Oregon Court of Appeals: Rented campsite could be gun-carrying man's home

[The Heretic]

Oregon Court of Appeals: Rented campsite could be gun-carrying man's home | OregonLive.com

Read More

 

[solv3nt]

Terrible reporting, why did the camp host call the FS?

 

[Dunerunner]

They are considering another trial? Folks, it is time we send a message that this type of legal action against the citizenry is a waste of our tax money!!

 

[The Heretic]

I forget having my own CC is so different, how many who do not have a CC must be treated like criminals.
I see no reason a non-felon should not have the right to CC, the next move should be to remove the CC law.
And in increase jail time for felons found with firearms. Its stupid the way it is now. A crook can conceal cause they do not give a Sheet.
But a hard working Minning man must go through the wringer for doing nothing more but trying to provide is F'd up.

My philosophy and plain language common sense common meaning understanding of the Second Amendment is that the it states that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say the right to own arms, it doesn't say the right to keep arms in a safe, it doesn't say the right to only carry arms openly and not concealed, it doesn't say the right to carry arms only in certain places, it doesn't say you need a license to carry either openly or concealed.

It says the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

"Bearing" something means to carry it. Having it on your person.

Therefore, concealed carry laws, open carry laws, laws that prevent you from carrying any public place you wish, violate the Second Amendment.

The only time you can infringe a right is when it infringes on another right.

I.E., your right to swing your fist around ends at my nose.

My right to "bear" an arm, ends when I point it at you when you have not threatened me.

And BTW - another important part of the Second Amendment almost everybody misunderstands is the "arms" part: it says "arms", it doesn't say firearms, it says "arms".

In the context of the amendment (militia, standing army, "security of a free state") this most logical, consistent, common interpretation is that "arms" means any military weapon, from military firearms of any type, to knives, to grenades, to cannon, to tanks, to anything that the current "standing army" uses as a weapon (I would personally exclude NBC weapons, but then I think they should be banned period such that no government, state, person can own them at all).

Therefore, preventing (infringing) civilians in any way from owning and *bearing* such *arms* violates the Second Amendment.

 

[The Heretic]

Terrible reporting, why did the camp host call the FS?

I believe that dredging for gold possibly causes harm to riverbeds with regards to fish habitat and probably requires a permit, and is probably forbidden in some rivers or certain areas of rivers or streams.

Oregon Senate passes bill to limit gold dredges

 

[Morpheus]

It is always interesting to see 2nd and property rights coming together in such a beautiful fashion. And that a Jury, of this guys peers could see how they are all part of the same puzzle.

 

[The Heretic]

It is always interesting to see 2nd and property rights coming together in such a beautiful fashion. And that a Jury, of this guys peers could see how they are all part of the same puzzle.

It wasn't the jury that found for him - I don't even know if it was a jury trial - it was the court of appeals (usually a single judge or a panel of judges) that found for the defendant.

 

[Morpheus]

It wasn't the jury that found for him - I don't even know if it was a jury trial - it was the court of appeals (usually a single judge or a panel of judges) that found for the defendant.

Arg. Sorry, miss read it. Though, that is even better in some ways. Maybe the court of appears isn't all bad in Oregon.

 

[deen_ad]

Poor "reporting" at any rate.
Why did they use the term "packing heat"? To me that's derogatory.
And why was it a "victory for gun-rights? Seems like a simple, correctly made ruling.
Why was it called an "exception" to the law. It's simply the law.

 

[ocarolan]

For reference, the Court already decided a non-permanent residence applied to ORS 166.250 back in 2006 (Leslie). This is not a new decision.


Ballantine's Law Dictionary defines "residence" as "[a]ny place of abode or dwelling place, however temporary it  may be," and defines "actual residence" as "[t]he place a [person] actually inhabits, where [he or she] actually lives or resides."  Id. at 29-30.

In sum, "place of residence" as used in ORS 166.250(2)(b) means the place where a person actually lives, i.e., where he or she regularly eats, drinks, and sleeps.   Further, and contrary to the state's contention, as commonly understood in 1925, that term was not qualified by a requirement that the place of residence be a "fixed and permanent" structure.

Remember however, the Court is miserly in interpreting a "place of business", and several other exceptions. They have also interpreted "carried upon the person" to include unloaded firearms in backpacks and suitcases. Furthermore, a disassembled or incomplete firearm may still qualify as a weapon under ORS 166.210 (Briney 2008).

 

[The Heretic]

Poor "reporting" at any rate.
Why did they use the term "packing heat"? To me that's derogatory.
And why was it a "victory for gun-rights? Seems like a simple, correctly made ruling.
Why was it called an "exception" to the law. It's simply the law.

It *is* an exception to the law - without a concealed carry permit, you cannot carry concealed *except* at your residence or your place of business or while hunting or fishing or on your way to hunt/fish or on your way to a shooting range. That is how laws are written - the core body of the law and then any exceptions.

 

[The Heretic]

For reference, the Court already decided a non-permanent residence applied to ORS 166.250 back in 2006 (Leslie). This is not a new decision.


Ballantine's Law Dictionary defines "residence" as "[a]ny place of abode or dwelling place, however temporary it  may be," and defines "actual residence" as "[t]he place a [person] actually inhabits, where [he or she] actually lives or resides."  Id. at 29-30.

In sum, "place of residence" as used in ORS 166.250(2)(b) means the place where a person actually lives, i.e., where he or she regularly eats, drinks, and sleeps.   Further, and contrary to the state's contention, as commonly understood in 1925, that term was not qualified by a requirement that the place of residence be a "fixed and permanent" structure.

Remember however, the Court is miserly in interpreting a "place of business", and several other exceptions. They have also interpreted "carried upon the person" to include unloaded firearms in backpacks and suitcases. Furthermore, a disassembled or incomplete firearm may still qualify as a weapon under ORS 166.210 (Briney 2008).

thanks, that is informative.

I was aware a number of states recognized an RV as a residence, regardless of it being temporary.

Q: Does "residence" or "dwelling" apply to the plot of land around the "dwelling"?

E.G., if I am one thousand feet away from my house on the far edge of my property, am I legal in carrying concealed with a permit?

If I walk from my house to my shop 200 feet away, am I legal in carrying without a permit?

Is there case law on this?

 

[drew]

I forget having my own CC is so different, how many who do not have a CC must be treated like criminals.
I see no reason a non-felon should not have the right to CC, the next move should be to remove the CC law.
And in increase jail time for felons found with firearms. Its stupid the way it is now. A crook can conceal cause they do not give a Sheet.
But a hard working Minning man must go through the wringer for doing nothing more but trying to provide is F'd up.

Yes, Constitutional Carry is the way to go. I don't think our state will do it though.

 

[deen_ad]

It *is* an exception to the law - without a concealed carry permit, you cannot carry concealed *except* at your residence or your place of business or while hunting or fishing or on your way to hunt/fish or on your way to a shooting range. That is how laws are written - the core body of the law and then any exceptions.

Not really, the law says that so it's not an exception to the law. By codifying it the written text it's meant to be there.

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
Defender of Freedom Award
NRA Recruiter
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it, you'll probably never need one again!"

 

[The Heretic]

Not really, the law says that so it's not an exception to the law. By codifying it the written text it's meant to be there.

Technically maybe, but when it says "except when" and then lists a number of exceptions, I consider it to be, for all intents and purposes, an exception.

Your interpretation may vary, but I think that would be the common mans understanding.

 

[ocarolan]

Q: Does "residence" or "dwelling" apply to the plot of land around the "dwelling"?

E.G., if I am one thousand feet away from my house on the far edge of my property, am I legal in carrying concealed with a permit?

If I walk from my house to my shop 200 feet away, am I legal in carrying without a permit?

Is there case law on this?

Good question. In this case, our attorney general claimed the residence exception only applied to a "physical enclosure of your home". Fortunately for us, the judges rejected that argument.

The state makes a second argument... According to the state, "the legislature intended to permit individuals to possess concealed weapons only inside the physical enclosure of their home. [....]

Leslie guides our analysis. In that case, we focused on the functional meaning of "place of residence" as used in ORS 166.250(2)(b), explaining that the term encompasses more than just "fixed and permanent" structures... The remaining question is whether areas outside of such structures also can be encompassed within a person's "place of residence." As explained below, we conclude that, if those outdoor areas form part of the place in which a person "actually lives," they are part of the person's place of residence.


By the way, read the Wolf summary carefully before CCing on your next camping trip. The court suggests a tent may not qualify as your residence, when you have a second, permanent residence.

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A150380.pdf

 

[Father of four]

... how many who do not have a CC must be treated like criminals.
... the next move should be to remove the CC law.
...

Been saying that for years!

 

[Father of four]

...
Therefore, concealed carry laws, open carry laws, laws that prevent you from carrying any public place you wish, violate the Second Amendment.
...
Therefore, preventing (infringing) civilians in any way from owning and *bearing* such *arms* violates the Second Amendment.

100% correct as I see it.

 

[Father of four]

thanks, that is informative.

I was aware a number of states recognized an RV as a residence, regardless of it being temporary.

Q: Does "residence" or "dwelling" apply to the plot of land around the "dwelling"?

E.G., if I am one thousand feet away from my house on the far edge of my property, am I legal in carrying concealed with a permit?

If I walk from my house to my shop 200 feet away, am I legal in carrying without a permit?

Is there case law on this?

It should be yes to all.

 

[The Heretic]

Good question. In this case, our attorney general claimed the residence exception only applied to a "physical enclosure of your home". Fortunately for us, the judges rejected that argument.

The state makes a second argument... According to the state, "the legislature intended to permit individuals to possess concealed weapons only inside the physical enclosure of their home. [....]

Leslie guides our analysis. In that case, we focused on the functional meaning of "place of residence" as used in ORS 166.250(2)(b), explaining that the term encompasses more than just "fixed and permanent" structures... The remaining question is whether areas outside of such structures also can be encompassed within a person's "place of residence." As explained below, we conclude that, if those outdoor areas form part of the place in which a person "actually lives," they are part of the person's place of residence.


By the way, read the Wolf summary carefully before CCing on your next camping trip. The court suggests a tent may not qualify as your residence, when you have a second, permanent residence.

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A150380.pdf

Thanks.

On the latter, I would think a temporary residence qualifies: what if you have a summer home and a winter home?