Loaded rifle cased in back seat legal????

[ejmpnu92]

However, because of the defendants argument of it is his 2nd Amendment right, that is how it was judged, not as an employee who got fired for having a firearm. And because of this case, there now is precedence for future cases such as this. So, now, no matter what the law says, until the precedence is changed, this is the case that all future cases will be judged against. There was no stipulation between an employee or the general public. thus this case will be applied to everyone, unfortunately.
Sure, there are exceptions (3d), but the typical joe q public does not really meet them.

 

[MikeSettles]

However, because of the defendants argument of it is his 2nd Amendment right, that is how it was judged, not as an employee who got fired for having a firearm. And because of this case, there now is precedence for future cases such as this. So, now, no matter what the law says, until the precedence is changed, this is the case that all future cases will be judged against. There was no stipulation between an employee or the general public. thus this case will be applied to everyone, unfortunately.
Sure, there are exceptions (3d), but the typical joe q public does not really meet them.

Agreed!

 

[mjbskwim]

Sure, there are exceptions (3d), but the typical joe q public does not really meet them.

Then who else would be the ones "hunting" ?

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

I'm just guessing here,but it would seem to me that J.Q. Public would be the only one to stop at the post office and be carrying "incident to hunting"

And the "other lawfull purposes"? Jonh Q doesn't do those?
You surely don't mean the govments people are doing "other lawfull purposes" since govment and lawfull don't go hand in hand

 

[RallySoob]

Hey guys I contacted OFF directly about a simular question...here is the email I sent and their response.
*

Hello OFF,

I am an Oregon resident who has a valid CHL. My question is about carrying long rifles in my vehicle and rather or not it is legal to have loaded magazines in the rifle bag, loaded magazine in the rifle and if it is legal to have a round chambered? I have read the laws and most of them seem to address pistols only…It seems my CHL only exempts me from certain laws pertaining to pistol carry only…not long rifles. The rifle I carry most often is an AR15 with 16” barrel. I appreciate the work you guys do and I look forward to hearing from you

Thank You


OFF RESPONSE:

Oregon STATE has no restriction on the transport of long guns, which means you can carry them any way you want, loaded or unloaded, concealed or openly.

Localities MAY restrict loaded carry and in some cases, like Portland magazines cannot even be loaded. However, as a CHL holder, you are exempt from those restrictions for handguns OR long guns.

 

[ejmpnu92]

Not sure if you have given a heavy dose of sarcasm or not, so I will reply this way...

So a guy walks into a post office with a hunting rifle, cops get called...he says he is there to hunt or on his way to hunt... don't believe that would fly. If you had a jury trial...how many people would actually believe you were there for/or on your way to hunt? In todays society, not many. That being said, it may have been written this way, with rural areas in mind. For instance, in some places, the post office and general store are in the same building. The general store sells firearms and related materials. Although, the law does not specifically state this situation.
However, now with the court case defining what is lawful or not, everything else is pretty much irrelevent.
Unfortunately, that is how our system works.

I would agree with the JQP and the incident to hunt. However, other lawful purposes is not clearly defined. What is a lawful purpose? There are most likely a million definitions.
And yeah, protecting myself is what I consider to be a "lawful purpose", unfortunately the Feds don't think that way.

 

[Remadl700]

This originally started with "Loaded Long gun" in the vehicle. I don't know if it was made clear about having a loaded long gun in the car being legal or not in Oregon. "Loaded" being rounds in the chamber or magazine which is loaded in the gun.

I posted how I was read the riot act about not disclosing my CHL to the OSP well this just happened to my brother in eastern Oregon while hunting.

He was driving on a forest road going back to camp with a friend of his from a morning hunt. While driving down the road an OSP Game Officer in a truck was backed into some brush along the road on a sweeping turn, pulled him over. My brother didn't even see that he had passed the Officer until he say's the vehicle whipped out of the brush and turn his lights on. He was very nice to the guy and was told he was pulled over for not wearing his seatbelt! He said the Officer looked all over the truck and in the canopy as he was gathering their information. He even got all his buddies info, lic, tag........As he was doing this the Officer asked if he had any loaded weapons in the vehicle. Well they were both carrying handguns and both the rifles had loaded mag's, no rounds in the chamber. When he told them about the handguns he asked where they were and where the rifles were. When he showed the Officer he was then asked to unload the mag's from the rifle. The Officer then had them take a seat and explained that they were going to be cited for having loaded rifles in the motor vehicle while hunting, nothing about the handguns. They were also cited for not wearing seatbelts.

I can not find anything that pertains strictly to having a loaded magazine in a rifle during hunting season. Where is the Officer getting this interpretation from?

And maybe I should have realized this but I didn't think you needed to wear a seat belt on a forest road either but.........

Isn't it a little on the cheap side to bust guys for not wearing seatbelts on logging roads?

He has talked to a lawyer buddy who is hunting with them at a different camp. He said the seatbelt thing could stick! But felt the issue of the loaded guns is crap..................... This just happened, they are over elk hunting and he called to tell about their opening day success..........no elk but 4 citations.

 

[Nwcid]

For a citation to be issued it HAS to have the law that is being broken listed on the ticket.
As for the seatbelt they are on a public road. On private I am sure they could not make it stick.

After looking up the OR state law, ORS 811.210 - Failure to properly use safety belts - 2009 Oregon Revised Statutes on seat belts it appears that if I am reading it correctly you ONLY have to use seat belts if operating on a "highway" unless you are under 16 then "....highways of this state or on premises open to the public ..."

 

[Remadl700]

For a citation to be issued it HAS to have the law that is being broken listed on the ticket.
As for the seatbelt they are on a public road. On private I am sure they could not make it stick.

After looking up the OR state law, ORS 811.210 - Failure to properly use safety belts - 2009 Oregon Revised Statutes on seat belts it appears that if I am reading it correctly you ONLY have to use seat belts if operating on a "highway" unless you are under 16 then "....highways of this state or on premises open to the public ..."

That's kind of what my brother said. The Officer told him they are on public forest road and all driving laws apply...basically. He didn't argue a lot with the cop. He is a little more recreational than I am and didn't want to have the cop digging around the vehicle.

 

[Remadl700]

For a citation to be issued it HAS to have the law that is being broken listed on the ticket.
As for the seatbelt they are on a public road. On private I am sure they could not make it stick.

After looking up the OR state law, ORS 811.210 - Failure to properly use safety belts - 2009 Oregon Revised Statutes on seat belts it appears that if I am reading it correctly you ONLY have to use seat belts if operating on a "highway" unless you are under 16 then "....highways of this state or on premises open to the public ..."

I believe the reason written on the ticket was having a loaded weapon in a moving motor vehicle. It does not make sense because I can't find anything that specifically states anything relating to that.

 

[pchewn]

He was driving on a forest road going back to camp with a friend of his from a morning hunt. While driving down the road an OSP Game Officer in a truck was backed into some brush along the road on a sweeping turn, pulled him over. My brother didn't even see that he had passed the Officer until he say's the vehicle whipped out of the brush and turn his lights on. He was very nice to the guy and was told he was pulled over for not wearing his seatbelt! He said the Officer looked all over the truck and in the canopy as he was gathering their information. He even got all his buddies info, lic, tag........As he was doing this the Officer asked if he had any loaded weapons in the vehicle. Well they were both carrying handguns and both the rifles had loaded mag's, no rounds in the chamber. When he told them about the handguns he asked where they were and where the rifles were. When he showed the Officer he was then asked to unload the mag's from the rifle. The Officer then had them take a seat and explained that they were going to be cited for having loaded rifles in the motor vehicle while hunting, nothing about the handguns. They were also cited for not wearing seatbelts.

I can not find anything that pertains strictly to having a loaded magazine in a rifle during hunting season. Where is the Officer getting this interpretation from?

And maybe I should have realized this but I didn't think you needed to wear a seat belt on a forest road either but.........

Isn't it a little on the cheap side to bust guys for not wearing seatbelts on logging roads?

He has talked to a lawyer buddy who is hunting with them at a different camp. He said the seatbelt thing could stick! But felt the issue of the loaded guns is crap..................... This just happened, they are over elk hunting and he called to tell about their opening day success..........no elk but 4 citations.

#1 Seatbelts are a good idea whenever you are in the car. They are also required by law. Forest roads too.

#2 It was a mistake to show the officer the rifles and let him inspect them for being loaded. No reason to give him information or access. Not relevant to traffic stop for seatbelt usage.

#3 "Loaded rifle while hunting" sounds like a hunting rule violation from the state department of fish and wildlife ... not a law you will find in the ORS

#4 It sounds like they were finished hunting and returning to camp. Driving down the road AFTER hunting is not hunting.

#5 Not wearing the seatbelts AND having loaded rifles could be used as evidence of being in the act of hunting (from the car). The argument being that they could then easily jump out of the car and shoot an elk. Not saying this is what they were doing, but it could be argued that way.

My recommendation: Fight the "hunting with loaded gun in car" violation. Pay the seatbelt fine.

 

[MikeSettles]

With regard to the "carrying in a post office": The federal statute (with exceptions for "lawful purposes) refers to "Federal Facilities". Where is a Post Office NOT a federal facility? (I know: Someone will have an example. ;-) The exceptions phrase is "hunting or other lawful purposes". The US Supreme Court has determined self defense to be a "lawful purpose".
Progressive judges still legislating from the bench!

 

[hermannr]

Actually, the PO is in a completely different category, and like the ACE is not covered under .930 They have their own law and regulations. One of the things that is required in the PO's regs is that the PO be posted. For whatever reson all of our local PO's are not posted. Does that mean you can carry in say 98855? don't know and not ready to test the law.

 

[MinnesotaORnewbie]

I would like to know as well, what statute defines that it is legal to have a loaded rifle cased or uncased in a motor vehicle say as this last instance, on a logging road. I personally would like to be able to keep a long gun and a handgun loaded, or with a loaded mag in the gun but not one in the chamber and feel confident it was legal and to carry a copy of the law with me incase something like this happend. As far as I am aware, caring a pistol in a vehicle in such case loaded, is legal, as long as it is not concealed, so having it on the passenger seat in plain view, loaded, should be no room for the PO to debate or issue a ticket, let alone freak out and pull a gun on you.
Anyone know the statute for the loaded long gun legal in a moving vehicle?

 

[hermannr]

I would like to know as well, what statute defines that it is legal to have a loaded rifle cased or uncased in a motor vehicle say as this last instance, on a logging road. I personally would like to be able to keep a long gun and a handgun loaded, or with a loaded mag in the gun but not one in the chamber and feel confident it was legal and to carry a copy of the law with me incase something like this happend. As far as I am aware, caring a pistol in a vehicle in such case loaded, is legal, as long as it is not concealed, so having it on the passenger seat in plain view, loaded, should be no room for the PO to debate or issue a ticket, let alone freak out and pull a gun on you.
Anyone know the statute for the loaded long gun legal in a moving vehicle?

I can tell you for WA, but not OR. WA RCW 77.15 deals with the F&W code on carrying a loaded long gun "in or on a vehicle" No, you cannot have a loaded long gun in or on your vehicle anywhere in the state, unless you have a disabled persons hunting license, or you are a LEO on duty.

Section 77 (F&W) has nothing to do with a pistol, only a long gun. You may have a loaded pistol on you, concealed or open carry, when you are hunting, or going to or from hunting, for your personal protection, no CPL necessary. That is RCW 9.41.060(8)

 

[xpharisee]

You must have missed the part about deer hunting. If you are going from spot to spot with a Rem 700 ADL bolt action it is takes time to load and unload.

 

[Remadl700]

You must have missed the part about deer hunting. If you are going from spot to spot with a Rem 700 ADL bolt action it is takes time to load and unload.

 

[chariot13]

This is my first post or question as a member so please be patient w/me.

Just wondering if I can keep rounds in my rifle, in the case in back seat w/ action open? No round chambered of course. BTW I am in Oregon.

In oregon written in the law states that if you are heading to or from a target range or hunting/fishing activity. You can carry the firearm(s) concealed without a concealed permit.
Loaded or unloaded doesn't specify for it to matter.
So if you are going to the gun range you can have it how you say in the backseat, accessibility is fine, loaded or unloaded. But if you are taking a trip you may want to put it in the trunk, unloaded.

 

[fd15k]

In oregon written in the law states that if you are heading to or from a target range or hunting/fishing activity. You can carry the firearm(s) concealed without a concealed permit.
Loaded or unloaded doesn't specify for it to matter.
So if you are going to the gun range you can have it how you say in the backseat, accessibility is fine, loaded or unloaded. But if you are taking a trip you may want to put it in the trunk, unloaded.

Okay, 166.260 provides a few exemptions to otherwise "unlawful possession" of concealed firearms. But I still don't see how it would help one out around the places where loaded firearms are not allowed in public (vehicle is a public place per court decision).

 

[chariot13]

Okay, 166.260 provides a few exemptions to otherwise "unlawful possession" of concealed firearms. But I still don't see how it would help one out around the places where loaded firearms are not allowed in public (vehicle is a public place per court decision).

You have to go to https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors166.html to get the honest answer... the sites like OregonLaw.org & others don't show the full statute & are therefore unreliable.

166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250. (1) ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affect:

(a) Members of any club or organization, for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets upon the established target ranges, whether public or private, while such members are using any of the firearms referred to in ORS 166.250 upon such target ranges, or while going to and from such ranges.

(b) Licensed hunters or fishermen while engaged in hunting or fishing, or while going to or returning from a hunting or fishing expedition.

Both specify going to or returning from. If you were a police officer and you charged someone for such crime while they are legally travelling to or from one of these activities then you should lose your job imho.

I remember the case for that court decision & the person was not doing any of the exemptions. He wasn't going to or from a shooting range or doing any hunting or fishing. So he was not afforded the exemption while in a public place. Open for public use forest land is also a public place. It also states within the statute in subsection about target shooting that it does not matter whether public or private

Also where it states expedition after hunting or fishing. That isn't to or from your car, it is great travels or a specific definition such as "An expedition typically refers to a long journey". I did some of those in the military & it didn't pertain to only after you stepped foot in Country. It was the whole journey.

 

[fd15k]

You have to go to https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors166.html to get the honest answer... the sites like OregonLaw.org & others don't show the full statute & are therefore unreliable.

166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250. (1) ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affect:

(a) Members of any club or organization, for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets upon the established target ranges, whether public or private, while such members are using any of the firearms referred to in ORS 166.250 upon such target ranges, or while going to and from such ranges.

(b) Licensed hunters or fishermen while engaged in hunting or fishing, or while going to or returning from a hunting or fishing expedition.

Both specify going to or returning from. If you were a police officer and you charged someone for such crime while they are legally travelling to or from one of these activities then you should lose your job imho.

You haven't answered my question. Most important thing that 166.250 does, is it disallows concealment of firearms. It doesn't deal with loaded/unloaded, which is exactly the reason Oregon is an Open Carry state. 166.260, which you cited above, provides a few exceptions to unlawful concealment. Certain municipalities ban loaded firearms in public (vehicle is a public place), and the only exemption is provided in the same statute that authorizes such regulation, 166.173, to persons who are CHL holders. Now may I have a clarification to my original question ?