Finally got my CHL. Got some questions.

[ScatPackLife]

So I know most of the obvious laws in regards to CCW in Portland, but are there any obscure laws that aren't well known?

Read More

 

[solv3nt]

Read up on ORS 166 for all state laws. The state recently passed a new law that gives some public spaces such as schools the right to ban lawfully concealed carry on school grounds. In general, Oregon law preempts all local ordinances.

 

[washagonian]

Kudos to you for asking this question and undertaking researching out how to conceal carry in Oregon in a legal and responsible manner. I wish more folks would do the same.

Here are my thoughts - take what you like and leave the rest.


Like @solv3nt said, reviewing Oregon Revised Statutes 166.xxx is helpful. Here is a link:

ORS Chap. 166 – Offenses Against Pub. Order

Oregon Revised Statutes Title 16, Crimes and Punishments; Chapter 166, Offenses Against Public Order; Firearms and Other Weapons; Racketeering. Refreshed: 2023-06-16

oregon.public.law

@solv3nt also references the "new law" - which is Senate Bill 554: Here is the link to that bill:

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/sb554/Enrolled

Here is a link to a helpful type of summary article about Oregon firearm laws in Wikipedia. It is a general gloss-over article, but does have some helpful active links.

Gun laws in Oregon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here are some things that I keep in the forefront of my mind all the time:

• If I forget to have my CHL in my possession when I'm carrying off of my property - all of those exemptions the CHL provides for me, go out the window. I religiously make sure I've got it if I leave the house. Trust me, it's a VERY uncomfortable feeling when you realize you left your CHL at home, but not you EDC.
• I lock my pistol in my truck when I go into any US Post Office. The PO (and some other federal and municipal buildings) prohibit concealed carry, even if you have a CHL. I don't frequent these other buildings, but I go to the PO a lot.
• Also, about the Post Office: If my gun is in my vehicle and my vehicle is in the PO parking lot or on PO property (even if not on my person), then I am in violation. So, I park on the street and leave my pistol locked in my truck.
• SB554, which passed last summer and took effect the end of this September changed some of my carry habits:
  • Cannot carry in the Portland Airport prior to security checkpoints any longer.
  • Cannot carry on a college campus any longer (if they have some type of no weapons posting, which most do).
  • Cannot carry in a medical facility like Kaiser or Providence any longer (if they have some type of no weapons posting, which most do).
  • If I leave a firearm in my vehicle unattended it must be locked in a manner that is prescribed in SB554
    • Also, if it's a handgun, it must be not only be locked but not visible inside the vehicle (i.e., hidden)

There is a lot more information out there - with commentary and opinion and analysis.

One other thing I would offer up is to become knowledgeable of what constitutes the LEGAL use of deadly force. Andrew Branca is an attorney and probably the most knowledgeable person I have found regarding the contemporary legal issues around the use of deadly force. He has some educational workshops and information (including a book on Amazon) which are reasonably priced and provide what I believe is ESSENTIAL information about the use of deadly force. Myths and misunderstandings and just downright stupid ideas about what constitutes justified use of deadly force abound. Branca explains this whole area more thoroughly than anyone I have found to date.

Good luck.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I believe that SB554 only made the PDX airport a "Gun Free" zone, and gave the option to schools to make their students vulnerable to active shooters.

Since Hospitals are not "local government" they are not included.

 

[pharmseller]

First rule of CHL: Don't tell anyone you have a CHL.

 

[SonicBlue03]

I believe that SB554 only made the PDX airport a "Gun Free" zone, and gave the option to schools to make their students vulnerable to active shooters.

Since Hospitals are not "local government" they are not included.

Hospitals fall under private business (of sorts) so whatever their policies are. More and more are starting to implement metal detectors so there's that.

 

[Member 53328]

Don't tell anyone. Don't show anyone. Dress accordingly. Don't get caught. Pretty simple really.

 

[OldTengu]

Don't tell anyone.
Telling people can also mean being head to toe in tactical schit. Dress normal. Don't ccw a .50 ae desert eagle. Keep it chambered. Don't put your wiener in the trigger guard.

 

[OldTengu]

I believe that SB554 only made the PDX airport a "Gun Free" zone, and gave the option to schools to make their students vulnerable to active shooters.

Since Hospitals are not "local government" they are not included.

They also gave "metropolitan services districts" the ability to to make themselves "gun-free".
That means pretty much any public service, but is specifically in place for TriMet.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

They also gave "metropolitan services districts" the ability to to make themselves "gun-free".
That means pretty much any public service, but is specifically in place for TriMet.

I am not finding Metro in the final bill.

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/sb554/Enrolled

The relevant changed sections appear to be:

Enrolled Senate Bill 554 (SB 554-B)

SECTION 8. (1) The governing board of a public university listed in ORS 352.002, the Oregon Health and Science University Board of Directors, the governing board of a community college or a district school board as defined in ORS 332.002 may adopt a policy providing that the affirmative defense described in ORS 166.370 (3)(g), concerning persons licensed to carry a concealed handgun under ORS 166.291 and 166.292, does not apply to the possession of firearms on the grounds of the schools controlled by the board.
(2) A board that adopts a policy under this section shall:
(a) Post a clearly visible sign, at all normal points of entry to the school grounds subject to the policy described in subsection (1) of this section, indicating that the affirmative defense described in ORS 166.370 (3)(g) does not apply.
(b) Post a notice on the board's website identifying all school grounds subject to the policy described in subsection (1) of this section.;

SECTION 11. ORS 166.262 is amended to read:
166.262. A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating ORS 166.250 (1)(a) or
(b) or 166.370 (1)(a) if the person has in the person's immediate possession:
(1) A valid license to carry a firearm as provided in ORS 166.291 and 166.292, unless the person possesses a firearm within the Capitol, within the passenger terminal of a commercial service airport with over one million passenger boardings per year or on school grounds subject to a policy described in section 8 of this 2021 Act

 

[OldTengu]

I am not finding Metro in the final bill.

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/sb554/Enrolled

The relevant changed sections appear to be:

Enrolled Senate Bill 554 (SB 554-B)

SECTION 8. (1) The governing board of a public university listed in ORS 352.002, the Oregon Health and Science University Board of Directors, the governing board of a community college or a district school board as defined in ORS 332.002 may adopt a policy providing that the affirmative defense described in ORS 166.370 (3)(g), concerning persons licensed to carry a concealed handgun under ORS 166.291 and 166.292, does not apply to the possession of firearms on the grounds of the schools controlled by the board.
(2) A board that adopts a policy under this section shall:
(a) Post a clearly visible sign, at all normal points of entry to the school grounds subject to the policy described in subsection (1) of this section, indicating that the affirmative defense described in ORS 166.370 (3)(g) does not apply.
(b) Post a notice on the board's website identifying all school grounds subject to the policy described in subsection (1) of this section.;

SECTION 11. ORS 166.262 is amended to read:
166.262. A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating ORS 166.250 (1)(a) or
(b) or 166.370 (1)(a) if the person has in the person's immediate possession:
(1) A valid license to carry a firearm as provided in ORS 166.291 and 166.292, unless the person possesses a firearm within the Capitol, within the passenger terminal of a commercial service airport with over one million passenger boardings per year or on school grounds subject to a policy described in section 8 of this 2021 Act

Not Metro. "Metropolitan services districts". It's a descriptor with only one (real) application (trimet) in the Portland area. It may have been omitted, but since trimet goes through innumerable school zones, you're potentially phucked anyhow. In any case, it was supposed to be set up so that trimet could either make itself "gun-free" or continue its current policy.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Yeah, Metro includes damn near everything in the Tri-County area. I remember when it was dropped from the combined bill, OFF sent out an alert that the new bill had some positive changes, but they were not going to name them for fear that the bad verbiage would be put back in.

 

[Forester]

Law of Self Defense

lawofselfdefense.com

 

[Certaindeaf]

If you poop, don't carry a gun.. there's a thread here where no one knows what to do with a pistol when they poop. Lorgic.

 

[Forester]

Free Book Deal – Law of Self Defense

lawofselfdefense.com

I highly recommend this book. In my opinion most people who carry don't know the Law as well as they think they do. Putting themselves in great peril.
I would next recommend some quality training and a commitment to an ongoing training program

Just my $0.02

 

[washagonian]

I believe that SB554 only made the PDX airport a "Gun Free" zone, and gave the option to schools to make their students vulnerable to active shooters.

Since Hospitals are not "local government" they are not included.

Thanks @nick Burkhard for your comments, which are valid and helpful in continuing the discussion.

I think it's impossible to be accurate about SB554 (or any legal discussion) without being long-winded. So, you have my apologies up front for being so.

Let me clarify a couple of points which you mention. BTW I am not a lawyer and I'm certainly not giving legal advice. This is just my take on reading and trying to analyze the law. Take what you like and leave the rest.

First Point: Hospitals are private and do not fall under "local government".

You're right - private hospitals are not "local government". However, the use of the term "public buildings" in the law is not to denote governmental or municipal buildings owned by the collective "public". Although most of the buildings described fit that category. Rather, the law uses the term "public building" to describe buildings that are open to, and frequented by, the public (whether owned privately or publicly).

To that end, the law provides additional definitions of "public building" in Section 9. Those definitions are meant to amend ORS 166.330. "Hospital" and "public or private school" are now included in the definition of "public buildings".

This toughens up the law in regard to someone with a concealed firearm or dangerous weapon if they do NOT have a CHL.

Second Point: PDX Airport as a "Gun Free" zone.

SB 554 doesn't talk about "gun free" zones as it relates to PDX airport, or anywhere else. But for all intents and purposes, you're right in that the law does create a "gun free zone".

Regarding the airport: PDX is a commercial airport with over 1 million boardings per year, so it is defined in the law as a public building.

Also, the law states that if you are convicted for possession of a firearm or dangerous weapon in PDX, AND if you can prove you had a CHL at that time of your arrest, you could be convicted of a Class A misdemeanor. If no CHL, it's a Class C felony. So, CHL holders can't carry in PDX without the Class A misdemeanor risk. The CHL no longer exempts it's holder from the restriction of possession of a weapon in PDX airport. The CHL can no longer be used as an "affirmative defense" in this circumstance.

CHL holders are still exempt from prosecution if they are carrying in most State of Oregon municipal buildings.

But SB 554, Section 10.1.b does define THREE "public buildings" where, if you are arrested with a concealed firearm and you have a CHL, the CHL does NOT act as an "affirmative defense" to exempt you from prosecution for possession.

Those three "public buildings" are: 1.) commercial airport with over 1 million boardings annually (e.g., PDX airport); 2.) the state Capitol; 3.) school grounds which have a posted no weapons policy.

If you are arrested in one of those three places and you have a CHL, you would face a maximum penalty of a Class A misdemeanor (instead of a Class C felony if you did NOT have a CHL). But the CHL does NOT exempt you from the prohibition of possession of a firearm in those three public buildings.

Finally @nick Burkhart is correct in that the circumstances for a CHL holder carrying in a private hospital have not changed. If the hospital has a posted no weapons policy and you're "caught", you'll be told to leave and not return with your weapon or you'll be arrested for trespassing. But, SB 554, by defining hospitals as "public buildings" was able to toughen up the law and penalties for NON-CHL holders possessing a firearm on their premises.

So, the choice to carry in a hospital is a personal one.

Again, just my personal analysis (probably with many flaws) of SB 554 and it's impact on my life as a CHL holder.

Of course, the quintessential question is - "what is this s**t so complicated when the 2nd Amendment is so simple?"

Thanks everyone for continuing the discussion.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

See my post #10 for the relevant changed sections of Senate Bill 554

Finally got my CHL. Got some questions.

So I know most of the obvious laws in regards to CCW in Portland, but are there any obscure laws that aren’t well known?

www.northwestfirearms.com

Drive at 5, no time to reply.

 

[solv3nt]

Thanks @nick Burkhard for your comments, which are valid and helpful in continuing the discussion.

I think it's impossible to be accurate about SB554 (or any legal discussion) without being long-winded. So, you have my apologies up front for being so.

Let me clarify a couple of points which you mention. BTW I am not a lawyer and I'm certainly not giving legal advice. This is just my take on reading and trying to analyze the law. Take what you like and leave the rest.

First Point: Hospitals are private and do not fall under "local government".

You're right - private hospitals are not "local government". However, the use of the term "public buildings" in the law is not to denote governmental or municipal buildings owned by the collective "public". Although most of the buildings described fit that category. Rather, the law uses the term "public building" to describe buildings that are open to, and frequented by, the public (whether owned privately or publicly).

To that end, the law provides additional definitions of "public building" in Section 9. Those definitions are meant to amend ORS 166.330. "Hospital" and "public or private school" are now included in the definition of "public buildings".

This toughens up the law in regard to someone with a concealed firearm or dangerous weapon if they do NOT have a CHL.

Second Point: PDX Airport as a "Gun Free" zone.

SB 554 doesn't talk about "gun free" zones as it relates to PDX airport, or anywhere else. But for all intents and purposes, you're right in that the law does create a "gun free zone".

Regarding the airport: PDX is a commercial airport with over 1 million boardings per year, so it is defined in the law as a public building.

Also, the law states that if you are convicted for possession of a firearm or dangerous weapon in PDX, AND if you can prove you had a CHL at that time of your arrest, you could be convicted of a Class A misdemeanor. If no CHL, it's a Class C felony. So, CHL holders can't carry in PDX without the Class A misdemeanor risk. The CHL no longer exempts it's holder from the restriction of possession of a weapon in PDX airport. The CHL can no longer be used as an "affirmative defense" in this circumstance.

CHL holders are still exempt from prosecution if they are carrying in most State of Oregon municipal buildings.

But SB 554, Section 10.1.b does define THREE "public buildings" where, if you are arrested with a concealed firearm and you have a CHL, the CHL does NOT act as an "affirmative defense" to exempt you from prosecution for possession.

Those three "public buildings" are: 1.) commercial airport with over 1 million boardings annually (e.g., PDX airport); 2.) the state Capitol; 3.) school grounds which have a posted no weapons policy.

If you are arrested in one of those three places and you have a CHL, you would face a maximum penalty of a Class A misdemeanor (instead of a Class C felony if you did NOT have a CHL). But the CHL does NOT exempt you from the prohibition of possession of a firearm in those three public buildings.

Finally @nick Burkhart is correct in that the circumstances for a CHL holder carrying in a private hospital have not changed. If the hospital has a posted no weapons policy and you're "caught", you'll be told to leave and not return with your weapon or you'll be arrested for trespassing. But, SB 554, by defining hospitals as "public buildings" was able to toughen up the law and penalties for NON-CHL holders possessing a firearm on their premises.

So, the choice to carry in a hospital is a personal one.

Again, just my personal analysis (probably with many flaws) of SB 554 and it's impact on my life as a CHL holder.

Of course, the quintessential question is - "what is this s**t so complicated when the 2nd Amendment is so simple?"

Thanks everyone for continuing the discussion.

Careful on the hospital bit, most hospitals take a considerable amount of taxpayer funds, and it's my understanding, I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one in tv, that hospitals fall under "public buildings".

 

[washagonian]

Careful on the hospital bit, most hospitals take a considerable amount of taxpayer funds, and it's my understanding, I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one in tv, that hospitals fall under "public buildings".

Hospitals are almost always owned by private corporations, even though they receive a lot of public money.

But the use of "public building" in SB 554 isn't intended to address just buildings owned by the "public".

As I mentioned in my post:

"However, the use of the term "public buildings" in the law is not to denote governmental or municipal buildings owned by the collective "public". Although most of the buildings described fit that category. Rather, the law uses the term "public building" to describe buildings that are open to, and frequented by, the public (whether owned privately or publicly)."

Section 9: " 'Public building' means:"
Section 9.a: "A hospital (emphasis added by me), a capitol building, a public or private school, as defined in ORS 339.315, a college or university, a city hall or the residence of any state official elected by the state at large, and the grounds adjacent to each building."

Cheers

 

[washagonian]

Not Metro. "Metropolitan services districts". It's a descriptor with only one (real) application (trimet) in the Portland area. It may have been omitted, but since trimet goes through innumerable school zones, you're potentially phucked anyhow. In any case, it was supposed to be set up so that trimet could either make itself "gun-free" or continue its current policy.

@OldTengu, the last part of Section 9.a may be what you're referring to?

Section 9.9: " 'Public building' means:' "

Section 9.9.a: "A hospital, capitol building, a public or private school, as defined in ORS 339.315, a college or university, a city hall or the residence of any state official elected by the state at large, and the grounds adjacent to each such building. The term also includes that portion of any other building occupied by an agency of the state or [a municipal corporation, as defined] by a city, a county, a district as defined in ORS 198.010 or any other entity that falls within the definition of 'municipal corporation' in ORS 297.405, or other than a court facility[.]" (Emphasis added.)

The last part seems to provide the "public building" definition to Tri-Met / property.

I wonder if Tri-Met actually goes across "school property", or if busses / Max stay on public thorough-fares / train track rights-of-way? I'm guessing that "grounds adjacent to each such building" refers to grounds on that public building's property, e.g., the landscaping, lawns, parking lots, walkways, etc., and not public sidewalks, roads, etc.

I'm sure you could get three attorney's with three different interpretations.

From my understanding, CHL holders are still exempt from a prohibition of possession of a firearm in any of these municipalities. SB 554 Section 10.3.g provides for an exemption for CHL holders from possessing a firearm in a "public building", except for the airport, Capitol and on school grounds (as you mentioned) were a no weapons policy is posted.

This section is consistent with other exemptions provided to CHL holders in various ORS's, including ORS 166.173 "Authority of city or county to regulate possession of loaded firearms in public places".