DMV offices across Oregon post signs prohibiting guns

[Trlsmn]

The story in the Oregonian stated that this was prompted by the AFSME-a state employee union- who cited a car jacking of a car salesman on a test drive as justifacation. LAME.

So proof that unions control the government?

 

[The Quiet Man]

I am confused by their "last straw" argument (today's Oregonian article) re: a DMV tester potentially being held up at gunpoint while administering a driving test. I'll admit I never had to take the driving portion of the licensing test in Oregon, but where I, my wife, and my kids took their driving tests (Minnesota and Colorado), we had to provide our own car to take the test in. Does Oregon provide a state owned vehicle for new drivers to take their test in? If not, do they think someone would steal their own car? ... or hold up the DMV employee for his/her wallet? Just kind of confusing to me

 

[pchewn]

I'm also confused. If their fear is that a bad guy will pull a gun during a test drive, doesn't that test drive occur OUTSIDE the building?

Outside of the building, in a private car, this law does not apply and has no effect. This DOES NOT stop any person from having the gun with him or in his car during the driving test.

 

[The Quiet Man]

I'm also confused. If their fear is that a bad guy will pull a gun during a test drive, doesn't that test drive occur OUTSIDE the building?

Outside of the building, in a private car, this law does not apply and has no effect. This DOES NOT stop any person from having the gun with him or in his car during the driving test.

Yes, and that's not even considering the fact the the DMV has no legal authority to make their own gun laws or supercede the existing concealed carry/open carry statutes.

 

[Key-Hay]

Glad to see our state government spend more money trying to make a point. An incorrect point as usual. Who do we have to barrage with E-mails to rub their noses in it.

 

[Stomper]

LOL... you better pass me on this field driving test or I'm gonna blow your B***s off!!


This is a STUPID action... I heard the OFF dude interviewed on the radio today, and he said OFF won't do anything because it's current law, and merely makes it illegal for anyone illegally carrying a firearm to bring it into the DMV office.... LMAO!!!

From now on I shall refer to the "D-M-V" in the "Carlos Mencia" sense.... DEE DEE DEEEEE!!

 

[LCDR]

Received a reply back from DMV yesterday to my email. They are in the process of correcting the signs. They did not address the question about the people that are exempt by ORS 166.370. If the new sign references 166.370 then, I believe, they would also be acknowledging the exceptions including CHL holders. I'll wait to see what the new sign says before taking any more action.

The reply back from OFF was esentially the same as they addressed on the radio. My only question about that is that this sign, at least to me, is the same type of situation that OFF addressed in several instances on their website concerning incorrect postings around the state.

Personally I would prefer to see something back from DMV stating that they understand the limitiations imposed by Oregon law on their placing restrictions on firearms in their facilities.

 

[R-Rizzo]

The story in the Oregonian stated that this was prompted by the AFSME-a state employee union- who cited a car jacking of a car salesman on a test drive as justifacation. LAME.

Not like this matters to anyone other then myself, but since I'm O.C.D. AFAIK, DMV/ODOT are not covered by AFSME, they are covered by SEIU 503. This whole story doesn't add up. I dont under stand what a Car Salesman on a "Test Drive" has to do with DMV at all. I dont know if they are confused with a DMV employee on a "Driving Test"? Who knows....

 

[Stomper]

Are you SURE they're under SEIU? I thought that was janitors, laborers, and some catagoies of healthcare types in that union... hmmmmm.

 

[Woodswalker]

The story in the Oregonian stated that this was prompted by the AFSME-a state employee union- who cited a car jacking of a car salesman on a test drive as justifacation. LAME.

Sounds like they cannot get their story straight for one thing, and a whole PILE of handwringing and what-iffing on the Sheople side of things.

Rabbits running into the corners.

 

[giddyupgo55]

If you have a CHL they cannot stop you from carrying in DMV. This was even addressed on the Lars Larson show yesterday

 

[Scott]

Am I just wrong in thinking that everybody feels they can carry a gun where ever they want? First of all, places that we go everyday and I mean businesses can set what ever demands they feel like. If you owned a business you have the right to choose to let people carry or not. All stores are private and have the right to set their own rules no matter what. What's wrong with obeying their wishes? Just think of the liability if something happened? I am all for support with carrying legally and also following the wishes of the business. Just like Keith's, I went and purchased 3 guns the other day and I always see the sign no loaded firearms so I take out my mag and go in. What's the big deal. If a place says no firearms I respect their wishes. It just seems like a lot of people feel like they can take a gun anywhere they choose or want with disreguard to the signs. I maybe the only one who feels this way but it is not our property and we don't have the right to carry anywhere we want but many seem to think so.

Again this is just my thoughts and I respect everybody's opinion but reality is businesses can make any rules they want just like no shoes, no shirt, no service. It that against the law? If someone doesn't like just don't go.

Scott

 

[MountainBear]

Am I just wrong in thinking that everybody feels they can carry a gun where ever they want? First of all, places that we go everyday and I mean businesses can set what ever demands they feel like. If you owned a business you have the right to choose to let people carry or not. All stores are private and have the right to set their own rules no matter what. What's wrong with obeying their wishes? Just think of the liability if something happened? I am all for support with carrying legally and also following the wishes of the business. Just like Keith's, I went and purchased 3 guns the other day and I always see the sign no loaded firearms so I take out my mag and go in. What's the big deal. If a place says no firearms I respect their wishes. It just seems like a lot of people feel like they can take a gun anywhere they choose or want with disreguard to the signs. I maybe the only one who feels this way but it is not our property and we don't have the right to carry anywhere we want but many seem to think so.

Again this is just my thoughts and I respect everybody's opinion but reality is businesses can make any rules they want just like no shoes, no shirt, no service. It that against the law? If someone doesn't like just don't go.

Scott

I have a legal right based on the US Constitution to not only keep arms, but to bear them in protection of myself as well. I do not feel bound to obey signs that do not have legal backing. I obey do not carry in federal buildings because it is law. But when a private business posts the signs, I choose not to obey. Legally, all they can do is ask me to leave. And if they choose to do so, I will leave, no questions asked, and then make it my mission to let every other law-abiding, gun-carrying individual in the state know that they are not interested in the safety of their customers, and they aren't concerned with not trampling on people's constitutional rights...

Their rights on their private property have nothing to do with my right to defend myself, particularly if I properly carry concealed. They will never know and it will not be an issue...

 

[Riot]

Am I just wrong in thinking that everybody feels they can carry a gun where ever they want? First of all, places that we go everyday and I mean businesses can set what ever demands they feel like. If you owned a business you have the right to choose to let people carry or not. All stores are private and have the right to set their own rules no matter what. What's wrong with obeying their wishes? Just think of the liability if something happened? I am all for support with carrying legally and also following the wishes of the business. Just like Keith's, I went and purchased 3 guns the other day and I always see the sign no loaded firearms so I take out my mag and go in. What's the big deal. If a place says no firearms I respect their wishes. It just seems like a lot of people feel like they can take a gun anywhere they choose or want with disreguard to the signs. I maybe the only one who feels this way but it is not our property and we don't have the right to carry anywhere we want but many seem to think so.

Again this is just my thoughts and I respect everybody's opinion but reality is businesses can make any rules they want just like no shoes, no shirt, no service. It that against the law? If someone doesn't like just don't go.

Scott

What's the big deal? The big deal is that these same establishments don't have their own security, nor will they take the liability of your personal safety into consideration. Many firearm manufacturers get sued all the time for things that people do with their guns...

It's like these guys are telling you to leave the keys in your car with the car unlocked, but won't take the blame when your car gets stolen. I carry a gun to protect myself and I expect nobody else to take that responsibility for my safety but me. But if you deny me the opportunity to do that, you should have some measures to protect me.

So here's the bottom line...criminals don't care how many laws they break. They don't care about the signs and RCW/ORS codes posted on the front of establishments...if they want to shoot up a place they will. The only thing that will stop someone from doing this is with equal force or the threat of equal force...that is it.

 

[sdlsaginaw]

I can respect it if the sign is an honest "I don't want firearms in my establishment" statement (ineffective, I know).

I believe most of the signs are due to insurance CYA should an incident occur ("Your honor, our policyholder stated no guns were allowed"). Thus, we're being disarmed not because of the desires of the business owner, but because an actuarial at an insurance corporation somewhere else says it's mathematically a better risk (for them).

Am I just wrong in thinking that everybody feels they can carry a gun where ever they want? First of all, places that we go everyday and I mean businesses can set what ever demands they feel like. If you owned a business you have the right to choose to let people carry or not. All stores are private and have the right to set their own rules no matter what. What's wrong with obeying their wishes? Just think of the liability if something happened? I am all for support with carrying legally and also following the wishes of the business. Just like Keith's, I went and purchased 3 guns the other day and I always see the sign no loaded firearms so I take out my mag and go in. What's the big deal. If a place says no firearms I respect their wishes. It just seems like a lot of people feel like they can take a gun anywhere they choose or want with disreguard to the signs. I maybe the only one who feels this way but it is not our property and we don't have the right to carry anywhere we want but many seem to think so.

Again this is just my thoughts and I respect everybody's opinion but reality is businesses can make any rules they want just like no shoes, no shirt, no service. It that against the law? If someone doesn't like just don't go.

Scott

 

[Father of four]

I have a legal right based on the US Constitution to not only keep arms, but to bear them in protection of myself as well. Everywhere in the USA! Unless it is PRIVATE property.
I obey do not carry in federal buildings because it is law.
There should not be a law that tells us Citizens we cannot defend ouselves in a government building or on government property. The government should work for us. Not us for them. That law should have never passed and needs to be obolished!
And if they choose to do so, I will leave, no questions asked, and then make it my mission to let every other law-abiding, gun-carrying individual in the state know that they are not interested in the safety of their customers, and they aren't concerned with not trampling on people's constitutional rights...
And the government is?

Their rights on their private property have nothing to do with my right to defend myself, particularly if I properly carry concealed. They will never know and it will not be an issue...

The right to protect ourselves should not be limited in public places like that. In private places, sure. If the property owners said so we should do as they wish. The government property is paid for and owned by the citizens. Does the employee tell the Boss where He/She can and cannot go? Our rights are only giving to us if we stay within a law that is passed by our employees? THE GOVERNMENT IS FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE! Remember they work for us? But we cant carry our protection in (their) buildings? Something just isnt right there.

 

[Father of four]

Its just like the (law) passed in Portland saying that inside a Citizens car is (public) and a person cannot have a loaded mag/clip in the city limits(unless they have permission from the state). I wonder? Were those two (laws) thought up and made for the Citizens, with the Citizens approval? Could/can the Citizens vote on them? Do we have the right to have them remove a law if we do not want it?

Going into the DMV with a firearm. Do we have the right to tell them what we want them to do and expect them to do as we want them too?

Here maybe would be a start: http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/legal-political/39070-time-gun-up-say-no-tax-requests.html

 

[Abiqua]

Am I just wrong in thinking that everybody feels they can carry a gun where ever they want? First of all, places that we go everyday and I mean businesses can set what ever demands they feel like. If you owned a business you have the right to choose to let people carry or not. All stores are private and have the right to set their own rules no matter what. What's wrong with obeying their wishes? Just think of the liability if something happened? I am all for support with carrying legally and also following the wishes of the business. Just like Keith's, I went and purchased 3 guns the other day and I always see the sign no loaded firearms so I take out my mag and go in. What's the big deal. If a place says no firearms I respect their wishes. It just seems like a lot of people feel like they can take a gun anywhere they choose or want with disreguard to the signs. I maybe the only one who feels this way but it is not our property and we don't have the right to carry anywhere we want but many seem to think so.

Again this is just my thoughts and I respect everybody's opinion but reality is businesses can make any rules they want just like no shoes, no shirt, no service. It that against the law? If someone doesn't like just don't go.

Scott

What does this have to do with the original topic of this thread?

 

[deen_ad]

Am I just wrong in thinking that everybody feels they can carry a gun where ever they want? First of all, places that we go everyday and I mean businesses can set what ever demands they feel like. If you owned a business you have the right to choose to let people carry or not. All stores are private and have the right to set their own rules no matter what. What's wrong with obeying their wishes? Just think of the liability if something happened? I am all for support with carrying legally and also following the wishes of the business. Just like Keith's, I went and purchased 3 guns the other day and I always see the sign no loaded firearms so I take out my mag and go in. What's the big deal. If a place says no firearms I respect their wishes. It just seems like a lot of people feel like they can take a gun anywhere they choose or want with disreguard to the signs. I maybe the only one who feels this way but it is not our property and we don't have the right to carry anywhere we want but many seem to think so.

Again this is just my thoughts and I respect everybody's opinion but reality is businesses can make any rules they want just like no shoes, no shirt, no service. It that against the law? If someone doesn't like just don't go.

Scott

a private company has the right to post "No Firearms Allowed", you can choose to ignore them or not. If you choose to ignore the signs the only thing the company can do is ask you to leave, if you refuse then and only then can they call a LEO. But first they have to find out you have a weapon, if carrying concealed how are they going to know?
In the case of the DMV, they have to follow the laws also, they are NOT allowed to make up their own rules. The law specifically states that permit holders have a perfect defense against the law.
Another thing is that NO SIGN OR LAW is effective against a criminal that has the intent of robbing, killing or what ever. The person is a criminal because s/he doesn't follow laws!!

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
SWWAC member

 

[Stomper]

I'll bet the first time the people in a "no guns allowed" establishment have their arses saved by a CHL holder who pops a "rampaging shootist" will be singing praises to the CHL holder.

You remeber that incident in Tualatin where the guy went into the medical testing office, shot his estranged wife and a lab tech, but let a guy sitting in the waiting room go before he did it? I've been to that place before, and was there recently to submit for random workplace UA (required by Intel). I was armed, and would have been then, had I been the guy in the waiting room during that day... who knows how that story might have ended.

Its funny how people (in general) fail to actually think things through before they knee-jerk.