Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

The correct ORS or Definition??

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Rik, Sep 24, 2010.

  1. Rik

    Rik Beaverton Member

    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    10
    This thread is not meant to be a Open vs Concealed discussion !!
    Do not go on about social mores and general attitudes that horsepucky has been covered elsewhere.

    Can someone specifically tell me IF in the Oregon Statutes or the CHL paperwork it defines "Concealed". In other Open vs Conc. threads people including LEO's get stuck on the 'Concealed' part of Concealed Handgun License. I have looked through ORS166.xx and it's definitions and can not find a "concealed means: a reasonable attempt to blahblahblah" anywhere.

    I understand ORS 166.170 preemption clause. IE: Beaverton's open carry ban does not override Oregon state law.
    Except that ORS 166.173 gives cities or counties the authority to regulate loaded firearms in public places, but section (2)(c) says 'does not apply to CHL holders'.

    So that means Beavertons ban does not apply to said CHL holder. Period.
    And with Beaverton's ban voided then Oregon's open carry law takes preemption with that person ???

    If so does 'Concealed' really go back to the ability to carry in a way that is restricted under other Statutes? IE: in car, hidden on person, AND Oregon's open carry law is still in affect in all other areas.

    So then when it comes to PDX or Beaverton a CHL does not mean you have to 'conceal', it means the local policy is preempted and open carry IS the law for that person? (Right or Wrong - not the point of this thread)
     
  2. Kimber Custom

    Kimber Custom Vancouver, WA Bronze Vendor Bronze Vendor

    Messages:
    1,789
    Likes Received:
    1,427
    Yes, a CHL expands your options under the law. Without the CHL under 166.250 unlawful possession of a firearm it is illegal to have a concealed firearm on your person.

    Note that there is no CHL exemption for 166.240 Carrying of Concealed Weapons.
     
  3. Kimber Custom

    Kimber Custom Vancouver, WA Bronze Vendor Bronze Vendor

    Messages:
    1,789
    Likes Received:
    1,427
    I'm sorry I can't cite a ORS for the definition of 'concealed'. I believe it's been defined by case law and is not in the statutes.

    I can tell you that the city attorney for Portland said it was defined as 'partially visible from a basic walk around the person'.

    As long as you could see the holster/scabbard it didn't matter if the handle of the knife/gun was covered by a shirt. That's why the clips on knives are so pupular. As long as you can see the clip on the outside of the pocket you are not carrying a concealed weapon.
     
  4. LCDR

    LCDR Sherwood, Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kimber Custom is correct that "concealed" is not defined in ORS and has been and is being defined by Oregon case law.

    LCDR
     
  5. LCDR

    LCDR Sherwood, Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kimber Custom;

    Regretfully this part of your statement is not totally correct. I have the CD of the Multnomah Circuit Court case that has esentially defined concealed and may have destroyed the clip on the outside of the pocket option, the way that the Judge defined concealed. The decision is muddied, in my opinion, because of issues raised if a sweatshirt was covering the pocket or not.

    The case was appealed to the Oregon Appeals Court and the verdict was upheld without comment.

    LCDR
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2010
  6. Kimber Custom

    Kimber Custom Vancouver, WA Bronze Vendor Bronze Vendor

    Messages:
    1,789
    Likes Received:
    1,427
    The training I received from the city attorney on the subject is 6 or 7 years old so it very well could have changed since then. As you implied; it's something of a moving target defined by case law.