Oregon Open carry Laws without Concealed permit

[idRATHERbeOUTDOORS]

So how does open carry in your car work for situations like this: your gun is in a holster next to on the passenger seat as you pull into a gas station and the attendant comes up to your window to ask "how much gas do you want", and sees it on the seat?

Sure, I've Velcro'ed a holster to the dash before. I've gotten gas with my 12ga in the back seat of my Geo and only gotten a "goin' shooting?". So yah thats the jist of it.

 

[Glock Jock]

ok. I did just that today with my glock. I asked if he had change for a hundred and he saw my gun and went to ask then returned to say I had to wait for 5 minutes for some odd reason before I could get gas. I never heard that response before and just gave him a $20 then got my gas and left. Got a funny feeling that he was calling the police and he wanted me to wait for them. I have only been in Oregon for 4 1/2 months and that was the first time I have tried carrying in open like that.

I had my permit to carry before I moved here and will get it when I have the extra money, but for now I wanted to be sure I am doing it legally.

 

[Kevatc]

GFSZA doesn't affect private property. Also I'm surprised you don't have a CHL

I've had a CHL now for 3.5 years.

 

[fd15k]

I've had a CHL now for 3.5 years.

Well, in any case, having CHL fully exempts one from the GFSZA. Persons who don't have a CHL and live within 1000ft of a school ground should transport their firearms from home unloaded and locked. I would especially pay attention to that living in areas patrolled by CBP, USFS, etc...

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Another nice thing about CHL is that one won't get popped for illegal possession in a public building, when one unknowingly happens to be present on/in one of such properties in otherwise OC-friendly jurisdiction. Also while technically CHL doesn't do anything in regards of USPS, but by the venture of firearm being concealed, a visit to the Post Office may not end as tragically

18 USC Section 930:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly
possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous
weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility),
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than 1 year, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon
be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes
to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal
facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of
subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal
facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon,
or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as
provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to -
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer,
agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political
subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or
supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or
prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a
Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such
possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons
in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful
purposes.

Carrying a firearm would be lawful with a valid CHL and self-defense would be a lawful purpose.

The first time I went to the local rented storefront Social Security office about 3 years ago the only "No Guns" signs on display were in Spanish, faded from the sun, and stuck to the inside of the heavily tinted windows 15' from the door. The security guard asked me if I was armed, like she did everyone who came through the door. Not thinking, I said, "Yes, but I have a CHL" about 1/10th of a second before my brain screamed "FEDERAL BUILDING!" Well, she looked at my ID and CHL and called the sheriff's office while I braced myself for the ensuing sh**storm. After about 3 minutes on the phone she handed back my ID and CHL and said I should put my weapon in my vehicle. I never heard another word about it.

 

[fd15k]

Carrying a firearm would be lawful with a valid CHL and self-defense would be a lawful purpose.

The first time I went to the local rented storefront Social Security office about 3 years ago the only "No Guns" signs on display were in Spanish, faded from the sun, and stuck to the inside of the heavily tinted windows 15' from the door. The security guard asked me if I was armed, like she did everyone who came through the door. Not thinking, I said, "Yes, but I have a CHL" about 1/10th of a second before my brain screamed "FEDERAL BUILDING!" Well, she looked at my ID and CHL and called the sheriff's office while I braced myself for the ensuing sh**storm. After about 3 minutes on the phone she handed back my ID and CHL and said I should put my weapon in my vehicle. I never heard another word about it.

First, Federal Building and Post Office Property are two different things - USPS is authorized to regulate their own property. Second, self-defense is not currently recognized by feds as "lawful activity" for this purpose. Here is the lawsuit that deals with that :

Bonidy et al v. United States Postal Service et al

Bonidy et al v. United States Postal Service et al (cod/122068) - The RECAP Archive

Thanks for your effort though!

 

[Thebastidge]

The USPS regulation that bans firearms bans them for employees from the resticted areas of the building. I can walk into the USPS with a rifle or shotgun and mail it to myself, to a manufacturer for repair, or to an FFL.

Now personally, I don't open carry a pistol into the post office. It's not worth the hassle, but anybody who says firearms are completely banned from USPS property is incorrect.

 

[fd15k]

The USPS regulation that bans firearms bans them for employees from the resticted areas of the building. I can walk into the USPS with a rifle or shotgun and mail it to myself, to a manufacturer for repair, or to an FFL.

Now personally, I don't open carry a pistol into the post office. It's not worth the hassle, but anybody who says firearms are completely banned from USPS property is incorrect.

You absolutely positively can't open carry or concealed carry A LOADED FIREARM into a Post Office legally whether you are FFL or not, employee or customer. Are we clear now ?

 

[Thebastidge]

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

 

[fd15k]

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

I've provided my citation above - there is a lawsuit challenging prohibition on defensive carry of firearms on USPS property. Note that lawsuit is filed by a customer, not an employee.

And here is a bit more :
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1215626237.shtml

 

[ZigZagZeke]

First, Federal Building and Post Office Property are two different things - USPS is authorized to regulate their own property. Second, self-defense is not currently recognized by feds as "lawful activity" for this purpose. Here is the lawsuit that deals with that :

Bonidy et al v. United States Postal Service et al

Bonidy et al v. United States Postal Service et al (cod/122068) - The RECAP Archive

Thanks for your effort though!

In Bonidy v. USPS the court dealt only with whether the USPS was justified in declaring all of its administered property, not just the buildings, as sensitive areas, and whether that violated the 2nd Amendment. The court specifically said that self-defense is a legal purpose under the 2nd Amendment, according to District of Columbia v. Heller. Additionally, this case was brought before a federal district court in Colorado. That's not quite the USSC.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I've provided my citation above - there is a lawsuit challenging prohibition on defensive carry of firearms on USPS property. Note that lawsuit is filed by a customer, not an employee.

And here is a bit more :
The Volokh Conspiracy - More on Guns in Post Office Parking Lots:

I'm not sure how you think your link is pertinent to the issue at hand. Quoting the judge in his decision:

The undersigned Magistrate Judge expresses no opinion whatsoever as to the constitutionality of [the] regulation's ban on carrying firearms or animals in public areas without official purpose -- i.e., operating a vehicle through the "snorkel lane" of the Gretna Post Office while accompanied by a pet Shih Tzu, other non-seeing eye dog or, perhaps, armed with a loaded handgun stowed in the glove compartment. Neither of those issues are before the Court in this case, which involves the prohibited conduct of carrying and storing firearms without official purpose in the gated/restricted access employee parking, loading and unloading area of the subject "postal property."

 

[fd15k]

In Bonidy v. USPS the court dealt only with whether the USPS was justified in declaring all of its administered property, not just the buildings, as sensitive areas, and whether that violated the 2nd Amendment. The court said nothing about self-defense as a legal purpose. Additionally, this case was brought before a federal district court in Colorado. That's not quite the USSC.

It is some weird Monday today, a lot of confusion. The complaint there is due to plaintiff's inability to carry on USPS property for self-defense. Postal regulations allow guns on USPS property for lawful purposes. That means that self defense is not a lawful purpose of having a gun on USPS property. US Supreme Court does not take cases "from the street" outside its original jurisdiction - case has to escalate from a district court to circuit court of appeals, to SC. Also federal district courts have authority to issue injunctions agains any federal agency.

 

[fd15k]

I'm not sure how you think your link is pertinent to the issue at hand. Quoting the judge in his decision:

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

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Postal regulations allow guns on USPS property for lawful purposes. That means that self defense is not a lawful purpose of having a gun on USPS property.

No, the court decided that the USPS was justified in declaring even its parking lots "sensitive areas", like federal court rooms. It said nothing about self-defense being a legal purpose. The USSC in District of Columbia v. Heller specifically said that self-defense is a lawful purpose and this court, the plaintiffs, and the defendants acknowledged that many times in this case in the court documents.

US Supreme Court does not take cases "from the street" outside its original jurisdiction - case has to escalate from a district court to circuit court of appeals, to SC. Also federal district courts have authority to issue injunctions agains any federal agency.

That is an elementary concept we learned in law school. I also learned that federal district courts are often overturned on appeal at the Court of Appeals, or subsequently at the USSC. So my point was that this decision by a federal district court in Colorado is hardly the last word, especially for cases that arise in another jurisdiction.

I believe that the plaintiffs argued the wrong question. They argued in effect that the USPS had no right to regulate public possession of firearms in its parking lots and the court found that USPS buildings and parking lots are not the equivalent of citizens possessing firearms in their homes. The plaintiffs did not specifically argue (as they should have) that the USPS has no jurisdiction over the contents of their private vehicles, and that by regulating the contents of their vehicles while in USPS parking lots the USPS was effectively regulating those contents for a substantial majority of the time that those vehicles were not on USPS property, and thus depriving the plaintiffs of the right of armed self-defense while going to and from USPS property. If I were their lawyer I would have specifically argued this point.

 

[fd15k]

No, the court decided that the USPS was justified in declaring even its parking lots "sensitive areas", like federal court rooms. It said nothing about self-defense being a legal purpose. The USSC in District of Columbia v. Heller specifically said that self-defense is a lawful purpose and this court, the plaintiffs, and the defendants acknowledged that many times in this case in the court documents.



That is an elementary concept we learned in law school. I also learned that federal district courts are often overturned on appeal at the Court of Appeals, or subsequently at the USSC. So my point was that this decision by a federal district court in Colorado is hardly the last word, especially for cases that arise in another jurisdiction.

I believe that the plaintiffs argued the wrong question. They argued in effect that the USPS had no right to regulate public possession of firearms in its parking lots and the court found that USPS buildings and parking lots are not the equivalent of citizens possessing firearms in their homes. The plaintiffs did not specifically argue (as they should have) that the USPS has no jurisdiction over the contents of their private vehicles, and that by regulating the contents of their vehicles while in USPS parking lots the USPS was regulating those contents for a substantial majority of the time that those vehicles were not on USPS property, and thus depriving the plaintiffs of the right of armed self-defense while going to and from USPS property. If I were their lawyer I would have specifically argued this point.

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

 

[hermannr]

So how does open carry in your car work for situations like this: your gun is in a holster next to on the passenger seat as you pull into a gas station and the attendant comes up to your window to ask "how much gas do you want", and sees it on the seat?

Personally, I would never have my carry loose anywhere in a vehicle, CHL/CPL/both or none. It is physically dnagerous to the occupants of the vehicle if you have an accident. If you don't want to have it on your hip, secure it,,,don't leave it loose. If it is not on your hip...unloaded it.

fd15k: you go a bit overboard with the federal laws. Just like the group that says you may not enter any federal building armed...that is not what 922 states...there are exemptions.

 

[hermannr]

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

OK mr federal law expert....the USPS law also states that the PO must be posted to warn people that carry is not allowed...None of the local post offices here in Okanogan Co are posted.....

 

[fd15k]

OK mr federal law expert....the USPS law also states that the PO must be posted to warn people that carry is not allowed...None of the local post offices here in Okanogan Co are posted.....

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 ?

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Well, to "add" to the thread, I think what OP is doing is bubbleguming stupid.

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.