Concealed Carry and Portland Police

[Slowpoke]

Here we go, raised from the dead again.

 

[Dunerunner]

Here's my take:

Geezzz....March of '09!!

 

[nitestocker]

hay riot i can kinda agree with both here is how i feel about this if i was a cop and came to investigate something i would want everyone unarmed as well . but on the other hand if i was the person caring about my property and the police took my firearm. what if the person who broke in shot the cop and you were a witness and unarmed? you would be a dead witness .... i too believe that this is unconstitutional we a civilians and have a right to bare arms . just my opinion . the cops are going to do what ever they want though to be honest..... i just noticed this is a old post sorry

 

[Crispy]

1) I for one would not be pleased that the officer simply took my pistol from my person in the manner that you described without at least informing me of what he was going to do first.
2) I think that it is a little odd that he didn't ask to see your ID regardless of a weapons presence.

My .02

 

[hermannr]

The officer had no business taking you weapon. I would be insulted, and very unhappy...unhappy enough to file a formal complaint with his office. Officer safety my ***. If he/you want to be safe, do not remove it from the holster. Once it is out of the holster it is unsafe to anyone. In the holster it can hurt no-one.

Your rights were violated, yes, read the 4th ammendment of the US constitution and Oregon Constitution Article 1 Section 9.

Second thing...What was your buddy doing telling dispatch you were armed?

 

[Steve06]

I would get a new partner.

This.

 

[cyclesarge]

The officer had no business taking you weapon. I would be insulted, and very unhappy...unhappy enough to file a formal complaint with his office. Officer safety my ***. If he/you want to be safe, do not remove it from the holster. Once it is out of the holster it is unsafe to anyone. In the holster it can hurt no-one.

No doubt, imagine a negligent discharge while the cop is pulling YOUR gun, best case scenario you have a GSW. Worst case, they go all Mark Fuhrman on you, kill you and your partner and bury all the evidence. Haha, probably not likely but you get the idea.

Is it just ME or doesn't it seem like "wording" might be the root of the problem here. To ME armed means, I saw a threat and armed myself. Like I did when when at least 2 guys were whispering to each other in my backyard around 2:00 AM before I had my CHL. I armed myself with my pistol in case they were armed as well, and went to investigate.

In your case, when the officer asked if I was armed I would have said I have a CHL, and have the gun that I always carry, in my waistband. It may or MAY NOT make a difference, but I feel it would have eased the situation for the cops to know I wasn't armed in direct response to the threat (contrary to the way your partner made it sound).

The fact that the cop DIDN'T ask for your CHL, makes me think the cop assumed based on the statement of your partner, that you WEREN'T a CHL holder and just grabbed your gun to confront the situation.

 

[MarkAd]

No cop will be taking my weapon until the arrest me. Screw the "officer safety" fantasy. I will not be disarmed because I have no knowledge of his training either.
He has no authority over me until I am in custody.

 

[Redcap]

No cop will be taking my weapon until the arrest me. Screw the "officer safety" fantasy. I will not be disarmed because I have no knowledge of his training either.
He has no authority over me until I am in custody.

Agreed.

 

[badclam]

No cop will be taking my weapon until the arrest me. Screw the "officer safety" fantasy. I will not be disarmed because I have no knowledge of his training either.
He has no authority over me until I am in custody.

Ditto! I carry two guns most of the time. If asked if I'm packing I answer,I have a concealed permit. Then they say,I didn't ask if you have a permit, I asked if your packing. Then I say, I don't have to answer that. I also don't call the cops. Never has been productive for me. I understand the need for LE for other people. I don't need their help, so called help.

 

[billstaf]

badclam,

I tend to agree with you. I've been following the antics of the Portland police for some time now, and I'm not very impressed. I know there must be some good guys on the force, but I would still never call them to aid me in any way. The chances are too good that some badge happy cowboy or steroid popping crazy would show up. I'd rather take my chances with my own weapon and let the cops clean up the mess afterwards.

I've only been stopped once since I started carrying concealed and that was in Lincoln City. I handed the cop my CHL right along with my ODL. He asked if I was carrying and I said yes. That was it. He was very polite and professional. He also let me go without a traffic ticket. It is a whole different ballgame here in Portland. I don't think I would even mention to a Portland cop that I was carrying.

 

[Burt Gummer]

Doesn't the fact that you have a CHL come up as soon as a cop runs your license? Or your plate for that matter.

 

[4Freedom]

The cop shouldn't have took your gun and you should have not told 911 you had a gun.. Nonetheless, we as American citizens have the RKBA and we don't need big brother treating us like a helpless twit. And, FYI, there are many gun owners who have as much training (sometimes more) than LEO officers. If you have a conceal carry permit I don't think the government ever has the right to disarm you. I suppose Portland law supersedes our constitutional rights, correct? Considering, I am in Portland, my bonehead friend told the cops I am armed, I suppose I would have sat there and let this cop abuse my rights. If he demanded my gun, I may say, I am not the criminal, why should I be disarmed? You are disarming the wrong guy. If the officer commands me to stay away, I will listen. But, it doesn't make it right.

Just as with any dangerous situation, I won't pull my gun out and start shooting everyone. Perhaps, we shouldn't even be allowed to carry guns, if the mentality is that we are not trustworthy in situations where we may actually need a gun. I think the whole thing is stupid, but I understand the situation and mindset of Portland PD.

 

[Gunner3456]

I wouldn't have let him take my gun. The moment he got too close I would have backed away. If the cities in Oregon don't know it yet, the Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that they don't have authority over CHL holders when those holders have a license issued by the State. They may not prohibit STATE licensed people from carrying guns. This has to do with the STATE law and STATE constitution.

A license is a license. It's not a "permit" at the whim of Portland. It says right on it, "Concealed Handgun LICENSE, STATE OF OREGON.

We all know that Portland can't prohibit us from carrying if we have a STATE license.

The cop was out of line and I wouldn't have minded at all teaching him what my rights are, even if it cost him a lot of money and his job.

I will never again have my rights violated by a cop without pushing back. He would have lost this one. The farther he pushed it, the more it would have cost him and his department.

Did I ever mention that I hate most cops, LOL?

Period.

 

[Redcap]

I wouldn't have let him take my gun. The moment he got too close I would have backed away. If the cities in Oregon don't know it yet, the Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that they don't have authority over CHL holders when those holders have a license issued by the State. They may not prohibit STATE licensed people from carrying guns. This has to do with the STATE law and STATE constitution.

A license is a license. It's not a "permit" at the whim of Portland. It says right on it, "Concealed Handgun LICENSE, STATE OF OREGON.

We all know that Portland can't prohibit us from carrying if we have a STATE license.

The cop was out of line and I wouldn't have minded at all teaching him what my rights are, even if it cost him a lot of money and his job.

I will never again have my rights violated by a cop without pushing back. He would have lost this one. The farther he pushed it, the more it would have cost him and his department.

Did I ever mention that I hate most cops, LOL?

Period.

Preach it, brother!

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Can it, Blitz. No rights were violated. He gave the gun back. It was only secured until the officer was no longer needed.

For the time frame the weapon was removed the person in question had no ability to defend life and liberty

This is an issue I never back down from, so you can can it, pal

 

[Gunner3456]

Can it, Blitz. No rights were violated. He gave the gun back. It was only secured until the officer was no longer needed.

Can it Riot. See my post above. His rights and the LAW and the Oregon court rulings were violated all over the place. Portland MAY NOT stop state license holders from carrying and that's been so well established that I believe everyone on this forum knows it. Good grief.

The cop was out of line and violating the law, and I would have refused. I would not have resisted arrest if he pushed it, but then he and his department would have paid dearly for violating my rights and for false arrest.

If we don't stand up for our rights, we won't have rights.

 

[accessbob]

Just wondering if resisting at the time is the wrong thing to do and a lawsuit afterwards is the right thing. Given some of the outcomes of police interactions with CHL holders (including that recent killing of a CHL holder at a Costco, can't remember where off hand), it is best to comply immediately, state the objections after complying, and file a lawsuit about rights infringement later. But that's just my thinking.

 

[Gunner3456]

Just wondering if resisting at the time is the wrong thing to do and a lawsuit afterwards is the right thing. Given some of the outcomes of police interactions with CHL holders (including that recent killing of a CHL holder at a Costco, can't remember where off hand), it is best to comply immediately, state the objections after complying, and file a lawsuit about rights infringement later. But that's just my thinking.

No. Your resistance should be in the form of backing away and objecting verbally. Even state the law, reminding the officer that it's well established that the City of Portland can't stop a CHL holder from carrying. If the officer pushes it, ask him if you're under arrest. If he says "no," all is good. If he says "yes," don't resist.

You have to be damaged to get any award, and the worse the damages the more the reward. A jury isn't likely to find you badly damaged by losing your gun for a few minutes, but if you are arrested on false charges and actually cuffed and lose your freedom, you have a serious complaint.

My hunch is that the officer would back down if you backed up and made verbal objection, reminding the officer that the city has no power over you carrying. No need not to be polite, just firm.

If I was arrested and taken to jail, there could be no valid charges against me for refusing to obey a lawful order or any other thing. The city would get hit with a lawsuit within 48 hours. There would be at least one witness - my partner.

 

[hermannr]

Can it, Blitz. No rights were violated. He gave the gun back. It was only secured until the officer was no longer needed.

Riot: I see you have a problem with what is a "right"...First, may I remind you,, the idea that a cop may temporarily disarm someone for "officer safety" is first...is from a different state, and a federal court, and when a person has been detained on suspicion of a crime...the STATE constitution in OR (and WA) can be stronger in it's protections, and is, and that can and has been held up in STATE court.

Ever wonder what some states have roadblock sobriety checks...and some do not? Normally this has to do with the STATE constitution and STATE court interpretation of that STATE constitution....seizing your carry (your property) is seizing your person...you have at a minimum been detained if not arrested ..For why????

So, for the "rights" of a person, you can just go sit in the back of the bus.