Oregon affirms Clemente conviction - yard carry is illegal

[Koda]

It was not my understanding that carrying an unloaded handgun in a bag was illegal... Anywere. You can put one in your check in bag and fly to LA with it.

Dunno about the specifics on unloaded mags or not but yes, you can bag up your guns and go to a gun range without someone considering you packing concealed.

Ie. There are no permits anywhere that allow you to conceal carry a rifle or shotgun - anywhere, but you can still bag up empty long guns and head out to where ever without an issue.

Loaded vs Not Loaded is generally the determining factor in those laws.

Im referring to Oregon laws....
ORS 166.250 doesn't distinguish between loaded and unloaded concealed carry. If its on your person and its concealed you need a CHL on your person. But you may be right about in a bag or case when travelling on foot, I'm not certain now how to interpret that... it would certainly have to be unloaded, including any mags but is a gun in a backpack, case or other off body container considered concealed carry?

unloaded guns can be transported via car under the usual locked or not accessible law, but in Mult. Co. the magazines have to be unloaded too.

here is the pertinent Mult. Co. ordinance: http://multnomah.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=38224&view=&showpdf=1

 

[Joe13]

Im referring to Oregon laws....
ORS 166.250 doesn't distinguish between loaded and unloaded concealed carry. If its on your person and its concealed you need a CHL on your person. But you may be right about in a bag or case when travelling on foot, I'm not certain now how to interpret that... it would certainly have to be unloaded, including any mags but is a gun in a backpack, case or other off body container considered concealed carry?

unloaded guns can be transported via car under the usual locked or not accessible law, but in Mult. Co. the magazines have to be unloaded too.

here is the pertinent Mult. Co. ordinance: http://multnomah.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=38224&view=&showpdf=1

Ahg, wasn't thinking OR. Thanks for the good info!

 

[The Heretic]

its always been illegal to CC on your own property, outside your dwelling.

There are exemptions - in Oregon.

It's a bit vague actually - it depends on where you have "everyday normal activity" because you can carry concealed within your house, maybe your garage (depending on where it is) and so on. I forget the word for it, it starts with a "c" and is a name for where you live.

One guy had a conviction thrown out when he was carrying concealed between his tent and his vehicle at a campground, because he was living in his tent.

So it isn't a slam dunk either way.

 

[Koda]

I think I read about that camping case, yeah there is an exception for even a temporary place of residence like a campsite. those are really obscure though, and i wouldn't rely on any responding leo to know those exceptions...

 

[The Heretic]

I don't rely on LEOs to know shinola about the law.

But I do hope the prosecutor, the judge and my lawyer know it.

 

[DuneHopper]

Someone correct me but my understanding was if your property is surrounded by locked gates you can conceal on your property. I have a CHL, but this was my understanding that if there is open access then a CHL is required .

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

despite my permit, I have a no trespassing sign at my driveway, so that requires a warrant to see if I even am conceal carrying.

 

[PiratePast40]

despite my permit, I have a no trespassing sign at my driveway, so that requires a warrant to see if I even am conceal carrying.

I've never heard of that. Is the sign the same as a closed door to your home in that they can't come in without permission or a warrant?

 

[BrentN]

Death by a thousand cuts, just one more cut. Maybe the NRA will take note and step in to help. Or maybe they've given up on the left coast. Felt like it last fall.

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

I've never heard of that. Is the sign the same as a closed door to your home in that they can't come in without permission or a warrant?
I should have been more clear the driveway is gated with a no trespassing sign you'd have to break in to enter

 

[ocarolan]

But you may be right about in a bag or case when travelling on foot, I'm not certain now how to interpret that... it would certainly have to be unloaded, including any mags but is a gun in a backpack, case or other off body container considered concealed carry?

YES. Even a locked container may qualify.

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), Sup Ct review denied

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), Sup Ct review denied

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

 

[Koda]

YES. Even a locked container may qualify.

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), Sup Ct review denied

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), Sup Ct review denied

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

ouch

so essentially I was right, its illegal to walk from the gun store to your car with your newly purchased gun (without a CHL)

 

[ocarolan]

here is another glitch that is illegal w/o a CHL on your person, In Mult. Co. , and some cities that prohibit open carry, you go legally guy a gun at a gun store, its illegal for you to walk it to your car.

and then there are those that dont have cars and rely on public transportation....

As Joe13 points out, no Oregon cities prohibit unloaded open carry. However, it would technically be illegal to walk home with a concealed (boxed) unloaded firearm. That said, personally I've taken new boxed rifles home on the Portland bus system and never been arrested.

One solution for this nonsense is restrict ORS 166.250 to loaded firearms only, or at least inaccessible firearms. Maybe OFF can get together and make that happen.

PS Up until recently, ORS defined firearm as "a weapon readily capable of use...", which kept a sanity check on this. However in Goltz and Gortmaker, the Court of Appeals brazenly reinterpreted "readily capable" to mean... effectively nothing! They ruled an inoperable pistol and barreled stock qualified as a "weapon readily capable of use". Then in 2011 that language was removed entirely from ORS, haven't researched how.

Bottom line is weapons case law is established by the lowest rungs of society... So judges usually bend the law any way possible to force conviction. The resulting case law is astonishing.

 

[salmonriverjohn]

This determination is bullbubblegum and so are the bubblegum hats that made it, what a suckhole this "progressive" state has became, wish I was born a hundred years ago and wouldn't have lived to see what it's became.

 

[Koda]

This determination is bullbubblegum and so are the bubblegum hats that made it, what a suckhole this "progressive" state has became, wish I was born a hundred years ago and wouldn't have lived to see what it's became.

I agree, the idea that you cant legally CC on your own property, outside your dwelling, is an absurd infringement on a right. Discussions like this are why I'm becoming politically active more and more, the more you learn about the gun laws the more ridiculous it is considering none of them reduce crime and gun violence. 50% of the threads in this legal/political forum are us asking questions and debating on the law and interpreting it correctly. Laws that have nothing to do with reducing crime...

>you cant CC on your own property
>you cant store a gun in your locked car on your property
>you cant carry a gun from the gun store to your car, (or vise versa)
>if you don't own a car you cant take your new gun home from the store unless you open carry... except in Multnomah county where you cant legally take it home.
>you cant have a loaded magazine in Mult. Co. even if you don't have the gun with you.
>you cant loan a friend a hunting rifle unless your in the woods hunting with him...
>you can give your brother a gun but not your cousin
>you cant insert or use an American made magazine in an imported semi auto rifle, but you can use all the imported mags you want.
>forget your drivers license you 'might' get a ticket. Forget your CHL, which is on record, go to jail.
>you cant open carry without a CHL but you can if its unloaded..., except in Mult. Co.
>you cant store a gun for a friend for safe keeping without paying for a background check
>you can "borrow" a gun without paying for a background check for self defense in an emergency... except, well its not an emergency until it happens so you still have to do the background check.
>if you lawfully loan a gun to a friend you have to pay for another background check to get it back, for yourself, even if you have a CHL.... if the check is denied or delayed, you don't get your gun back, even if you have a CHL.
>you cant put a gun in the glove box, but you can on the dashboard... except in Mult. Co.
>if your in a situation where you need someone else to take your gun home for you, they cant... without a background check.
>anyone can carry a gun in a school if they have a CHL, unless you work there.
>you can carry a gun in a school (zone) with a CHL in your state, but not in any other state that honors your permit if your travelling... think about this when you travel.
>you can loan a gun to a friend after paying for a background check, but if he doesn't want to give it back tough luck. Obviously he's really no friend but that's not the point.... think about this.


the list goes on... and somebody recently asked here "whats changed"?

 

[Skier]

I read the entire legal opinion (quite interesting... Disappointing, but interesting)...

I tried to post the folowing comment at the bottom of the leagle.com page, but the submit button didnt work, so I'll copy/paste here...

Regarding the opinion of a "residence" referring to a building/structure in the ORS instead of a person's property/land, I think it interesting that in the Oregon hunting (ODFW) rules it says regarding "Landowners," "A resident does not need a license to hunt on land upon which the person resides and is owned by the person..." which would seem to indicate that a person "resides" on the land (not just in a structure), which would likewise suggest that the land is his/her residence, not just the structure. It would seem entirely reasonable to me that If I was working in my yard and someone came and asked "is this the residence of {my name}?" That I would say "yes," as opposed to saying "no" (if I wanted to be terse or evasive) or "no, this is the yard of {my name}, the residence is over there (indicating the house). To me, the plain, common, and most simple meaning of the word "residence" would be both that little chunk of land that I own on this Earth, as well as any buildings or even vehicles/trees on it.

 

[The Heretic]

So basically, there is some magic boundary when you get too far away from your house, but still on your own property on which the house is located, that it then becomes outside the area of everyday use.

I go back and forth to my shop, and my car every day. My shop is about 100 yards away. My car may be in the shop, it may be in the driveway, ten to 50 yards away.

I go out in my woods weekly, spend a lot of time in the yard and the woods, working on clearing brush. To me these are "everyday" activities.

 

[ocarolan]

Regarding the opinion of a "residence" referring to a building/structure in the ORS instead of a person's property/land, I think it interesting that in the Oregon hunting (ODFW) rules it says regarding "Landowners," "A resident does not need a license to hunt on land upon which the person resides and is owned by the person..." which would seem to indicate that a person "resides" on the land (not just in a structure), which would likewise suggest that the land is his/her residence, not just the structure.

This definition is also suggested by my legal dictionary. For example, we specifically distinguish between a "residence" (all places of abode) and a domicile (permanent home). If ors 166.250 wanted to indicate a house, it would have said structure of residence not place of residence.

"Residence: Personal presence at some place of abode."

Although the domicile and residence of a person are usually in the same place, and the two terms are frequently used as if they have the same meaning, they are not synonymous. A person can have two places of residence, such as one in the city and one in the country, but only one domicile. Residence means living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that locality with the intent to make it a fixed and permanent home. Residence merely requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, whereas domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's permanent home.

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

Another good "wakeup call", thanks.

Perhaps it's time to have another look; consealed carry on one's own land (or curtilage) was thought to have been the landowner's decision, not the court's.

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.260

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

What a bunch of BS. I glad I am moving out of this blue state it is getting more and more like Kommiefornia every day.

<broken link removed>

But it is okay to refuse service to a cop looking for some lunch.

Stay and fight with us!

Numbers may be few, but there are honorable people in the ranks.