Reasons _not_ to get a Concealed Pistol License?

[glockguy]

Yeah, it wasn't something I wanted to do...but at the time I was working towards my masters in psychology and had just resigned my commission in the ARMY. The only teaching gig I could get with my undergraduate degree was not high enough pay to make the bills so I decided to go into the mental health side of law enforcement. The bad thing is that you have to start from the bottom up if you want to get financial help with your degree so I had to attend the regular training camp and become a patrol officer. The job sucked with a capital suck. You see all the worst of society on a daily basis. Plus, things were not as progressive then as now and I was kind of a square peg in a round hole. I have great deal of respect for anyone that can do it long term. I ended up giving up on that career path and switched over to CPS as soon as I finished my degree. In fact, I worked locally for J**** youth when I first came to Oregon.

I went to college to Be a Police officer right out of HS but I Was an Idiot and Got a very Crappy Driving Record rapidly within a 2 year amount of time.. and then I blew out my Knees and then I found out I have a heart condition.. lol... Soo needless to say I think someone up stairs was telling me not to become one Sooo Now Im a Chemist at a rubber factory.... happy happy joy joy

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Sooo Now Im a Chemist at a rubber factory.... happy happy joy joy

One thing I learned quickly is that psychologists, and I assume chemists, get shot at and physically threatened a whole lot less than LEO's. That is a good thing. I am hoping I can say the same about bar owners in a year or two. Especially the not getting shot at park.

 

[KomradRazvan]

I know that Independence, Salem, Portland, and Beaverton all have laws against open carry. I think there is one or two more. Since there are cities that have laws that could get you in trouble, it is worth having you chl to make sure you are legal.

Do you have reference documentation on this... because i am confused now. About a month or two ago, I called the Salem Police non-emergency line and asked if there were any city ordinances that prohibited me from open carrying, and they couldn't answer it, but had a Sergeant call me back, and he told me it was ok to open carry on public property. Also, at the last PDX Gun Show, I asked Officer Hall of Portland Police the same question, and he said that since Oregon was an Open Carry state, I can legally carry openly in Portland. I told him that i heard there was a city ordinance against that, and he said he had never heard of it....

 

[Karma]

Do you have reference documentation on this... because i am confused now. About a month or two ago, I called the Salem Police non-emergency line and asked if there were any city ordinances that prohibited me from open carrying, and they couldn't answer it, but had a Sergeant call me back, and he told me it was ok to open carry on public property. Also, at the last PDX Gun Show, I asked Officer Hall of Portland Police the same question, and he said that since Oregon was an Open Carry state, I can legally carry openly in Portland. I told him that i heard there was a city ordinance against that, and he said he had never heard of it....

Yep, sure do. Sounds like the police better learn their own laws. The problem is that they can tell you that, but likely another officer who stops you will know.

<broken link removed>

Oregon

Summary
Oregon is a traditional open carry state. However, their preemption statute only covers concealed handgun license holders from city or county passed bans against loaded firearms in public places. To our knowledge, only the cities of Portland, Beaverton, Tigard, Oregon City, Salem, and Independence have passed loaded firearms bans encompassing all public places, and other cities have passed bans specific to Parks. Also, all "public buildings" are also off limits throughout the entire state unless you have a concealed handgun license.

 

[Trlsmn]

Yep, sure do. Sounds like the police better learn their own laws. The problem is that they can tell you that, but likely another officer who stops you will know.

<broken link removed>

Oregon

Summary
Oregon is a traditional open carry state. However, their preemption statute only covers concealed handgun license holders from city or county passed bans against loaded firearms in public places. To our knowledge, only the cities of Portland, Beaverton, Tigard, Oregon City, Salem, and Independence have passed loaded firearms bans encompassing all public places, and other cities have passed bans specific to Parks. Also, all "public buildings" are also off limits throughout the entire state unless you have a concealed handgun license.

Oregon CHL holders are exempt from the city open carry bans.

 

[Karma]

Do you have reference documentation on this... because i am confused now. About a month or two ago, I called the Salem Police non-emergency line and asked if there were any city ordinances that prohibited me from open carrying, and they couldn't answer it, but had a Sergeant call me back, and he told me it was ok to open carry on public property. Also, at the last PDX Gun Show, I asked Officer Hall of Portland Police the same question, and he said that since Oregon was an Open Carry state, I can legally carry openly in Portland. I told him that i heard there was a city ordinance against that, and he said he had never heard of it....

He was asking about open carry. I mentioned that the difference in city laws were a good reason to obtain you chl in order to be in compliance everywhere in the state.

 

[tionico]

Been accosted by law enforcement a few times in the past few years, the most belligerent cops being a bevy of five or so of Portland's nastiest. Deliberately trying to provoke me to respond in anger so they could put the clamps on me... cold winter night, they didn't guess I'd have my window wide open to hear them....

anyway, the ONLY time I've EVER been qeustioned about having a weapon has been in Mexico (they'll throw you to the cucarachas for the rest of your life if they find one on you down there.....) and in crossing the border north into Canada, where they ask EVERYBODY. (handguns are banned up there...). Just got my CPL last week, so we shall see if they suddenly start putting the questions about firearms to me. IF I get stopped again. (I rarely do.... clean record since 1994........) I have adopted the policy of keeping the CPL in a different part of my wallet than my driving license.... so they'd have to ask to see that.

 

[holdout]

Despite what the second amendment is clear on. And what is funny, most state constitutions mimick the same ideals set out in the U.S. Constitution. The elected officials and teneured public officials ignore the right (not privilage as some would try to make the sheep believe) that is granted by a higher power and natural order of things. All men are equal and endowed with inaliable rights. Self preservation being among the highest on the list. The law requires a permit to carry concealed and in some states in any fashion. I would let your conscience dictate your course of action.

I carried in the vehicle and on my person most of the time in Oregon, for years and never knew there where so many requirements against freely carrying a firearm. Never gave it much thought. But police interpret law anyway they see fit at any given moment and depending on their personal interpretations. I finally broke down and obtained one of those there concealed license things, becuase I did not want any hassles with the law. I personally feel less protected now and less free than when I techniquely broke the law. I now have powerful bubblegumy people with knowledge I carry. And possibly a news paper printing my name for the world to see or any other subversive organization. But I don't have to worry, not that it really mattered much before, about breaking the law anymore. It is rediculous what requirments are imposed upon a supposedly free society.

 

[CharlesAFerg]

If anyone ever carries concealed without a license they are a criminal and deserve to be punished severely if caught. They should not come whining later about how their rights were violated.

In the city, technically they are breaking the law.

Are they wrong for doing it? Not necessarily, although if they want to protest they should do something more, but I personally feel that writing state representatives and such is a waste of time. Why should I have to write somebody when I would much rather vote on the issue, then I KNOW my voice is heard.

The fact is, I find it unconstitutional that an applicant must submit to completing fingerprint cards.

Not long after I obtained my permit, I was pulled over because of a tinted license plate cover. The PO got to the left rear of my vehicle and asked "Do you have any weapons with you today?".

They know, as long as the vehicle is registered in your name.

It's the ODL (driver's license number), not the plates.

I believe that is incorrect.
I believe the law allows you to transport as long as the ammunition and the weapon are not stored together or readily available. Been a while back but I am pretty sure thats what my CHL instructor told me in class. I have been wrong before though.
I do know that OPEN CARRY is legal in many cities in Oregon. I saw a list once. Will have to see if I can find that.

Actually, I believe it's the same as going to and from a gun club. Legal if it's open carried, but concealed? I'm not sure about concealed, I'd have to double check.

 

[Jamie6.5]

It's the ODL (driver's license number), not the plates.

With the communications and computers in todays LE vehicles the jump from plate# to ODL# is a couple clicks away.
Now if you are borrowing a CHL holder's car, and not a CHL holder, the LEO would be mistaken before (s)he sees your ODL.

 

[NK777]

It's the ODL (driver's license number), not the plates.

never mind it is possible that they ask me for my license and I just don't remember but I don't think they did and I do not recall the license going back and forth.

I'll let you know for sure if I ever get pulled over again whether they ask about it before or after I hand them my license. FWIW it seems I never get pulled over anymore. It seems I am either exceedingly lawful or lucky or both now a days.

 

[Grizzly_A]

Yup. ORS 166.250 is the statute that makes it a crime in Oregon to carry a concealed firearm. But ORS 166.260 contains a list of exceptions. One is for a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun. But another is for "Licensed hunters or fishermen while engaged in hunting or fishing, or while going to or returning from a hunting expedition."

It's a funny law. Not sure what the rationale would be for that exception. But if you aren't going to get a CHL in Oregon, it would be smart to at least get a fishing license.

"Oh, yes, Officer. About that Mac-10 under the seat. I was just heading down to the river for a little fishing."

I think those that choose this route would be smart to have these statues printed in their glove box to show the newbie LEOs if they get pulled over.

Granted...I wouldn't be like "You're wrong officer...see here in my glove box I have a printed copy of the law for you to read...you can read right? Here let me open it and show you..."

If the situation is calm, they might be interested....at least you'd have proof of the statute.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Are they wrong for doing it? Not necessarily, although if they want to protest they should do something more, but I personally feel that writing state representatives and such is a waste of time.

Yes, they are wrong for doing it. If they are willfully breaking the law they are doing something wrong. If they want to protest the law that is one thing but for it to be a protest they have to have visibility. To just carry in secrecy is just breaking the law for selfish reasons and makes them a criminal.

 

[tionico]

Interesting note on getting the WA CPL.... go to the sheriff's office, get the blank form, read it carefully (some time to kill anyway, he was busy...). Under "forms of ID"... government issued photo ID is required. Okay, fine. Passports work, right? Well, no. Seems the ONLY magic carpet to ride to your very own personal CPL in Washington is a driving license..... from Washington in most cases. No, they are NOT only only interested in proof of your identity. They demand that extra bit of information precisely BECAUSE the DL is linked to their file on the registration. Before you've stopped, they've typed in the number plate and come up with ALL the details on vehicle ownership AND personal info on registered owner. Most cases, its the driver.

 

[tionico]

One aspect of what makes the whole CC permit process unconstitutional is that there is a fee levied, and required, to obtain one. Precedent has well established that when the government charges a mandatory fee for some priviledge, THEY become the arbiters of that priviledge.... basically, the government "infringes upon" that right by turning it into a proviledge they can mete out to their satisfaction. In plain language, the simple fact they charge a mandaroty fee IS, by legal definition, an "infringement" of what is plainly a right per the Constitution. It is precisely this line of reasoning that led directly to the striking down of the poll taxes that used to be levied in some places. "Sure, you can vote.... it is your RIGHT. But, you have to pay a fee, er, a tax, to exercise that right". The Supreme Court struck that down, establishing the precedent that the taxing of a right is the restricting of it.... and unconstitutional.

Since the right to keep and bear arms is ennumerated in the same document as is the right to vote, it is not the least stretch that the same principle would render charging a fee to exercise this right is also unconstitutional. Thus, all laws establishing such infringements would be struck down.

NOW... to press that it would take someone carrying concealed getting arrested, charged, tried, and convicted.... and sentenced. It would take a LONG process of appeals and a skilled lawyer to establish this principle, AND some black-robed folk who would see past all the hysteria and fear relating to arms, see and understand the underlying principles, and align their legal decision with that which tossed out the poll taxes.

But, since I prefer my present limited liberty to that such a "criminal" would find himself in, nor do I have the funds to carry such a lengthy legal press, I decided it was easier and cheaper to slog up the hill to the constabulary, show the requisite documents, pay the fee, and await the stupid piece of paper. Which line of thinking in millions of us is precisely WHY we suffer the present unconstitutional system.

Until there are sufficient numbers of us to give the toss to the powermongers maintaining this set of illegal laws, we will continue to have this, and other, rights, infringed.

 

[Karma]

Yes, they are wrong for doing it. If they are willfully breaking the law they are doing something wrong. If they want to protest the law that is one thing but for it to be a protest they have to have visibility. To just carry in secrecy is just breaking the law for selfish reasons and makes them a criminal.

So all laws should be blindly followed? I am going to play devils advocate here. If a law is passed that you must turn in all of your weapons and ammunition, do you just turn over your weapons because it is the law? Laws are in place for a reason. I get that, and I am not the kind of person who violates the law under normal circumstances. When a law is unconstitutional, or against my basic rights as a human being it is a different story.

I have my concealed carry permit because I am a law abiding citizen. I am not sure that a concealed carry permit should be required though. If you are legal to own a gun, then I see absolutely no reason why you would have to get permission from the powers that be to carry it for your own protection. On the flip side, if someone is committing a crime with a firearm, they should be put under the prison. Enforce the laws that are on the books and leave the responsible gun owners alone. That is my 2 cents worth anyhow.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

So all laws should be blindly followed? I am going to play devils advocate here. If a law is passed that you must turn in all of your weapons and ammunition, do you just turn over your weapons because it is the law?

I either do turn them in, or I refuse to turn them in as protest in a public manner. One that draws attention to the unjust law. That way I am trying to make a difference. If I just hide them away in my basement I am not protesting. I am simply being a criminal.

 

[cameronhu]

I either do turn them in, or I refuse to turn them in as protest in a public manner. One that draws attention to the unjust law. That way I am trying to make a difference. If I just hide them away in my basement I am not protesting. I am simply being a criminal.

The question then becomes, "Is being a criminal morally wrong?" This is a tough one. When I do 60mph in a 55, is that morally wrong? I don't speed to protest (although I suppose it is public). There are handful of other illegal things I've done that I don't believe most of the population would consider morally wrong, although technically they are considered criminal.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

The question then becomes, "Is being a criminal morally wrong?"

Yes, if you are doing it for selfish reasons. You can't wrap yourself up in the illusion of being a freedom fighter when you aren't actually fighting for anything.

PS: Morality has nothing to do with legality. Laws are consistent and structured. Morals are not definable in any concrete terms since they vary to widely from person to person.

 

[cameronhu]

Yes, if you are doing it for selfish reasons. You can't wrap yourself up in the illusion of being a freedom fighter when you aren't actually fighting for anything.

PS: Morality has nothing to do with legality. Laws are consistent and structured. Morals are not definable in any concrete terms since they vary to widely from person to person.

This would be an interesting subject to discuss at length (although perhaps not in this forum). The label of "freedom fighter" didn't enter into my thinking. My understanding (which could have been erroneous) was that there were only two options being presented: 1) Obey the law 2)Protest the law.

Any other option made one a criminal.

I believe option 2 is also criminal, although protesting may seem morally sound. My point was that in certain cases, there are other options available that, while criminal, would seem morally superior to obeying the law that weren't shows of public protest.

I agree with you in theory; laws should being structured and consistent, but in practice, my experience has been otherwise. They generally tend to be as fallible as the people who write them.