Videos of Open Carry event in Portland, Oregon + Gun Law Questions.

[JLDunn]

I thought members of Northwest Firearms would be interested in checking out the videos I recently posted on my blog:

<broken link removed>

On August 23rd I held an open carry event in Portland to raise awareness about the private security company, Portland Patrol Inc, illegally carrying firearms in the city. The recent videos show a very positive experience with the Portland Police and shows the reactions of Portlanders seeing an open carry event. I think I've presented the case on my blog of how to legally Open Carry in the city of Portland.

Anyways, check it out, let me know what you think... I'm not new to Northwest Firearms, but I'm doing this project under my real name for accountability purposes.

I'm especially interested in tapping into the vast understanding of laws that members on this forum have: Does a DPSST certification allow a person to open carry in Portland? Does Portland Patrol Inc have some special permission from the city to open carry (see any public records)? What is the name of the case law that establishes assumption of a loaded firearm? I've done my research, I'm wondering there's any other perspectives, or if there’s something I’m missing.

Also, as I mention on the blog, I’m interested in doing another open carry event in Portland, but I think it’s very important to create an objectively positive message. Maybe in a separate thread, down the road, we can consider such things.

Cheers,
JL Dunn

Read More

 

[JackThompson]

Very nice video! Great work!

I had someone comment after the fact about my open carry weekend at Seaside, Or. That people likely had a positive response to me because I was dressed up. (Although on day 2 I was wearing a dark blue T-Shirt and khaki shorts, but people may have assumed I was off duty LEO)

Dressing like that definitely provides a positive image though!

 

[JackThompson]

P.s.
Is your regular forum identity a secret?

 

[Don't Sue People Panda]

I'm going to throw this out there. You are video taping an officer then get irate because he took a photo of you? Looks like you're looking for a fight.

Same situation, you see a private citizen walking down the street with a pistol on his hip. You start recording him, he takes a picture of you. You approach and ask for his ID & CHL. There is ZERO obligation for that citizen to show you either of those. This is a private security guard, not a public one. You don't pay his wages, therefore he doesn't answer to you.

I honestly don't know if it is legal or not for him to be carrying now that you mention it (although I'm sure there is something somewhere that exempts him). For all you know, he could've been doing a shift at a bank and needed to move to a secondary branch when these people stopped them and things got heated. Unlikely, but an example none the less.

 

[JLDunn]

@JackThompson - Yes, top secret. Secret Squirrel.

@Don't Sue People Panda - think about the precedent that is set if police officers (or security guards, in this matter) are allowed to take photographs of citizens observing their behavior. Does that really seem like something that we should allow in a free society? Where authorities are allowed to document who is scrutinizing their behavior? As an example: the State of Oregon utilizes facial recognition software in order to validate drivers licenses, should Police be able to photograph the face of everyone attending an open carry rally, run their picture through the face-database, and then later visit the citizens at their home? Public scrutiny of all authorities is a requirement, and it was this security guard who refused scrutiny that I had an issue with. Obviously LEO's can and should take photographs of criminal behavior, but taking a photograph as an act of retaliation for videoing them is completely and totally unacceptable in my opinion. I can't imagine how abusive and authoritarian a society would be where authorities can get away with such behavior. With that said, if this security guard was wearing a polo t-shirt and slacks and looked like a civilian, I would have no issue with him taking a photograph of me. This is not what he was doing. The uniform he wears is deliberately designed to mimic a real Portland Police Officer, his business card says "Ofc" meaning "Officer" &#8211; yet when I hold him to the same standards that I expect of police officers, that they're at least minimally accountable to citizens, the guard (and later the Supervisor) tried to play it off like they're just regular civilians. Obviously there are distinctions between regular citizens, police officers, and military members within our legal system and society &#8211; this guard was trying to blur that line, and I wouldn't have it. If his photo was for Law Enforcement purposes, that would be fine. That's not what he was doing, he was trying to intimidate me. It was extremely inappropriate, and absolutely unnecessary.

How could I have been looking for a fight by standing 25 feet back and taking a video? Flip that logic around in order to see the absurdity of what you just suggested, I didn't look for a fight by being silent with a camera. It was the guard who provoked me, and unnecessarily took a photograph of me specifically to intimidate me. As I explained on my blog, I would never have been provoked to take it to this level if the guard would have just cooperated instead of acting so pompous.

As far as his wages go, Portland Patrol Inc has a contract with the City of Portland, so tax money certainly subsidizes his employment. I'm interested in seeing that contract terminated if they're going to continue illegal activities and also refuse public scrutiny.

Also, you should check out ORS 133.225 - the State allows a citizen to perform an arrest under "probable cause" - this clause essentially empowers citizens to have the same power of arrest as regular police officers. In this situation, my probable cause was 1) he was carrying a gun on his hip, 2) it is assumed that the gun is loaded, 3) there is a law in Portland preventing loaded firearms being carried on a hip, 4) this guard could not provide me any evidence that he was one of the listed protected classes allowed to carry a firearm. So, clearly, there was a law being violated right there in my presence.

 

[Don't Sue People Panda]

All I'm suggesting is you have a chip on your shoulder.

I don't care what you do, it's obviously a free country. Just keep in mind you were in a public place, so he had every right to take that picture. What you perceived as intimidation could've just been him covering his ***.

Well then, your last portion of your response answers your own question. If PPI has a contract with the city, then they are duly appointed peace officers - they both hold certifications from the same department. Only difference is one officer is sworn and the other isn't. I regress, so being hired (appointed) by the city that would allow them to carry, right? Possibly. I'm no lawyer. 14A.60.010.C.1 It just seems strange to me that armed private security forces have been operating in Portland illegally for so many years now, without so much as a hickup.

These are my opinions and observations. You have every right to think/call them whatever you like. It's good that you're trying to "scrutinize" and create a higher level of accountability. My question then becomes who are you accountable to?

 

[JLDunn]

My question then becomes who are you accountable to?

Obviously only my own personal reputation, and the Law. Same as any citizen. Who are you accountable to? I'm probably accountable to the same folks.

"Peace Officer" is defined several times in ORS, but here's a link ORS 133.005 - Definitions for ORS 133.005 to 133.400 and 133.410 to 133.450 - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes

More importantly, if he was a Peace Officer, he could have pointed to that section of the law when I gave him a copy of 14A.60.010 on paper. He wouldn't have foolishly pointed to the part about Bank security guards. Even the guard didn't know under what authority he was allowed to carry. I think I'm just the first person to ever make a real stink about it.

 

[Don't Sue People Panda]

I think I'm just the first person to ever make a real stink about it.

Agreed.
So what do you want to accomplish exactly? Is this going to make our 2A rights stronger or create additional requirements for private security companies?

 

[JLDunn]

I think there's several possible outcomes: the city could amend existing law to allow DPSST Armed-certified guards to carry in Portland. Portland Patrol Inc could simply mandate that their guards get CHLs and disarm them until this is done (a CHL in Washington/Multnomah is easy to get). There's a lot of potential outcomes, I'm not writing public policy nor am I a stake-holder with PPI, so I don't have control over those outcomes.

To me this was a civil rights issue and an accountability issue. As a citizen, I am required to provide ID if I open carry, that's proven by my video with the police officers. But, if I put on a fake Portland Police Uniform, and have some guy follow me around in a Star Trek uniform acting like my assistant, would I still be required to provide my CHL if I were open carrying?

For me, I saw this discrepancy of rights, and I'm seeking to resolve it. Does that make sense? This, to me, is not much of a 2A issue, nor a Section 27 issue, nor an Oregon issue, it's a problem with Portland Laws.

 

[Kentucky Windage]

How could I have been looking for a fight by standing 25 feet back and taking a video? Flip that logic around in order to see the absurdity of what you just suggested, I didn’t look for a fight by being silent with a camera. It was the guard who provoked me, and unnecessarily took a photograph of me specifically to intimidate me. As I explained on my blog, I would never have been provoked to take it to this level if the guard would have just cooperated instead of acting so pompous.

Your reaction was exessive to say the least; not to mention you began swearing at the individual as soon as you felt the need to interject. You were aggressive in the way you asked your questions. That, is indicative of a person looking for a fight and/or looking for something to prove.

 

[Siuslaw Warrior]

Very nice video..

I applaud your effort to educate the public on gun rights. We need more education by fine citizens such as yourself to combat the negative image of a responsible person with a gun.

The MSM does a lot to create fear.. where in the past no one had such fears. Fear leads to irrational behavior. A group on the east coast hold regular OC events that include community service such as cleaning up a park. Others have commented that seeing an armed citizen nearby actually makes them feel safer.

Keep breaking the stereotypes that the MSM work so hard to maintain.

Edit: just to be clear the stereotype is that a person with a gun and wearing a uniform is OK, but a person carrying a gun without is a BADGUY.

 

[Don't Sue People Panda]

I can understand that. Easiest thing for PPI to do at this point would be to mandate their guards have a CHL.

I think there's several possible outcomes: the city could amend existing law to allow DPSST Armed-certified guards to carry in Portland. Portland Patrol Inc could simply mandate that their guards get CHLs and disarm them until this is done (a CHL in Washington/Multnomah is easy to get). There's a lot of potential outcomes, I'm not writing public policy nor am I a stake-holder with PPI, so I don't have control over those outcomes.

For me, I saw this discrepancy of rights, and I'm seeking to resolve it. Does that make sense? This, to me, is not much of a 2A issue, nor a Section 27 issue, nor an Oregon issue, it's a problem with Portland Laws.

 

[FourTeeFive]

I can understand that. Easiest thing for PPI to do at this point would be to mandate their guards have a CHL.

Not sure about Oregon, but in Washington a CHL has nothing to do with open carry. Concealed means concealed!

 

[Darknight]

Well section 13 covers it in the city code already. Who is to say that the security company didn't already get the permission of the chief of police.
14A.60.010

13. A person authorized by permit of the Chief of Police to possess a loaded firearm, clip, or magazine in a public place in the City of Portland.

 

[Darknight]

The uniform he wears is deliberately designed to mimic a real Portland Police Officer, his business card says “Ofc” meaning "Officer" – yet when I hold him to the same standards that I expect of police officers, that they’re at least minimally accountable to citizens, the guard (and later the Supervisor) tried to play it off like they’re just regular civilians. Obviously there are distinctions between regular citizens, police officers, and military members within our legal system and society – this guard was trying to blur that line, and I wouldn’t have it. If his photo was for Law Enforcement purposes, that would be fine. That's not what he was doing, he was trying to intimidate me. It was extremely inappropriate, and absolutely unnecessary.



As far as his wages go, Portland Patrol Inc has a contract with the City of Portland, so tax money certainly subsidizes his employment. I’m interested in seeing that contract terminated if they’re going to continue illegal activities and also refuse public scrutiny.

Also, you should check out ORS 133.225 - the State allows a citizen to perform an arrest under "probable cause" - this clause essentially empowers citizens to have the same power of arrest as regular police officers. In this situation, my probable cause was 1) he was carrying a gun on his hip, 2) it is assumed that the gun is loaded, 3) there is a law in Portland preventing loaded firearms being carried on a hip, 4) this guard could not provide me any evidence that he was one of the listed protected classes allowed to carry a firearm. So, clearly, there was a law being violated right there in my presence.[/QUOTE]

I used to work for a law-enforcement agency that had the same exact uniform as the Los Angeles Police Department; so what.

private security is trying to revamp their image from Paul Blart mall cop; so they now refer to themselves as Security Officers; again, so what.

As far as your citizens arrest; you as a citizen have no authority to demand in any way shape or form a persons identification. Security Officers in the state of Oregon are acting as private citizens when they make an arrest; so them telling you they are just citizens is correct. If you try and make an arrest on someone that legally hasn't committed a crime, they can defend themselves as such and use whatever force is necessary to stop your illegal act. The most important thing about this situation is this guy was armed, so you trying to arrest him, unlawfully, and possibly gain control of his weapon would justify him in shooting you to stop you even if you didn't have a weapon.

You might consider reading the private security training manual; they cover little things like that. Another thing to keep in mind when making contact with someone; if you make them feel as though they don't have the freedom to leave and they haven't truly committed a crime, you would be unlawfully detaining them and you would go to jail. As a side note it also includes blocking someones car from movement. They go over that in the manual with all the pertinent law citations as well. You might consider getting an attorney on retainer before you go out to play again.

Good luck though!

 

[chemist]

FourTeeFive, here in OR a CHL gives you the right to thumb your nose at any local ordinances restricting carry, including the laws banning OC that were passed into law in six OR cities (Portland, Beaverton, Tigard, Oregon City, Salem, and Independence). In other words, state pre-emption strictly applies only to CHL holders.

Localities may still pass laws restricting discharge, which everybody has to obey.

 

[JLDunn]

@Darknight - As far as the uniforms go, you should look up ORS 162.367 - Criminal impersonation of peace officer - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes

If I were wearing the PPI uniform, with stitched on shiny badge and all, I'm sure I would be charged with a Class C felony for impersonating a police officer. The resemblance is purposefully deliberate, "substantially similar" to Portland Police (to borrow 162.367 language) and I might take future action against PPI for this. I don't think it's fair for this security company to have rights that I do not, and I think it's wrong to try and confuse the public, which is the intent of their uniform. I'm not sure why you think it's acceptable for people to mascaraed around as police officers when they're clearly not, and considering you do not have that right yourself, you should probably reflect upon this inequality for a while. If you deal with PPI, you'll see that there are usually two people working together, one in a police-officer-esque uniform, and the other is usually a much younger person who's wearing bright blue (hence the Star Trek reference I made earlier). This can be compared to Securitas, who also has a contract with the city, who wears a bright red uniform.

I disagree with you on your analysis of citizens arrest. I've already explained the reasons why I was allowed to arrest this person, and I've never argued that I can force people to show me their ID &#8211; I am not from Arizona. In Portland (and other Oregon cities) civilians have to prove that they're in compliance with the law, or this happens: <broken link removed> - there's many ways in which a person could say they're in compliance with the law, like, "This is not loaded" or "I have a license to do this", standing silently in defiance and offering no evidence that you are not violating the law is not an acceptable method.

Also, if this security guard was personally allowed to do this by the Chief of Police, I assume there would be a public record of such things. I assume, to, that the guard would have mentioned this before I arrested him.

 

[ORSECTRAIN]

On the Private Security questions...

State of Oregon: Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (Private Security)

ALL the questions should be covered here.

Respectfully,

ORSECTRAIN
"Be Safe Out There!"

 

[deen_ad]

Not sure about Oregon, but in Washington a CHL has nothing to do with open carry. Concealed means concealed!

True, because WA doesn't have a CHL! We have a "License to Carry Concealed Pistol" or CPL for short over here.

 

[jekbrown]

This is one of the more ridiculous stunts I have seen on the introwebs, and that is saying something.

1. The accusation that the guard was trying to obtain authority by mimicking a Portland Police Officer is ignorant at best. There are only so many colors that uniforms come in. They might be black, dark blue, tan, green etc. Every single combination of those colors is used by SOME law enforcement agency. My employer has guards nationwide. We have one uniform that we all wear. It happens to be a tan shirt with green pants and looks quite a bit like the uniforms worn by some MCSO personnel. Like this...



Are you really suggesting that the fact that my uniform happens to be similar to the second one on the left that I am mimicking a cop? Really? Makes zero sense. No matter what color combination my organization uses SOME COP, SOMEWHERE will have an identical one. So what? The PPI people have uniform patches that clearly say who they are. Your inability to read and/or differentiate between them and an actual cop is legally irrelevant.

2. There is no violation of Portland law if the chief of police says it's OK for DPSST certified people to be armed. It's right there in 14A.60.010. The law does not state HOW the chief has to authorize. There is nothing that says that the chief has to authorize each individual either. It could be completely informal. It could merely be the chief recognizing that DPSST armed security people can work in Portland. Based on that fact that a) armed non-bank guards operate in Portland constantly / daily without legal issue, and b) police leadership keeps telling local businesses to contact PPI to deal with low-level stuff suggests that the chief of police has authorized DPSST certified armed security guys to open carry. Armored couriers also get to park in bus lanes downtown. You want to crap your drawers over that too?

3. The security guy is not only free to take all the pictures he wants of you in public, it actually does have a security / business purpose. Have you ever heard of the slang term "casing the joint"? People who are standing around taking pictures / video of seemingly uninteresting things you are securing very well may be looking for weaknesses in the site's security system. Guys who are going to rob banks will frequently visit the branch, sit out in the parking lot taking pictures, and otherwise observe the place excessively relative to normal. Is it a crime? Of course not, but it is a red flag for people that understand security. Your lack of understanding of that does not make the guard taking pictures aggressive or hostile, no more so than a CCTV camera on the outside of the building would.

4. Claiming that a person has no right to do something simply because they don't know what exact subsection of federal/state/county/city law that authorizes it is equally ridiculous. Most people don't have all laws memorized...even lawyers are specialized. I'm not sure why I have to know a gazillion laws that authorize me to do everything I do as I move about on any given day just to satisfy your curiosity. Most cops don't even know the number / subsection for the laws they enforce. Any cop that did have all that stuff memorized would probably quit and become a rich lawyer. It's simply completely impractical, and to print off snippets of laws and run around downtown making citizen's arrests is just dumb. If you were REALLY concerned about this issue you'd stop harassing hard working / poorly paid people working armed security gigs and deal directly with the chief of police / lawyers / the AG / state legislature / portland city council or ANYONE ELSE that actually has some power in this issue.

5. All of that said, the guard in question should produce his/her DPSST card when asked. In Oregon, any citizen can ask to SEE it. The guard doesn't have to hand it over, but they are required to display it for a person if they are able to do so (ie yelling 'let me see your dpsst card!' while you are actively physically attacking the guard would be legal justification for NOT showing it to you). Of course, as you have experienced, on a practical level you informed the wrong people about this violation. A cop will show up, ask the guard if he has one, maybe look at it, and move on. They don't care. The way to get this enforced is to report the guard to DPSST. They are the ones that investigate these things and can revoke a guard's card if they choose to do so.

5.5. Just saying "get a CHL" isn't going to get it done. Armed guards can/do cross state lines for their work and reciprocity applies, allowing them to do so. This is how money gets picked up in Vancouver....by armored couriers based in Portland. In the opposite scenario, a person is a resident and employee in WA and obtaining a OR CHL is not "easy" and can be denied for ANY reason by the Sheriff's Office. That's problematic. Easier for the chief of police to just continue with the "DPSST certified armed guards are ok" precedent/ SOP.

6. I am DPSST certified, and I have a CHL, and I work for a bank....so leave me the hell alone. In the past I worked for Loomis as an armed courier. I packed heat, open carry, daily in downtown Portland. All over. No issues, ever. No grief from cops, ever. No grief from annoying citizens, ever. Had someone approached me with something like that, I wouldn't be waiting around for you to "arrest" me...because it's entirely possible that someone could use that discussion / detention as a ruse to steal the bag of money I am carrying. Not gonna happen. I'll wait for the cops to arrive inside my truck, and then leave once they say "have a nice day" and send me on my way while rolling their eyes at the tool giving me grief. Armed couriers have an exceptionally dangerous job. The last thing they need is clowns like you pointlessly harassing them.