Concealed carry on your own or private land???

[fd15k]

=============================================

You're turn to use the Google machine.

Haha, fair enough

 

[gunnails]

I wasn't making a factual statement. All I was saying there is some regulation in place, and one has to read the statute to figure out its reach.

============================================================
Oregon prohibits carrying concealed in public without CHL

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, sounded like a an absolute.

 

[beavertonbuck]

RCW 9.41.050: Carrying firearms.

Here is the link to the statute. Abode and fixed place of business are exempt from concealed carry law.

 

[gunnails]

RCW 9.41.050: Carrying firearms.

Here is the link to the statute. Abode and fixed place of business are exempt from concealed carry law.

===============================================

Good info, I will point out though that is for Washington State, not Oregon

 

[fd15k]

============================================================
Oregon prohibits carrying concealed in public without CHL

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, sounded like a an absolute.

Maybe it sounded, but I've clarified it for you. Are we good now ?

Okay, the exemption seems to be this one :

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;
...
...
(2) This section does not prohibit:
(b) Any citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides in or is temporarily sojourning within this state, and who is not within the excepted classes prescribed by ORS 166.270 and subsection (1) of this section, from owning, possessing or keeping within the person's place of residence or place of business any handgun, and no permit or license to purchase, own, possess or keep any such firearm at the person's place of residence or place of business is required of any such citizen. As used in this subsection, "residence" includes a recreational vessel or recreational vehicle while used, for whatever period of time, as residential quarters.

So the way I see it, hypothetical farmland would not be exempted. Second interesting observation, is that exemption does not apply to Permanent Residents (non-citizens) and non-immigrant aliens (those with a hunting license).

Perhaps there is more to it, but that's what my "trolling" was all about.

 

[james123]

Okay, the exemption seems to be this one :

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;
...
...
(2) This section does not prohibit:
(b) Any citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides in or is temporarily sojourning within this state, and who is not within the excepted classes prescribed by ORS 166.270 and subsection (1) of this section, from owning, possessing or keeping within the person’s place of residence or place of business any handgun, and no permit or license to purchase, own, possess or keep any such firearm at the person’s place of residence or place of business is required of any such citizen. As used in this subsection, “residence” includes a recreational vessel or recreational vehicle while used, for whatever period of time, as residential quarters.

So the way I see it, hypothetical farmland would not be exempted. Second interesting observation, is that exemption does not apply to Permanent Residents (non-citizens) and non-immigrant aliens (those with a hunting license).

Perhaps there is more to it, but that's what my "trolling" was all about.

According to my analysis on Oregon Firearm Laws, ORS 166.250 makes it illegal to carry concealed... anywhere. Please read below for a very in-depth understanding of how I came to this conclusion:

I've done considerable research on Oregon Concealed and Open Carry Laws. I've spent hours reading through ORS statutes and logically stepping through all of the ordinances in an attempt to understand what is explicitly prohibited, what is explicitly allowed, and what is allowed by virtue of absence, which is where English Case Law applies, as other posters have pointed out.

The law can be a daunting thing to understand, as some rules are not so clearly defined. While some lack of clarity affords the public many advantages, others do the opposite. In an attempt to answer the question "Can I carry concealed on my property without a permit", I'm going to list some statutes that support my answer to this question. For the purposes of eliminating confusion, let's limit this scope to just individuals who DO NOT possess a Concealed Handgun License.

Before we look at concealed carry, let's examine open carry, and why Oregon is considered to be an open carry state:

Open carry is legal in Clackamas County for two reasons:

1. Clackamas County does not specifically prohibit open carry of loaded weapons, with the exception of parks.

2. Oregon State Law specifically defines the scope of the authority of cities and counties to regulate possession of loaded firearms in public places.

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.
(2) Ordinances adopted under subsection (1) of this section do not apply to or affect:
(a) A law enforcement officer in the performance of official duty.
(b) A member of the military in the performance of official duty.
(c) A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.
(d) A person authorized to possess a loaded firearm while in or on a public building or court facility under ORS 166.370.
(e) An employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, acting within the scope of employment, who possesses a loaded firearm in the course of the lawful taking of wildlife. [1995 s.s. c.1 §4; 1999 c.782 §8; 2009 c.556 §3]
​

As per the above section, Clackamas County would have full authority by the state to pass laws banning open carry of loaded firearms. Since they do not have a regulation banning or allowing open carry, it is not illegal to carry openly in Clackamas County. Note, this assumes you are in the unincorporated areas of Clackamas County. Gladstone, for instance, has ordinances prohibiting the carry of loaded firearms.

Now, there's nothing in that section that limits the rights of the county to pass other regulations. This must be in writing. For instance, could Clackamas County make it illegal for residents to carry loaded weapons, open or concealed, on their own property? With just this state ordinance, the answer is yes! While this seems silly to allow open carry publicly but not privately, the law doesn't care about what's silly, just what's logical. ORS 177.173 in no way limits or expands the authority of the county to enact such an ordinance on private property!

However, there is one state law on the books that does prevent cities and counties from adopting such rules, the state preemption law. This is this law that helps ensure some consistency in terms of what rules cities and counties may adopt:

166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.
(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]
​

Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms ... is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.

Without the state preemption, local governments would be able to regulate firearm possession to the fullest extent of the powers granted to them by the US Constitution. The wording in the state preemption is a catch all. It limits the local government's power to regulate all firearm possession, which means Clackamas County cannot pass ordinances that regulate possession of firearms on private property. This applies to all local governments in the State of Oregon.

Now that we've looked at state preemption laws and the statutes limiting local governments' ability to regulate firearm possession, let's look at concealed carry. For the purposes of eliminating confusion, I'll only list the important parts of ORS 166.250:

166.250 Unlawful possession of firearms. (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 or section 5, chapter 826, Oregon Laws 2009, a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly:
(a) Carries any firearm concealed upon the person;
​

The very first subsection of ORS 166.250 specifies what constitutes unlawful possession. "Carries any firearm concealed upon the person.". This statement by itself says all that needs to be said. If you carry any firearm concealed on your person, you commit the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm.

Now, if you look at the first sentence in subsection 1 of ORS 166.250, it says "Except as otherwise provided in this section or ORS 166.260..." This implies that there are exceptions to the crime of unlawful possession. So, in order to determine if it really is unlawful to carry a concealed firearm, we must examine the list of those exceptions and locate one that explicitly allows the carry of concealed weapons.

That first sentence completely negates the English Law argument. By the State of Oregon specifically stating "a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly carries any firearm concealed upon the person.", the state effectively turns concealed carry into something that must specifically be allowed by one of the two state laws listed in the exceptions, ORS 166.250 or ORS 166.260.

With that said, let's examine the exceptions in ORS 166.250 or ORS 166.260. Subsection 2 of ORS 166.250 lists the exceptions:

(2) This section does not prohibit:
(a) A minor, who is not otherwise prohibited under subsection (1)(c) of this section, from possessing a firearm:
(A) Other than a handgun, if the firearm was transferred to the minor by the minor’s parent or guardian or by another person with the consent of the minor’s parent or guardian; or
(B) Temporarily for hunting, target practice or any other lawful purpose; or
(b) Any citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides in or is temporarily sojourning within this state, and who is not within the excepted classes prescribed by ORS 166.270 and subsection (1) of this section, from owning, possessing or keeping within the person’s place of residence or place of business any handgun, and no permit or license to purchase, own, possess or keep any such firearm at the person’s place of residence or place of business is required of any such citizen. As used in this subsection, “residence” includes a recreational vessel or recreational vehicle while used, for whatever period of time, as residential quarters.
(3) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section.
(4)(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection, a handgun is readily accessible within the meaning of this section if the handgun is within the passenger compartment of the vehicle.
(b) If a vehicle, other than a vehicle described in paragraph (c) of this subsection, has no storage location that is outside the passenger compartment of the vehicle, a handgun is not readily accessible within the meaning of this section if:
(A) The handgun is stored in a closed and locked glove compartment, center console or other container; and
(B) The key is not inserted into the lock, if the glove compartment, center console or other container unlocks with a key.
(c) If a vehicle is a motorcycle, an all-terrain vehicle or a snowmobile, a handgun is not readily accessible within the meaning of this section if:
(A) The handgun is in a locked container within or affixed to the vehicle; or
(B) The handgun is equipped with a trigger lock or other locking mechanism that prevents the discharge of the firearm.
(5) Unlawful possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. [Amended by 1979 c.779 §4; 1985 c.543 §3; 1989 c.839 §13; 1993 c.732 §1; 1993 c.735 §12; 1999 c.1040 §1; 2001 c.666 §§33,45; 2003 c.614 §8; 2009 c.499 §1; 2009 c.595 §112; 2009 c.826 §8a; 2011 c.662 §1]
​

(2) This section does not prohibit:
...
(b) Any citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides in or is temporarily sojourning within this state, and who is not within the excepted classes prescribed by ORS 166.270 and subsection (1) of this section, from owning, possessing or keeping within the person’s place of residence or place of business any handgun, and no permit or license to purchase, own, possess or keep any such firearm at the person’s place of residence or place of business is required of any such citizen. As used in this subsection, “residence” includes a recreational vessel or recreational vehicle while used, for whatever period of time, as residential quarters.

This exception states that ORS 166.250 doesn't prohibit a law-abiding citizen from owning, possessing, or keeping within the person's residence or business a handgun. Notice that the exception doesn't say anything about concealed carry in one's place of residence. Here's where this get's tricky. If the first rule of subsection 1 did not explicitly state that a person commits a crime if he or she "Carries any firearm concealed upon the person.", then nothing in sub-subsection b of subsection 2 would prohibit concealed carry on one's own property. But because the state law simply states "Carries any firearm concealed upon the person", there would need to exist some exemption to this rule.

The first sentence in the ordinance does not list a place where it's illegal to carry concealed. It very simply and very matter-of-factly states that a person commits a crime if he/she carries any firearm concealed upon the person. Period.

To help facilitate more understanding of ORS 166.250, note that the exceptions do not list police, military, and concealed handgun permit holders. In order to prevent loopholes when writing laws, lawmakers use a technique where they write the law in a manner that says "all forms of X are prohibited", and then that gives them the ability to write in specific exceptions to those prohibitions later.

Imagine if the lawmakers did the opposite and said something like "concealed carry is not prohibited except in the following circumstances:" In this example, in order for the law to exist in the same form it does currently, lawmakers would have to write thousands of ordinances to specifically prohibit all of the different ways someone can be in violation of ORS 166.250. By first disallowing concealed carry, they shorten the law to two subsections.

Now, we know there are of course regulations that grant police, military, and concealed handgun permit holders the right to carry concealed. This is ORS 166.260, which, if you've been paying attention so far, was listed as the other ordinance that defined exceptions to ORS 166.250:

166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250. (1) ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affect:
(a) Sheriffs, constables, marshals, parole and probation officers, police officers, whether active or honorably retired, or other duly appointed peace officers.
(b) Any person summoned by any such officer to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace, while said person so summoned is actually engaged in assisting the officer.
(c) The possession or transportation by any merchant of unloaded firearms as merchandise.
(d) Active or reserve members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard or Marine Corps of the United States, or of the National Guard, when on duty.
(e) Organizations which are by law authorized to purchase or receive weapons described in ORS 166.250 from the United States, or from this state.
(f) Duly authorized military or civil organizations while parading, or the members thereof when going to and from the places of meeting of their organization.
(g) A corrections officer while transporting or accompanying an individual convicted of or arrested for an offense and confined in a place of incarceration or detention while outside the confines of the place of incarceration or detention.
(h) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.
(2) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating ORS 166.250 (1)(c)(C) that the person has been granted relief from the disability under ORS 166.274.
(3) Except for persons who are otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm under ORS 166.250 (1)(c) or 166.270, ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affect:
(a) Members of any club or organization, for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets upon the established target ranges, whether public or private, while such members are using any of the firearms referred to in ORS 166.250 upon such target ranges, or while going to and from such ranges.
(b) Licensed hunters or fishermen while engaged in hunting or fishing, or while going to or returning from a hunting or fishing expedition.
(4) The exceptions listed in subsection (1)(b) to (h) of this section constitute affirmative defenses to a charge of violating ORS 166.250. [Amended by 1977 c.207 §1; 1991 c.67 §36; 1993 c.735 §1; 1995 c.670 §2; 1999 c.1040 §3; 2009 c.316 §2; 2009 c.499 §4]​

ORS 166.260 is an interesting law. It basically says Persons not affected by ORS 166.250. (1) ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affect, and then it lists all of the different categories of people who are not affected by ORS 166.250. Not only does this make it lawful for one of those people to carry concealed, it also rules out any other restriction that was applied by ORS 166.250. This includes the vehicle restriction, whether it's a crime to keep your little key in your gun lock when going to the range, whether or not your handgun is locked up in your car or even if it's readily accessible between the seat and the console. While I wouldn't recommend this, a concealed handgun holder could, in theory, carry a handgun between his knees while driving and not be in violation of ORS 166.250, simply because the act of having a concealed handgun permit renders ORS 166.250 invalid.

Remember, up to this point, we know that ORS 166.250 makes it a crime to carry concealed, and we have yet to see any exceptions that limit where the boundary of that concealed carry law exists (except for non CHP permit holders). If you look down the list of people in ORS 166.260, you will see no mention of homeowners on that list. Not anywhere in ORS 166.260 does it state that ORS 166.250 does not apply to people on their own private property or place of business. ORS 166.260 does not list any exception to ORS 166.250 for people while they're on their own property or place of business..

Thus, if you were to make a flow chart diagram for these laws, it would appear that the answer to "Can I carry concealed on my own property" is no.

Now that the analysis is complete, let's look at this very interesting exception to ORS 166.250:

(a) Members of any club or organization, for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets upon the established target ranges, whether public or private, while such members are using any of the firearms referred to in ORS 166.250 upon such target ranges, or while going to and from such ranges.​

If you are a member of any club or organization involved in target shooting on established target ranges, whether public or private, while using firearms described in ORS 166.250, as per ORS 166.260, you are are exempt from ORS 166.250. Remember the first sentence of ORS 166.260: "Persons not affected by ORS 166.250. . The law stating it is unlawful for a person who "Carries any firearm concealed upon the person." is part of ORS 166.250. Therefore, one could logically interpret ORS 166.260 to say that if you're coming home from the range, or going to the range, and you're a member of that club or organization, you can carry concealed on your person. After all, you're exempt from ORS 166.250 during that time. The law says so in black and white!

Most likely, that is a huge loophole in the law. I wouldn't suggest trying it; however, should you be arrested for violating ORS 166.250 while coming home from the range, I'd say a good lawyer could probably get the charges dropped for you.

Now that you've read my analysis on Oregon Firearm Laws, what do you think? Did I miss anything? Should Oregon residents be able to carry concealed on their property? How could an exemption be put in ORS 166.250 for carrying concealed on one's own property? What would be involved in convincing the legislature to amend ORS 166.250 to add an exception for concealed possession in the home and business?

 

[gunnails]

According to my analysis on Oregon Firearm Laws, Now that you've read my analysis on Oregon Firearm Laws, what do you think? Did I miss anything? Should Oregon residents be able to carry concealed on their property? How could an exemption be put in ORS 166.250 for carrying concealed on one's own property? What would be involved in convincing the legislature to amend ORS 166.250 to add an exception for concealed possession in the home and business?

========================================================

Welcome to the board, and I appreciate the effort you put forth in you're first post.

 

[fd15k]

...

Thanks for putting your time into this. One critical thing you're missing is definition of "keeping" and "possessing" as used by the courts. Ideally we would need a bunch of case law related to the statutes above, as it's not going to give a full picture if we are just trying to deduce from the text of the law. Another thing that courts often look at is called "legislative intent". Again, that may very well affect any attempt to convict a person under those statutes.

 

[fd15k]

Here is a quick follow-up :

Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, ORS 166.250, for carrying a concealed weapon without a license while working as an employee at a convenience store. As a defense to that charge, defendant argued that his actions fell within the statutory "place of business" exception to the general requirement that persons carrying concealed weapons must have a license. The trial court rejected that argument, concluding that the exception did not apply to defendant because he was not the owner of the convenience store. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Oregon Judicial Department Appellate Court Opinions

This basically supports my earlier claims that the laws can't be examined in a vacuum.

 

[samuelm16]

you can carry concealed to and from and while engaging in outdoor activities fishing,hiking hunting.... so you are just hiking on your property

 

[fd15k]

you can carry concealed to and from and while engaging in outdoor activities fishing,hiking hunting.... so you are just hiking on your property

Couple of things. I'm not sure where you found "hiking", but to claim fishing or hunting exemption one would likely need to show fishing or hunting license, as well as show other evidence of being prepared for such activities. Also one wouldn't be able to stop at a laundromat or pickup kids from school (especially since this one would be a violation of Federal law) while "on his way to or from a hunting/fishing".

 

[samuelm16]

Couple of things. I'm not sure where you found "hiking", but to claim fishing or hunting exemption one would likely need to show fishing or hunting license, as well as show other evidence of being prepared for such activities. Also one wouldn't be able to stop at a laundromat or pickup kids for school (especially since this one would be a violation of Federal law) while "on his way to or from a hunting/fishing".

good catch you are right

 

[hermannr]

Basically, your private property and your business properties are exempt from RCW 9.41 or ORS 166. If you will look in RCW 9.41.042, this exemption even goes so far as "under age 18" goes too.

Most (but not all) firearm laws in OR and WA deal with carry in "public", not on your private grounds. One exception to this is pointing a gun at someone that is trespassing on your property, but not in your house. You have to be a bit careful about doing that, but there are exemptions to that also.

 

[fd15k]

Basically, your private property and your business properties are exempt from RCW 9.41 or ORS 166. If you will look in RCW 9.41.042, this exemption even goes so far as "under age 18" goes too.

You're not adding anything new. Based on the reading of the law and without additional case law, not all private properties seem to be exempt.

 

[Bob D]

fd15k, I went to nationals with the debate team in high school. I think your little workshop on proper intelligent discourse here has been hilariously awesome. In particular, this quotation:

Google, analyze, and make a point.

is awesome.

 

[unklekippy]

I once let an employee go and he threatened my life. I was 99.999% sure that it was venting frustration, but that .001% does happen. The police were called and came to our office to take a report. I did not pursue any restraining order, but I wanted it documented that the threat was made in the event that something did happen. The officer came to my office and while I was being interviewed I lifted my shirt to show him my .45 and to confirm that since I was on private property at my workplace(and not the owner, that was clarified) that I was within my legal rights. He did not bat an eye at my pistol because I gave him proper warning and description before even showing it to him. He verified that if my employer did not object to my carrying that I was within my rights. Of course he could have been wrong, but this is an exact example of carrying concealed on private property. My office is 2 blocks from the Willamette, right in Portland to be clear. As far as concealed carry in general is concerned, I have never understood why it is that I must ask for permission to be granted for one of my inalienable rights. I have no criminal record. I have never had so much as a parking ticket. I will carry when and where I choose(within reason). I do not carry openly to prove a point or as a statement. I carry to defend myself and my family if necessary. No law, new or old, will ever stop me from doing that. Kip.

 

[fd15k]

He verified that if my employer did not object to my carrying that I was within my rights. Of course he could have been wrong, but this is an exact example of carrying concealed on private property. My office is 2 blocks from the Willamette, right in Portland to be clear. As far as concealed carry in general is concerned, I have never understood why it is that I must ask for permission to be granted for one of my inalienable rights. I have no criminal record. I have never had so much as a parking ticket. I will carry when and where I choose(within reason). I do not carry openly to prove a point or as a statement. I carry to defend myself and my family if necessary. No law, new or old, will ever stop me from doing that. Kip.

I think it's more appropriate to say he verified you were within the law, as opposed to rights You haven't mentioned whether you had a CHL though.... had you ? And yes, if you had no CHL, the officers might have been wrong, based on the case law I cited above. Now there could have been another case of course, that further expanded the meaning of business exemption, I'm still digging through that stuff. By the way, another possible variable could be whether the business is open to the public or not.

As for why need to ask for permission... Rights as we know them are invented by the government, and government also invented a way to put restrictions on them. Kind of like God gives, God takes situation

 

[fd15k]

good catch you are right

Found an actual case for that :

"Under your argument, any day he wanted to go to work and plan on that day going to the firing range, he would be able to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, as long as he just felt, well, today I'll go shoot so I'll carry this with me or, perhaps, even tomorrow I'll go shoot. But I plan on going up, I'll just carry it with me until I happen to get there tomorrow."

Defendant was found guilty by the jury and appeals.

FindACase™ | State v. Honzel

 

[unklekippy]

You can "interpret" things many ways. As long as officers of the law understand my right to defend myself rationally, I am more than ready to explain myself to a jury or judge in the case that I am found to be carrying or using a firearm illegally. My case will be tried just as all the others that contradict each other, on an individual basis. Laws are created by governments. Rights, such as the one to defend myself and my family, are created by my existence. I don't carry at my son's school. I don't carry at the hospital. As far as whether or not I have a CHL, it is concealed for a reason and will stay that way. I only wanted to present an exact example of an officer of the law acknowledging my right to defend my life within reason. He did not question a CHL, because it was not necessary given the circumstances.

 

[fd15k]

You can "interpret" things many ways. As long as officers of the law understand my right to defend myself rationally, I am more than ready to explain myself to a jury or judge in the case that I am found to be carrying or using a firearm illegally. My case will be tried just as all the others that contradict each other, on an individual basis. Laws are created by governments. Rights, such as the one to defend myself and my family, are created by my existence. I don't carry at my son's school. I don't carry at the hospital. As far as whether or not I have a CHL, it is concealed for a reason and will stay that way. I only wanted to present an exact example of an officer of the law acknowledging my right to defend my life within reason. He did not question a CHL, because it was not necessary given the circumstances.

I also acknowledge your right... to spend money on a defense lawyer