Open carry/backpack carry in the woods with no CHL.

[chariot13]

I had a lead on a good spot to shoot on BLM/Seneca lumber land that would require me to park and hike 2 or 300 yards. I have no CHL yet. I had a holster for my SR9 and was going to open carry it unloaded with the mag unloaded in my pocket or an ammo pouch. Rifle slung on shoulder unloaded mag also stowed. My unloaded revolver in a bag or backpack along with a box of ammo.

Before I left I started to get paranoid about the legalities of carrying a gun concealed in a back pack or bag along with ammo maybe in the same bag maybe not.

I ended up just taking the 9mm unloaded with the unloaded mag in an ammo belt pouch alongside some ammo.

Was I wrong to worry about a gun in a backpack? What about the ammo in proximity?

Carrying a firearm in a backpack, box etc...with loaded magazines that are NOT inserted inside the firearm are not considered concealed carry. It is treated no differently than if you were transporting a firearm in a luggage container to or from a train/plane or an automobile. However airlines and Amtrak have their own policy's, that you must have the magazines unloaded & all ammo must be inside its original packaging, or a cardboard/plastic container. Washington has the clause written in that you can carry concealed out in the forest while hiking without a concealed permit. You would be hard pressed to find a forest ranger here in Oregon that would give you any hassle for having a pocket pistol loaded and ready to go if you were out in the middle of the woods or rural setting. There are clear exemptions that someone already listed besides having a permit, such as going to or from a shooting range, or to or from a fishing or hunting expedition. (Keep a pole in your vehicle at all times, find out which ponds in your area allow you to fish year around). Unfortunately you will need to get a fishing/hunting license. But having to carry only one of your Nazi approved papers instead of two is always better.

 

[Zeshio]

If you're going to go through the hassle of buying a fishing license just go through the CHL for gods sake.

As far as my opinion goes, if you make reasonable attempts to make your firearm inaccessable, the courts should find in your favor if you got in trouble. So, if you had a gun in a case unloaded, or locked, or did not have magazines loaded with ammo I'd say you're making a reasonable attempt at following the law. If you can easily whip a pistol out of your bag and put a loaded mag in it, I'd consider it concealed because it is readily available for use.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

If you're going to go through the hassle of buying a fishing license just go through the CHL for gods sake.

As far as my opinion goes, if you make reasonable attempts to make your firearm inaccessable, the courts should find in your favor if you got in trouble. So, if you had a gun in a case unloaded, or locked, or did not have magazines loaded with ammo I'd say you're making a reasonable attempt at following the law. If you can easily whip a pistol out of your bag and put a loaded mag in it, I'd consider it concealed because it is readily available for use.

That's kinda the way I'm seeing it. Until I get my CHL anything I carry in my backpack will have a trigger or cable lock unloaded. Mags will be stowed unloaded too. My open carry gun will be loaded and ready. It's an abundance of caution I know but It's easy enough for what I'm doing. Getting a CHL has moved up on my priority list though.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

All solvable with a CH Permit! Just sayin'.

 

[Father of four]

Theres a few other places but remember, ALL of Multnomah County not just Portland, is now off limits....

Its incredibly unconstitutional but hey, its now the law/ordinance. So much for freedom.

 

[Father of four]

Just open carry it loaded. Thats legal. Theres no sense in carrying an unloaded gun. Look up ORS.166.240-166.260 for more clarification.

Unless you are in Multnomah county and are non-CHL.

 

[Father of four]

People should check the laws, rules and regulations of the places they are intending to go to away from their home.

 

[Father of four]

All solvable with a CH Permit! Just sayin'.

Who needs rights anyways? Permissions are easier.

 

[chariot13]

If you're going to go through the hassle of buying a fishing license just go through the CHL for gods sake.

As far as my opinion goes, if you make reasonable attempts to make your firearm inaccessable, the courts should find in your favor if you got in trouble. So, if you had a gun in a case unloaded, or locked, or did not have magazines loaded with ammo I'd say you're making a reasonable attempt at following the law. If you can easily whip a pistol out of your bag and put a loaded mag in it, I'd consider it concealed because it is readily available for use.

The law states that if you don't have a CHL or fall under one of the exemptions (going to or from fishing/hunting/shooting), the firearm in a vehicle must not be within the passenger compartment. It is just as easy & probably quicker to unbuckle your seatbelt, jump to the backseat, reach into the cargo area for a loaded firearm to shoot, as it is to take off your backpack, unzip it, grab your firearm and the separately loaded magazine, insert magazine, chamber it and shoot it. If you don't have a CHL & don't want to go get one of the other nanny state licenses or permits (fishing/hunting) & are not going shooting. Then carry the gun in a backpack with a loaded magazine not inside the gun itself if you want to. Its legal & you'll at least have a fighting chance at protecting yourself or whoever it is that's life is in danger. The law regulates loaded firearms (magazine inserted in gun & loaded). That is why you can go into or out of a gun store or a gunsmith's with a new firearm inside a box or container & the new ammo you just bought for it too. Regardless if you have ammo on you or not, just don't have the magazine inserted in the firearm if its loaded, & don't have shells inside the shotgun/lever gun's tube. They get sketchy when it takes a single action on the gun itself to fire IE: Magazine inserted in gun & loaded. Separating a firearm into multiple pieces ( a magazine separate from the firearm) makes a world of difference in the legal world.

 

[hermannr]

I read all of 166.250 and it mostly talks about vehicle transport. I read something about a trigger lock making it not readily accessible also. Then there was this;

"Person violates pro*hi*bi**tion against carrying concealed firearm only if firearm is opera*tional, or can promptly be made opera*tional, at time per*son allegedly carries firearm concealed. State v. Briney, 345 Or 505, 200 P3d 550 (2008)"

That sounds vague doesn't it? All this BS for something that should be a right. Anyway if I have to carry one concealed in a backpack I'm gonna use a trigger lock to be on the safe side until I can swing a CHL.

Pay very close attention to ORS 166.250(3). It is very specific. A gun that is carried openly in a holster on your hip is not subject to the restrictions in .250.

In a backpack it is concealed, subject to .250 and must be unloaded unless you have a CHL.

If it is in the open, in a holster on your hip...it is NOT subject to the restrictions in .250 and may be carried loaded in your vehicle or on foot. The only possible restrictions are through ORS 166.173..where, if you have a license to conceal you are exempt from the restriction. In Lane County the only place that has made use of ORS 166.173 is Springfield, and only in their parks. Unlicensed, loaded, OC in a Springfield park is a no no.

OK? Be very careful of CC without a CHL.

Don't worry about loaded unlicensed OC unless you are up by Portland, and there you can unlicnesed OC, just not loaded.

 

[drew]

Pay very close attention to ORS 166.250(3). It is very specific. A gun that is carried openly in a holster on your hip is not subject to the restrictions in .250.

In a backpack it is concealed, subject to .250 and must be unloaded unless you have a CHL.

If it is in the open, in a holster on your hip...it is NOT subject to the restrictions in .250 and may be carried loaded in your vehicle or on foot. The only possible restrictions are through ORS 166.173..where, if you have a license to conceal you are exempt from the restriction. In Lane County the only place that has made use of ORS 166.173 is Springfield, and only in their parks. Unlicensed, loaded, OC in a Springfield park is a no no.

OK? Be very careful of CC without a CHL.

Don't worry about loaded unlicensed OC unless you are up by Portland, and there you can unlicnesed OC, just not loaded.

Yes. Sounds like they are much better off OC. CC without a CHL basically only leaves hunting or fishing with a license including travel to or from the activity are exempt in this instance

Target shooting also has an exemption under 166.260 but I doubt that would apply.

 

[ocarolan]

Unloaded in a back pack is not considered concealed. Don't have to have ammo in a separate bag, and your good to go with a loaded mag, in the same bag as gun as long as it is not in the gun.

Have you read the law? First, the "readily accessible" language in 166.250 1(b) and 4(a) only applies to carry in a motor vehicle. Not personal carry.

Next, ORS 166.250(a) prohibits "carrying any firearm concealed upon the person". No exemption for unloaded firearms or backpacks.

In fact, twice the court has affirmed that "upon the person" includes a bag and its contents. See State v. Anfield 1992, State v. Finlay 2002.

Furthermore, in the last case, the court found that "Accessibility of firearm carried in bag, briefcase or suitcase is irrelevant to determination that firearm was carried upon person."

To carry a firearm in a backpack, you must have a CHL, or meet the other exceptions.

 

[razormanxx]

You're in the middle of the forest who cares. Hmm territorial and lorane hwy you turn on simonsen rd ? There's lots of good places to shoot there.

 

[ocarolan]

Carrying a firearm in a backpack, box etc...with loaded magazines that are NOT inserted inside the firearm are not considered concealed carry.

Have you read the law? Again, accessibility is irrelevant for personal carry. The courts have affirmed this. The "readily accessible" language (166.250 1b) only applies to motor vehicles.

"Accessibility of firearm carried in bag, briefcase or suitcase is irrelevant to determination that firearm was carried upon person. State v. Finlay, 179 Or App 599, 42 P3d 326 (2002)"

"Upon the person includes bag and its contents while defendant held bag. State v. Anfield, 313 Or 554, 836 P2d 1337 (1992); State v. Finlay, 179 Or App 599, 42 P3d 326 (2002)"

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.250

 

[chariot13]

Have you read the law? First, the "readily accessible" language in 166.250 1(b) and 4(a) only applies to carry in a motor vehicle. Not personal carry.

Next, ORS 166.250(a) prohibits "carrying any firearm concealed upon the person". No exemption for unloaded firearms or backpacks.

In fact, twice the court has affirmed that "upon the person" includes a bag and its contents. See State v. Anfield 1992, State v. Finlay 2002.

Furthermore, in the last case, the court found that "Accessibility of firearm carried in bag, briefcase or suitcase is irrelevant to determination that firearm was carried upon person."

To carry a firearm in a backpack, you must have a CHL, or meet the other exceptions.

You obviously are slow in comprehension, it states the "Accessibility of firearm carried in bag, briefcase or suitcase is *irrelevant* to determination that firearm was carried upon person" Because it is not considered carried on person but within a separate container. The court recognized that when a firearm is carried in a vehicle "something wrapped around you" it only had to be made inaccessible within the vehicle of your immediate vicinity while sitting in It, preferably anywhere in the back or if in your immediate vicinity like the front, then locked in the front passenger area. Just as a backpack wraps around you, in the back. It too can be made inaccessible for immediate use. If you want, you can have a fully loaded firearm, chambered & ready to go in a backpack & put a padlock on both of the zippers, making it inaccessible for immediate use just like a locked center console. (just don't have the key inserted in the lock)

 

[ocarolan]

In a backpack it is concealed, subject to .250 and must be unloaded unless you have a CHL.

Currently, 166.250 makes no exception for unloaded firearms.

Kevin Starrett's book highlights this as well, see chapter 4.

 

[ocarolan]

You obviously are slow in comprehension, it states the "Accessibility of firearm carried in bag, briefcase or suitcase is *irrelevant* to determination that firearm was carried upon person" Because it is not considered carried on person but within a separate container from your body. The court recognized that when a firearm is carried in a vehicle "something wrapped around you" it only had to be made inaccessible within the vehicle of your immediate vicinity while sitting in It, preferably anywhere in the back or if in the front then locked in the front passenger area. Just as a backpack wraps around you, in the back. It too can be made inaccessible for immediate use. If you want, you can have a fully loaded firearm, chambered & ready to go in a backpack & put a padlock on both of the zippers, making it inaccessible for immediate use just like a locked center console. (just don't have the key inserted in the lock)

I'm sorry, your writing does not make sense to me. The Findlay case did not involve a vehicle. You can read about it at the link below.

If you don't believe me, please read the law or contact OFF.

Google Scholar

 

[chariot13]

I'm sorry, your writing does not make sense to me. The Findlay case did not involve a vehicle. You can read about it at the link below.

If you don't believe me, please read the law or contact OFF.

Google Scholar

I'm not talking about the Findlay case, I'm talking about the law & how it is written & interpreted. The first 60 years of Oregon's lawmaking history had nothing to do with motor vehicles. Cars didn't become prevalent until the 1920's. The law that matters was written 60 years prior to common use of motor vehicles. It's recognized that most people did not separate what they did while on foot or on horseback when this law was written. If you want to appease the feeble minded then sure carry your loaded gun in a backpack with a small padlock looped through both zippers. The libs will be happy & the police will think you are being extra careful. Or do whatever it is you want to do & it wont bother me one bit

 

[ocarolan]

I'm not talking about the Findlay case, I'm talking about the law & how it is written & interpreted. The first 60 years of Oregon's lawmaking history had nothing to do with motor vehicles. Cars didn't become prevalent until the 1920's. The law that matters was written 60 years prior to common use of motor vehicles. It's recognized that most people did not separate what they did while on foot or on horseback when this law was written. If you want to appease the feeble minded then sure carry your loaded gun in a backpack with a small padlock looped through both zippers. The libs will be happy & the police will think you are being extra careful. Or do whatever it is you want to do & it wont bother me one bit

Yes. I agree this is common sense and should be the law. Unfortunately, the current law prohibits bag carry. Ms. Finlay was successfully prosecuted for it, so it is no mere technicality.

The next time OFF floats a bill to fix 166.250, we should all push our legislators to support it. In particular, the law should provide a method for transporting arms on a bicycle or motorcycle.

One caveat here - ORS 166.210(2) has a specific definition of firearm. It states:

"a weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of powder and which is readily capable of use as a weapon."

That said, the courts have a very liberal interpretation of readily capable. Recently, the court decided a disassembled pistol (Goltz), and a pistol with no firing pin (Gortmaker) still qualified as "readily capable of use as weapons"!!

Here is the specific Court of Appeals decision for Finlay:

"There is no requirement under ORS 166.250(1)(a) that the firearm be readily accessible.[5] See State v. Williams, 161 Or.App. 111, 124, 984 P.2d 312 (1999) (Edmonds, P.J., concurring) ("ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b) focus on places of concealment and not whether there is easy access to an object.").

Rather, while ORS 166.250 does contain the term "readily accessible," that language is found in ORS 166.250(1)(b),[6] which applies to handguns possessed inside a vehicle. No similar language is found in ORS 166.250(1)(a), and we cannot insert language into that provision that the legislature has chosen to exclude. ORS 174.010.

Anfield establishes that "[t]he pertinent consideration is whether defendant carried the bag, not the fact that it was a bag or how long defendant carried it." 313 Or. at 559, 836 P.2d 1337 (emphasis added). Although the defendant in Anfield may have been carrying a smaller and lighter bag than defendant here, in both cases the defendant carried a bag with a firearm concealed inside. Anfield and the authorities on which it relied all involved a defendant carrying a firearm inside of a bag, briefcase or suitcase. Each of those courts held that the contents of those bags were "upon the person."

The particular characteristics of the bag here do not obviate the fact that defendant carried the bag and that the bag contained a firearm. Thus, defendant's conduct falls squarely within the interpretation of ORS 166.250(1)(a) announced in Anfield, and the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal.

Affirmed.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

You're in the middle of the forest who cares.

When I get accused of leaving trash or poaching or trespassing or fit the description of the guy who just caused a fire or............
I agree, the odds are in my favor against coming in contact with a ranger who asks what's in my bag. But if I do, I plan on having all my ducks in a row. Although it's BS it's no real hassle.