Private Companies Listing: Legal Concealable Carry in Portland/Surrounding Areas

[NCDuck]

Learning from my Gun Safety course, that you have to have permission from the private property owner on whether or not it is acceptable to legally carry your concealed weapon on their grounds. I was wondering if there was a list started of confirmed Portland/Surrounding area businesses where concealed carry is allowed?

Acceptable Private Businesses Concealed Carry List:

Starbucks
Fred Meyers (Kroger)
Others...?

Read More

 

[oregonty]

Are you sure about that? I am almost positive (99.9999%) that you have the wrong information here. I was under the impression that a business had to post on all entrances if no guns were allowed. I think it has to do with the Uniform Building Codes as far as posting goes. In Salem the Lancaster mall has a notice on their map board inside one of the entrances that says in the bottom corner that you can not have any firearms. But....This is not enforceable due to the fact that they need to post it on all entrances in a specific location on the doors.

Someone please correct me if im wrong. Ill try to do some research on this though.

 

[the puma]

Ty, you're correct

 

[U201494]

Permission is implied unless posted otherwise.

 

[drew]

If you are lawfully carrying, the private property owner needs to notify you. It's similar to having a dress code.

 

[m1gunr]

Posted establishments do have "the Force of Law" in Oregon.

164.265 Criminal trespass while in possession of firearm.
(1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.
(2) Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. [1979 c.603 §2]

 

[R-Rizzo]

Posted establishments do have "the Force of Law" in Oregon.

164.265 Criminal trespass while in possession of firearm.
(1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.
(2) Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. [1979 c.603 §2]

DISCLAIMER:

I am not a lawyer... I do not play one on tv... Dont particularly care for most of them.....

However, with all due respect.... I do not believe that is correct. In some states, Posted Private Property is specifically listed in state law as a place that it is unlawful to carry concealed.... (The same type of states where you cant carry any place that charges admission and other asinine laws.) Oregon is not one of those states. The only way you would get in to legal trouble is if it became known you were carrying, you were asked to leave, and you didn't.

Keep it concealed, keep it to yourself, and if you get made and asked to leave... Do it.... End of story....

**Disclaimer: Again, I am not a lawyer and this is not intended to be legal advice.... Don't believe everything you read on the internet. You and you alone are responsible for education yourself on your local state, county, and city ordinances.**

 

[The B]

rizzo is correct.. there's absolutely nothing in the ORS that requires you to obtain permission to enter private property with a firearm.

believe it or not, CCW instructors very frequently give bad, bad, bad information. you'd think i was making stuff up if i told you some of the insane BS ours told us, years ago.

 

[the puma]

Posted establishments do have "the Force of Law" in Oregon.

164.265 Criminal trespass while in possession of firearm.
(1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.
(2) Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. [1979 c.603 §2]

The key is in bold. If the premises is posted "no firearms" or similar, a person carrying a firearm who enters is entering unlawfully. If a person is carrying a firearm and is told by a 'person in charge' or other person who has legal authority to do so that they must leave, and the person remains, they are then remaining unlawfully.

If a person enters a non-posted premises while carrying a firearm, there is no law being broken because it's up to the premises to post their specific rules for entry.

 

[m1gunr]

I too am not a lawyer but what about 3C here....

164.205 Definitions for ORS 164.205 to 164.270.
As used in ORS 164.205 to 164.270, except as the context requires otherwise:
(1) "Building," in addition to its ordinary meaning, includes any booth, vehicle, boat, aircraft or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying on business therein. Where a building consists of separate units, including, but not limited to, separate apartments, offices or rented rooms, each unit is, in addition to being a part of such building, a separate building.
(2) "Dwelling" means a building which regularly or intermittently is occupied by a person lodging therein at night, whether or not a person is actually present.
(3) "Enter or remain unlawfully" means:
(a) To enter or remain in or upon premises when the premises, at the time of such entry or remaining, are not open to the public or when the entrant is not otherwise licensed or privileged to do so;
(b) To fail to leave premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed to do so by the person in charge;
(c) To enter premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed not to enter the premises; or
(d) To enter or remain in a motor vehicle when the entrant is not authorized to do so.
(4) "Open to the public" means premises which by their physical nature, function, custom, usage, notice or lack thereof or other circumstances at the time would cause a reasonable person to believe that no permission to enter or remain is required.
(5) "Person in charge" means a person, a representative or employee of the person who has lawful control of premises by ownership, tenancy, official position or other legal relationship. "Person in charge"

The way I read that, if the building is posted you have been notified.

 

[the puma]

I too am not a lawyer but what about 3C here....

164.205 Definitions for ORS 164.205 to 164.270.
As used in ORS 164.205 to 164.270, except as the context requires otherwise:
(1) "Building," in addition to its ordinary meaning, includes any booth, vehicle, boat, aircraft or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying on business therein. Where a building consists of separate units, including, but not limited to, separate apartments, offices or rented rooms, each unit is, in addition to being a part of such building, a separate building.
(2) "Dwelling" means a building which regularly or intermittently is occupied by a person lodging therein at night, whether or not a person is actually present.
(3) "Enter or remain unlawfully" means:
(a) To enter or remain in or upon premises when the premises, at the time of such entry or remaining, are not open to the public or when the entrant is not otherwise licensed or privileged to do so;
(b) To fail to leave premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed to do so by the person in charge;
(c) To enter premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed not to enter the premises; or
(d) To enter or remain in a motor vehicle when the entrant is not authorized to do so.
(4) "Open to the public" means premises which by their physical nature, function, custom, usage, notice or lack thereof or other circumstances at the time would cause a reasonable person to believe that no permission to enter or remain is required.
(5) "Person in charge" means a person, a representative or employee of the person who has lawful control of premises by ownership, tenancy, official position or other legal relationship. "Person in charge"

The way I read that, if the building is posted you have been notified.

I agree this is a correct interpretation of the law, however case law has taken a slightly different path. In Multnomah County, case law has sided with the person being trespassed, so even if they know they are entering or remaining unlawfully (by either ignoring posted signs or returning after being previously trespassed) they still must refuse to leave after being told to leave. This doesn't apply to all situations, and I don't know if other counties are the same way. Regardless, the safe thing to do is obey legal signs or face the consequences.

 

[oregonty]

How often do most of you even look at the doors on a business to see if there is a posting for no firearms? I have to admit that I dont often even look.
Heck, I even forget that Im even carrying the majority of the time!

 

[The B]

How often do most of you even look at the doors on a business to see if there is a posting for no firearms? I have to admit that I dont often even look.
Heck, I even forget that Im even carrying the majority of the time!

yea.. this is basically a non-issue, for the reasons you present. i don't spend much time thinking about my gun... it's just there, and always is. i've trained myself to go for it if that "ENGAGE!" alert should go off in my mind, but aside from that, it's no different than my wallet or wristwatch or pocket knife. being dressed means being armed, and i'm not going to alter that for anyone. unfortunately, being a disabled veteran, i occasionally have to enter secured federal property- but thats the ONLY time i'm caring. why should i? concealed means concealed- nobody's business but my own.

just practice responsible concealment, and relax.

 

[MikeSettles]

bkb: Regarding carrying in "Federal Facilities", it seems that the folks who are in charge at those places are always about posting the top part of Title 18, Part I, Section 44, Sec.930 to PREVENT you from lawfully carrying. But, for instance at the Post Office, they fail to post sub-section (d)(3): Exceptions,

Sec. 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in
Federal facilities

(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) ...
(c) ...
(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.

I suspect that "self-defense" under the Bill of Rights is a "Lawful Purpose".

 

[deadshot2]

believe it or not, CCW instructors very frequently give bad, bad, bad information. you'd think i was making stuff up if i told you some of the insane BS ours told us, years ago.

Not only Instructors but those who consider themselves Forum Legal Experts.

 

[Trlsmn]

I basically follow the personal rule of carry everywhere other than Federal facilities regardless of signage, if asked about a weapon I would leave on my own without even acknowledging the question.

 

[oregonty]

bkb: Regarding carrying in "Federal Facilities", it seems that the folks who are in charge at those places are always about posting the top part of Title 18, Part I, Section 44, Sec.930 to PREVENT you from lawfully carrying. But, for instance at the Post Office, they fail to post sub-section (d)(3): Exceptions,

Sec. 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in
Federal facilities

(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) ...
(c) ...
(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.

I suspect that "self-defense" under the Bill of Rights is a "Lawful Purpose".

Carrying in a Post Office is legal as I understand it. There is an exception to the Federal Facilities....... the employees at a federal facility need to be Federal Employees. The PO employees are not Federal Employees. This makes it legal to carry in a PO. Someone please correct me if im wrong.

 

[MikeSettles]

Living in Vancouver, I've been to the Caples Road Main Post Office many times. Posted on the bulletin board was Sec 930 which I quoted above - except that they left out subsection (d)(3) - exceptions. If you didn't look it up, you wouldn't know - the point being that they are trying to discourage you from carrying there.

Subsection (e) covers federal courthouses, and only allows exceptions (d)(1) - Law Enforcement, and (d)(2) - Military on duty.

Washington RCW disallows civilian carry into jail lockups and courthouses, but those facilities are also required to have a secure short-term storage available.

 

[oregonty]

Gotcha. LOL. Talk about misleading!