Possession of a Pistol in a Vehicle

SigsP229 said:

Hi guys, new to forum. It appears in most smaller towns the cops are not as paranoid. The locals here especially the Sheriffs respect the CHL's for being responsible and getting training to carry. I am not saying that one should not carry legal in Oregon I am saying the CHL tends to put some cops at ease. The cops I talk with are pretty clear, you don't have to tell us you are carrying with your CHL but we appreciate it and have an idea you know what you are doing. With a CHL the police know that you know something about the law. To pass the classes you must know the laws.
If a person is military I still encourage the class as I find some military CHL holders I know do not know the CHL laws.
I think in this case the cops were a tad over the top. It was not like you pointed it at them or tried to hide it. As mentioned at least in the town area I live in there is a double standard of respect for those with CHL's and those without. In most cases I have seen those without the CHL usually ended up with the firearm taken in to the station for later PU. I can not recall any time hearing of a CHL being detained or harassed. I say double standard because honestly everyone deserves to be treated according to the law by police officers, however that said my experience is they are sometimes more at ease with CHL holders, because the usually have knowledge will not put at risk their CHL as they are highly valued !

Nice forum great information here.

Sig !

Click to expand...

The Oregon CHL class has no requirement to do anything more than sit on your duff for a few hours and then collect your certificate. They are about a nanometer above worthless. Having a CHL means nothing more than that you passed a background check.

We-the-People said:

The Oregon CHL class has no requirement to do anything more than sit on your duff for a few hours and then collect your certificate. They are about a nanometer above worthless. Having a CHL means nothing more than that you passed a background check.

Click to expand...

I would say the law needs to be more clear then on class procedures, as the class I took was intense review of the law and our instructors here have a very close relationship with the local Sheriff to help as well.
I am sure some sit on their duffs in other towns. Our class was taught by a Retired Major in the Marines and was very informative on laws, procedures and safety. He took his job very serious and wanted to make sure we knew how to avoid legal trouble. I have had firearms near 30+ years and learned some good information in the class. It is sad to hear that other classes do not educate people like our classes do here.

Sig

There are good instructors, there are worthless instructors, and every level in between. The law in Oregon doesn't have a specific curiculum with the only requirement that the course must have a firearms (perhaps it says handgun) safety element.

When I lived in Calif. the course was 8 hours, required qualification (not hard) with the weapon(s) you intended to carry (the license in Calif. lists them). However, the instructor was teaching that "sometimes just pulling your weapon is enough". That may be true but it wasn't presented with the caveat not to do so before things were at a point justifying it. Basically a lot of stuff was half assed "taught".

My Oregon course was worthless and the instructor is one of those guys that says you can't carry open once you get your permit, that open carry in Multnomah county is illegal, yadda yadda. When challenged with state law his answer was "I don't care what the law says".

Needless to say, I don't consider having a permit to mean someone has had any worthwhile training. They may have, if they got a good instructor, but it's not a given.

Your point is taken, I too lived in California as well and understand where you are coming from on the classes.
That said, the law "should" require better training in Oregon my honest opinion of course. Our county took it upon ourselves
to educate and train. I think any Oregon citizen thinking of a CHL should work with locals and trainers.
I think the point I was making was missed, I am aware of state laws, my concern to even post was
if CHL holders do not get a grip on the willy nilly training then the opposition may have a clear path some day to show
how untrained CHL holder are. Furthermore law enforcement and the community would have a renewed confidence in
CHL holders if they knew how to use a gun and their rights as well.
And example of a community working together is there has been no arrests of a CHL holder the the locals here could ever remember if ever in this county. Having firearms may be a right, but I have believed all my life a good gun owner starts with good training. Thanks for the dialog, I am new to the forum not to the laws and guns but thank you for the feedback all the same have a good evening.

We-the-People said:

When I lived in Calif. the course was 8 hours, required qualification (not hard) with the weapon(s) you intended to carry (the license in Calif. lists them)..

Click to expand...

I find that interesting. I lived in Cal in the early 60's and got my hunter's training certificate there in 1963. It included a round of Trap to demonstrate you could handle a firearm.

My own personal opinion...I know, opinions are like behinds, everyone has one, and they stink...anyway...

You should not be required (by government mandate) to take any course to be able to carry a gun for your own protection,,,,However, should you choose to take a course, it should include the local law, and a live fire sesson.

If you are mandated by the government to take such a course, the government should pay for that instruction. If it is optional, you should pay for it. (a la WA)

hermannr said:

I find that interesting. I lived in Cal in the early 60's and got my hunter's training certificate there in 1963. It included a round of Trap to demonstrate you could handle a firearm.

My own personal opinion...I know, opinions are like behinds, everyone has one, and they stink...anyway...

You should not be required (by government mandate) to take any course to be able to carry a gun for your own protection,,,,However, should you choose to take a course, it should include the local law, and a live fire sesson.

If you are mandated by the government to take such a course, the government should pay for that instruction. If it is optional, you should pay for it. (a la WA)

Click to expand...

I agree that there should be no government mandated requirements to carry. They are infringements. With the second amendment incorporated against the states, state and local government should not be able to infringe either. It is either a RIGHT, for which no permission is needed, or it is not a right. I'm going with the former.

SigsP229 said:

Furthermore law enforcement and the community would have a renewed confidence in
CHL holders if they knew how to use a gun and their rights as well.

Click to expand...

It will never matter how well the carrier is trained or what classes they have passed. Those opinions will not change.

SigsP229 said:

Hi guys, new to forum. It appears in most smaller towns the cops are not as paranoid. The locals here especially the Sheriffs respect the CHL's for being responsible and getting training to carry. I am not saying that one should not carry legal in Oregon I am saying the CHL tends to put some cops at ease. The cops I talk with are pretty clear, you don't have to tell us you are carrying with your CHL but we appreciate it and have an idea you know what you are doing. With a CHL the police know that you know something about the law. To pass the classes you must know the laws.
If a person is military I still encourage the class as I find some military CHL holders I know do not know the CHL laws.
I think in this case the cops were a tad over the top. It was not like you pointed it at them or tried to hide it. As mentioned at least in the town area I live in there is a double standard of respect for those with CHL's and those without. In most cases I have seen those without the CHL usually ended up with the firearm taken in to the station for later PU. I can not recall any time hearing of a CHL being detained or harassed. I say double standard because honestly everyone deserves to be treated according to the law by police officers, however that said my experience is they are sometimes more at ease with CHL holders, because the usually have knowledge will not put at risk their CHL as they are highly valued !

Nice forum great information here.

Sig !

Click to expand...

Go onto a police oriented forum and read what some of them say...it ranges from you should respect the private citizen, and his rights (all of then, not just 2A) to the exact opposite,,,,that is: everyone is a criminal, cops have a higher elite "status" than other citizens, cops should be the only ones allowed to have any firearms at all, I can do what I please, you can only do what I say or i'll just execute you on the spot.

Those are the two extremes, most cops are somewhere in between. Personally, I have lived over 65 years, most of it here in the US, but I am a naturalized citizen of the US, so you know I came from somehwere else, Eh? I have never been hasseled by any law enforcement, but a do know a few that have very bad attitudes...just not towards me (and for that I am thankful)

The real problem comes with the "brotherhood" of all cops, and the union. Instead of correcting bad attitudes, these two things make the bad attitude person feel "protected". Consider the cop that was stopped in FL for driving over 90 mph in a 35, drunk, in his cruiser...and the officer that ran him (the bad cop) in was the one that ended up with the grief from every other cop....not the drunk abuser of the system.

Worse than that, a few years ago a Spokane police officer was charged with drunk driving (in his cruiser) while off duty. Ann Kirkpatrick, the then CoP for Spokane fired him...he went to court and claimed false dismissal...was awarded his job back, and almost
$800K back pay, laywers fees, damages etc...Ann Kirkpatrick no longer works for the City of Spokane...but the drunk cop does.

Or try this one: Guilty of the beating death of a downs syndrom person in 2006 and he is STILL NOT in prison.. http://www.khq.com/story/19607422/thompson-sentencing-date-set-for-nov-15

Here is another example of the "brotherhood"..this happened just after this guy was CONVICTED...he is a CONVICTED FELON!!! and this is what his SPD buddies did: http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/hbo/2011/nov/04/spokane-cops-salute-karl-thompson/

Finally found it: try this one on for size: http://www.khq.com/story/19809070/spokane-police-officers-plan-potluck-for-convicted-felon (please note the NEW CoP's response.

The system is sick and needs to be fixed.

CHL to open carry

nystrom said:

i went from my house to my car holding my pistol; it was in my hand while i was outside for all of about five feet. I never got out of my car until the traffic stop.
So i wasn't carrying my weapon dirty harry style or "gangsta" style.

However, i was able to retrieve my pistol back from the ppd. I had to go into their evidence division and show them the paperwork i received from the officers. The funny part was the staff at the evidence building asked me how i was going to carrying the weapon home. I told them openly on my hip...they replied with "ok, just as long as you have a chl, that'll be fine." i laughed and told them i don't need a chl to do that...it seems ignorance of the law is everywhere.

I am still in the process of trying to obtain a copy of the audio and video recording of the traffic stop. I have been getting the bureaucratic run around and no one seems to answer the phone. Have any of you tried to get these things before?

Click to expand...

actually she was correct to say you needed a chl to open carry if you were in the few cities in oregon that had city ordinances prohibiting open carry. Portland is one of these cities. Read your laws!

marksrig said:

actually she was correct to say you needed a chl to open carry if you were in the few cities in oregon that had city ordinances prohibiting open carry. Portland is one of these cities. Read your laws!

Click to expand...

Non CHL open carry in a city with an ordinance "prohibiting open carry" can ONLY prohibit the LOADED carry of a firearm. ORS 166.173

A CHL is not needed to open carry anywhere in Oregon. CHL is only required to:
Concealed Carry -- ORS 166.250
Carry in places that are restricted -- ORS 166.370
Carry loaded in a city with a loaded carry ban -- ORS 166.173

Further, there are exceptions to concealed carry requiring a CHL. These exceptions are in 166.260. For instance, 166.260(3)(b) states: "(b) Licensed hunters or fishermen while engaged in hunting or fishing, or while going to or returning from a hunting or fishing expedition." NOTE...there is NO "must be 21" caveat to this exemption.