Open carry stop

[hermannr]

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.

Open Carry is LEGAL in OR anywhere you may possess a firearms, under the same rules and restrictions big city, or small.

The only difference, some local governments have made use of ORS 166.173 which restricts UNLICENSED LOADED OC. If you have a license to carry a concealed weapon (ORS 166.173(2)(c), Portland (and local governments like it) you can ignore the local laws and Open Carry loaded.

Has nothing to do with the size of a local government entity, it has to do with ORS 166.173 and if the local government made use of it. As you have a CHL (you say you carry concealed, so you best have a CHL) You do not need to concern yourself with local OC or CC restrictions.

 

[Emerald]

Under current Oregon law, colleges and universities may prohibit by policy the possession of weapons by students or employees on campus. And they can trespass you off or subject you to student discipline (if a student) or employment discipline (if you work there) if you are in violation. All 7 of the state universities in the Oregon University System (UO, OSU, PSU, Southern, Eastern, Western, and OIT) have such a policy handed down by the OUS Chancellor's Office. No surprise that PCC does too. It may not seem right to you, but them's the rules. Concealed means concealed. Get a smaller gun for warmer weather carry.

P.S. The same rule applies to contractors on campus, people attending ticketed sporting events, or individuals coming into campus public buildings. It's a complicated set of rules based on SCOTUS rulings, Oregon court rulings, and Oregon statutes, but that's the way it is, and you aren't going anywhere but to the poorhouse trying to fight it.

P.P.S. Trust me, I know this stuff backward and forward. Don't shoot the messenger though. I'm not keen on it either.

 

[gimpyhunter]

Emerald,

I don't have a problem if a lawfully run business restricts my carry. Fair is fair.

HOWEVER, if that business is in violation of federal civil rights laws, (as all college / universities I have visited in Oregon are) do they still have the right to make me comply with their "local" restrictions?

Of course the answer is yes. But how much it would cost them for restricting me might be a lot more than they anticipated. Having little money does not mean they can ignore laws they are mandated to follow. Push comes to shove? I'd win.

 

[Kevatc]

Emerald,

I don't have a problem if a lawfully run business restricts my carry. Fair is fair.

HOWEVER, if that business is in violation of federal civil rights laws, (as all college / universities I have visited in Oregon are) do they still have the right to make me comply with their "local" restrictions?

Of course the answer is yes. But how much it would cost them for restricting me might be a lot more than they anticipated. Having little money does not mean they can ignore laws they are mandated to follow. Push comes to shove? I'd win.

Could turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory for you as well.

 

[gimpyhunter]

Some assume so. But fighting to enforce the Rights our service men and woman fight and die to protect everyday seems like a respectable fight no matter how you look at it.

Remember, even the courts are required to comply with and enforce Civil Rights Laws. You also have to remember, general laws are there for almost everyone. Civil Rights Laws, particularly federal civil rights laws are for everyone. Any losses would not be born by me.

 

[Emerald]

If you challenge the policies restricting guns on university campuses for students, employees, contractors, or ticketed attendees, you will lose. You can take it all the way to the Supreme Court, and you'd lose. You may not like it, and you may be right that you SHOULD win, but you won't. Your lawyer will though. Can you hear the cash register go ka-ching? And for what? To spend all that money and then lose and solidify existing precedent supporting anti-gun policies on Oregon campuses? Not me. When it's concealed in my purse, it's concealed, and I don't talk about it.

But then, I don't have a testosterone deficiency problem that requires me to OC everywhere I go.

 

[gimpyhunter]

If you challenge the policies restricting guns on university campuses for students, employees, contractors, or ticketed attendees, you will lose.

Not once did I say I'd challenge policies restricting guns on university campuses. I simply said, if they expect me to respect them and their rights, I think it is only fair for them to do the same. I can see you're confused. I was not claiming to challenge their right to restrict my weapons. I'm just saying they also are mandated to comply with "other" laws that perhaps have more significant teeth in them.

This is not about guns. It's about both sides having to comply with the regulations that govern them. Again I totally understand your confusion. Perhaps a wider knowledge of laws is necessary. A narrow focus tends to cause narrow understanding.

This feels more like the big guys picking on the little guys. The offense was simply that the gun was seen in it's holster. This is more about overly restricting us just because they can. Of course I'm more than willing and able to change my position if you can provide some kind of justification for their policy. I do have to comply but it's not unreasonable or disrespectful to ask why. Who caused what problem that gave them a valid reason to restrict law abiding citizens? Has there ever been a problem caused by a CC permit holders? Or was it to appease a few people that don't like any guns? You can't take anything for granted anymore.

In case you wonder about our country's history? We stole this land from oppressors. We passed laws we were to live by. Since the Constitution was signed, we've had to pass all kinds of additional civil rights protections to protect certain groups from unreasonable laws and restrictions. I'm not saying in this case that their restrictions on my right to carry on campus are totally wrong. I'm just saying that Universities and the like need to comply with the laws governing them, ALSO. People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones is my point.

Schools, colleges and universities have been of particular interest to me. I have a doctorate. I have two kids that have gone to numerous schools and colleges along their way. Perhaps I know things you don't. When it comes to gun rights and restrictions, you might know more than I do.

 

[hermannr]

If you challenge the policies restricting guns on university campuses for students, employees, contractors, or ticketed attendees, you will lose. You can take it all the way to the Supreme Court, and you'd lose. You may not like it, and you may be right that you SHOULD win, but you won't. Your lawyer will though. Can you hear the cash register go ka-ching? And for what? To spend all that money and then lose and solidify existing precedent supporting anti-gun policies on Oregon campuses? Not me. When it's concealed in my purse, it's concealed, and I don't talk about it.

But then, I don't have a testosterone deficiency problem that requires me to OC everywhere I go.

So you have bought into the Brady bunch too, Eh? I OC, I have OC'd for 43 years. Why do I OC? for my personal protection, and for my family's protection. The simple explaination for why Law Enforcement open carrys is that it puts those that would do them harm on notice that they have the ability to defend themselves.

Look at GB when your everyday constable does not carry. What has been happening to them? The are being targeted because it is known they are defenseless, and GB is slowly changing their laws and policies about LE carry just so they can defend themselves.

Well, guess what? That is exactly why I carry. To show those that would do me harm that I am able to defend myself... and guess what else? It works. I personally know it works. I have witnessed a change in attitude by someone that was openly threating me harm... abruptly change his attitude and leave, quickly, when he was able to see I was armed... and my carry never even left it's holster. That is why I OC...as for Testrosterone, I have 5 adult married daughters, and 14 grandkids. How many kids do you have?

 

[gimpyhunter]

> slickaj115;890445]Society is the conglomeration of everyone living and working together.

In an ideal world, you are correct.

> That said, most people dont like guns, dont wanna see them, and get easily spooked

Just want to point out that we said the same thing during WWII? ala Japanese Internment Camps
Same for African Americans up to the 60's.
Same with Muslims anytime there is an attack, even before we find out who was responsible. (Timothy-OK)

Sometimes our "don't likes" are just personal problems, but we have to move on.

> End of rant

Me too.

 

[U201491]

Open carry...
In the current climate.

Its kind of like always going to the bee's hive for the honey. You may get the honey, but you stir up the hive unnecessarily and there is the potential of getting stung to death.

Concealed carry gives you the same ability to defend yourself and the bees are none the wiser. They can just concentrate on how to steal your money by taxes and how to become better lil dictators. Instead of diverting their attention to repressing the 2nd Amendment even more.

 

[gimpyhunter]

I am not an attorney nor do I play one on TV.

I hate to confuse this with details but here is what I found on short search:

OREGON: Open-carry state:
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.
***** (2) Ordinances adopted under subsection (1) of this section do not apply to or affect:
***** (c) A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.

If I understand this correctly, if I have CC permit, those local regulations don't apply. It does not say I have to carry it concealed.


166.370 Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility;
(1) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm . . . 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:
***** (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
***** (d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.


(g) Possession of a firearm on school property if the firearm:
***** (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.

 

[gimpyhunter]

> Taku;899379]Open carry...

> Its kind of like always going to the bee's hive for the honey. You may get the honey, but you stir up the hive unnecessarily and there is the potential of getting stung to death.

That was my very point. He wasn't there causing trouble and questionable if he was even in violation of anything. Why did they have to make it an issue?

As my prior post shows, if he had a CC permit, he wouldn't have been in violation. However it might appear that Security might have been in violation.

If he didn't have a permit, he was apparently properly asked to leave or he could have left it in his car and gone back. However if he had a CC Permit, it appears Security may have been totally wrong.

It's insulting to be arguing whether it's smart or dumb to carry openly if it's the law. Dumb would come from someone denying him his right to open carry. It appears the CC Permit is a possible key to freedom.

 

[Kevatc]

So you have bought into the Brady bunch too, Eh? I OC, I have OC'd for 43 years. Why do I OC? for my personal protection, and for my family's protection. The simple explaination for why Law Enforcement open carrys is that it puts those that would do them harm on notice that they have the ability to defend themselves.

Look at GB when your everyday constable does not carry. What has been happening to them? The are being targeted because it is known they are defenseless, and GB is slowly changing their laws and policies about LE carry just so they can defend themselves.

Well, guess what? That is exactly why I carry. To show those that would do me harm that I am able to defend myself... and guess what else? It works. I personally know it works. I have witnessed a change in attitude by someone that was openly threating me harm... abruptly change his attitude and leave, quickly, when he was able to see I was armed... and my carry never even left it's holster. That is why I OC...as for Testrosterone, I have 5 adult married daughters, and 14 grandkids. How many kids do you have?

I think some cogent thoughts about OCing have been brought forth by folks who are CHL holders. Accussing them of buying into the Brady crowd thinking is absurd. I am glad you have had good experiences OCing for as long as you have. But just because someone suggests maybe it may have a negative impact doesn't mean they are saying you shouldn't do it. Speaking for myself all I've been saying is that there are places where OCing will get you the wrong kind of attention. Just don't whine if you OC in a place that will get you unwanted attention .... like a college campus. Aside from that if you want to OC wearing a pink tutu and cowboy boots while going on a beer run be my guest.

 

[gimpyhunter]

> Aside from that if you want to OC wearing a pink tutu and cowboy boots while going on a beer run be my guest.

Perhaps that is the answer. Can't believe Security would have had the guts to stop him in the first place. <smile>

 

[hermannr]

I think some cogent thoughts about OCing have been brought forth by folks who are CHL holders. Accussing them of buying into the Brady crowd thinking is absurd. I am glad you have had good experiences OCing for as long as you have. But just because someone suggests maybe it may have a negative impact doesn't mean they are saying you shouldn't do it. Speaking for myself all I've been saying is that there are places where OCing will get you the wrong kind of attention. Just don't whine if you OC in a place that will get you unwanted attention .... like a college campus. Aside from that if you want to OC wearing a pink tutu and cowboy boots while going on a beer run be my guest.

How is society to get comfortable with any carry, if they do not know that many many people are carrying every day, and I am not talking about LE. Do people in general get upset that LE OC's? No, they expect it. that is also the way it should be for anyone that carries for their own self defense, not just LE.

Society is comfortable with LE OC because they expect it, If enough non-LE would do the same, society's reaction would be the same as it is for LE. The whole reason for the gun control issues that stated back in the 19th century (yea, the 1800's) was because "those that are up to no-good conceal their weapons. Honest men carry openly" That was stated to my dad by a very old man back about 1950. I was there and heard the old man make that statement. I was a young kid...it stuck.

 

[hermannr]

Quick question....Does anyone know if the Oregon Appeals Court decision (Brian Ward vs State of Oregon Decemeber 2008) that made your car a "public place" been repealed...because that court ruling dealt a serious blow to open carry in Oregon.

The question only applied to those local jurisdictions that have taken advantage of ORS 166.173. I agree, it removed "just passing through" with a loaded UNLICENSED possession, but it has nothing to do with OC or CC... it is all about UNLICENSED POSSESSION of a LOADED firearm in a restricted local jurisdiction.

 

[hermannr]

To the several posts that address "society" and their concerns...

Consider the gays. Back when I was young no gay person would openly state they were "gay", much less flaunt it. There is no specific "sexual orientation" "Right" that I know of, in the US or any State constitution. There are members of "Society", arguably the "majority" of society, that are "uncomfortable seeing two men or two women publicly displaying affection for each other...But the gays have pushed their lifestyle into the public to the point that most people, even if they do not approve of the activity, just leave them alone. Is that not true?

Why not more so OC? It is a specified RIGHT in the constitutions of most states, and through the 14th amendment, and McDonald, the US 2A applies to all states even those states (like NY) that do not have a 2A equivalent. If more people OC'd on a regular basis, more in "society" would become more accustomed to it, and soon it would not be a big deal anymore.

Any of you ever read: In re BRICKEY. It is a very short Idaho State Supreme Court ruling...and is the thought process behind unlicensed OC in ID.

 

[gimpyhunter]

How is society to get comfortable with any carry, if they do not know that many many people are carrying every day, and I am not talking about LE. Do people in general get upset that LE OC's? No, they expect it. that is also the way it should be for anyone that carries for their own self defense, not just LE.

Society is comfortable with LE OC because they expect it, If enough non-LE would do the same, society's reaction would be the same as it is for LE. The whole reason for the gun control issues that stated back in the 19th century (yea, the 1800's) was because "those that are up to no-good conceal their weapons. Honest men carry openly" That was stated to my dad by a very old man back about 1950. I was there and heard the old man make that statement. I was a young kid...it stuck.

You exercise you rights. This discussion makes many of us to think differently. Thank you. Why should any law abiding citizen have any fear of you?

 

[gimpyhunter]

> hermannr;899654]Consider the gays. Back when I was young no gay person would openly state they were "gay", much less flaunt it. There is no specific "sexual orientation" "Right" that I know of, in the US or any State constitution. There are members of "Society", arguably the "majority" of society, that are "uncomfortable seeing two men or two women publicly displaying affection for each other...But the gays have pushed their lifestyle into the public to the point that most people, even if they do not approve of the activity, just leave them alone. Is that not true?

You know, you scare me. Let's look at this?

You create a fence around a minority and decide how they should live and who they should be.

What happened to all men are created equal?

Let's look at part of our history (I'm missing a few):

1954 - Brown v Bd of education - Separate but equal never is.
1964 - Civil Rights Act - Everyone has equal access
1965 - Voter's Rights Act - Clarifying that "everywhere" included the polling booth.
1970's - 1980's - Can't remember the dates when Woman gained Civil Rights protections
Numerous others groups gained Civil Rights protections
1990 - The Disabled gained Civil Rights protections.
I guess the only identifiable group left is the Gays and Lesbians.

Didn't we steel this country from the previous owners because of unequal treatment? Now it is suggested that we deny the rights we already enjoy and that our forefathers through our present service personnel fought/fight and died for to enforce these rights.

Everything Congress has had to do to add identifiable groups to the protections under "created equal" has been required to clarify the standard the Constitution created. Equality.

I'm angry because people with mental issues can't get the care they need and end up creating an environment where my Rights in this country are being threatened. Sorry but the gays and lesbians have never caused me any harm or tried to take anything away from me. But it's a choice not to hate.

Good luck my friend.

 

[razormanxx]

I cc and nobody wold ever know I carry, unless I had to draw and defend my wife and children. At that point any legal consequence, even jail, wouldn't matter, cause I would still have my wife and kids.