Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Examination of firearm by peace officer - proposed amendments

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by dallen1x, Dec 24, 2012.

  1. dallen1x

    dallen1x Wil_Val, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    46
    Currently ORS 166.380 says that if an officer asks to see your firearm and you refuse then they may arrest you.

    I think there is a better way to handle this.
    Comments are welcome before I send this to my State Congressmen.

    166.380 Examination of firearm by peace officer; detention for failure to allow examination.
    (1) A peace officer may request to examine a firearm possessed by anyone on the person while in or on a public building or premises, or premises adjacent to a public building, to determine whether the firearm is a loaded firearm.
    (2) Refusal by a person to allow the examination authorized by subsection (1) of this section shall allow the officer to;
    (a) Require the person to the leave the public space and adjacent grounds or;
    (b) Detain the person for no more than thirty minutes.
    (3) If a person is detained according to subsection (2)(b) of this section then the officer must use all available electronic or other modes of communication to determine if;
    (a) There are any reports of weapons stolen, or fired illegally or under suspicious circumstances, within one and one-half miles of the officers current location and within thirty minutes prior to the person being detained, if the person was witnessed by the officer to have walked to the officers current locality.
    (b) There are any reports of weapons stolen, or fired illegally or under suspicious circumstances, within thirty miles of the officers current location and within thirty minutes prior to the person being detained, if the person was witnessed by the officer to have driven to officers current locality.
    (c) The person being detained is a reasonable physical match for any person suspected in any actions reported to have taken place as listed in subsection (3)(a) or (b).
    (4) Any person that the officer suspects of being, or being associated with, the person reported according to subsection (3)(c) may be detained further for up to four hours in order to allow peace officers to make a negative or positive identification or association of the person to person(s) suspected in the actions listed in subsection (3)(a) or (b).
     
  2. BillM

    BillM Amity OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    498
    166.380 is an interesting statute. It appears to be very limited in scope.

    IF you are in a PUBLIC building, on the grounds or adjacent, the officer may request to
    examine your gun FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING IF IT IS LOADED.

    SO--you are legally carrying in or on a public building. Somehow it is determined that
    you have a gun, and the police request to see it to determine if it is loaded. Yup--sure
    enough, it's got boolits in it. As I read the statute, at that point the officer should give you back
    your gun and say "have a nice day".

    What's the reality? Anybody ever been asked for their gun in a public building per 166.380?
    I've asked several LEO's about it, most were not even aware that it exists.

    What is the purpose of this statute? Rather than do a long winded revision to what is now
    a two sentence statute, just repeal the darned thing. It serves no apparent purpose.
     
  3. iamme

    iamme Lane County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,129
    Likes Received:
    352
    Leave it alone! A cop MAY detain for UP TO 30minutes and has to bust his *** working to verify as stated above and only in certain areas.

    The purpose appears fairly clear- in the event of a shooting or theft it gives the police the opportunity to resolve without an illegal search. It also protects CHL holders in my opinion as it lays out WHERE and WHEN and FOR HOW LONG a cop can pester you.
     
  4. BillM

    BillM Amity OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    498
    Where are you getting anything about 30 minutes? Here is the complete current ORS 166 380. 2 sentences.

    166.380 Examination of firearm by peace officer; arrest for failure to allow examination. (1) A peace officer may examine a firearm possessed by anyone on the person while in or on a public building to determine whether the firearm is a loaded firearm.

    (2) Refusal by a person to allow the examination authorized by subsection (1) of this section constitutes reason to believe that the person has committed a crime and the peace officer may make an arrest pursuant to ORS 133.310. [1969 c.705 §3]
     
  5. ShootFirst

    ShootFirst Southern Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    105
    Within these laws, there are two choices,
    1.
    Be jerk and enforce all your rights, pissing off the cop that both you and I know will not like you spilling out the law to him and now to gain power back he will detain your butt for awhile.

    2. Just cooperate unless he says he is keeping your gun, then ask for a supervisor. But if you are on the street or in your car. Trust me if you have nothing to hide he will send you on your way if you just let him peak at your gun.

    Cops like guns and may also like using the law to peak at what you got. I had a 64 Chevy with a covette engine in it got pulled over
    by two cops for speeding they ended up checking out my car and sent me on my way after a ( peaceful) interaction.

    My Sig was department issued and cops like seeing it, it kinda rare not worth a ton just rare. I actually would have no problem showing off to a guy that is interested even if he is a cop all the better to maybe build a friendly interaction.
    Or I can be a jerk and say you have no right to yada yada yada , get out the car, yada yada yada this is going to take awhiel our computer are down, yada yada yada...... 1 hour later after back up arrives to intimidate me for being a jerk they set me on my way choice is mine and yours.
     
  6. fredball

    fredball Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,832
    Likes Received:
    4,257
    Wow you guys must hang out in some pretty seedy areas to be stopped as much as you clearly have , and asked to do this and that man I'm in bed by 9pm at the latest
     
  7. BillM

    BillM Amity OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    498
    Question: Has anybody here ever been asked for their gun while in or on a public building per ORS 166.380?
    Have first hand knowledge of anybody else being asked?

    I have not, and I've carried in or on a lot of public buildings in the 25 years I've had my permit.
    I don't know anybody that has. As I said above, the LEO's that I have specifically asked
    about 166.380 were not even aware that it existed. What was the reasoning for this statute
    being written into law?
     
  8. dallen1x

    dallen1x Wil_Val, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    46
    I thought about advocating to abolish the whole thing but then I thought there might be a compromise.
    Can it be written to protect our rights against search / seizure and allow the LEO to protect the public.
    The part about "constitutes reason to believe that the person has committed a crime and the peace officer may make an arrest" really, really, really bugs me.
    Saying no = you must be hiding something = you must have committed a crime = arrest. That is complete horse&%*#.
    Guilty until proven innocent?
    Once you're arrested in Oregon it stays on your record......forever. There is no remedy in OR to get it removed, even if the arrest was unwarranted or thrown out or you're just released and the charges are dropped. From then on you may have to answer 'yes' on every job app or CWL renewal. Also, there's nothing in that ORS that says when or if the LEO has to give back your firearm. How about 3 years from now (hypothetical) once you go through all of their paperwork? These are the things that went through my head and made me start typing the proposed amendments.
    Keep those inputs coming. I like to learn from other viewpoints.
     
  9. iamme

    iamme Lane County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,129
    Likes Received:
    352
    Sorry I thought OP had quoted the context at it was. he should edit to show changes or quote it as it currently is.

    And if you read 133.310 it seems to deal mainly with restraining order issues. I really can't see in that section what they'd quote for the reason.

     
  10. ShootFirst

    ShootFirst Southern Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    105
    Unfortunately the whole job of LEO's, is to guess at what they think may have possibly occurred.
    Cops do not have to prove anything we do and they say that is what courts are for.
    I agree with you but to change it means changing the structure of how police operate.

    Again when they pull you over or stop you for any reason the reason only has to be they "suspect " anything even remotely
    that you broke a law even J walking and then the probable cause starts the whole ball rolling.
     
  11. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    I think 166.380 should have an exemption for CHL holders.
     
  12. dallen1x

    dallen1x Wil_Val, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    46
    iamme,
    I read it as they'll arrest for 'something' and sort it out later. By saying 'no', the ORS says that you've given them probable cause.

    My version says, or at least I think it says, they can detain you but not arrest you without 'supported' probable cause.
    Flexible enough to not jack you up for life for doing nothing wrong but strong enough to catch the real bad guys who may be blocks or miles from the 'scene' or unlawful event.
     
  13. Father of four

    Father of four Portland, Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    1,687
    Why is enforcing a right being a jerk?
     
  14. chariot13

    chariot13 Near Eugene/Springfield Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,116
    Likes Received:
    595
    There should never be an exemption towards any law enforcement officer or any other Government employee that is not also afforded to all law abiding citizens. By having such you are saying that some truly are above the law & are above law abiding. Which is the same as a caste system that uses socio economic status (government employee in our case) instead of heridtary lineage much like all the other british colonies do, such as India. or all the kings men in england. This only proves that either we won the revolutionary war & have transgressed into our agressors type of thinking, or we have been fooled into thinking we had actually ever won.
     
  15. dallen1x

    dallen1x Wil_Val, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    46
    I've changed the way that I look at this ORS.
    The LEO has no right to handle or see or inspect my personal property unless I've done something wrong or they have a warrant.
    Saying 'no' to an unreasonable search is not probable cause for an arrest.
    This ORS needs to be abolished.
     
    chariot13 and (deleted member) like this.
  16. just dan

    just dan PDX Active Member

    Messages:
    314
    Likes Received:
    121
    in the years (damn, almost decades!) that i've carried in this state and others, i have only been asked one time by an LEO that I didn't personally know, to see my firearm.
    it was while i was open carrying and his interest was clearly about the gun itself. man, he had as many questions as a little kid seeing a firetruck up close.
     
  17. MarkAd

    MarkAd Port Orchard Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    617
    The way I see it. If the want to see my weapon, no problem, as long as the cop ceritifies in writing that they are qualified in accordance with department regulations for that weapon. For example a 1911.
    I will not surrender my weapon to anyone that is not qualified, for my safety and his/hers.
    No I am not some kind of wack job, but cops aint the only ones needing to go home at night.
     
  18. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    Good luck with that! :)