Open Carry Day

[danblackstone]

Blackstone Gun Safety is introducing “Open Carry Day”.

Blackstone Gun Safety prefers people carry concealed instead of open most of the time. However, we have decided to launch this “Open Carry Day” on Monday, September 12, 2011. Why did we pick this day? 10 years ago and one day, one of our enemies attacked our country. This enemy still wants to kill us. We want to send a message to the world that not only does our military do a fantastic job in protecting our country, but “we the people”, will also defend our country. The second reason for the “Open Carry Day” is to remind people that, “we the people” are responsible for protecting ourselves and our family. Don’t rely on the government and/or the local police to do this for you. When seconds count the police are minutes away.

We hope you possess a first aid kit and a fire extinguisher. We feel the same way about guns. We hope we never need to use any of them.

We are encouraging you to carry legally open on Monday, September 12th. To the best of our abilities, we have notified the local police departments that this event will be taking place. People will ask you, why are you carrying a gun? Share the reason.

1) We are sending a message to our enemies on the day after they attacked us that we will defend our country.
2) We are reminding people, you have a responsibility to protect yourself and your family. If you’re not prepared to protect them, you are being irresponsible.

Blackstone Gun Safety is NOT encouraging you to carry a gun where it is illegal to do so. It is your responsibility to know your local law.

Having a concealed handgun license allows you to carry a gun in many places you are not allowed to carry without this license. Please visit our web site to see how to get this license. Blackstone Gun Safety

Be Safe Be Smart

Read More

 

[billdeserthills]

Great Idea, I love it!

 

[gogoDawgs]

You understand that there are many of us that Open Carry daily, without any incident, with little fanfare..... we live the second amendment daily. We do so in the open, with nothing to hide as an ambassador of sorts for all gun owners. While I appreciate your sentiments, I encourage you to come out of the closet and join us.

 

[drew]

There are some larger municipalities in OR that don't allow open carry of a loaded firearm unless you have a CHL. Like the OP said know the law where you are.

 

[Will_Power]

There are some larger municipalities in OR that don't allow open carry of a loaded firearm unless you have a CHL. Like the OP said know the law where you are.

For those of us wanting to learnt he law, can you point out some websites that deal with that OR cities laws regarding open carry?

 

[2ANewbie]

Not that Kevin Starrett needs my help in disclaimers, but he is no lawyer and does not give legal advice, but he has a lot of information at his website at:
Oregon Firearms Federation
and specifically at: Oregon Firearms Federation regarding local cities in the State of Oregon.

 

[gogoDawgs]

For those of us wanting to learnt he law, can you point out some websites that deal with that OR cities laws regarding open carry?

or come to the actual page where the movement began...

OpenCarry.org - A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost! ...

Oregon Forum found here...

Oregon

 

[Will_Power]

or come to the actual page where the movement began...

OpenCarry.org - A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost! ...

Oregon Forum found here...

Oregon

Thank you.

Looks like those of us in Portland/Beaverton as SO-Open-Carry-L, eh?

 

[2ANewbie]

Those cities do not allow it without a CHL to override their ignorance.

 

[biggie24420]

Dang it! I can't believe I missed out
If you guys try to do this again I want to part take in it. As long as it's on a Monday or a Tuesday, count me in (my days off) lol.

 

[CharonPDX]

For future reference, Portland, Beaverton, Salem, Tigard, et al allow unloaded open carry, because they can't restrict that by the Oregon Constitution. (Unloaded means no rounds in the weapon, and no loaded magazines on your person. Revolver speedloaders may be loaded, though, since they are not "magazines".)

However, I wouldn't go open carrying alone in any of those cities, simply because it will bring the police down on you.

 

[VW_Factor]

(Unloaded means no rounds in the weapon, and no loaded magazines on your person. Revolver speedloaders may be loaded, though, since they are not "magazines".)

This is untrue. Only PDX has an ordnance against loaded magazines. Further still, they do not have the authority to ban loaded magazines given Oregon's State Constitution. If anyone ever gets arrested or charged with this unconstitutional law, my first call would be a lawyer, and then to Kevin of OFF.

Edit : I guess to be clear, yes the weapon must be unloaded, however your mags are good to go as long as they are not attached or inserted into your weapon.

 

[U201494]

I encourage you to come out of the closet and join us.

Naw, I don't want to call attention to myself by walking around with my Glock out.

 

[VW_Factor]

Naw, I don't want to call attention to myself by walking around with my Glock out.

What makes you think you'll attract undue attention?

 

[Asp]

What makes you think you'll attract undue attention?

He carries a Glock that's why.

 

[nitestocker]

who in there right mind doesn't carry a glock

 

[Asp]

who in there right mind doesn't carry a glock

 

[CharonPDX]

This is untrue. Only PDX has an ordnance against loaded magazines. Further still, they do not have the authority to ban loaded magazines given Oregon's State Constitution. If anyone ever gets arrested or charged with this unconstitutional law, my first call would be a lawyer, and then to Kevin of OFF.

Edit : I guess to be clear, yes the weapon must be unloaded, however your mags are good to go as long as they are not attached or inserted into your weapon.

Interesting, I had read the law (166.173) that states that localities may ban open carry of loaded firearms to those without CHLs, and that "loaded" was not defined, so that localities could define "loaded". I just noticed that later in 166, (166.360) it defines "loaded firearm" (although technically just for 166.360-380) as either of:

(a) A breech-loading firearm in which there is an unexpended cartridge or shell in or attached to the firearm including but not limited to, in a chamber, magazine or clip which is attached to the firearm.
(b) A muzzle-loading firearm which is capped or primed and has a powder charge and ball, shot or projectile in the barrel or cylinder.

So any reasonable court would agree that 166.173, which doesn't defined "loaded" should match 166.360, where it is defined. And since that specifically says "which is attached to the firearm", the only possible banning of removable magazines would be for in-the-weapon (since at that point, one might be able to argue it is "attached".) But if it's out of the weapon, there is no way one could argue it is "attached". Good catch.

(Although I'm not going to be the one to test this, partly because I have a CHL, so am exempt, and partly because I really don't feel like paying a lawyer to be the test case...)

 

[VW_Factor]

<broken link removed>

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

Otherwise.

166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.

Here is your answer. (not that its needed much, but this outlines where PDX oversteps their authority)

Edit : I guess part two would be required as well.

(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]

 

[CharonPDX]

Exactly. Part 2 is required, because it's what makes 166.173 possible, explicitly allowing Portland (and other cities/counties) to bar loaded open carry without a CHL. The only confusion is over the "loaded magazine" part. The Oregon Statute regarding local prohibition doesn't directly address what constitutes "loaded". A different part does, which specifically NEGATES not-in-the-weapon magazines.

Also, I find it funny that Portland's ordinance is worded in a way that could be challenged quite easily:

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.

It specifically says "recklessly". So... Are they declaring the act itself reckless? Or are they saying that it only applies when the act is reckless? Because I would argue that someone who is trained in firearm safety, choosing to carry loaded, is not being reckless. Therefore, even without a CHL (which negates the Portland ordinance anyway,) someone who is not being reckless could get away with carrying loaded open.

But, again, I'm not going to be the court test case...