Open carry stop

[Stomper]

At the risk of sounding wishy-washy there are valid points on both sides of this discussion. I tell my kids all the time that "just because you can doesn't mean you should", but on the other hand "don't live your life (always) worrying about offending others' sensibilities, because SOMEONE will ALWAYS hate whatever tie you wear on any given day".

I generally prefer to CC, and have OC in a "public place" exactly twice (that I remeber). One time was @ the local Safeway store because we were doing yard work before going and I was wearing a tucked in T-shirt with exposed IWB holster and didn't feel like putting on an jacket/overshirt... only a couple folks barely actually noticed but didn't raise an eyebrow (most likely due to my body language), since I was shopping with my wife and I always give the "aura" that I'm doing exactly what I'm supposed to be doing, where I'm do it at.

The second time was about a month ago @ Barton park while salmon fishing from the bank during a weekday. I didn't start out w/OC, but a group of about 7 "high school aged" kids came into the park being all rowdy, picking up rocks/tree branches and throwing them all around and at each other, and being loud & obnoxious as the type of teenagers skipping school are prone to do.

I just "minded my own business" as they weren't techincally breaking any laws (other than truancy and disturbing the (my) peace) and most likely would have told me to go pleasure myself if I had told them to knock off the BS, but I noticed they were slowly dragging their ever increasingly "rowdy act" my direction and getting closer by the minute. I know a ruse when I see one, and this was thug-101 anctics all the way.

I was wearing sunglasses so I could watch them without looking like I was eyeballing them and being perceived as aggressive. After a brief sigh, I casually took off my jacket and hung it on a tree branch that exposed the Glock-30 in my IWB holster as I pretended to fiddle with my fishing tackle, keeping them in my "incognito" sunglassed eyesight at all times... sure enough, the rowdy act (noticably) subued a notch (or two) and started drifting away from my direction and continued to wind down (even more) as they made their way back to their clown car in the parking lot (about 100 yards away) and left the scene. It took all of about 1.5 minutes (after removing my jacket) for them to drift away and leave, and I never said a word or even acknowledged their presence... Some peoples' kids, hmmm?

My point being, sometimes my "big stick" speaks "ever so softly" for me in every language on earth... OC did what I intended w/o an altercation, and everyone got to go home in one piece that day.

 

[misplacedtexan]

I tell my kids all the time that "just because you can doesn't mean you should", but on the other hand "don't live your life (always) worrying about offending others' sensibilities, because SOMEONE will ALWAYS hate whatever tie you wear on any given day".

I've given up long ago trying to play to everyone's sensibilities. I OWB carry because it's more comfortable for me. That leaves me with open carry from time to time, and if it offends someone? Well, I honestly couldn't care less is it gets someones panties in a knot. I started the thread to get a feel from others if there was any actual weight to their threat,and I'm going to get some more professional consult later.

A right not exercised is a right lost.

 

[deadeye]

Maybe try one of these...... <broken link removed>

You'll just look like another well dressed nerd......

 

[nwbobber]

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.

166.360(4)
(4) "Public building" means a hospital, a capitol building, a public or private school, as defined in ORS 339.315, a college or university, a city hall or the residence of any state official elected by the state at large, and the grounds adjacent to each such building. The term also includes that portion of any other building occupied by an agency of the state or a municipal corporation, as defined in ORS 297.405, other than a court facility.

166.250 describes unlawful possesion of a firearm, as in unlawful ways to carry, persons who would be prohibited from carrying. 166.370 further prohibits carry in certain places. they are distinct. I don't follow your logic that 166.250 would have to be rewritten for Oregon law to prohibit open carry anywhere for any reason. Mind you I am not one who would support prohibiting it, I just want to understand, and follow the law as it exists. A class C felony is not joking around.

This is a good excercise. Anyone who carries should probably spend some time with this document.

 

[deadeye]

166.360(4)
(4) "Public building" means a hospital, a capitol building, a public or private school, as defined in ORS 339.315, a college or university, a city hall or the residence of any state official elected by the state at large, and the grounds adjacent to each such building. The term also includes that portion of any other building occupied by an agency of the state or a municipal corporation, as defined in ORS 297.405, other than a court facility.

166.250 describes unlawful possesion of a firearm, as in unlawful ways to carry, persons who would be prohibited from carrying. 166.370 further prohibits carry in certain places. they are distinct. I don't follow your logic that 166.250 would have to be rewritten for Oregon law to prohibit open carry anywhere for any reason. Mind you I am not one who would support prohibiting it, I just want to understand, and follow the law as it exists. A class C felony is not joking around.

This is a good excercise. Anyone who carries should probably spend some time with this document.

you forgot the important part, He has a CHL which as stated voids this. Read a little further on to 166.260


166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250. (1) ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affect:

(a) Sheriffs, constables, marshals, parole and probation officers, police officers, whether active or honorably retired, or other duly appointed peace officers.

(b) Any person summoned by any such officer to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace, while said person so summoned is actually engaged in assisting the officer.

(c) The possession or transportation by any merchant of unloaded firearms as merchandise.

(d) Active or reserve members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard or Marine Corps of the United States, or of the National Guard, when on duty.

(e) Organizations which are by law authorized to purchase or receive weapons described in ORS 166.250 from the United States, or from this state.

(f) Duly authorized military or civil organizations while parading, or the members thereof when going to and from the places of meeting of their organization.

(g) A corrections officer while transporting or accompanying an individual convicted of or arrested for an offense and confined in a place of incarceration or detention while outside the confines of the place of incarceration or detention.

(h) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun. (2) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating ORS 166.250 (1)(c)(C) that the person has been granted relief from the disability under ORS 166.274.

(3) Except for persons who are otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm under ORS 166.250 (1)(c) or 166.270, ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affect:

(a) Members of any club or organization, for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets upon the established target ranges, whether public or private, while such members are using any of the firearms referred to in ORS 166.250 upon such target ranges, or while going to and from such ranges.

(b) Licensed hunters or fishermen while engaged in hunting or fishing, or while going to or returning from a hunting or fishing expedition.

(4) The exceptions listed in subsection (1)(b) to (h) of this section constitute affirmative defenses to a charge of violating ORS 166.250. [Amended by 1977 c.207 §1; 1991 c.67 §36; 1993 c.735 §1; 1995 c.670 §2; 1999 c.1040 §3; 2009 c.316 §2; 2009 c.499 §4]

 

[nwbobber]

I agree, partly. The license is to carry a concealed handgun. Therefore, if you were to open carry, you would be doing something other than what your license provides for. And that thing is otherwise prohibited by this section (166.370). If the weapon is concealed, you are good. Does anyone know of any case law pertaining to this?

 

[drew]

I agree, partly. The license is to carry a concealed handgun. Therefore, if you were to open carry, you would be doing something other than what your license provides for. And that thing is otherwise prohibited by this section (166.370). If the weapon is concealed, you are good. Does anyone know of any case law pertaining to this?

The exemption doesn't say the handgun must be concealed. It just says a person who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Other classes have qualifiers like acting in the scope of employment for officers.

The Senate actually has an amended bill, SB 699, that would change the ability of CHL holders to OC in public buildings.

 

[nwbobber]

No, it doesn't specifically, but it is an exemption. In my experience with building codes exemptions are for the thing that is specifically exempted, and nothing can be assumed.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

No, it doesn't specifically, but it is an exemption. In my experience with building codes exemptions are for the thing that is specifically exempted, and nothing can be assumed.

it is not assumed. this is how law works..

look at your CHL... I want you to pull it out of your wallet and read it. I'm looking at examples of Oregon CHLs right now.... what does it say on the physical card that is your CHL?

I know what it probably doesn't say.. none of the ones I'm looking at now say "this license authorizes the above named to carry a concealed pistol by the authority of ORS yadda yadda yadda"

your CHL DOES NOT AUTHORIZE YOU TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN! It is merely physical evidence that you qualify for an exception to the prohibition of concealed carry in ORS 166.250
The law on CHLs is in 166.291, again this law does not grant the authority to carry a concealed firearm. carrying a gun with a license is an exemption to a general prohibition.

likewise the public buildings law states anyone who is licensed under 166.291 is exempt from the prohibition on carrying in public buildings, remember again .291 itself does not grant authority to carry a firearm in any manner, only the authority to issue a license.

look at your CHL again, that piece of plastic only exempts you, it never grants authority.

therefore, OC is legal in public buildings

now, if you prefer CC that's your gig and I don't mind that at all, as long as you're being responsible. but the claim that OC is illegal because the license says "concealed" on it, doesn't seem to jive with the law as written. this is not a legal theory, it's the natural conclusion from reading the statutes.

even if it was a theory, there's the rule of lenity, any ambigous statute must be strictly construed against the state in a law with criminal penalties (as opposed to an administrative code like a building code)

 

[hermannr]

I agree, partly. The license is to carry a concealed handgun. Therefore, if you were to open carry, you would be doing something other than what your license provides for. And that thing is otherwise prohibited by this section (166.370). If the weapon is concealed, you are good. Does anyone know of any case law pertaining to this?

ORS 166.250 is all about "possession". It specifically states that if you POSSESS a firearm in a manner that does not conform to (3), in public, you MUST have a CHL. A CHL Allows you to POSSESS a firearm that is not in open view of the public, as well as one that is in full view in a manner described in (3) in local government jurisdictions that restrict unlicensed, loaded OC.

You may also POSSESS a firearm in a public building (as defined in .360-380). It does NOT state the manner in which you may possess that weapon, only that you may, if you have a CHL.

ORS 166.260 gives exceptions to .250.

There is no case law for things that are not illegal. OK? Any case law that you will find will be for those that have a CONCEALED firearm, and do not have a license to conceal. You do not need a license to OC in OR. All restrictions are on simple possession, or concealed possession.

 

[hermannr]

At the risk of sounding wishy-washy there are valid points on both sides of this discussion. I tell my kids all the time that "just because you can doesn't mean you should", but on the other hand "don't live your life (always) worrying about offending others' sensibilities, because SOMEONE will ALWAYS hate whatever tie you wear on any given day".

I generally prefer to CC, and have OC in a "public place" exactly twice (that I remeber). One time was @ the local Safeway store because we were doing yard work before going and I was wearing a tucked in T-shirt with exposed IWB holster and didn't feel like putting on an jacket/overshirt... only a couple folks barely actually noticed but didn't raise an eyebrow (most likely due to my body language), since I was shopping with my wife and I always give the "aura" that I'm doing exactly what I'm supposed to be doing, where I'm do it at.

The second time was about a month ago @ Barton park while salmon fishing from the bank during a weekday. I didn't start out w/OC, but a group of about 7 "high school aged" kids came into the park being all rowdy, picking up rocks/tree branches and throwing them all around and at each other, and being loud & obnoxious as the type of teenagers skipping school are prone to do.

I just "minded my own business" as they weren't techincally breaking any laws (other than truancy and disturbing the (my) peace) and most likely would have told me to go pleasure myself if I had told them to knock off the BS, but I noticed they were slowly dragging their ever increasingly "rowdy act" my direction and getting closer by the minute. I know a ruse when I see one, and this was thug-101 anctics all the way.

I was wearing sunglasses so I could watch them without looking like I was eyeballing them and being perceived as aggressive. After a brief sigh, I casually took off my jacket and hung it on a tree branch that exposed the Glock-30 in my IWB holster as I pretended to fiddle with my fishing tackle, keeping them in my "incognito" sunglassed eyesight at all times... sure enough, the rowdy act (noticably) subued a notch (or two) and started drifting away from my direction and continued to wind down (even more) as they made their way back to their clown car in the parking lot (about 100 yards away) and left the scene. It took all of about 1.5 minutes (after removing my jacket) for them to drift away and leave, and I never said a word or even acknowledged their presence... Some peoples' kids, hmmm?

My point being, sometimes my "big stick" speaks "ever so softly" for me in every language on earth... OC did what I intended w/o an altercation, and everyone got to go home in one piece that day.

Yep, that is how it works, and that is why I OC all the time.

 

[hermannr]

The exemption doesn't say the handgun must be concealed. It just says a person who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Other classes have qualifiers like acting in the scope of employment for officers.

The Senate actually has an amended bill, SB 699, that would change the ability of CHL holders to OC in public buildings.

Very good, forgot about SB 699. Think, if you cannot OC in a public building, why would SB 699 be necessary?

 

[Father of four]

Infringement bull crap!!!!!

CHL = infringement.
No firearms in public places = infringement.
No ammo in firearms while in public places except the carrier has a CHL = infringement.


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Unconstitutional firearm laws are made to infringe on the 2nd Amendment right.
Firearm laws are made so the people in authority can infringe on the right.
Permission is not a right.
Laws are not rights.

 

[Rmacleery]

I would say that their reason for stopping you in the first place was illegal. So if they had no legal purpose to stop you, their assertion that you were creating a hostile environment was also concluded illegally. I would lob a horrendously absurd $ amount lawsuit in their directions and see how they respond. I am so tired of these RADICLE knuckleheads, and their hypocritical intolerance. My very own brother voted for Obama, then a month later went and got his FFL and starting buying up every gun he could find and hoarding ammo. That to me is a HYPOCRITE.

 

[nwbobber]

I would say that their reason for stopping you in the first place was illegal. So if they had no legal purpose to stop you, their assertion that you were creating a hostile environment was also concluded illegally. I would lob a horrendously absurd $ amount lawsuit in their directions and see how they respond. I am so tired of these RADICLE knuckleheads, and their hypocritical intolerance. My very own brother voted for Obama, then a month later went and got his FFL and starting buying up every gun he could find and hoarding ammo. That to me is a HYPOCRITE.

Or a sound business strategy, depending on how you look at it.

 

[misplacedtexan]

Or a sound business strategy, depending on how you look at it.

Sounds like the guys who voted a county near me 'dry' (in Texas), bought up land on the county lines, and after the bill went into effect they opened up liquor stores. Huh...I wonder why...



I'm going to continue carrying, and I may drape a handkerchief over it when I have my shirt tucked in. They only 'asked' that I keep it out of sight.


Also, got ahold of the OFF guys, and in short they weren't sure whether the school could or could not make it a 'condition of enrollment'. Hasn't been to court yet, and they didn't like the outlook.

 

[Kevatc]

Also, got ahold of the OFF guys, and in short they weren't sure whether the school could or could not make it a 'condition of enrollment'. Hasn't been to court yet, and they didn't like the outlook.

Well I hope this all goes the way you and all of us hope it will.

As a school employee I can say that one of the conditions of my employment is no possession of a gun on campus.

 

[Irishjester]

Well here goes my two cents.

I do both OC and CC, depending on where I'm going or what I'm doing. I can see the pro's and con's of both. I do agree that OC is not socially acceptable amongst the general public, because most of the populace is under educated and uninformed. They see gun owners as different, dangerous, and don't like seeing them OC their firearms in public or around themselves or their family.

Yet if you go back in time 50-60 years. Most of the general public saw people of color as different, dangerous, and did not like seeing them in public or around themselves or their family. You can see where I am going with this. The more people see something/someone different, the more they learn about that person/thing, the more they become comfortable with them, and understand that they were wrong not to accept them as normal and/or acceptable.

If every firearm owner was to OC everyday for a year, I believe the majority of the public would begin to learn and understand that legal firearm owners are not dangerous or different. There would still be groups of hoplophobes though. I'm not saying that every firearm owner should OC, this is America and you have the right to carry how or when you like. I would just ask that the people who don't like OC to look at the perspective of the people who do and vice versa.

Irish

 

[BDA.45]

Well I hope this all goes the way you and all of us hope it will.

As a school employee I can say that one of the conditions of my employment is no possession of a gun on campus.

ONLY because your a school employee. Thats stupid. I also work for a govt. agency which does not allow firearms on the property.... cause Im an employee. Any Joe Schmoe can walk onto/into our building/property with a firearm and theres nothing anybody can do cause its a public building, but I cant even have a firearm in my vehicle cause Im an employee? Stupid! On the flip side, they cant search your car without a warrant and need probable cause to get one. The suspicion of having a gun in your car does not constitute probable cause since no law(s) were broken. Only employer policy. Ive gone round and round with my employer on this. I told them they could search my car, then we'll see each other in court. Whether or not a firearm was or wasnt found. They havent taken me up on the offer yet.... I cant wait if they decide to. (FYI, keep a video camera handy)

 

[gimpyhunter]

I can't remember exactly where I read it but there is something or was something in the OR law stating open carry is okay if where you live has a population of less than 250,000 or something like that. I choose to make sure my neighbor doesn't ever see my CC so open carry hasn't been a need.

Don't make me your source but google search the gun laws in Oregon. Easy search.