Oregon Open carry Laws without Concealed permit

[fd15k]

How so?
Not all of us want to bow down and suckle the teat of power to get a CHL. Some want to exercise our 2A rights and OC instead of CC and transport firearms loaded or not but follow the law..as much as logically possible that isn't a total intrusion on our said 2A god given right.

I want to exercise my god-given rights to pot and hookers too, but unfortunately state doesn't recognize or severely limits them. It seems like we are in the same boat here

OP stated that he doesn't get CHL because he can't afford it, not because he is ideologically against it. Then he goes to seek legal advice on an anonymous gun forum where everybody is a lawyer without a degree. In the end, OP risks being in need of a real lawyer with a real law degree, charging real lawyer hourly rates.

 

[biggie24420]

Collect cans, donate blood, mow people's lawn, deliver news paper.... do whatever you legally can to obtain the money and get a CHL and learn the laws. That way when you get stopped you know your rights and be calm and respectful towards the officer.... if he or she is till being a moron, take names and file a complain.
When someone is mentally, physically, and legally capable of carrying.... it's the right thing to do. When you have the CHL you are golden my friend. You don't have to deal with all the dumb city and county rules/laws or whatever when it comes to carrying a pistol/handgun. Just don't do anything stupid to get the CHL revoked lol.... I know a few people who got their license revoked and it's not cool.... granted they are idiots and shouldn't be around guns because they are not responsible. I believe almost everyone has the right to defend themselves and their family, only if they can do so as long as they are sane, responsible, and not an evil person wanting to do harm to others.

 

[hermannr]

How about you read this :

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.122068/gov.uscourts.cod.122068.1.1.pdf

and this :

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.122068/gov.uscourts.cod.122068.1.2.pdf

and then tell me what you think about this whole thing ?

Did not read the underlying court case (US V Dorosan) but from what I did read this was a case of a USPS EMPLOYEE with a gun in his vehicle.

It is interesting that the CFR says the reg cannot conflict with State or Federal Law...some (quite a few, I thin. OR is one of them?) have state laws that say you cannot restrict in a public parking lot as long as the weapon stays in the vehicle...

As LA does not have that type of law, or maybe the vehicle was parked in a restricted (not public) lot could have a bearing on this.

All I know is the CFR also states the restriction must be posted for public notice. I am sure as an employee Dorosan had been told. I don't think the USPS has the legal authority to restrict in their public parking lot, and I do not think it is/would be/ even considered here where I live. Really irrelevant to me, I do all my transaction with them through my rural mail box, I'm not driving 20 miles down to town every day...no way...

OH, off topic, but specifically for you fd15k: Did they state anything down your way about Baumgartner (the Republician challenger to Cantwell for US Senate from WA) He has publically supported the MJ legalization initiative here?

 

[fd15k]

Did not read the underlying court case (US V Dorosan) but from what I did read this was a case of a USPS EMPLOYEE with a gun in his vehicle.

Well, the two links I offered for reading are from the new case. It's not much reading, and contains fairly simple English.

All I know is the CFR also states the restriction must be posted for public notice. I am sure as an employee Dorosan had been told. I don't think the USPS has the legal authority to restrict in their public parking lot, and I do not think it is/would be/ even considered here where I live. Really irrelevant to me, I do all my transaction with them through my rural mail box, I'm not driving 20 miles down to town every day...no way...

Please read, there is an answer to your question.

OH, off topic, but specifically for you fd15k: Did they state anything down your way about Baumgartner (the Republician challenger to Cantwell for US Senate from WA) He has publically supported the MJ legalization initiative here?

I don't think I've seen anything. But then I send a lot of my mail straight into recycling lately, so maybe I missed it...

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Let's simplify the question. Can one at this time legally carry while being a USPS customer ?

As written, 18 USC Section 930 seems to allow CHL holders and anyone else who is legally carrying a firearm for a legal purpose an exemption. I'm sure this was the intent of the law. The rest of the section deals with illegal activity and intent to commit crimes involving firearms in government buildings. The USPS and other federal government agencies have twisted and tortured the language of the law in order to suit their purposes, saying that the law does not mean what it clearly says. No one has taken this issue to the USSC, so the federal government agencies continue, just like our local public school districts, to insist that they can restrict the right to carry on their premises. The question has not been legally put to rest in the courts yet. If you want to be safe, don't carry in the USPS buildings or parking lots. If you feel like being the test case then challenge the bureaucrats.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

That case clarifies the scope of the restrictins - not only buildings, but even USPS parking lot is off limits.

What it said was that employee parking lots are off limits. The judge specifically stated that he was NOT ruling on public parking lots.

 

[fd15k]

As written, 18 USC Section 930 seems to allow CHL holders and anyone else who is legally carrying a firearm for a legal purpose an exemption. I'm sure this was the intent of the law. The rest of the section deals with illegal activity and intent to commit crimes involving firearms in government buildings. The USPS and other federal government agencies have twisted and tortured the language of the law in order to suit their purposes, saying that the law does not mean what it clearly says. No one has taken this issue to the USSC, so the federal government agencies continue, just like our local public school districts, to insist that they can restrict the right to carry on their premises. The question has not been legally put to rest in the courts yet. If you want to be safe, don't carry in the USPS buildings or parking lots. If you feel like being the test case then challenge the bureaucrats.

So you're basically saying that leftists are to blame for everything On a serious note, you have not answered the question directly.

 

[fd15k]

What it said was that employee parking lots are off limits. The judge specifically stated that he was NOT ruling on public parking lots.

What's your take on the two specific links I've posted ?

 

[ZigZagZeke]

So you're basically saying that leftists are to blame for everything On a serious note, you have not answered the question directly.

Here's my direct answer: The language of the law governing this issue (18 USC Section 930) clearly contradicts what the USPS and other federal agencies have stated as their policy prohibiting loaded weapons on their property. One federal district court has ruled narrowly in favor of the USPS. That or a similar ruling in the future needs to be appealed.

 

[fd15k]

Here's my direct answer: The language of the law governing this issue (18 USC Section 930) clearly contradicts what the USPS and other federal agencies have stated as their policy prohibiting loaded weapons on their property. One federal district court has ruled narrowly in favor of the USPS. That or a similar ruling in the future needs to be appealed.

Fair enough. Now going back to the question about federal buildings. When the carry laws for National Parks have changed, it was said that buildings are still off limits. What do you think ? Can you carry into a ranger station ?

 

[ZigZagZeke]

What's your take on the two specific links I've posted ?

The first is the Bonidy's attorney stating their case and asking the USPS to stand down. The second is a non-sequitur reply from the USPS counsel citing their ability to regulate firearm possession by their employees, in which counsel basically says that all USPS real property has been declared "sensitive areas" by the USPS. Such blanket interpretations seldom hold up in court.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Fair enough. Now going back to the question about federal buildings. When the carry laws for National Parks have changed, it was said that buildings are still off limits. What do you think ? Can you carry into a ranger station ?

18 USC Section 930 is a federal law. It would apply to all federal facilities and grounds that are not validly declared "sensitive areas."

 

[fd15k]

The first is the Bonidy's attorney stating their case and asking the USPS to stand down. The second is a non-sequitur reply from the USPS counsel citing their ability to regulate firearm possession by their employees, in which counsel basically says that all USPS real property has been declared "sensitive areas" by the USPS. Such blanket interpretations seldom hold up in court.

Basically my question was if this is a non-issue, then why the lawsuit - carry all you want in the Post Office, especially since the previous precedent is non-binding for Colorado (10th circuit). And this is basically where the problem is - government is not wrong at criminalizing something, can, and will prosecute violators, until it is told otherwise by the courts of appropriate jurisdiction. You can't carry at the Post Office

 

[ZigZagZeke]

...government is not wrong at criminalizing something, can, and will prosecute violators, until it is told otherwise by the courts of appropriate jurisdiction. You can't carry at the Post Office

Government is required to obey the letter of the law, just like everyone else. It can disobey the law until it is challenged, just like everyone else. Your attitude seems to be that the government can do as it pleases because it has more power than individual citizens, regardless of what the law says. The government acting as a bully doesn't make the government right.

 

[fd15k]

Government is required to obey the letter of the law, just like everyone else. It can disobey the law until it is challenged, just like everyone else. Your attitude seems to be that the government can do as it pleases because it has more power than individual citizens, regardless of what the law says. The government acting as a bully doesn't make the government right.

Goverment is in charge of administering the letter of the law. We are responsible for making sure it does not overstep its authority. We are also responsible for shaping the policy. As for my attitude, I am a pragmatic person - my first priority is in figuring out how things are, leaving philosophical debates of how things should be for later, perhaps over a beer.

 

[Kevatc]

We are clear that you, and most people believe that.

Settle this for us. Go carry in a post office and make sure they know it and let us know how that goes for you.

 

[4Freedom]

I only read half your first post and not any responses, but take my advice, Oregon is a very screwy state with gun laws when you dont have a CHL. Here's what you do.. Take out a loan, sell your watch; heck, take it out of your's kid lunch money, get yourself the CHL. Trust me, you may regret it later if you don't have it in the state of Oregon. One town you are obeying the laws and nobody will bother you, in next town, you just committed a crime and will have a gun pointed to your head and will be hauled off to jail.

I drove to Grant County, OR to get an out-of-state OR permit , because I go down to Portland time-to-time. It's not worth the hassle. In all honesty, you are probably better off concealing your gun without a permit in the state of Oregon and risking the Misdemeanor and never getting caught than you are open carrying in the wrong town and very likely to attract the attention of many panicked residents and local law enforcement and face even worse consequences.

How much is the permit, like $80?? Your fines, legal fees and other penalties will be a lot higher than that.

 

[Thebastidge]

Settle this for us. Go carry in a post office and make sure they know it and let us know how that goes for you.

I'm not disputing that they'll probably call the cops, jam you up, and it'll cost a lot of money in legal fees. It's not a slam-dunk loss in the courts though. The problem is it's very difficult and scary to be the test case. But the opencarry movement faces that kind of problem everywhere every day.

 

[Ed Crabb]

Yes, spending the money for the CHL would be the smartest thing to do. However if you have a DUII with divsion your not gonna get the CHL. I know I tried, failed, went to court and lost. Now l get a delay every time I get a new gun. So don't bother trying in Marion County
Until we get rid of ORS166.291, we are screwed.

 

[decklin]

Yes, spending the money for the CHL would be the smartest thing to do. However if you have a DUII with divsion your not gonna get the CHL. I know I tried, failed, went to court and lost. Now l get a delay every time I get a new gun. So don't bother trying in Marion County
Until we get rid of ORS166.291, we are screwed.

Necrothread