JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
14,902
Reactions
27,422
OREGON APPEALS COURT DEALS MAJOR BLOW TO GUN RIGHTS IN OREGON

An Oregon Appeals Court decision has found that your car is now considered a "public place." That means that possessing a loaded firearm in a vehicle may be considered a crime if the locality in which you are traveling has a ban on open loaded carry.

This ruling is bizarre in light of how Oregon law defines "public place." ORS 161.015 defines public place this way:

(10) “Public place” means a place to which the general public has access and includes, but is not limited to, hallways, lobbies and other parts of apartment houses and hotels not constituting rooms or apartments designed for actual residence, and highways, streets, schools, places of amusement, parks, playgrounds and premises used in connection with public passenger transportation.

The case, Bryan Ward VS State of Oregon, dealt with an arrest, by a Portland Police officer, of a person who had an unconcealed handgun in his car.

It has always been our position that open carry in a vehicle was clearly protected by Oregon law. ORS 166.250 clearly states that except for CHL holders, it is concealed carry in a vehicle that is prohibited. It further states that the prohibition against concealed, loaded carry in a vehicle does not apply to"a recreational vessel or recreational vehicle while used, for whatever period of time, as residential quarters."

The Appeals Court decision turns on its head Oregon's preemption statute which allows only the state legislature to regulate possession of firearms, except for loaded carry in public places. If your car is now considered a "public place" will a law enforcement officer need a warrant to search it?

The Court concludes "When read together, ORS 166.173 and 161.015(1) clearly allow local governments to regulate the possession of loaded firearms on their streets and highways."

But ORS 166.173 states"166.173 Authority of city or county to regulate possession of loaded firearms in public places. (1) A city or county may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession of loaded firearms in public places as defined in ORS 161.015." and 161.015, as noted above, clearly defines a "public place" as a place to which the general public has access. " It is not ambiguous in any way.

The Court also reaches conclusions that seem to have no bearing on this case at all. In their decision, they state the following :

"Moreover, ORS 166.173(2)(c)--which exempts persons licensed to carry concealed weapons from local loaded firearms regulations--demonstrates that the legislature anticipated situations in which persons may possess concealed, loaded firearms in a public place. The legislature chose to exempt such persons from local regulations based on their possession of a certain type of permit, despite the fact that a concealed firearm, although otherwise in a "public place," is not kept in a place to which the "general public has access."

But this case is not about concealed handguns. CHL holders are exempt from many restrictions that non-license holders are subject to, and the legislature made very specific rules about vehicles and firearms possession which clearly allow open carry without a license while in a car. If a car is a "public place" then why even have laws specifically dealing with possession in a vehicle when the limits on carrying in "public places" would apply to cars anyway?

Oregon's preemption law was created specifically to prevent a person from inadvertently breaking the law as he moved around the state. This ruling is a major setback for gun rights in Oregon and puts many people at risk simply by crossing into a town or city that has onerous and unposted rules. OFF is considering what further legal action can be taken, and in the meantime warns gun owners to be very careful when traveling in Oregon.

https://www.oregonfirearms.org/
 
Here is the link to the brief from the Court of appeals. It appears the gun was in a back pack. I have not had time to read the entire report as it is long and I am currently short on time.

<broken link removed>

Here is a link to the Portland City Code that covers the loaded weapon in the city

<broken link removed>
 
Ok, I read the brief (of course I had to sleep half way through the 24 pages). I think I have a handle on the ruling. BK, correct me if I'm wrong.

Facts- PPB stopped a car for a valid traffic infraction (Probable cause). The officer contacts the driver and finds he had no insurance and therefor the vehicle must be towed. Because it is to be towed, it has to be inventoried for high value items (exception to search warrant). During that search, a loaded gun was found in the vehicle that had been on a public highway (within the city limits of Portland).

argument- defense said that the search was invalid but seemed to argue the wrong point. The search was legal. It also seems to be arguing that the city cannot regulate carry under certain conditions.

Finding-
Court found the search was legal (which it was) and the law valid because the car was on a public highway in the city of Portland.

What it means-
well, nothing to legal people. See this finding DOES NOT say your car is a public place. But, if during the course of a legal search a gun is found in violation of the city law, you are in violation. The law is legal and valid under Oregon Constitution because Oregon allows cities and other municipalities to set carry laws. (evidence- Portland)

See, this was a "perfect storm" for the driver, he was breaking traffic laws, then gets his car towed for a valid reason, and then is carrying outside the Portland law. If any of those were not present, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Lemme ask you this.... if we substituted marijuana in the place of handgun, would you have a problem with it? Because its the same thing really... the violation is having marijuana in a public place but is a crime within 1000' of a school. --- So a guy get stopped for no headlights at night, has no insurance and the car is getting towed. Case Law requires a vehicle inventory search and the marijuana is found in the backpack. The traffic stop is in front of the local elementary school.

By the way, Ward was also charged with unlawful possession of a weapon. FYI
 
Several points:
  • Inventorying a vehicle for a tow is not the same as searching it because you have a search warrant. There is this thing called the 4th Amendment that says you must get a warrant for a search based upon probable cause, and the warrant must describe the place to be searched and person or things to be seized. Because it was a traffic violation, and the person didn't have insurance, that doesn't give one the right to search the vehicle and stack additional charges based upon effects found during the ILLEGAL search. Taking an inventory is not the same.
  • An inventory search is an exception and if evidence of a further crime is found, then yes it is admissible. Hate to burst your bubble but it is legal.
  • Your vehicle is not a public place, even if it's on a public road. The problem is with 161.015, which defines public places as "including but not limited to". The language is very intentional, as attorneys review this stuff before it gets written as a bill and signed into law. By putting "but not limited to", this means anything can be considered a public place based on the whims of the police, prosecutor, and judge. They are law enforcers, not law interpreters. You can't make law on the fly; that is immoral, and is subjugating the serfs to tyranny.
  • well, hate to tell you but you interpret the law as much as any officer, prosecutor or judge. Its not always right- but it has to be done. Do you expect the officer on the traffic stop to call for a jury to respond and give him direction on what to do next? :s0114:
  • Just because something is a law doesn't mean it should be followed. There are plenty of immoral laws -- always has been, always will be, because it's human nature to force your views onto others. Boy does it suck when the tables are turned and YOU are not in power. Complaining about that is called HYPOCRISY, which is immoral and wrong.
  • Ok, how about a little test. strap an AR 15 to your back, walk into a Portland Starbucks and sit down with a cup of coffee. Stay until the cops come and tell them you won't take the gun off. Isn't this law immoral? Well then, don't follow it.... make it obvious and stand up for you "convictions." I'll bet you pay your taxes, license and plates.
  • Think about it ... if everyone followed every law without question, then we wouldn't have this country called the USA (and there are many other examples of territories changing control from one oligarchy to another).
  • Its not about following without question. Its about laws passed by your elected government.
So, I guess the bottom line is, this case like all cases (according to you) are based on corrupt laws, officers, prosecutors and judges. You seem to be the only moral guide on this planet.
 
14A.60.010 Possession of a Loaded Firearm in a Public Place.
A. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess or carry a firearm, in or upon a public place, including while in a vehicle in a public place, recklessly having failed to remove all the ammunition from the firearm.

B. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess or carry a firearm and that firearm’s clip or magazine, in or upon a public place, including while in a vehicle in a public place, recklessly having failed to remove all the ammunition from the clip or magazine.


If I have my pistol in the glove compartment, and no magazine is in the magazine well, and no round is in the breech, and I have a magazine that has rounds in it in my trunk, then I would be in violation of Portland city code if I didn't meet one of the exceptions. Can anyone explain to me how that makes any sense, and how that is RECKLESS?

Yes- in violation. The Oregon Constitution allows for cities and municipalities to set requirements for the way weapons are carried within their town/ city limits.

Reckless- its a legal term. Its a culpable mental state required to show the offenders state of mind or intention.
 
Several points:
  • Inventorying a vehicle for a tow is not the same as searching it because you have a search warrant. There is this thing called the 4th Amendment that says you must get a warrant for a search based upon probable cause, and the warrant must describe the place to be searched and person or things to be seized. Because it was a traffic violation, and the person didn't have insurance, that doesn't give one the right to search the vehicle and stack additional charges based upon effects found during the ILLEGAL search. Taking an inventory is not the same.

Actually a vehicle does not require a search warrant under most conditions as it falls under the exigent circumstance exception. And the requirement for probable cause is well below "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I guess then it would be illegal to search a person prior to entering a jail/prison as there is no warrant. As for the inventory clause, you can thank all those that accused the police and tow companies of stealing things out of their vehicles.
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors April 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top