see that happening......EVER. Cans?, yes. SMGs and such, no. Just my opinion

I don't expect the full NFA to be repealed but there's a petition to do so and we should at least have our voices heard.

I'd be happy to have the following amendments made to the NFA:
Make cans available via a 4473.
Allow a citizen to build them just like you can do with an 80% fill-in-the-blank.
Change the approval process so if I already own a Class 3 item it's an automatic OK for me to own another, even if I have to pay the tax. Why I have to wait 6+ months to get approval for another one is ridiculous. I'd even be OK if a BGC was required if it'd been over 5 years since I purchased a Class 3 item but I'd just buy one at 4 yrs - 11 months to reset the clock!

Here's the link to the petition. I'm stymied as to why this doesn't have thousands more signatures and at the rate we're going we'll fail for sure. I'm sending this link to all of my Pro2A email contacts today & will ask that they send it to at least two contacts & ask THEM to send it to two contacts, etc.

MODERATOR - if this isn't an approved action on my part please contact me & I'll remove the link.

 

[Skier]

I'd be happy to have the following amendments made to the NFA:
Make cans available via a 4473.

Here's the link to the petition. I'm stymied as to why this doesn't have thousands more signatures and at the rate we're going we'll fail for sure.

My thoughts on the above two items.

For cans, I'd like see us use the same process and paperwork as basic ear plugs or shooting glasses.

As for why that "Repeal the NFA" petition doesn't have more signatures, I can only suspect that not many people know about it. Curiously, I've not seen anything from the NRA or OFF about it, so it probably just doesn't have the exposure it needs. I wrote OFF and asked about it a day or two ago (to see if they support/oppose it, as well as the "repeal the Hugh amendment" petition), but haven't heard back yet...

 

[HB of CJ]

Straying off subject here but to add to Skier's above post, WHY are we not hearing much or something from the August NRA about the petition to repeal the NFA completely? Anything heard?

Yep ... why should we compromise making common mufflers for guns still considered the same as a gun? Why consider ONLY a PARTIAL restoration of our Second Amendment guarantees? NRA?

 

[AirWolf]

I think it's important to point out that Schools K-12 and Universities are Public Buildings under Oregon Law and that without a CHL you can not carry a firearm on them. It's the CHL that grants you the exemption from that part of the statute.

 

[AirWolf]

Could they not open carry in a public building? Or, is it possibly in violation of one law to carry a gun without a CHL in a public building, but violating yet another law if it is loaded?

ORS 166.37 is pretty clear: 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.

Unless you have a CHL your committing a Felony.

 

[B3dlam]

Keep in mind if you're pulled over the officer run the plates before he approaches the vehicle assuming the vehicle is registered to you the fact that you have a permit is something they already know. Although Oregon doesn't have a requirement to notify a law enforcement officer like they do in Alaska (Up there it should pretty much be included in the first sentence out of your mouth something along the lines of "Good morning officer I would just like to notify you I do have a handgun with me today") Personally, I will stick to always notifying LEOs but to each their own.

 

[AJBello]

There is no requirement to inform a LEO that you are armed. IF you have a CHL that will pop up when the LEO runs your vehicle, if you are the registered owner, or when they run you specifically after contact if you are not the registered owner. Even if you are the registered owner there is not always time to run the vehicle before initial contact... it is a good practice officer safety wise but does not always happen. So do not assume they will always know if you have a CHL.

If you choose to volunteer this information there is no guarantee which way things will play out from there. MOST LIKELY, in Oregon, you will be thanked and things will be pretty low key, and you will probably get a warning only (depending on how egregious the violation was).

My advice: roll down windows, turn on interior lights, and hands on wheel at 10/2. Let the officer give you their initial spiel, then inform the officer that before you start reaching for your documents you want to inform them you have a CHL and are armed. They will instruct you from there. Be cool and courteous and they SHOULD do the same.

None of that is required though. You are always free to be difficult and all but guarantee getting the citation!

 

[HuckleberryFun]

I won't volunteer that I'm carrying, but will wait to be asked. Word has it some LEOs, especially in Portland, may take you bringing up (however politely) that you are armed as some kind of veiled threat. On the other hand my hands will stay on the wheel in plain view at all times.

 

[AJBello]

I won't volunteer that I'm carrying, but will wait to be asked. Word has it some LEOs, especially in Portland, may take you bringing up (however politely) that you are armed as some kind of veiled threat. On the other hand my hands will stay on the wheel in plain view at all times.

Word from who / where? Please share...

 

[gimpy51]

None of that is required though. You are always free to be difficult and all but guarantee getting the citation!

What was the date when it became being difficult to not share personal, private information with strangers? I understand my license, registration and proof of Insurance, but why is anything else required to be cooperative? Since when does the government have a right to know every personal and private detail of my life? I really don't care if the CCL is known, or not known before they come to my window. It really isn't any of their "legal" business. That badge does not come with a pass on any laws and Rights to ignore the Constitution. When does a cop, become the criminal? When they violate our laws, plain and simple for civilians.

 

[AJBello]

Hmmm... I believe most of these are rhetorical questions but I'll take them one at a time anyway...

What was the date when it became being difficult to not share personal, private information with strangers?
Your CHL is not personal private information.
side note: I personally believe the 2A should be the only "CHL" a Citizen should need to bear arms (carry concealed)... but that's neither here nor there.
By "difficult" I picture you telling some officer / deputy / trooper when they ask you if you are carrying today that it is "none of their legal business", to put it in your words. You are free to tell them that but you are starting in the hole by committing whatever violation initiated this hypothetical contact. Some courtesy and informing them up front will likely be returned with a warning, but it depends on the totality of the circumstances of course.

I understand my license, registration and proof of Insurance, but why is anything else required to be cooperative?
Not required, but appreciated. "Cooperative", in the sense that you appear to mean, is just not actively resisting I suppose. Volunteering that you are legally armed at the onset is beyond basic cooperation and again, appreciated. LEOs don't want to get shot in the face on a traffic stop and if you volunteer the info that's probably not a likely sequence of events.

Since when does the government have a right to know every personal and private detail of my life?
Rhetorical? Right? ...no? Don't know what to tell you...

I really don't care if the CCL is known, or not known before they come to my window. It really isn't any of their "legal" business.
Your CHL is their business, for better or worse. Beyond that we could get off in the weeds of Oregon Revised Statute and applicable case law about inquiring about weapons on a traffic stop, expanding the scope of the stop, etc, etc.
So... OK.

That badge does not come with a pass on any laws and Rights to ignore the Constitution.
You sir, are correct. "That badge" does however come with an enormous amount of responsibility and trust, and 99.9% of those who wear it try their damnedest to uphold it. You seem to have a different view (maybe I'm misreading that, always tough to know from typed words on the internet).
By "ignore the Constitution" in this context I think you mean CHL requirements, 2A implications, etc...? Unfortunately those requirements have been upheld legally so it is what it is.
Or maybe you're getting off on a tangent about LE in general? Don't know what to yell you...

When does a cop, become the criminal? When they violate our laws, plain and simple for civilians.
crim·i·nal
ˈkrim(ə)n(ə)l/
noun
1. a person who has committed a crime.

I agree with your assessment.

 

[gimpy51]

ORS 166.37 is pretty clear: or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon

So from the reading of this law, as presented, one could be charged for having a pen or pencil, or anything else that "could be" used as a dangerous weapon. "Any other instrument?" Leaves it very open to interpretation.

As for: "while in or on a public building"

Not exactly true. I'm in Klamath Falls. Our courthouse is a public building. However, my CC is legal, by law. However they will not comply. Note: Refusal to comply with state law.

As for: "Unless you have a CHL your committing a Felony

There are public buildings, notably the Circuit Courts and the Oregon Supreme Court (for instance) that do not exempt CC holders. But these exemptions are few.

 

[gimpy51]

Your CHL is not personal private information.

You completely miss spoke. While it is not "private" it is not generally available to the public.

By "difficult" I picture you telling some officer / deputy / trooper when they ask you if you are carrying today that it is "none of their legal business", to put it in your words.

I never said that. I said there is absolutely no reason to bring it up voluntarily, as if asking for permission. However, it is a crime to lie to the Po-Po. Not once did I say I would not be truthful. If they ask, I will likely answer. However, as is claimed, if they know before they get to my window, why are the asking? The CCL is public info, my carrying is not.

> You are free to tell them that but you are starting in the hole by committing whatever violation initiated this hypothetical contact. Some courtesy and informing them up front will likely be returned with a warning, but it depends on the totality of the circumstances of course.

Oh, I see, give them what they want and they will reward you with a free pass? Really? If I committed a crime/traffic offense, give me the ticket. A CCL is not intended to make you a member of the boy's club.

I understand my license, registration and proof of Insurance, but why is anything else required to be cooperative?
Not required, but appreciated.

Okay, then why won't they return the respect and answer my request for their personal information?

> "Cooperative", in the sense that you appear to mean, is just not actively resisting I suppose.

So doing what the law says I can, is now uncooperative? Kind of like the general change in attitude by LEO toward the citizens. I never had a problem with any conversation with LEO. But there is a huge difference between a conversation and questioning. If I'm being questioned, my answers are different.

Many say that refusing a "voluntary search" of your car when stopped for a traffic ticket is being suspicious and uncooperative. I think that is silly.

> LEOs don't want to get shot in the face on a traffic stop and if you volunteer the info that's probably not a likely sequence of events.

Oh, now I see. If I immediately inform him/her, that means they are suddenly safe. I get it. Bow to them, right or wrong. Okay.

> Since when does the government have a right to know every personal and private detail of my life?
Rhetorical? Right? ...no? Don't know what to tell you...

Nor will you answer the question.

> I really don't care if the CCL is known, or not known before they come to my window. It really isn't any of their "legal" business.
Your CHL is their business, for better or worse. Beyond that we could get off in the weeds of Oregon Revised Statute and applicable case law about inquiring about weapons on a traffic stop, expanding the scope of the stop, etc, etc.
So... OK.

If it is pertinent necessary info, why isn't it always listed when the run my vehicle or DL? Is it my job to give them everything they need? If so, then when I tell them I have a license, registration and insurance, why do they need to go back to the computer? If the state doesn't give them what they need, exactly who am I to say the legislature and voters are wrong.

> That badge does not come with a pass on any laws and Rights to ignore the Constitution.
You sir, are correct. "That badge" does however come with an enormous amount of responsibility and trust, and 99.9% of those who wear it try their damnedest to uphold it. You seem to have a different view (maybe I'm misreading that, always tough to know from typed words on the internet).

You have misread, sort of. I realize cops and a lot of other people have very dangerous jobs. They claim all kinds of danger, but the statistic say they are more likely to die driving to and from work. But let's not argue statistics here. Tow truck drivers, Crab Fisherman, Loggers, all have dangerous jobs. Cops are no more special than any other public employee, except in their benefits.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I have and have had great relationships with LEO in general and many specifics. However, my sister ( local nurse) with two teens and one preteen was (in a coma for years) killed by a rogue cop doing 80-100 mph down the main street, no code 3, no code 2, just in a hurry and not involved in any call. But he did have his rear amber lights on. T-boned my sister. Then sued her for personal injury. He was later fired for other causes and my sister died. PS: Not one cop, from near or far came to her funeral. However all local LEO had to go out of the area for hospital services for months.

> By "ignore the Constitution" in this context I think you mean CHL requirements, 2A implications, etc...? Unfortunately those requirements have been upheld legally so it is what it is.
Or maybe you're getting off on a tangent about LE in general? Don't know what to yell you...

You completely missed the point. The Constitution says I have a right to not answer any questions let alone personal info. It doesn't say that it'd be nice to tell the officer everything they ask about. If retaliation for standing up for my Rights is what you are referring to, then you and I will never agree. You don't seem to have a clear understanding of equal. If I am required to give them anything they they ask about, then it should be the same both ways. Why should they be protected by powerful Unions and give us nothing, but I have to give them anything and everything, otherwise I am being confrontational. I thought the Supreme Court has clarified this? Or doesn't LE recognize the Supreme Court?

When does a cop, become the criminal? When they violate our laws, plain and simple for civilians.
crim·i·nal
ˈkrim(ə)n(ə)l/
noun
1. a person who has committed a crime.

I agree with your assessment.

Thank you. Then it begs the question, when do we have the Right to protect ourselves from criminal activity and to what extent?

This is also kind of a hard discussion. Because I came from the big cities of CA. Now I live in rural Oregon. LEO in CA act like present day cops, so my opinion is a bit tainted as the above notes. However on the other side, LE in rural Oregon are what I consider closer to the cops I grew up with and nothing like (except uniforms) Big City or CA cops. I give my OR LEO far more respect, just because they are far more respectful.

I've been carrying legally and illegally my entire adult life. Since moving to OR, I am now 100% legal (because of my 25 round 10/22 magazine and a Gerber knife that is sharp on both sides of the blade) I don't have to fear anyone here. However, I have been taught to value and protect my privacy.

 

[AJBello]

Your point of view is very clear. Have a great day!

 

[gimpy51]

Be safe my friend. Grow old with family.

 

[GuyBMeredith]

Fellow members -

Three close relatives attended a firearms training / carry class yesterday. The instructors were retired LEO (one State & one local) and two retired military from Army / Air Force. My relatives were already experienced shooters but took the class so they can apply for carry permits.

...They were told by one of the retired LEO's that if an officer asks you're legally required to inform them if you're carrying & that they can then inspect your weapon and run the s/n.

Thanks in advance.

Run serial numbers? How many firearms are registered with serial numbers on file?

 

[etrain16]

Long thread with 2 very distinct topics - since I currently don't partake in anything NFA, yet, I'll stick with the question of CHL's and LEO's.

I've had my OR CHL since 1994. In that time, I've been pulled over 3 times, twice while carrying. If I'm carrying (which I didn't used to do every day), my rule has always been that I hand over my license and CHL at the same time - I already know the officer is going to likely know I have that CHL according to DMV records, so I'm not really doing anything but demonstrating I'm cooperative. In the 2 instances where I was carrying and I handed over my CHL, they did ask if I had my gun, I said yes, they asked where and I told them. Each time, they stayed calm and simply said leave the gun where it is. It's been polite on both sides and I've not seen any attitude or concern from the officers. The other time, when I wasn't carrying, I didn't hand over my CHL, but the officer asked whether I was carrying anyway - he knew I was a CHL holder before he got to the window.

Honestly, I think a CHL holder has to be of little concern to most LEO's. Simply looking at the number of CHL holders involved in crimes, it should be some level of assurance to an LEO that they're dealing with a CHL holder - knowing that person is more likely to be a law-abiding person (well, except for your traffic infraction), someone who is less likely to be a threat than someone who doesn't have the license.

I'm of the opinion that I don't like doing things that will escalate anything with an LEO. Traffic stops are hardly the time and place to try and take a stand or make some kind of statement. I'd rather just be on my way.

I do get why folks are opposed to offering up this info to the LEO's, and I don't think negatively of anyone who makes that decision. It's a very personal choice. I know what works for me, but that's not necessarily what works for someone else.

 

[Skier]

I've been stopped once since I got my CHL a few years ago. I was pulled over because my tags were expired. I actually had the new stickers in my glove compartment, but had stuffed the stickers in there after going to the DMV (I didn't put them on at DEQ, because I wanted to clean the area before sticking them on), then got side-tracked and forgot to put the stickers on, and they sat in the glove box for about 4 months before I was pulled over. Anyway, I handed him my license and CHL, he looked at both, then handed my CHL back to me and said "I don't need this." He didn't ask if I was carrying or where the gun was or anything. He asked me about my tags, I told him I actually had them in my glove box, but had forgotten to put them on. He went back to his car, did some stuff, then came back and told me that I should try not to forget next time or put them on right away (or something like that), and then asked me if there was anything stopping me from putting them on right now, and I said no, and he said something like "why don't you go ahead and do that," and he went back to his car and was there for a couple moments while I got out and cleaned my plate and placed my new sticker, then took off in the middle me doing that. No issues at all.

One other interesting side note, he was sitting kind of in the intersection of 185th and Evergreen; There's an area that has lines where you're not supposed to drive between lanes and he was just sitting there watching people. I usually see LEOs on the side of the road or something; Never seen any sittin kind of in the middle of the intersection like that before.

 

[gimpy51]

I always carry. I am always courteous and respectful of LEOs. The only difference is in my personal experience, after 66 years of seeing how things and attitudes have changed, I respectfully have learned to listen to the experts. Attorneys say to not volunteer anything. I guess the question to ask is, who would you trust more to protect you? A cop on the street or the attorney that you would hire to defend you? Or follow the lead of ANY and EVERY LEO involved in their own "incident," They do not speak until they have representation. If it's good enough for them, why do I think it is better to do what they won't?

Respect. That definition has changed over the years. Expectation is hedging toward blind obedience.