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

[OFF Alert] APPEALS COURT DEALS BLOW TO GUN RIGHTS IN OREGON

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by RVTECH, Dec 14, 2008.

  1. RVTECH

    RVTECH LaPine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    Likes Received:
    2,600
    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.

    http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/12.14.08 alert.html
     
  2. BKMDNO

    BKMDNO Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. wakejoe

    wakejoe Beaverton, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    131
    I guess if my car is a public place, I can't refuse to let someone else in it anyway?
     
  4. BUZO71

    BUZO71 Emerald Valley, Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    8
    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
     
  5. BUZO71

    BUZO71 Emerald Valley, Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    8
    • 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.
    • 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? :laugh:
    • 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.
    • 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.
     
  6. BUZO71

    BUZO71 Emerald Valley, Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    8
    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.
     
  7. BUZO71

    BUZO71 Emerald Valley, Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    8
    1- no sense
    2- Reckless is a LEGAL TERM
     
  8. torpedoman

    torpedoman land of corrupt politicians Member

    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    18
    In a back pack is concealed carry not open carry.
     
  9. BKMDNO

    BKMDNO Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  10. BUZO71

    BUZO71 Emerald Valley, Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    8
    Zombie, you miss the point.... its an example of the same thing... exceptions to the search warrant requirement... an argument that YOU brought up.....:confused::confused::confused: