Open carry stop

[nwbobber]

I read 166.250 and understand it. 166.360, and 166.370 specifically calls out public schools.

166.370 Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging firearm at school. (1) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony.
(2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person who intentionally possesses:
(A) A firearm in a court facility is guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C felony. A person who intentionally possesses a firearm in a court facility shall surrender the firearm to a law enforcement officer.
(B) A weapon, other than a firearm, in a court facility may be required to surrender the weapon to a law enforcement officer or to immediately remove it from the court facility. A person who fails to comply with this subparagraph is guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C felony.
(b) The presiding judge of a judicial district may enter an order permitting the possession of specified weapons in a court facility.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
(a) A sheriff, police officer, other duly appointed peace officers or a corrections officer while acting within the scope of employment.
(b) A person summoned by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest or preserving the peace, while the summoned person is engaged in assisting the officer.
(c) An active or reserve member of the military forces of this state or the United States, when engaged in the performance of duty.
(d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.
(e) A person who is authorized by the officer or agency that controls the public building to possess a firearm or dangerous weapon in that public building.
(f) An employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, acting within the scope of employment, who possesses a firearm in the course of the lawful taking of wildlife.
(g) Possession of a firearm on school property if the firearm:
(A) Is possessed by a person who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing the firearm; and
(B) Is unloaded and locked in a motor vehicle.
(4) The exceptions listed in subsection (3)(b) to (g) of this section constitute affirmative defenses to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section.
(5)(a) Any person who knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, discharges or attempts to discharge a firearm at a place that the person knows is a school shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this subsection does not apply to the discharge of a firearm:
(A) As part of a program approved by a school in the school by an individual who is participating in the program;
(B) By a law enforcement officer acting in the officer's official capacity; or
(C) By an employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, acting within the scope of employment, in the course of the lawful taking of wildlife.
(6) Any weapon carried in violation of this section is subject to the forfeiture provisions of ORS 166.279.
(7) Notwithstanding the fact that a person's conduct in a single criminal episode constitutes a violation of both subsections (1) and (5) of this section, the district attorney may charge the person with only one of the offenses.
(8) As used in this section, "dangerous weapon" means a dangerous weapon as that term is defined in ORS 161.015. [1969 c.705 §§2,4; 1977 c.207 §2; 1979 c.398 §2; 1989 c.839 §22; 1989 c.982 §5; 1991 c.67 §39; 1993 c.625 §1; 1999 c.782 §7; 1999 c.1040 §4; 2001 c.666 §§24,36; 2003 c.614 §6; 2009 c.556 §6]

In my CHL class we were told that the license to carry concealed was just that. It is a license to carry concealed, and it gives us the right to carry CONCEALED in areas where firearm possesion has otherwise been prohibited (OREGON law here), with the exception of the federal courthouses, etc.. Now you interpret it how you want, I am going to err on the side that keeps me from losing my firearm rights.

 

[speeddemon94]

Right, so any person who has a CHL can carry where and how they like. There is nothing saying that the handgun must be concealed...Just that nothing in that section applies to them.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Your CHL instructor is incorrect, a license is merely for the purpose of exempting you from ORS 166.250

the public buildings law exempts certain classes of people, without stating conditions for that exemption. for instance do police officers have to carry concealed when in a public building? no, because the statute does not require it.

it states having a CHL exempts you from the prohibition, it does not state how to carry, concealed or openly. in fact, the law authorizing CHLs does not state it allows you to carry concealed or that you must carry concealed. it is ORS 166.250 that says a CHL is an exemption.

if you have a license, you're in a class of persons exempt from .370, .370 does not set statutory conditions for method of carry.

therefore open carry appears to be permitted so long as the individual has a CHL

 

[soberups]

I was generalizing, just happened to use a few words from your post. And we are (being) pussified....

To a point, I agree with you. There is far too much feel-good political correctness and far too much overreaction on the part of some people when it comes to guns and gun rights. In a perfect world, the sight of someone carrying a pistol on their hip would be a non-issue. However...we dont live in a perfect world, and in light of recent events at Newtown I dont see anything wrong with choosing to act with a bit of tact and discretion when it comes to carrying firearms openly in and around schools. I support the right to open carry, but at the same time I think the guys who were parading around in front of an elementary school with slung AR-15's ... for no reason other than to make a point and get attention...are a couple of jackasses and they arent doing us as gun owners any favors with their behavior. Its kind of like the freedom of speech; I support it 100% but I also recognize that there are times and places where the wise man chooses to keep his mouth shut.

 

[BDA.45]

^^^^ I agree.

 

[Kevatc]

You should re-read if that's your comprehension, or speak to a lawyer. Like another member has stated, the op was not doing anything illegal. The fact that some of us in this community would throw him under the bus for his open cary is ludicrous and downright disrespectful. I cant believe that dude who went on his rant, about open carry. That my friend is how we will continue to loose rights, because you are too meek to stand up for what is right for fear or not assimilating!

-LazerblazeR

If you are willing to have an open mind and exercise your intellect I would hope that you could see that open carry can have the exact opposite effect than what we as a gun community are after. Like it or not, open carrying in certain circumstances is not a positive for gun owners and issues. I see CCing as a "need to know" issue. 99.9% of folks don't have a need to know I am carrying and that means I have not had a negative effect on 99.9% of folks out there. I win and they have no idea I won. That makes me friggin' awesome. And I like being friggin' awesome.

In the interests of intellectual honesty ... I do recognize that OCing is perfectly legal and exercising the right can show that it is legal. But as I was taught as a young kid: there is a time and place for EVERYTHING.

I support your right to open carry at a school in the same way that I support your right to show up at the school wearing nothing but a pink Speedo, knee-high white vinyl go-go boots and a feathered boa. The fact that you have the right does not automatically mean that it is wise or socially acceptable to excercise the right at a particular time or place. If you choose to open carry at a school you cant complain about the negative attention that may result from that choice, especially in light of recent events involving guns in schools. I'm not saying that its right, but it is what it is.

Gotta love the visual on that but I also wonder how you could do anything but OC considering the get up? LOL!!!

Look at our society. Look at this thread. People have become so pussified. It scares me waaaaa, pink speed-o waaaaa. Bunch of pussies! Get over it. Stand up for your rights. No wonder were losing em. Ill open carry whenever and wherever (legally) I damn well please just to piss off you pussies. Deal with it...

Stand up for my rights? OK .... I will exercise my 1A and suggest that you're an idiot. On a side note, who'da thunk it that the filter would let every iteration of pussy pass.

 

[lazerblazer]

Regardless of what things should be there is reality and the way things actually are.

You are very right and per the laws of Oregon this is the reality! Like it or not OC is exempt if you have a CHL. Hows that for an open mind and intellect?

 

[nwbobber]

To the open carry legal issue, you all may be right as to the interpretation of the law. I have some reservations as to the assumption that a license to carry a concealed handgun, which has very little language other than its name listing what the license entitles you to, exempts one from all aspects of a prohibition to possess a firearm in a place where it is otherwise prohibited. These reservations are my own, I will act as I see fit until I see some case law supporting the courts interpretation of this.
The OP appears to have some other issues, that of his agreement with his school, and may have to comply with their wishes if he is to get an education. If it were me, the education would be the priority. There are some comfortable shirts that don't have to be tucked, and are well ventilated.

I don't believe that an in your face attitude is going to be productive in the long run. Even the framers of the constitution, argued that the 2A was for "peacable citizens". While legal, and your right, carrying in a way that makes people uncomfortable may motivate them to support limiting our rights legally.

 

[charros93]

While legal, and your right, carrying in a way that makes people uncomfortable may motivate them to support limiting our rights legally.

Soooo...let me get this straight, we should not exercise our right to OC in fear that if we do, our right to legally do so will be removed? :huh:

What difference does it make?

In both scenarios the outcome is the same.

 

[hermannr]

I support your right to open carry at a school in the same way that I support your right to show up at the school wearing nothing but a pink Speedo, knee-high white vinyl go-go boots and a feathered boa. The fact that you have the right does not automatically mean that it is wise or socially acceptable to excercise the right at a particular time or place. If you choose to open carry at a school you cant complain about the negative attention that may result from that choice, especially in light of recent events involving guns in schools. I'm not saying that its right, but it is what it is.

So the Brady's have won you over eh? You have bought their propaganda lock stock and barrel. They have convinced you that the open carry of a firearm for your protection is not socially acceptable? But is I put a black jumpsuit on and paint "Police" on it...then it is socially acceptable?

Can you please tell me why the Jumpsuit makes it acceptable? I prefer Black Carhartt's.

 

[soberups]

So the Brady's have won you over eh? You have bought their propaganda lock stock and barrel. They have convinced you that the open carry of a firearm for your protection is not socially acceptable? But is I put a black jumpsuit on and paint "Police" on it...then it is socially acceptable?

Can you please tell me why the Jumpsuit makes it acceptable? I prefer Black Carhartt's.

The Bradys didnt convince me of anything.

The reality...which you are apparently in denial of....is that the majority of the sheeple in the Portland area do not regard open carry in or around a school as being socially acceptable, and a person who chooses to open carry regardless of this fact is more than likely going to be drawing a great amount of unwanted attention to himself, up to and including harassment by school administration or even having the cops called on him by uninformed or frightened people.

Is this right? No. Is this fair? No. Do I wish it were different? Yes. Unfortunately, that is the way things are and no amount of denial or wishful thinking on our part is going to change that fact.

I personally do not see any advantage or benefit in drawing attention to myself or the fact that I am armed, which is why I choose to carry concealed. If another individual makes a different choice for himself that is certainly his right and I support his right to make that choice even if I question the wisdom of the choice itself.

 

[oknow]

maybe we should have a open carry day once a week and everyone open carries.
before long the pd operators will say so what are they doing wrong?

 

[hermannr]

is that the majority of the sheeple in the Portland area do not regard open carry in or around a school as being socially acceptable, and a person who chooses to open carry regardless of this fact is more than likely going to be drawing a great amount of unwanted attention to himself, up to and including harassment by school administration or even having the cops called on him by uninformed or frightened people.]

You have stood by a school and polled those going to every school in Portland and asked them the question: "do you find it socially unacceptable to open carry firearms?"?

Sorry, the Brady's and CeaseFire put out statements like that, with absolutely no real provable data to back it up, just like you just did. The Brady's are the ones that wanted Schools to be victim rich zones, and used their made-up statistics to "prove" their point. And you have obviously bought into their lies and propaganda.

I am not blind, I have Open Carried in Portland, more than once, no one called, no one cared. (I have never intentionally concealed in 43 years. I carry, and if I am wearing a coat for the weather, it may be covered. If I am not wearing a coat, it is not covered.) I used to live in Oregon, I have relatives in Oregon, including a daughter, grandkids, and even cousins that live in Portland. I have NEVER heard anyone (anywhere, including LE) of my acquaintance or relation say anything negative about my OC. I have a SIL that does not like firearms of any type, and does not think anyone should have them...however, when I explained why I carry...he even came around. Yes, I OC in his house too.

No, you have listened to the propaganda, and have bought into it, lock stock and barrel.

What you need to do is learn that OC is a deterrent to trouble. Why do you think the guys in the black jump suits all OC? "it makes a statement" yes, it does: it says: "I am able to defend myself". I have never, in 43 years, had to pull my weapon, let alone fire it in self defense. However, I do know for a fact that someone that was yelling and screaming he was going to beat me to a pulp, all of a sudden shut up, turned around, and left very quickly; and did so just after I turned enough to see who was yelling at me, and at that time he was able to see that I was armed. My carry never left it's holster. It's presence was all that was necessary. I did not have to "display" my carry, it was just there.

It has been my observation that the LEO's that do not like OC think of being able to OC as part of an exclusive club: theirs. In a recent study of 15000 officers across the US that was done and reported on .PoliceOne, it found that 78% of the officers like the idea that average Joe can carry. According to the report, they consider those that do carry as their first, and immediate backup. It also found that most of those that were against carry by average Joe, were paper pushers, not officers that actually get out on patrol.

It has also been my observation that those with a CC license that tout the "element of surprise" and do not understand why anyone would OC at any time,,,, (personally have only "met" these kinds of people "online", I have never met one in person.),,,, have bought into the Brady's propaganda. Some are like that LE minority, and have this desire to be part of an (in this case, they want it to be a secret) exclusive club of those that have paid their dues for permission to Conceal. It makes them feel "holier than thou", and/or "better trained" and/or more knowledgeable. In Oregon, WA, ID, MT, NM NV, WY....and many other states, you can OC without a permission slip from the king, so then those that OC must not have paid their "Dues" to enter this exclusive club that allows you to Conceal...Eh? That you?

Kind of like the guys in OR that read ORS 166.173(2)(c) to read with "OR CHL" in it. That way it becomes an even more exclusive club...Eh? sorry "(2)(c)" does notsay "a license issued under ORS 166.291-292...". It simply states "a license to carry a concealed weapon". Think about it.

 

[Kevatc]

It all comes down to a personal choice for either being OK with the attention you may get OCing or just CCing and having no one else the wiser. If you want to OC then more power to you but don't moan and groan that a campus security guard or John Q Public calls you out on it. Most likely they won't know the law and so won't know they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[hermannr]

It all comes down to a personal choice for either being OK with the attention you may get OCing or just CCing and having no one else the wiser. If you want to OC then more power to you but don't moan and groan that a campus security guard or John Q Public calls you out on it. Most likely they won't know the law and so won't know they don't know what they are talking about.

OK, in 43years of OC:

First LE "attention". This happened 25 or 30 years ago, Manson, WA grocery store. OCing a 6" Colt Revolver in a hunting holster. Chelan, Co Sheriff's deputy: "Hunting?" My answer: "Yep"...Deputy Sheriff to himself: "I see nothing illegal here"

Second LE encounter: (about 8 years ago.) CoP, Tonasket, WA. When are you going to join our gun club?

Third LE encounter: (last summer, Clear Lake boat ramp, Clear Lake WA. Skagit Co. Deputy) "Nice looking gun, what is it?"

Now you think there is a problem with OC? You think someone will attempt to intimidate you? "A RIGHT not exercised is a right lost"

 

[hermannr]

maybe we should have a open carry day once a week and everyone open carries.
before long the pd operators will say so what are they doing wrong?

Overheard, person speaking is on a cell phone. Mt Vernon, WA DOL: "but he has a gun!" unknown response, "No, it is just in a holster." unknown response, "But he has a GUN!" unknown response, "Well OK, bye".

There are 911 operators (I assume that is who this guy was talking about) have been trained already. No LE ever showed up.

 

[hermannr]

I read 166.250 and understand it. 166.360, and 166.370 specifically calls out public schools.

166.370 Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging firearm at school. (1) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony.
(2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person who intentionally possesses:
(A) A firearm in a court facility is guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C felony. A person who intentionally possesses a firearm in a court facility shall surrender the firearm to a law enforcement officer.
(B) A weapon, other than a firearm, in a court facility may be required to surrender the weapon to a law enforcement officer or to immediately remove it from the court facility. A person who fails to comply with this subparagraph is guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C felony.
(b) The presiding judge of a judicial district may enter an order permitting the possession of specified weapons in a court facility.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
(a) A sheriff, police officer, other duly appointed peace officers or a corrections officer while acting within the scope of employment.
(b) A person summoned by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest or preserving the peace, while the summoned person is engaged in assisting the officer.
(c) An active or reserve member of the military forces of this state or the United States, when engaged in the performance of duty.
(d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.
(e) A person who is authorized by the officer or agency that controls the public building to possess a firearm or dangerous weapon in that public building.
(f) An employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, acting within the scope of employment, who possesses a firearm in the course of the lawful taking of wildlife.
(g) Possession of a firearm on school property if the firearm:
(A) Is possessed by a person who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing the firearm; and
(B) Is unloaded and locked in a motor vehicle.
(4) The exceptions listed in subsection (3)(b) to (g) of this section constitute affirmative defenses to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section.
(5)(a) Any person who knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, discharges or attempts to discharge a firearm at a place that the person knows is a school shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this subsection does not apply to the discharge of a firearm:
(A) As part of a program approved by a school in the school by an individual who is participating in the program;
(B) By a law enforcement officer acting in the officer's official capacity; or
(C) By an employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, acting within the scope of employment, in the course of the lawful taking of wildlife.
(6) Any weapon carried in violation of this section is subject to the forfeiture provisions of ORS 166.279.
(7) Notwithstanding the fact that a person's conduct in a single criminal episode constitutes a violation of both subsections (1) and (5) of this section, the district attorney may charge the person with only one of the offenses.
(8) As used in this section, "dangerous weapon" means a dangerous weapon as that term is defined in ORS 161.015. [1969 c.705 §§2,4; 1977 c.207 §2; 1979 c.398 §2; 1989 c.839 §22; 1989 c.982 §5; 1991 c.67 §39; 1993 c.625 §1; 1999 c.782 §7; 1999 c.1040 §4; 2001 c.666 §§24,36; 2003 c.614 §6; 2009 c.556 §6]

In my CHL class we were told that the license to carry concealed was just that. It is a license to carry concealed, and it gives us the right to carry CONCEALED in areas where firearm possession has otherwise been prohibited (OREGON law here), with the exception of the federal courthouses, etc.. Now you interpret it how you want, I am going to err on the side that keeps me from losing my firearm rights.

Obviously your CHL class instructor likes the "exclusive club" myth eh? I will state positively, in this statement, your CHL instructor was WRONG! A small principle in common law that states: "that which is not specifically prohibited, is permitted" Can you show me IN LAW (ORS 166.XXX) where it specifically states OC is illegal? I will show you where, not only does it NOT say OC is illegal, it specifically states OC IS legal...Read ORS 166.250(3) BTW, the title of ORS 166.250 is "Unlawful possession of firearms" Then in (3) it states: "(3) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section."

As all prohibitions against carry of firearms are against "concealed" carry, and OC is not considered "concealed", how is OC restricted? The possession of a firearm in a public building would mean OC or CC. If you cannot OC in a public building in Oregon when in possession of an Oregon CHL, how do police carry when in a public building? BTW: The grounds of PCC are not "in a public building" anyway and .360 would not apply.

Item one: the OP was talking about PCC not a K-12 school. (look up the legal definition of "public school") AND, even if he had be at a k-12 school; Item 2: the OP was in possession of a OR CHL.

Item 3: Open Carry of a firearm is the unlicensed default in Oregon. If you have a CHL you MAY conceal. There is nothing in 360-380 that states you MUST conceal in a public building, it only states, if you enter a public building, and POSSESS a firearm, you must have an Oregon CHL. It says nothing about the MANNER of that possession, only "possession".

As for the stop itself: (and you have a CHL), you might want to read the US Supreme Court decision in Delaware V Prouse, or the Federal 4th Circuit court of appeals in US v Black. Prouse states a stop for a "license check" for a licensed activity, for no other reason than a just license check, is illegal and a violation of the 4th. Black states that a stop and seizure of a weapon (where it MAY be legal) that is openly carried, just to check to see if it IS legal; the stop is a violation of the 4th. The default is that the Openly Carried weapon is legal, where it can be legal. It must be assumed to BE legal unless something else (other than JUST the openly carried weapon) that would lead you to believe it is not. (that is you were doing something with it, other than just being in possession of it) The principle is called, "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". And yes, any background check violates this principle, and if tested in court would have the same result.

 

[hermannr]

sorry, duplicate post.

 

[Kevatc]

OK, in 43years of OC:

First LE "attention". This happened 25 or 30 years ago, Manson, WA grocery store. OCing a 6" Colt Revolver in a hunting holster. Chelan, Co Sheriff's deputy: "Hunting?" My answer: "Yep"...Deputy Sheriff to himself: "I see nothing illegal here"

Second LE encounter: (about 8 years ago.) CoP, Tonasket, WA. When are you going to join our gun club?

Third LE encounter: (last summer, Clear Lake boat ramp, Clear Lake WA. Skagit Co. Deputy) "Nice looking gun, what is it?"

Now you think there is a problem with OC? You think someone will attempt to intimidate you? "A RIGHT not exercised is a right lost"

AGAIN, I don't have a problem with OCing. I am glad you had a great experience with cops while OCing. For me I would rather go low profile. I'm not one of those "hey look at me and did you notice I have a gun on my hip" type guys. The less I am noticed the better. Like Teddy Roosevelt said, "speak softly and carry a big stick". I'd just prefer that nobody thinks I have a big stick.

 

[new2coos]

On a side note, I think for me at least, the die hard 2nd amendment'ers bothers me just as much as the gun grabbers. "But its mah right gerd dermit, to carry this here piece anywhere's I please!" Like the yahoo's after sandy hook that carried their AR's throughout Portland. God that drives me nuts and gives the rest of us unwanted publicity.

if you ascribe to this you sure make it easy to "divide and conquer". you talking this garbage gives us the inability to stick together on issues....would you guys vote to ban open carry....no, then why gripe..."drives me nuts"

in fact dont open carry your first amendment right....it "gives the rest of us unwanted publicity"