Is this conceal or open carry?

[oldcorpgunny]

I have a chl. In Portland.
I agree to treat it as open - with no jacket to cover - is fine.

I was just wondering if the law was super specific - like if I can see any part of a gun does that make it open?
If I accidentally show a holstered gun under a jacket while fishing in my pocket - is that open?
What about printing - badly? Who judges that?

Just.... thoughts.

Open carry has traditionally meant no attempt whatsoever to hide the firearm from a casual observer. Concealed carry traditionally has meant every effort to conceal a firearm from casual public view. My personal experience has been that I would always choose concealed carry over open carry simply because I've never wanted to alarm anyone and then risk ejection from a business or a conversation with a cop.

 

[thorborg]

" Sneaky Pete" holsters (I have one) are designed to NOT look like a holster and therefore should be considered a concealed carry device. I'm not at the "mercy" of any of the references you have made. There are loads of case law that support my view.

Not trying to be impudent, maybe a little good naturedly contentious, but responded to the reference: "Concealed carry is an active effort to keep a weapon from being seen by both "knowledgeable etc..." vis-à-vis, if I'm knowledgeable, then its not concealed, to me.

 

[oldcorpgunny]

Not trying to be impudent, maybe a little good naturedly contentious, but responded to the reference: "Concealed carry is an active effort to keep a weapon from being seen by both "knowledgeable etc..." vis-à-vis, if I'm knowledgeable, then its not concealed, to me.

You're not being "impudent" however you are being contentious. I have simply expressed an opinion as have you. No further explanation is needed. All the best to you.

 

[Alexx1401]

As you can already see this is one of those things there is no answer for. Ask 20 people in law enforcement from different places and you would be certain to get different answers.
Bottom line if some LEO decides to cite you then it comes down to some judge and what they "think". We all should by know how that goes.
Long ago in another life I lived in AZ. We could never get a CC law passed but open was fine. One guy I worked with carried the same way I did at that time. IWB left hand holster worn on right side. I like this as it's easy to reach for me. So he is at some store, LEO stops him, says "you got a gun there?" He said yes, he takes it, writes him a citation for illegally carrying a CW. So get to court his lawyer asks LEO. "So what was the probable cause here?" LEO said he recognized the Pachmayr grips on the gun, as being a gun. Here the Judge takes over. Asks LEO what he means. After a short discussion where Judge finds out what LEO is talking about he stops the entire show, says case dismissed. Tells guy you can pick up your gun at ................................
Now after that happened I bought another belt slide for my 1911. I had long loved them worn strong side. I bought a left handed one for those times I wanted to carry behind my back and used it instead of the IWB for when I was open carrying. I figured I did not want to end up going through the hassle that co-worker went through and hope another Judge would find the same way if it happened to me. There is probably nothing that causes as much "gray area" and "legal opinion" problems as anything to do with firearms.

 

[Dinglenutz]

Bottom line if some LEO decides to cite you then it comes down to some judge and what they "think"

Well, really, if he has a CHL as stated that's the bottom line and end of any distinction that makes a difference right?

 

[Alexx1401]

Well, really, if he has a CHL as stated that's the bottom line and end of any distinction that makes a difference right?

Yes if you have a permit you would be gold unless there is some ordnance about open carry not allowed where someone lives. There is such a hodgepodge of damn laws and rules when it comes to guns its like trying to keep up with the damn IRS

 

[Dinglenutz]

Yes if you have a permit you would be gold unless there is some ordnance about open carry not allowed where someone lives. There is such a hodgepodge of damn laws and rules when it comes to guns its like trying to keep up with the damn IRS

This is true, which is why the law that provides for Oregon CHL holders to exist also preempts local ordinances.

I'm not a lawyer but every source I've read, including the law itself, says the same thing. The section of interest is 166, I believe, with 166.170-176 being the most likely to matter.

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

www.oregonlaws.org

 

[JohnnyMac]

In Portland, it is concealed if you are a conservative and you might be arrested and charged. . If you are a liberal protester or antifa, it is whatever you want it to be and you will not be charged.

Truth.....Antifa uses these to store their lipstick and extra fireworks so it's completely legal as far as their concerned.

 

[solv3nt]

You need a chl to open carry in portland

You need a chl to open carry loaded in Portland. Open carry is fine, unless they changed the laws in the last five years, unloaded. No loaded magazines, clips or speed loaders.

 

[Certaindeaf]

You need a chl to open carry loaded in Portland. Open carry is fine, unless they changed the laws in the last five years, unloaded. No loaded magazines, clips or speed loaders.

That's good to know. o snap, that's what I said

 

[solv3nt]

That's good to know. o snap, that's what I said

Technicalities my friend. Legally speaking, you're allowed to open carry a paperweight without a CHL.

 

[Jonnyuma]

Long ago in another life I lived in AZ. We could never get a CC law passed but open was fine.

So you probably remember the case that set the "fanny pack precedent".

With no CCW permit system at the time, a guy with a fanny pack holster gets braced by the coppers. Long story short (and referring to my previous post) the defense argued that the holster was visible. The pack was designed as a holster and the cops recognized it as such, therefore it met the criteria of "any part of the gun, holster, or case" being visible.

An OR CHL is pretty easy to get (although l vehemently oppose the infringement) and heads off a LOT of potential legal traps... and yes, I use the word "traps" purposefully. It basically goes all My Cousin Vinnie at the end of the firearms regs section (ORS 196.-whatever): "Everything that guy just said... is bullsh*t".

 

[bbbass]

State v. Turner, 221 Or App 621, 627, 191 P3d 697 (2008) (construing term "concealed" in ORS 166.240, another concealed-weapon statute). The plain and ordinary meaning of "conceal" is to hide, "place out of sight," or "shield from vision or notice."

https://romanolawpc.com/when-is-a-gun-considered-concealed-in-oregon/

 

[The Heretic]

So you probably remember the case that set the "fanny pack precedent".

With no CCW permit system at the time, a guy with a fanny pack holster gets braced by the coppers. Long story short (and referring to my previous post) the defense argued that the holster was visible. The pack was designed as a holster and the cops recognized it as such, therefore it met the criteria of "any part of the gun, holster, or case" being visible.

An OR CHL is pretty easy to get (although l vehemently oppose the infringement) and heads off a LOT of potential legal traps... and yes, I use the word "traps" purposefully. It basically goes all My Cousin Vinnie at the end of the firearms regs section (ORS 196.-whatever): "Everything that guy just said... is bullsh*t".

No - I don't remember. Cite?

I googled it, but didn't find it.

 

[Jonnyuma]

No - I don't remember. Cite?

I googled it, but didn't find it.

I didn't find it either... only page after page of fanny pack holsters for sale.
I lived there from 89-04 so it happened in that time frame, probably late 90s or early 00s.
The only references I can find are to current CC/OC law, nothing from that far back.

Not sure what that means, if anything. Maybe a deep dive would bring it up, but without knowing the case name or even the exact year it's a long road to get past the .com aspect.

 

[STEELE]

If you carried it in a "belly bag", no one would even think twice about it, due to the shape of the bag. If you carried the holster empty, there'd be chaos as in..."Run Karen, he's carrying a weapon of mass destruction!" The latter would "produce great fear", thus be a crime in all weak minds; police would be called, and... Your choice, no matter how the law may be interpreted or unclear. The latter carry might be an interesting exercise if properly documented.

 

[CHLChris]

That holster is the worst option on a huge list of bad options. Wow, what a pile of suck and fail. Why does it matter whether the gun is OC or CC in that case? Never carry this way at all!

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[EHJ]

That holster is the worst option on a huge list of bad options. Wow, what a pile of suck and fail. Why does it matter whether the gun is OC or CC in that case? Never carry this way at all!

Just my opinion, of course.

The topic of my thread was the semantics of the objective example (the covered weapon in this holster) vs the subjective examples (the words we think we agree on) when discussing the legal definitions of the law as it applies to the words conceal vs "openly".

And this holster is just fine for its intended purpose. They served for many, many years and a war. It serves me for hiking and fishing as well.

 

[Jonnyuma]

That holster is the worst option on a huge list of bad options. Wow, what a pile of suck and fail. Why does it matter whether the gun is OC or CC in that case? Never carry this way at all!

I happen to agree.
During my years of plastic-pistol rejection I sometimes carried an E German Makarov. Each and every one of them (okay...I had two) came with the military/police leather flap holster. A neat-o relic, but entirely unsuitable for EDC.

My solution was a leather IWB job made for a Bersa Thunder380. Old school with leather loops for the belt.

The Makarovs are long gone, and the German Maks are now trading for large dollars (new HK or SiG money) but I still have the holster... not sure why.

As stated by OP @EHJ, it works for him.
Sooooo..... cool.

 

[EHJ]

I happen to agree.
During my years of plastic-pistol rejection I sometimes carried an E German Makarov. Each and every one of them (okay...I had two) came with the military/police leather flap holster. A neat-o relic, but entirely unsuitable for EDC.

My solution was a leather IWB job made for a Bersa Thunder380. Old school with leather loops for the belt.

The Makarovs are long gone, and the German Maks are now trading for large dollars (new HK or SiG money) but I still have the holster... not sure why.

As stated by OP @EHJ, it works for him.
Sooooo..... cool.

For the record - I do not edc this holster or my PP. Lol.
I shoulder holster everything now. But that's a different subject.