Entering a No Guns Business May equal Trespass and Removal of CHL .

[Local Loader]

So, to clarify a few things.
If a business properties or private properties whether owned by a person or business has a sign that is posted stating "no firearms" or "no weapons" it is a no go. You will normally be asked to leave but if you refuse it's an automatic Class A Misdemeanor and could/would cost you your CHL.
As for trespassing, you can be served a trespass even if you are asked to leave and you comply. What happens is that if you return, then you will be arrested, firearm or no firearm. Normally a time frame is given as to the duration of the trespass(few weeks upto permanent).
As for bar/taverns I am not aware of any law that prohibited carrying in them but proceed with caution and do your due diligence on it first.

 

[Local Loader]

I'm not familiar with those, but that would be odd if that has survived thus far any legal challenge. If you need a permit to open AND conceal carry, that's a permit to exercise a right and is undeniably unconstitutional. The reason they get away with conceal carry permit crap is because it's not stopping you from legally open carrying.

There are states that require a CHL/CWL to carry regardless and it has set a president that would unfortunately hold up in court. Reason being is that you have to go through the same background process for CHL/CWL as you would to purchase without one with the only difference being that you take a course. So they don't see it as a blockage to owning.(I still do but that's me)
So the only exceptions I've found to this is, bolt long gun can still be open carry but that's still border line close to prohibiting in my opinion.

 

[Howard1955]

How would anyone know you're carrying, if your weapon is well concealed?

Metal detector? Angry ex?

 

[Local Loader]

How would anyone know you're carrying, if your weapon is well concealed?

Metal detector? Angry ex?

Some places like malls use sniffer dogs but not sure how reliable they are since there are probably a dozen different ways to trick them.

 

[AirgunAce]

How would anyone know you're carrying, if your weapon is well concealed?

"well concealed" is a POV.

 

[Member 84438]

The only relevant statute I know of that supports this is ORS 164.265.

"A person commits the crime of criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises."

What does "enter or remain unlawfully" mean? Thankfully there is a section of the law which describes what that means. ORS 164.205

(3)"Enter or remain unlawfully" means:
(a)To enter or remain in or upon premises when the premises, at the time of such entry or remaining, are not open to the public and when the entrant is not otherwise licensed or privileged to do so;
(b)To fail to leave premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed to do so by the person in charge;
(c)To enter premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed not to enter the premises; or
(d)To enter or remain in a motor vehicle when the entrant is not authorized to do so.

I guess the question becomes if signage posted outside a business falls into the category is a lawful directive not to enter (3)(c)? I would think not because generally the signs don't deny you entry, they just say firearms are prohibited. Telling you that you can't bring a gun is not the same thing as saying you can't enter. I've never heard of any case of anyone getting arrested on sight for ignoring one of those no firearms signs. I have heard of someone being arrested for refusing to leave after being told to leave because they were carrying a gun. I also don't know any cop who is going to arrest for mere possession of a properly licensed, concealed firearm in a private business without any other aggravating factors.

I should note this is applying particularly to private property which are premises open to the public. For public buildings there are a different set of laws.

 

[Local Loader]

The only relevant statute I know of that supports this is ORS 164.265.

"A person commits the crime of criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises."

What does "enter or remain unlawfully" mean? Thankfully there is a section of the law which describes what that means. ORS 164.205

(3)"Enter or remain unlawfully" means:
(a)To enter or remain in or upon premises when the premises, at the time of such entry or remaining, are not open to the public and when the entrant is not otherwise licensed or privileged to do so;
(b)To fail to leave premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed to do so by the person in charge;
(c)To enter premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed not to enter the premises; or
(d)To enter or remain in a motor vehicle when the entrant is not authorized to do so.

I guess the question becomes if signage posted outside a business falls into the category is a lawful directive not to enter (3)(c)? I would think not because generally the signs don't deny you entry, they just say firearms are prohibited. Telling you that you can't bring a gun is not the same thing as saying you can't enter. I've never heard of any case of anyone getting arrested on sight for ignoring one of those no firearms signs. I have heard of someone being arrested for refusing to leave after being told to leave because they were carrying a gun. I also don't know any cop who is going to arrest for mere possession of a properly licensed, concealed firearm in a private business without any other aggravating factors.

I should note this is applying particularly to private property which are premises open to the public. For public buildings there are a different set of laws.

This was provided by the Clackamas County Sheriffs Office on their Q&A for CHL.

 

[Koda]

This was provided by the Clackamas County Sheriffs Office on their Q&A for CHL.
View attachment 1460914View attachment 1460912

It's not helping that our own Sheriff's don't know how to explain the law....

 

[Local Loader]

It's not helping that our own Sheriff's don't know how to explain the law....

Oregon law does state that if a business or property is posted "no firearms" or "no weapons" and you still enter, you can be charged with "criminal trespass" as the sign is treated as your warning, making you duly informed.
Most places will just ask you to leave to avoid a scene or possibly panic.

 

[Koda]

Oregon law does state that if a business or property is posted "no firearms" or "no weapons" and you still enter, you can be charged with "criminal trespass" as the sign is treated as your warning, making you dully informed.
Most places will just ask you to leave to avoid a scene or possibly panic.

Then there's some real confusion on understanding the law withing the CHL community.
In Oregon, signs are not supposed to carry any weight of the law, or it would have to be written in the law itself.

The current concensus is you have to first be asked to leave, then refuse to do so immediately. Only then can you be charged.


I've never heard of any local case law on this...

 

[Local Loader]

Then there's some real confusion on understanding the law withing the CHL community.
In Oregon, signs are not supposed to carry any weight of the law, or it would have to be written in the law itself.

The current concensus is you have to first be asked to leave, then refuse to do so immediately. Only then can you be charged.


I've never heard of any local case law on this...

So yes the sign doesn't carry any weight of law, but it can serve as a warning when posted at the entrance of a business or property.
The way the courts have been treating it, is that the sign is the same as being asked to leave by the owner. Being that they clearly stated that it is not allowed.
As stated by judges in the past "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and it's best to do your due diligence. The burden of knowing if you can carry in a business or property has been placed on the firearm owner(back a$$words to me but it is).

 

[Koda]

So yes the sign doesn't carry any weight of law, but it can serve as a warning when posted at the entrance of a business or property.
The way the courts have been treating it, is that the sign is the same as being asked to leave but the owner. Being that they clearly stated that it is not allowed.
As stated by judges in the past "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and it's best to do your due diligence. The burden of know if you can carry in a business or property has been placed on the firearm owner(back a$$words to me but it is).

I haven't heard of any actual court rulings on this.

I don't see how the sign would even be admissible if it's not written in the law.

 

[Local Loader]

I haven't heard of any actual court rulings on this.

I don't see how the sign would even be admissible if it's not written in the law.

A "no weapons" or "no firearms" is treated the same as a "no trespassing" and carrys the same weight of warning.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/or-gun-laws/

On the list of restricted areas USCCA also lists posted properties. I haven't looked to far into it, but they list SB 554 as the backing for posted properties.

 

[ColeInOregon]

I'm not familiar with those, but that would be odd if that has survived thus far any legal challenge. If you need a permit to open AND conceal carry, that's a permit to exercise a right and is undeniably unconstitutional. The reason they get away with conceal carry permit crap is because it's not stopping you from legally open carrying.

Astoria, Beaverton, and Gladstone all have restrictions on loaded open carry as well as restrictions on loaded weapons in vehicles, and so far, they have all stood. I do only know of one person being ticketed for this and believe it was reduced as the person was on the way to the range, and I have never seen an LEO check someone that was open carrying so it may all be pointless anyway.

LOCAL GUN CODES – Oregon Firearms Federation

 

[Member 53328]

I'm not familiar with those, but that would be odd if that has survived thus far any legal challenge. If you need a permit to open AND conceal carry, that's a permit to exercise a right and is undeniably unconstitutional. The reason they get away with conceal carry permit crap is because it's not stopping you from legally open carrying.

ORS 166.173

 

[American123]

ORS 166.173

View attachment 1460995

I thought Oregon sucks, just didn't know how much.

 

[Member 53328]

I thought Oregon sucks, just didn't know how much.

Oh it sucks a big one.

 

[ob1]

Before that happens, me thinks we gonna need us another one of them there Revolutions…

Careful Nam's....
Don't wanna see ya on one of them there subversive lists.

 

[Koda]

but if you have a CHL you can open carry loaded in those places that prohibit loaded open carry. Or you can open carry unloaded without a CHL.

Oregon makes so much sense.

 

[nammac]

but if you have a CHL you can open carry loaded in those places that prohibit loaded open carry. Or you can open carry unloaded without a CHL.

Oregon makes so much sense.

It's all a bit clearer after smoking a little fentanyl….