Shoot wife's cell phone, become a convict :-)

[Law of Self Defense]

By the way, for those who might be interested, I was recently interviewed by N24, a German television news station, on our "crazy American gun and self-defense" laws, and I just received the raw video of that interview today. The first ~6 minutes or so is up on my blog, with successive segments (there's about 30m total) to follow over the next few days.

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

 

[ZigZagZeke]

The courts have ruled in 4th Amendment search cases that outside the curtilage a search warrant may not be necessary, as when viewing an open field with binoculars, but that once within the curtilage of a residence, such observations become unreasonable and invasive. It would make sense for the courts to be consistent in including the curtilage as part of the residence for the interpretation of both reasonable search, and firearms questions.

 

[GrpCapMandrake]

By the way, for those who might be interested, I was recently interviewed by N24, a German television news station, on our "crazy American gun and self-defense" laws, and I just received the raw video of that interview today. The first ~6 minutes or so is up on my blog, with successive segments (there's about 30m total) to follow over the next few days.

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Just had a chance to watch the video clip on your blog. I enjoyed your analysis of the right to self defense. I don't think it will change the mind of the German's, but it was very good indeed.

 

[Law of Self Defense]

Thanks for the kind words.

That was my toned-down version, specifically for a Western European audience. I left out the loaded muskets, Liberty Tree, and right to revolution.

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

 

[fd15k]

Some time ago I theorized that one's property in a form of bare land might be subject to concealed carry regulation, at that time we couldn't reach a conclusion. I will try to find that discussion...

Here it is :

Maybe it sounded, but I've clarified it for you. Are we good now ?

Okay, the exemption seems to be this one :

166.250. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section or ORS 166.260, 166.270, 166.274, 166.291, 166.292 or 166.410 to 166.470, a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly:

(a) Carries any firearm concealed upon the person;
...
...
(2) This section does not prohibit:
(b) Any citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides in or is temporarily sojourning within this state, and who is not within the excepted classes prescribed by ORS 166.270 and subsection (1) of this section, from owning, possessing or keeping within the person's place of residence or place of business any handgun, and no permit or license to purchase, own, possess or keep any such firearm at the person's place of residence or place of business is required of any such citizen. As used in this subsection, "residence" includes a recreational vessel or recreational vehicle while used, for whatever period of time, as residential quarters.

So the way I see it, hypothetical farmland would not be exempted. Second interesting observation, is that exemption does not apply to Permanent Residents (non-citizens) and non-immigrant aliens (those with a hunting license).

Perhaps there is more to it, but that's what my "trolling" was all about.

http://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/concealed-carry-on-your-own-or-private-land.75367/page-2

 

[Koda]

Thanks for posting FD, ORS 166.250(1)(b) could conclude that a persons property is not exempt for carry regulations. In short, your land property... including your garage (I'm still assuming a garage is not legally a place of residence attached or not) its illegal to carry without a permit.

The defining text here is "within the persons place of residence"

My next question is: why cant a persons property (land...) be considered their place of residence? Was there a conclusion from the other thread you referenced? A quick skim confirms my suspicion that you cant carry concealed on your own property (land) without an Oregon CHL.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

I think this is an area that needs to be clarified. I seriously doubt that the intention of the law was to place property owners under carry restrictions on their property unless it was done so with the intention of deceiving them. There are too many farmers and ranchers in OR that would have balked at it. Now here is an interesting twist. Could it be argued that your property is also your place of business even if it is not a registered business?

 

[Koda]

I think this is an area that needs to be clarified. I seriously doubt that the intention of the law was to place property owners under carry restrictions on their property unless it was done so with the intention of deceiving them.

the question is when did this law come into effect? My thoughts are many of the regulations we assume come with the right are actually gun control laws from years ago just like the "A"WB or magazine capacity laws today. I do think the intention of the law was to place law abiding citizens under restrictions, there is no logical reason to regulate carry on your own property for a law abiding citizen.

Could it be argued that your property is also your place of business even if it is not a registered business?

without a personal DBA or otherwise I don't see how. With a personal business license I wonder...

 

[fd15k]

the question is when did this law come into effect? My thoughts are many of the regulations we assume come with the right are actually gun control laws from years ago just like the "A"WB or magazine capacity laws today. I do think the intention of the law was to place law abiding citizens under restrictions, there is no logical reason to regulate carry on your own property for a law abiding citizen.

without a personal DBA or otherwise I don't see how. With a personal business license I wonder...

Prohibition on carrying concealed firearms is almost as old as Oregon being part of the union. I did some digging on that not so long ago, the prohibition was passed in 1891. Obviously the state was very rural back then, yet I doubt there were any concerns about farmers being unable to conceal. They had other problems back then - negroes and chinamen. Exemption (CHL) is a much more recent thing, passed in 1989 if I rememeber correctly. Either way, check out this thread here, I've put quite a few historic citations into it...
http://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/renew-chl.158627/page-4#post-1031440

 

[The Heretic]

The court clearly did not apply a "curtilage" standard in this case, nor did the other referenced court cases. Indeed, I don't believe that the word "curtilage" was mentioned in either this case or the two primary cases cited in the decision.

Not once.

One could argue that they OUGHT to have applied a curtilage standard--but they did not, and as a result the unlawful possession law does not apply in the context of curtilage.

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

That's the word I was looking for. I had read one of the other cases (Wolf I think - the one where he was at a campsite) and noticed that word, then looked it up. It certainly seemed from the definition that "curtilage" applies to anywhere on the land parcel upon which a person resides.

I am interested intensely in this because I do not currently have a CWP and I live on 20 acres, with a house, a shop over 100 feet away. I spend considerable time both in and around the shop, and out in the woods (lately I have been cutting up fallen trees for firewood). I consider this "daily activities".

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I think this is an area that needs to be clarified. I seriously doubt that the intention of the law was to place property owners under carry restrictions on their property unless it was done so with the intention of deceiving them. There are too many farmers and ranchers in OR that would have balked at it. Now here is an interesting twist. Could it be argued that your property is also your place of business even if it is not a registered business?

I would argue that since my property is used for raising sheep, and that sheep raising business is registered with the Secretary of State (a registered DBA), all of my property is my place of business. I open carry when on the property, and have a CHL on top of that, but that's just icing on the cake.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

That's the word I was looking for. I had read one of the other cases (Wolf I think - the one where he was at a campsite) and noticed that word, then looked it up. It certainly seemed from the definition that "curtilage" applies to anywhere on the land parcel upon which a person resides.

I am interested intensely in this because I do not currently have a CWP and I live on 20 acres, with a house, a shop over 100 feet away. I spend considerable time both in and around the shop, and out in the woods (lately I have been cutting up fallen trees for firewood). I consider this "daily activities".

I got the CHL precisely for that reason. I was tired of wondering if I was legal every time I stepped out the door. I was tired of trying to figure out all of the local restrictions of the various nearby jurisdictions on carrying, and on travel in a vehicle with handguns. Now I don't wonder. I just go where I like without worry.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

I got the CHL precisely for that reason. I was tired of wondering if I was legal every time I stepped out the door. I was tired of trying to figure out all of the local restrictions of the various nearby jurisdictions on carrying, and on travel in a vehicle with handguns. Now I don't wonder. I just go where I like without worry.

I would contend that the variations in jurisdictions combined with the preemption with the permit (which to me appears to violate the state constitution) are nothing more than a money game to make it so inconvenient for those that would otherwise carry that they either do not carry at all or will pay a fee to exercise that privilege. (Once you start asking permission for it then it is no longer a right but is instead a privilege)

 

[forefathersrback]

For what ever reason I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the property issues. With the risk of sounding like a dumb butt, I have to ask this question........some people bury their firearms on their property,( without a CHL) would that be considered concealed. Just curious, I have a CHL, ( and, no I do not bury my firearms) The ground freezes to deep in my zone.

 

[Swedish K]

Not sure about OR law on the issue but in many states it is a felony to destroy or disable a telephone or other communication device (especially during a domestic dispute). I suppose the guy is lucky he didn't get charged with that as well.

 

[pry]

In all of these cases, if the weapons would have been open carried would that have avoided being charged with a crime? As far as carrying in your vehicle in OR, open carry would be ok? But if its under the seat its concealed because its in reach? If its on top of the seat its not concealed so its ok, or if its in the trunk its ok?

 

[Law of Self Defense]

FYI, I stopped at the law library yesterday and picked up the full text of State v. Wolf, 317 P.3d 377 (OR Ct. App. 2013). (It's so recent--just this past December--that it wasn't readily findable on the internet.)

If anyone would like to read the full-text--and I encourage it--and has trouble finding it elsewhere, just use the "Site Search" button at the top of my blog pages, and type in the citation (317 P.3d 377 ).

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

 

[The Heretic]

For what ever reason I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the property issues. With the risk of sounding like a dumb butt, I have to ask this question........some people bury their firearms on their property,( without a CHL) would that be considered concealed. Just curious, I have a CHL, ( and, no I do not bury my firearms) The ground freezes to deep in my zone.

"Carrying concealed" is typically interpreted as carrying on your person or within "ready reach" - the latter is typically not interpreted as meaning carrying a firearm within a locked case or "out of reach", e.g., in your trunk, buried in the ground where you need a shovel to retrieve it.

I have heard of people getting into trouble for burying firearms on public property after the firearms were found due to construction, or logging, etc.

 

[GrpCapMandrake]

"Carrying concealed" is typically interpreted as carrying on your person or within "ready reach" - the latter is typically not interpreted as meaning carrying a firearm within a locked case or "out of reach", e.g., in your trunk, buried in the ground where you need a shovel to retrieve it.

I have heard of people getting into trouble for burying firearms on public property after the firearms were found due to construction, or logging, etc.

Not to get off on a entirely different tangent, but I have to wonder why you would bury firearms on public land?

 

[The Heretic]

If you were worried about confiscation and this drove you to bury firearms, would you choose to bury firearms on your own property (if you owned any) of a tenth acre to a few tens of acres, or bury them on public property which numbers in the millions of acres?