Oregon Oregon measure 114

[Member 53328]

You have the right to show LE your CHL if you choose. Or not.

That's what I said….. but thanks for restating the fact.

 

[Cavedweller]

View attachment 1308959

I seem to recall there is a section of 114 that bans belt fed firearms.

 

[ScatPackLife]

That's what I said….. but thanks for restating the fact.

Your welcome.

 

[titsonritz]

View attachment 1308959

So temping, just for the ensuing butt hurt.
https://fightlite.com/mcr-556-dfr

 

[BAJ475]

I seem to recall there is a section of 114 that bans belt fed firearms.

One word - Satire!

 

[titsonritz]

I seem to recall there is a section of 114 that bans belt fed firearms.

H.R. 1808 did, not sure about 114

 

[Hooyah DeepSea]

But, as for showing LE your CHL; in Oregon, if you are stopped while driving your own, registered vehicle, LE can already see that when they run your plates. You are in the system.

 

[Cavedweller]

Why are you voluntarily showing them your CHL? When they run your plates (if the vehicle is registered to you) it will automatically show if you have a CHL.

Because, I have found from personal experience, if you have one (a CHL) and don't tell them, and they find out after running your plates, some of them can get a real attitude, and it makes your interaction with them more difficult. After experiencing this once, I now hand my CHL to them with my DL. Each time I have done this, they have politely asked if I have a firearm in my possession, returned my CHL to me, and gone about their business. As you noted, they are going to find out anyway, so I see no harm in letting them know right away if it makes them more comfortable. I see no reason to needlessly complicate an interaction with law enforcement . It has nothing to do with "rights."

 

[Hooyah DeepSea]

In this case, it ain't about rights; it's about smarts.

 

[fd15k]

In this case, it ain't about rights; it's about smarts.

Does it take smarts to give up one's 4th Amendment Rights through violation of traffic laws ?


Don't get pulled over. Problem solved

 

[Cavedweller]

Does it take smarts to give up one's 4th Amendment Rights through violation of traffic laws ?


Don't get pulled over. Problem solved

Everyone makes mistakes.

Please explain how one gives up one's 4th amendment rights by presenting a CHL to an LEO. There is no search of one's vehicle or person. It is only providing information to them they will access anyway in a manner that they appreciate.

 

[The Heretic]

Because, I have found from personal experience, if you have one (a CHL) and don't tell them, and they find out after running your plates, some of them can get a real attitude, and it makes your interaction with them more difficult. After experiencing this once, I now hand my CHL to them with my DL. Each time I have done this, they have politely asked if I have a firearm in my possession, returned my CHL to me, and gone about their business. As you noted, they are going to find out anyway, so I see no harm in letting them know right away if it makes them more comfortable. I see no reason to needlessly complicate an interaction with law enforcement . It has nothing to do with "rights."

Just because someone has a CHL/etc., doesn't mean they are carrying a handgun. I rarely do.

 

[fd15k]

In this case, it ain't about rights; it's about smarts.

Everyone makes mistakes.

Please explain how one gives up one's 4th amendment rights by presenting a CHL to an LEO. There is no search of one's vehicle or person. It is only providing information to them they will access anyway in a manner that they appreciate.

I will throw a gross speculation here, but it's likely that 99% of LEO interactions are not a result of some mistake, but rather a result of deliberate choices. How often do people drive above the speed limit because they didn't notice the posted sign as opposed to them intentionally going "ten above" ? One gives up their 4th when they make that choice. After that whether you present your CHL or not is mostly symbolic, but as a rule of thumb one should not volunteer ANY information during a LEO encounter.

 

[Member 53328]

I will throw a gross speculation here, but it's likely that 99% of LEO interactions are not a result of some mistake, but rather a result of deliberate choices. How often do people drive above the speed limit because they didn't notice the posted sign as opposed to them intentionally going "ten above" ? One gives up their 4th when they make that choice. After that whether you present your CHL or not is mostly symbolic, but as a rule of thumb one should not volunteer ANY information during a LEO encounter.

Getting pulled over has nothing to do with your 4th amendment rights. Now if they want to search your vehicle or your person and do not have probable cause to arrest then you should invoke your 4th Amendment right.

Many people in America don't know their rights. Period. They shoot themselves in the foot. Now how "polite" or "voluntary" you wanna be with LE is completely up to you.

 

[fd15k]

Getting pulled over has nothing to do with your 4th amendment rights. Now if they want to search your vehicle or your person and do not have probable cause to arrest then you should invoke your 4th Amendment right.

Many people in America don't know their rights. Period. They shoot themselves in the foot. Now how "polite" or "voluntary" you wanna be with LE is completely up to you.

Friend, you're mistaken. Any action taken by LEOs requires a justification to overcome the 4th Amendment protections. It starts before you are pulled over by officers having no authority to pull you over UNLESS there is a specific reason to do so, such as by you violating the traffic law.

 

[Member 53328]

Friend, you're mistaken. Any action taken by LEOs requires a justification to overcome the 4th Amendment protections. It starts before you are pulled over by officers having no authority to pull you over UNLESS there is a specific reason to do so, such as by you violating the traffic law.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[Cavedweller]

I will throw a gross speculation here, but it's likely that 99% of LEO interactions are not a result of some mistake, but rather a result of deliberate choices. How often do people drive above the speed limit because they didn't notice the posted sign as opposed to them intentionally going "ten above" ? One gives up their 4th when they make that choice. After that whether you present your CHL or not is mostly symbolic, but as a rule of thumb one should not volunteer ANY information during a LEO encounter.

I don't know what 99% of LEO interactions are due to. I only have my personal experience to speak of. I have been driving a long time, and I have put in lots of miles on the road, probably a lot more than most people. A couple of times I have been stopped for equipment failures I was not aware of (burned out headlight or tail light). Once I strayed over the white line on the right side of the road on a curve on a mountain road. Once I exited the freeway without using my turn signal (heavens to Betsy!). And yes, 3 seat belt violations. My choice - so lock me up! LOL. That's beside the point. I am only trying to save those willing to listen a little grief if they have a CHL and happen to get stopped. If you don't want to show it, then don't. It's no skin off my nose.

Just because someone has a CHL/etc., doesn't mean they are carrying a handgun. I rarely do.

I almost never do. But the LEO doesn't know that when he runs your plates.

After my first negative experience, when I was a relatively new CHL holder, and was totally bewildered by the cop's attitude when I failed to tell him, I called the sheriff's office and asked if I was required to tell them. I was told no, but they appreciate it. So since then I have handed it over with my DL. I haven't been pulled over in quite a few years, BTW.

 

[Member 53328]

I don't know what 99% of LEO interactions are due to. I only have my personal experience to speak of. I have been driving a long time, and I have put in lots of miles on the road, probably a lot more than most people. A couple of times I have been stopped for equipment failures I was not aware of (burned out headlight or tail light). Once I strayed over the white line on the right side of the road on a curve on a mountain road. Once I exited the freeway without using my turn signal (heavens to Betsy!). And yes, 3 seat belt violations. My choice - so lock me up! LOL. That's beside the point. I am only trying to save those willing to listen a little grief if they have a CHL and happen to get stopped. If you don't want to show it, then don't. It's no skin off my nose.


I almost never do. But the LEO doesn't know that when he runs your plates.

After my first negative experience, when I was a relatively new CHL holder, and was totally bewildered by the cop's attitude when I failed to tell him, I called the sheriff's office and asked if I was required to tell them. I was told no, but they appreciate it. So since then I have handed it over with my DL. I haven't been pulled over in quite a few years, BTW.

That's the cops issue. Not yours/mine. My actions aren't dictated by how someone else feels. But that's just me. I have had both positive and negative interactions. I have found when you interject that a gun is in the vehicle it adds even more stress to a poorly trained officer. If they ask about a CHL I say I have one but no gun is present. It cools the situation quickly.

 

[Cavedweller]

Friend, you're mistaken. Any action taken by LEOs requires a justification to overcome the 4th Amendment protections. It starts before you are pulled over by officers having no authority to pull you over UNLESS there is a specific reason to do so, such as by you violating the traffic law.

Violation of a traffic law is not justification for a vehicle search.

 

[Member 53328]

Violation of a traffic law is not justification for a vehicle search.

Don't bother. It's obvious he doesn't understand the 4th amendment.