Traveling by car through OR and NV

[hermannr]

Note, a court case in Oregon has determined that local prohibitions of loaded open carry in public places apply to your car. That means that when driving through Portland and Salem (assuming you take I-5,) you cannot carry loaded without an Oregon CHL.

You can carry unloaded through local-prohibition zones, then re-load as soon as you pass through.

If you're not passing down I-5, though, you're fine. All of the open-carry-prohibition zones are Portland, Portland suburbs, and Salem. (Other than the oddball Astoria up on the coast and Independence, a Salem suburb that isn't on any major roads.)

The guy has a WA CPL...that will get him past the local prohibitions...you only need a license to carry...that does not mean you can canceal with another states license, but you can ignore the local "unloaded" OC ordenances....read your law...166.173 DOES NOT say license per 291 and 292, it says "license to carry"...and in Astoria's local law it goes even farther and says "a license from ANY government"

You guys need to read what is written, not what you think is written. Protland et al restrictions mean NOTHING if you have ANY license to carry. (OC only)

 

[fd15k]

The guy has a WA CPL...that will get him past the local prohibitions...you only need a license to carry...that does not mean you can canceal with another states license, but you can ignore the local "unloaded" OC ordenances....read your law...166.173 DOES NOT say license per 291 and 292, it says "license to carry"...and in Astoria's local law it goes even farther and says "a license from ANY government"

You guys need to read what is written, not what you think is written. Protland et al restrictions mean NOTHING if you have ANY license to carry. (OC only)

We can read the law alright. Can you cite any case law where "license to carry" is interpreted as "license from any state", or can you cite an opinion from a lawyer that there is no case law which interprets "license to carry" as "OR CHL" ?

 

[mjbskwim]

Here is the thing. State and municipal agencies have ability to enforce both State and Federal laws. Federal agents can only enforce Federal laws. Now the question is whether State agency can enforce county/city laws, and if county agency (when not specifically contracted to do so) can enforce city laws. And finally it boils down to who can pull me over on I-5, and what laws can they enforce ?

Well the thing is,if the guy pulling you over doesn't have the authority for something?
He has a radio to get someone who does

 

[fd15k]

Well the thing is,if the guy pulling you over doesn't have the authority for something?
He has a radio to get someone who does

Good point

Also found this :

810.010 Jurisdiction over highways; exception. This section designates the bodies responsible for exercising jurisdiction over certain highways when the vehicle code requires the exercise of jurisdiction by the road authority. This section does not control where a specific section of the vehicle code specifically provides for exercising jurisdiction in a manner different than provided by this section. Except as otherwise specifically provided under the code, the responsibilities designated under this section do not include responsibility for maintenance. Responsibility for maintenance is as otherwise provided by law. The following are the road authorities for the described roads:

(1) The Department of Transportation is the road authority for all state highways in this state including interstate highways.

(2) The county governing body is the road authority for all county roads outside the boundaries of an incorporated city.

(3) The governing body of an incorporated city is the road authority for all highways, roads, streets and alleys, other than state highways, within the boundaries of the incorporated city.

(4) Any other municipal body, local board or local body is the road authority for highways, other than state highways, within its boundaries if the body or board has authority to adopt and administer local police regulations over the highway under the Constitution and laws of this state.

(5) Any federal authority granted jurisdiction over federal lands within this state under federal law or rule is the road authority for highways on those lands as provided by the federal law or rule. [1983 c.338 §145; 1985 c.16 §45]

810.410 Arrest and citation. (1) A police officer may arrest or issue a citation to a person for a traffic crime at any place within or outside the jurisdictional authority of the governmental unit by which the police officer is authorized to act as provided by ORS 133.235 and 133.310.

(2) A police officer may issue a citation to a person for a traffic violation at any place within or outside the jurisdictional authority of the governmental unit by which the police officer is authorized to act:

(a) When the traffic violation is committed in the police officer's presence; or

(b) When the police officer has probable cause to believe an offense has occurred based on a description of the vehicle or other information received from a police officer who observed the traffic violation.

(3) A police officer:

(a) Shall not arrest a person for a traffic violation.

(b) May stop and detain a person for a traffic violation for the purposes of investigation reasonably related to the traffic violation, identification and issuance of citation.

(c) May make an inquiry into circumstances arising during the course of a detention and investigation under paragraph (b) of this subsection that give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

(d) May make an inquiry to ensure the safety of the officer, the person stopped or other persons present, including an inquiry regarding the presence of weapons.

(e) May request consent to search in relation to the circumstances referred to in paragraph (c) of this subsection or to search for items of evidence otherwise subject to search or seizure under ORS 133.535.

(f) May use the degree of force reasonably necessary to make the stop and ensure the safety of the police officer, the person stopped or other persons present.

(g) May make an arrest of a person as authorized by ORS 133.310 (2) if the person is stopped and detained pursuant to the authority of this section.

(4) When a police officer at the scene of a traffic accident has reasonable grounds, based upon the police officer's personal investigation, to believe that a person involved in the accident has committed a traffic offense in connection with the accident, the police officer may issue to the person a citation for that offense. The authority under this subsection is in addition to any other authority to issue a citation for a traffic offense. [1983 c.338 §400; 1985 c.16 §212; 1991 c.720 §1; 1995 c.308 §1; 1997 c.682 §1; 1997 c.866 §§4,5; 1999 c.1051 §89; 2011 c.506 §48; 2011 c.644 §33]

 

[mjbskwim]

The guy has a WA CPL...that will get him past the local prohibitions...you only need a license to carry...that does not mean you can canceal with another states license, but you can ignore the local "unloaded" OC ordenances....read your law...166.173 DOES NOT say license per 291 and 292, it says "license to carry"...and in Astoria's local law it goes even farther and says "a license from ANY government"

You guys need to read what is written, not what you think is written. Protland et al restrictions mean NOTHING if you have ANY license to carry. (OC only)

Great,go test it for us and tell us what the price was on this little test.
After you get the guns back and have your lawyer paid in full.
Just because that's what the law states,or doesn't state,doesn't mean a cop won't arrest you for OC without a Oregon permit.

 

[fd15k]

Great,go test it for us and tell us what the price was on this little test.
After you get the guns back and have your lawyer paid in full.
Just because that's what the law states,or doesn't state,doesn't mean a cop won't arrest you for OC without a Oregon permit.

Not only that, but I can't stress enough - laws as passed by legislature don't exist in a vacuum. Court cases complete and interpret them, which
may alter the original meaning.

 

[hermannr]

We can read the law alright. Can you cite any case law where "license to carry" is interpreted as "license from any state", or can you cite an opinion from a lawyer that there is no case law which interprets "license to carry" as "OR CHL" ?

No, I made the statement...can you cite a case that proves me wrong? I don't think so...The one case in Portland was argued on up was as to the absolute right, rather than the licensed privilage to carry loaded.

Everywhere the state of Oregon deems it necessary, it will state: license issued under 166.291 and 292 (the OR CHL) In the case of 166.173 the wording is (as copied from Astoria ordinance 5.010 (3) "(3) Any person having a valid permit issued to the person by lawful authority to carry or use concealed firearms;"

Tell me where ORS 166.291 and/or 166.292 is mentioned here? The authority for this Astoria regulation is ORS 166,173 and it reads ORS 166.173(2)(c) "c) A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun" Does not mention ORS 166.291 and/or166.292.

You go farther down in ORS 166.173 to (2)(d) and it will tell you about a restriction in ORS 166.370...and in ORS 166.370(3)(d) dang look what is there...a specific reference to licensed under ORS 166.291 and ORS 166.292!

When the Oregon legislature wants to specifically reference their own CHL...They specifically state it, when they don't, they just don't.

 

[fd15k]

No, I made the statement...can you cite a case that proves me wrong? I don't think so...The one case in Portland was argued on up was as to the absolute right, rather than the licensed privilage to carry loaded.

Everywhere the state of Oregon deems it necessary, it will state license issued under 166.291 and 292 (the OR CHL) In the case of 166.173 the wording is (as copied from Astoria ordinance 5.010 (3) "(3) Any person having a valid permit issued to the person by lawful authority to carry or use concealed firearms;"

Tell me where ORS 166.291 and/or 166.292 is mentioned here? The authority for this Astoria regulation is ORS 166,173 and it reads ORS 166.173(2)(c) "c) A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun" Does not mention ORS 166.291 and/or166.292.

You go farther down in ORS 166.173 to (2)(d) and it will tell you about a restriction in ORS 166.370...and in ORS 166.370(3)(d) dang look what is there...a specific reference to licensed under ORS 166.291 and ORS 166.292!

When the Oregon legislature wants to specifically reference their own CHL...They specifically state it, when they don't, they just don't.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

 

[hermannr]

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

You can't cite a case to show I am wrong can you?????

 

[fd15k]

You can't cite a case to show I am wrong can you?????

I never said you are wrong, re-read my posts. I said that you can't be 100% certain, unless you have an opinion from an actual lawyer who
will assume responsibility. Given that neither I or you have any cases to cite, I would recommend not to take that law as written,
unless one consults with his attorney.

 

[hermannr]

I never said you are wrong, re-read my posts. I said that you can't be 100% certain, unless you have an opinion from an actual lawyer who
will assume responsibility. Given that neither I or you have any cases to cite, I would recommend not to take that law as written,
unless one consults with his attorney.

And this is how the sheep loose their rights. I know that in OR you cannot go into a "public" building without a ORS 166.291-292 CHL, that is very clear.. (ORS 166.370), I also know that, at least in Astoria, what I say about ORS 166.173 holds true...heck, you can get nailed in Portland with an OR CHL if you OC, ilegal for them to do so, but that does not stop them...so to not do something out of fear...that is just giving in to those that wish to trample your rights.

It is just like in NY...I also frequent a NY site because my wife has relatives in NYS and we go there to visit...there is no LAW in NY that a person with the proper permission slip to carry (actually "possess") a pistol cannot OC...But no one does it out of FEAR. That is not advancing our cause at all...I cannot carry there because I cannot obtain a "permission to possess" as I am not a NYS resident, but OC I would do when we are there if I could obtain a permit to possess in NY. Waiting on the MD decission to get to the Supreme Court first.

 

[mjbskwim]

I don't have the money to test such things

 

[fd15k]

I don't have the money to test such things

+1

 

[Serenity]

Well, fortunately (or unfortunately) there aren't ANY towns in the part of Oregon I'm driving through.

Thanks for all of your comments; I need to find a lockbox for the hotel safe.

 

[USAF Medic]

get yourself a small safe, bolt it to your car.

 

[MinnesotaORnewbie]

why would you carry a loaded gun on the seat, driving in the mountains and forest roads. have it in a secure holster, loaded, and in plain view, via passenger seat. legal, ready for use and is in visible view, if you were to be pulled over or stopped, hands on the steering wheel and say, first before anyone says anything, i have a loaded handgun, in plain view on my passenger seat.

 

[hariph creek]

GunVault makes a nice little quick access safe. I can't remember the name. It's about $60-$70.
I've got the Nano, it's one step down. It would only stop a VERY lazy thief.

There's been good and bad advice and postulation, in regard to your question. Never take someone's opinion as fact.
YOU need to look up the relevant Statutes for the areas you'll be in. Print them out, learn them, keep them with you.
The authorities may or may not know and adhere them.

WARNING HIGH-HORSE RANT COMING!!!
As far as speeding. Since when do we get to pick and choose what laws we will follow?
How can we expect to be protected by the rule of law if we feel it doesn't apply to us?
How can we expect the authorities to adhere to the law, if we won't?
We have a moral obligation to be honest in ALL our activities.

 

[Serenity]

Fair enough, I understand your position, Hariph Creek. I drive at safe speeds in inclement weather, I never speed in towns, I slow down in deer areas at the appropriate times of day, etc. But on a wide, clear, dry, straight highway I can't drive 55. I don't expect the authorities to, either.

I think I need to make a "gun-seat". Like those little seats to strap teeny dogs in so they don't go flying about the compartment. It could be belted into the passenger seat and retain the gun in plain view. Maybe bedazzled ones for us ladies...

 

[hariph creek]

So, if you can choose which laws you will obey? It's only fair that a LEO or prosecuting attorney can too?
Say for instance, for whatever reason, the fact that you have a legally possesed firearm, becomes known to the authorities on your trip. They say ''not in my town!'' Throw you in jail, confiscate your gun(s) and prosecute you for...whatever they can.
That's ok, right? They can decide which laws they need to follow.

How trustworthy, is anyone, who's sense of right and wrong is determined by what's convenient?

 

[kev1]

I have seen this question a few times. I am always left wanting to put my opinion in but not wanting to be roasted. So here it goes...will I be on vacation without being able to protect my family or myself due to a law. NO. Sorry I will always carry in a safe manner with no one else the wiser. In car, camp grounds etc. The chance is worth it to me. I would not in a business that frowns on it though. Just would not put myself there. To each there own.