Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Oregon gun owners organization

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Oregon gun owners organization

    Is there any organization in Oregon that is serious about working toward sane carry laws in Oregon? I have been following this forum for several years and cannot recall seeing anything discussing changing Oregon gun laws.

    I have a great love for Oregon since spending a lot of time there as a child and would like to renew some of those fond memories, but I have made a decision to not spend a dime of my travel budget in states that do not honor my right to keep and bear arms. My first basic requirement is statewide preemption so I don't have to spend large amounts of time learning a patchwork of laws that change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Then, there needs to be either open carry or either recognition of other states CWP or reasonable availability of non-resident permits.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    55

    Re: Oregon gun owners organization

    Www.oregonfirearms.org

    Sent from my DROIDX

  3. #3
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Historyman1942 View Post
    Www.oregonfirearms.org

    Sent from my DROIDX
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    What he said.

    Oregon Firearms Federation. THE Oregon gun rights organization!
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  4. #4
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    What he said.

    Oregon Firearms Federation. THE Oregon gun rights organization!
    +2 over here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Ironbar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Tigard, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by rpyne View Post
    Is there any organization in Oregon that is serious about working toward sane carry laws in Oregon? I have been following this forum for several years and cannot recall seeing anything discussing changing Oregon gun laws.

    I have a great love for Oregon since spending a lot of time there as a child and would like to renew some of those fond memories, but I have made a decision to not spend a dime of my travel budget in states that do not honor my right to keep and bear arms. My first basic requirement is statewide preemption so I don't have to spend large amounts of time learning a patchwork of laws that change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Then, there needs to be either open carry or either recognition of other states CWP or reasonable availability of non-resident permits.
    Compared to a lot of other states in the Union, I think we do have pretty sane gun laws here. Yeah, the patchwork of local laws is irksome regarding open carry for those without their CHL, but aside from that I think we do pretty well.
    Last edited by Ironbar; 11-18-2012 at 06:34 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironbar View Post
    Compared to a lot of other states in the Union, I think we do have pretty sane gun laws here. Yeah, the patchwork of local laws is irksome regarding open carry for those without their CHL, but aside from that I think we do pretty well.
    I would place Oregon just about in the middle of the gun-friendly to anti-gun spectrum. Oregon gun laws are closer to those of California than they are to most of the other western states.

    As long as there is anything less than unrestricted Constitutional Carry, there is room for improvement and unless there is constant work to make things better, they will get worse.
    Last edited by rpyne; 11-18-2012 at 09:25 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by rpyne View Post
    I would place Oregon just about in the middle of the gun-friendly to anti-gun spectrum. Oregon gun laws are closer to those of California than they are to most of the other western states.

    As long as there is anything less than unrestricted Constitutional Carry, there is room for improvement and unless there is constant work to make things better, they will get worse.
    I think you are very mistaken. Oregon gun laws are like night and day in comparison to California. Here, anyone that is not prohibited from owning a firearm can carry it on their side openly almost anywhere in the state. Exceptions limited to government property (city hall, police, library, fed offices, airports, etc.) and a few cities that require it to be unloaded. With a CHL, federal facilities (in violation of the Constitution but that's fed not Oregon law), jails, courts, and beyond TSA at the airport are just about the only limitations.

    In California you can't even openly carry a firearm in large sections of the state regardless of its loaded condition.

    I carry a firearm openly every day in Oregon. The only concessions I must make are when I go to college (because they will expel me and I can't afford the legal fight...it is NOT a crime), and when I go to the post office (federal facility). Try that kind of lifestyle in California.

    In fact, VERY FEW, if ANY states have firearms laws as simple to understand and short as ours. When I first started open carrying, I carried four sheets of one side printed paper......with every firearms regulation the state has, as well as several other sections that might be needed (wire tap law, disorderly conduct, trespass, etc.) contained in those four pages. Try that in most states and particularly in California.

    No sir, you are seriously misinformed of the status of our firearms laws. Take about 20 minutes, googe "oregon revised statutes" and then go to ORS 166.173 and read to 166.400 you'll have covered everything relevant to carry and a whole lot more.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    I think you are very mistaken. Oregon gun laws are like night and day in comparison to California. Here, anyone that is not prohibited from owning a firearm can carry it on their side openly almost anywhere in the state. Exceptions limited to government property (city hall, police, library, fed offices, airports, etc.) and a few cities that require it to be unloaded. With a CHL, federal facilities (in violation of the Constitution but that's fed not Oregon law), jails, courts, and beyond TSA at the airport are just about the only limitations.

    In California you can't even openly carry a firearm in large sections of the state regardless of its loaded condition.

    I carry a firearm openly every day in Oregon. The only concessions I must make are when I go to college (because they will expel me and I can't afford the legal fight...it is NOT a crime), and when I go to the post office (federal facility). Try that kind of lifestyle in California.

    In fact, VERY FEW, if ANY states have firearms laws as simple to understand and short as ours. When I first started open carrying, I carried four sheets of one side printed paper......with every firearms regulation the state has, as well as several other sections that might be needed (wire tap law, disorderly conduct, trespass, etc.) contained in those four pages. Try that in most states and particularly in California.

    No sir, you are seriously misinformed of the status of our firearms laws. Take about 20 minutes, googe "oregon revised statutes" and then go to ORS 166.173 and read to 166.400 you'll have covered everything relevant to carry and a whole lot more.
    First, I said "closer to" not "like".

    Code sections dealing with firearms: Oregon 78, Utah 47.

    Oregon has no true statewide preemption (ORS 166.173 & 166.176), does not recognize ANY other state CHL, no useful vehicle carry without CHL, restricted ammo types (ORS 166.350), ridiculous "public building" restrictions, defacto gun registration (ORS 166.412(7) and referencing section), no private sale at gun shows without registration (ORS 166.438), 4A violation (ORS 166.380), almost identical to CA, no "parking lot" protection.

    Although several sources claim that non-resident CHL (WA, ID, NV, and CA residents only) is possible, I find no such provision in ORS 166.170 - 166.663, so no non-resident issue of CHL.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Cremator75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    393

    Re: Oregon gun owners organization

    Quote Originally Posted by rpyne View Post
    Although several sources claim that non-resident CHL (WA, ID, NV, and CA residents only) is possible, I find no such provision in ORS 166.170 - 166.663, so no non-resident issue of CHL.
    I think you meant to say "no out of state permits we recognized".

    Oregon does issue non-resident licenses regularly, if you go to a friendly sheriff, to people that live in a border state.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Cremator75 View Post
    I think you meant to say "no out of state permits we recognized".

    Oregon does issue non-resident licenses regularly, if you go to a friendly sheriff, to people that live in a border state.
    Yes, I had mentioned that Oregon does not recognize any other state's CHL, and I have seen several sources say that a friendly sheriff will issue to a resident of a bordering state, but I couldn't find anything in the ORS that mentions issuing permits to any non-resident so I am a little confused on that point.

  11. #11
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by rpyne View Post
    Yes, I had mentioned that Oregon does not recognize any other state's CHL, and I have seen several sources say that a friendly sheriff will issue to a resident of a bordering state, but I couldn't find anything in the ORS that mentions issuing permits to any non-resident so I am a little confused on that point.
    ORS 166.291 is the law you're not seeing. Specifically subsection (8). Here is the link to 166 http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/166.html


    ORS 166.291(8) The county sheriff may waive the residency requirement in subsection (1)(c) of this section for a resident of a contiguous state who has a compelling business interest or other legitimate demonstrated need.


    166.291(1)(c) Is a resident of the county


    166.291(8) is located below the form for application to obtain a CHL so perhaps you missed it?
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Troutdale, OR
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by rpyne View Post
    no useful vehicle carry without CHL
    I can openly carry my loaded firearm on my hip in my car. Or on my seat. Or on my dash.

    166.250(1)
    ....It is prohibited to...
    (b) Possesses a handgun that is concealed and readily accessible to the person within any vehicle.


    Readily accessible AND concealed. One or the other allows for plenty of leeway.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    127
    Oregon Judicial decisions call carrying in a car 'Concealed' unless you can identify the gun from behind, front and at least one side...just saying...think about open carry...sooo...its really hard to do that in most cars...

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by 45 Fan View Post
    Oregon Judicial decisions call carrying in a car 'Concealed' unless you can identify the gun from behind, front and at least one side...just saying...think about open carry...sooo...its really hard to do that in most cars...
    166.250 Unlawful possession of firearms. (3) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section
    .
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  15. #15
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by 45 Fan View Post
    Oregon Judicial decisions call carrying in a car 'Concealed' unless you can identify the gun from behind, front and at least one side...just saying...think about open carry...sooo...its really hard to do that in most cars...
    FORUM RULE #5, CITE TO AUTHORITY

    Please provide source information for these Oregon Judicial decisions. Without citation to authority, how are we to know whether you are correct?

    Link to forum rules: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules
    Last edited by We-the-People; 11-30-2012 at 10:40 PM. Reason: Add link to forum rules
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    127
    166.250 Unlawful possession of firearms. (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 or section 5, chapter 826, Oregon Laws 2009, a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly:

    (a) Carries any firearm concealed upon the person;

    (b) Possesses a handgun that is concealed and readily accessible to the person within any vehicle; or

    (3) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section. (4)(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection, a handgun is readily accessible within the meaning of this section if the handgun is within the passenger compartment of the vehicle.

    (b) If a vehicle, other than a vehicle described in paragraph (c) of this subsection, has no storage location that is outside the passenger compartment of the vehicle, a handgun is not readily accessible within the meaning of this section if:

    (A) The handgun is stored in a closed and locked glove compartment, center console or other container; and

    (B) The key is not inserted into the lock, if the glove compartment, center console or other container unlocks with a key.

    (c) If the vehicle is a motorcycle, an all-terrain vehicle or a snowmobile, a handgun is not readily accessible within the meaning of this section if:

    (A) The handgun is in a locked container within or affixed to the vehicle; or

    (B) The handgun is equipped with a trigger lock or other locking mechanism that prevents the discharge of the firearm.

    (5) Unlawful possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor.
    Please explain how you can '...carried openly...' sitting in a car with the gun on your hip. Because if putting my jacket over it is concealed, sitting down in a vehicle that obstucts the view of the weapon intentionally does to...you know the whole not being able to see through a car door thing?
    Last edited by 45 Fan; 12-01-2012 at 10:24 PM. Reason: fixed an error

  17. #17
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by 45 Fan View Post
    Please explain how you can '...carried openly...' sitting in a car with the gun on your hip. Because if putting my jacket over it is concealed, sitting down in a vehicle that obstucts the view of the weapon intentionally does to...you know the whole not being able to see through a car door thing?
    It's quite simple. As you highlighted in your post, 166.250 (3) specifically states that firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed. End of story. There is no statute stating that it is concealed if a car door (or a wall, door, or anything else not on the bearers person) obscures the object.

    The "car door thing" absent a specific state statute (which we do not have) is an unwinnable (for the prosecution) case. Evidence found "in plain sight" does not need a warrant, however, it is "difficult" to argue that an object was "in plain sight" but also concealed. So, without a warrant, consent, or some exception to the warrant requirement of the fourth, the prosecutor can't win without a specific state statute making such a weapon "concealed".

    Def Attny: Officer, did you arrest the defendant for possession of a concealed weapon?
    Officer: Yes
    Def Attny: And did you discover this concealed weapon during a search pursuant to a properly issued warrant?
    Officer: No
    Def Attny: How did you come to find this concealed weapon if you didn't search for it pursuant to a valid search warrant?
    Officer: He was wearing it in a holster on his side.
    Def Attny: In like a holster attached to his belt?
    Officer: Yes
    Def Attny: So he didn't have a coat or shirt covering it, it was just right there in a belt holster?
    Officer: Yes
    Def Attny: So you didn't need a warrant because of the "in plain sight" exemption to the fourth amendment's warrant requirement?
    Officer: Correct
    Def Attny: So which was if officer. Was it concealed in which case you'd need a warrant or RAS to search for it....or in plain sight so no warrant or RAS was needed?
    Officer: er....um......uh.......It was concealed.
    Def Attny: Your honor, move to dismiss. The states own witness has testified that the weapon was in a belt holster and "in plain sight". ORS 166.250(3) states that firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed. If it was "in plain sight" then obvioiusly it was being carried openly and the arresting officer has just testified that it was in a belt holster.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •