Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: Oregon Zoo Letter

  1. #1
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317

    Oregon Zoo Letter

    Well, had a nice family vacation with my 2 girls (16 & 11) from 4-15 July driving around Oregon.
    We went to: Oregon Zoo, OMSI, Skibowl, ran around north central Oregon rock hounding, and finished with Oaks Amusement Park.
    Oaks Park security was friendly, but asked me to conceal or store in the car, since I was not going on rides there I CC'd.
    At Skibowl I did go on the rides so I secured my firearm in the car prior to entering.
    OMSI (private, non-profit), I CC'd there with no problems (the Mummies didn't even complain).

    The Oregon Zoo was the only place that there were some issues, and I plan to send them the following letter.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P1020681.jpg 
Views:	415 
Size:	89.9 KB 
ID:	10640Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P1020682.jpg 
Views:	388 
Size:	85.0 KB 
ID:	10639
    Please read & critique, let me know of any changes or re-wording you would suggest.
    I will post any reply from the Oregon Zoo here.

    ----------

    To: The Oregon Zoo Director
    CC: Oregon Head of Security

    From: Doug xxxxxxx

    Re: Carry of firearms at the Oregon Zoo



    First, let me say that my daughters and I thoroughly enjoyed our visit to the Oregon Zoo. Friday July 5th was a beautiful day, the facilities look top notch, and the animals were in great shape and fairly active until the heat of the day hit around lunchtime. It has been some time since I had visited and the Oregon Zoo is still as good as I remember it from my youth.

    The reason for this letter is to help clarify the law regarding the carry of firearms at the Oregon Zoo. I have two concerns that I noticed from my visit that I would like to bring to your attention.

    I carry a personal firearm everywhere I legally can for defense of my family, myself, and others. Note: I'm not an activist, just a believer in the US 2nd Amendment and the Oregon state Constitution. By choice I prefer to open carry (OC) instead of concealed carry (CC), but I do have an Oregon Concealed Handgun License (CHL). I just want to make sure that everyone is on the same page and to avoid anyone (myself included) getting arrested for misunderstood laws, rules, or regulations.

    My first concern is the Zoo rules sign at the exterior ticket booth states that firearms (weapons) are not allowed except under ORS 166.173(2)(c) & ORS 166.370(3)(d). The wording of the sign is misleading in that it implies a CHL is required to carry at the Oregon Zoo, it is not. The Oregon Zoo is public property under Metro, a municipal corporation. As such, ORS 166.170 applies. Both loaded OC and CC are allowed under Oregon law with a CHL, but under Portland ordinance 14A.60.010, without a CHL the firearm must be unloaded.

    After purchasing our tickets we proceeded to the interior entrance and handed over our tickets. At this point, I was asked to step to the side and await security since I was open carrying my firearm. Both the ticket person and the responding security person were polite, cordial, and did not escalate the situation, so I can see that staff & security have some training in dealing with firearm carriers.

    My second concern is while talking with security there were three misconceptions:

    1) Security asked to see my CHL, however a CHL is not required in Oregon to openly carry a firearm. But, since Portland has an unloaded firearm ordinance (14A.60.010, allowed under ORS 166.173) that a CHL exempts, and I was carrying loaded, I provided my CHL.

    2) Security then stated that having a CHL required me to conceal my firearm, it does not. While having a CHL allows me the option to legally conceal, it is not a requirement.

    3) Security stated that zoo regulations required me to conceal, however, as I stated to him, a zoo regulation does not override state law. Any zoo regulation restricting firearms, per ORS 166.170(2): “Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void.”

    I would ask that you consider changing the misleading wording of the Zoo rules sign at the exterior ticket booth. I would humbly suggest:

    “Under state & city law, lawful concealed carry and open carry of firearms are allowed on zoo premises.
    Firearms must be unloaded unless in possession of an Oregon Concealed Handgun License (CHL).
    Please keep all firearms holstered unless and until need arises”

    OR, due to space constraints on the sign, simply:

    “Legally carried weapons / firearms are allowed, per state law”

    I would also suggest that your zoo security receive refresher training of Oregon state law & City of Portland ordinances for firearm carry. Again, both loaded OC and CC are allowed under Oregon law with a CHL, but under Portland ordinance 14A.60.010, without a CHL the firearm must be unloaded.

    Again, there was minimal disruption of my family’s visit by zoo staff, and law enforcement was not called, I just wish to clarify some misconceptions by your security and to correct the misleading sign.


    Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
    Sincerely,

    Doug xxxxxx


    EDIT: response at #16 below
    Last edited by Lord Sega; 07-29-2013 at 07:57 PM.
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Good letter - let us know what response you receive.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    I'll be following this. Should we expect the standard "there are children present" excuse?
    "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
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543

    Oregon Zoo Letter

    Yes, the letter is well written and concise. I wouldn't change a thing. I too am interested to see how this plays out.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    56
    I like your letter and think it is well written

    But I feel it is a bit confusing and unnecessary.

    I think the sign is fine maybe add the Portland ordinance in about unloaded OC.

    The real focus should be on training their security properly.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Washington, Dry Side
    Posts
    13
    As one who deals in a administrative world, I think this is very well written.
    Polite, concise, direct, easy to understand.

    If it were me, I might consider adding the relevant text of the ORC's after your signature.

    This does two things:
    it is a convenience to the reader;
    it shows you know what they say (other than quoting some parts).

    Well done.

    Rebel Alliance

  7. #7
    Regular Member Cremator75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    393
    This doc. is what I already send them a couple years ago. They have made progress, but not near enough. I don't see anywhere in the ORS's where they can allow carry but restrict the way you carry in any manor. I tried to copy and paste but my color edits would not save.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/5z882b6gbv...Preemption.doc

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Cremator75 View Post
    This doc. is what I already send them a couple years ago. They have made progress, but not near enough. I don't see anywhere in the ORS's where they can allow carry but restrict the way you carry in any manor. I tried to copy and paste but my color edits would not save.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/5z882b6gbv...Preemption.doc
    No where does it say you must CC if you have a CHL. In fact, it states plainly you can open carry anywhere with a CHL and you can carry CC'd.

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

    Re: Oregon Zoo Letter

    Quote Originally Posted by landon holt View Post
    No where does it say you must CC if you have a CHL. In fact, it states plainly you can open carry anywhere with a CHL and you can carry CC'd.
    That was my point. Maybe it did not come out right.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317
    Update:
    The letter was sent without changes this last Saturday.
    I only found the director's e-mail on the Oregon Zoo's website, so I requested she forward to Zoo Head of Security.

    The point I was trying to make about the sign is that it's wording (if you know the ORSs posted) is that it makes it sound like a CHL is required.
    To someone unfamiliar with the ORSs (i.e. most of the public) would only see weapons not allowed, even with the "Please" at the start.

    The ORSs on the sign only refer to the CHL exemption(s) of loaded firearms in public places and firearms in public buildings.
    I feel this is deceptive or at least misleading to both firearm carriers and to the rest of the public.

    We'll see if they agree or not, but I don't have very high hopes that they will adjust the sign accordingly.
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543

    Oregon Zoo Letter

    Thanks for the update! Looking forward to hearing their response, if any. I applaud you for following up on your concerns!
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  12. #12
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Interestingly, according to their signage (which we know is VOiD), they don't even want police officers carrying weapons in the zoo. Read the specific sections they've given. Their signage only recognizes CHL holders....... there's no lack of stupidity apparently.
    "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.

  13. #13
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Sega View Post
    Well, had a nice family vacation with my 2 girls (16 & 11) from 4-15 July driving around Oregon.
    We went to: Oregon Zoo, OMSI, Skibowl, ran around north central Oregon rock hounding, and finished with Oaks Amusement Park.
    Oaks Park security was friendly, but asked me to conceal or store in the car, since I was not going on rides there I CC'd.
    At Skibowl I did go on the rides so I secured my firearm in the car prior to entering.
    OMSI (private, non-profit), I CC'd there with no problems (the Mummies didn't even complain).

    The Oregon Zoo was the only place that there were some issues, and I plan to send them the following letter.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P1020681.jpg 
Views:	415 
Size:	89.9 KB 
ID:	10640Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P1020682.jpg 
Views:	388 
Size:	85.0 KB 
ID:	10639
    Please read & critique, let me know of any changes or re-wording you would suggest.
    I will post any reply from the Oregon Zoo here.

    ----------

    To: The Oregon Zoo Director
    CC: Oregon Head of Security

    From: Doug xxxxxxx

    Re: Carry of firearms at the Oregon Zoo



    First, let me say that my daughters and I thoroughly enjoyed our visit to the Oregon Zoo. Friday July 5th was a beautiful day, the facilities look top notch, and the animals were in great shape and fairly active until the heat of the day hit around lunchtime. It has been some time since I had visited and the Oregon Zoo is still as good as I remember it from my youth.

    The reason for this letter is to help clarify the law regarding the carry of firearms at the Oregon Zoo. I have two concerns that I noticed from my visit that I would like to bring to your attention.

    I carry a personal firearm everywhere I legally can for defense of my family, myself, and others. Note: I'm not an activist, just a believer in the US 2nd Amendment and the Oregon state Constitution. By choice I prefer to open carry (OC) instead of concealed carry (CC), but I do have an Oregon Concealed Handgun License (CHL). I just want to make sure that everyone is on the same page and to avoid anyone (myself included) getting arrested for misunderstood laws, rules, or regulations.

    My first concern is the Zoo rules sign at the exterior ticket booth states that firearms (weapons) are not allowed except under ORS 166.173(2)(c) & ORS 166.370(3)(d). The wording of the sign is misleading in that it implies a CHL is required to carry at the Oregon Zoo, it is not. The Oregon Zoo is public property under Metro, a municipal corporation. As such, ORS 166.170 applies. Both loaded OC and CC are allowed under Oregon law with a CHL, but under Portland ordinance 14A.60.010, without a CHL the firearm must be unloaded.

    After purchasing our tickets we proceeded to the interior entrance and handed over our tickets. At this point, I was asked to step to the side and await security since I was open carrying my firearm. Both the ticket person and the responding security person were polite, cordial, and did not escalate the situation, so I can see that staff & security have some training in dealing with firearm carriers.

    My second concern is while talking with security there were three misconceptions:

    1) Security asked to see my CHL, however a CHL is not required in Oregon to openly carry a firearm. But, since Portland has an unloaded firearm ordinance (14A.60.010, allowed under ORS 166.173) that a CHL exempts, and I was carrying loaded, I provided my CHL.

    2) Security then stated that having a CHL required me to conceal my firearm, it does not. While having a CHL allows me the option to legally conceal, it is not a requirement.

    3) Security stated that zoo regulations required me to conceal, however, as I stated to him, a zoo regulation does not override state law. Any zoo regulation restricting firearms, per ORS 166.170(2): “Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void.”

    I would ask that you consider changing the misleading wording of the Zoo rules sign at the exterior ticket booth. I would humbly suggest:

    “Under state & city law, lawful concealed carry and open carry of firearms are allowed on zoo premises.
    Firearms must be unloaded unless in possession of an Oregon Concealed Handgun License (CHL).
    Please keep all firearms holstered unless and until need arises”

    OR, due to space constraints on the sign, simply:

    “Legally carried weapons / firearms are allowed, per state law”

    I would also suggest that your zoo security receive refresher training of Oregon state law & City of Portland ordinances for firearm carry. Again, both loaded OC and CC are allowed under Oregon law with a CHL, but under Portland ordinance 14A.60.010, without a CHL the firearm must be unloaded.

    Again, there was minimal disruption of my family’s visit by zoo staff, and law enforcement was not called, I just wish to clarify some misconceptions by your security and to correct the misleading sign.


    Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
    Sincerely,

    Doug xxxxxx
    I find that the mention ORS 166.173 (2)(c) interesting. Maybe next time we am down visiting out daughter and grandkids we will have to make a trip to the Zoo. Like you, we haven't been there in ages.

    Rather than make the point that as I am not in a "public building" and security is not LE, (as per ORS 166.360) I will not protest having to present my "License to carry a concealed weapon" (2)(c) but only need to have it available, I will just present my CPL, and see how that turns security's crank. My CPL is just as much a "license to carry a concealed weapon" as my CHL is... However, I cannot legally "Conceal" without a CHL so I would HAVE to OC. It will be interesting how they handle that one...
    Last edited by hermannr; 07-23-2013 at 03:37 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317
    UPDATE, sort of...

    Turns out the e-mail contact for the Director on the website is for the Director of the Oregon Zoo Foundation, not the Oregon Zoo (Operational) Director.
    It has been forwarded, so still wait & see.


    Dear Doug-

    Thank you for your message about the firearm policies at the Oregon Zoo. I have forwarded your feedback to the zoo director and the deputy director of operations. As the director of the Oregon Zoo Foundation (the fundraising arm of the zoo), I do not have any ability to impact zoo policies or procedures.

    Glad you and your daughters had a nice visit to the zoo.

    All best,

    Jani



    Jani Iverson | Director

    Edit add: Found the correct page (buried in website), Kim Smith is the Zoo Director, but no e-mail listed for contact
    Last edited by Lord Sega; 07-24-2013 at 08:41 PM.
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

  15. #15
    Regular Member Mattimusmaximus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hillsboro
    Posts
    261

    Oregon Zoo Letter

    I OC there once and nobody said anything to me.. But then again it was pouring down rain an I was with a group of 6 and two little ones. I didn't even know they had that sign until you pointed it out lol


    -Matt of Hillsboro OR-

  16. #16
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317

    So-so responce...

    Just over a week, not a bad response time considering I e-mailed the wrong Director (Foundation instead of Operations) and they forwarded it to the right people.

    Here it is:

    Greetings Mr. Xxxxxx,

    We’re glad you enjoyed your visit to our Zoo. We hope you understand that we have a duty to assure that visitors attending our venue have a family friendly, safe and legal Zoo experience. Toward that end, we contact those we observe carrying firearms at the entrance, to confirm their legal ability to possess them while visiting the venue. Zoo Security does its best to make that determination with a minimum of disruption. We prefer that those with a valid CHL carry their firearms concealed, but that is not our legal requirement. I will follow up with our security team to correct any misconceptions that exist.

    Best,

    -Craig

    Craig M. Stroud, CPA | Oregon Zoo

    Deputy Director - Operations

    503 220-2451

    craig.stroud@oregonzoo.org

    Well, what does the group think?
    They are aware of Oregon law, freely admit that OC is legal, but prefer CC, and will speak with security to clear up misunderstandings about OC.
    I don't have too much on an issue with a brief check-in with security at the entrance. Better than being trailed all over the zoo, and if they were unaware of the carrier then any calls from staff or other visitors doesn't take them by surprise causing a scramble alert.

    Any follow-up required? Push harder or let it go?
    I'm thinking let it go, they know the law and are doing refresher training with the security staff.

    Thoughts?
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    56
    I think them following up with security is great. I also feel the sign is reasonable. Yes they prefer CC but they know they can't require it. I would leave it alone unless security tried to tell me to CC again.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    55

    Re: Oregon Zoo Letter

    They also can't force to show your CHL or detain you at any extent. Police can't even without RAS of a crime.

    ----- Sent from my mobile phone.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Historyman1942 View Post
    They also can't force to show your CHL or detain you at any extent. Police can't even without RAS of a crime.

    ----- Sent from my mobile phone.
    Here is where I am a little unclear. Under 14A.60.010 you are not allowed to OC loaded without a CHL so wouldn't not knowing if the firearm was loaded or unloaded be RAS of a crime?

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Sethrotull View Post
    Here is where I am a little unclear. Under 14A.60.010 you are not allowed to OC loaded without a CHL so wouldn't not knowing if the firearm was loaded or unloaded be RAS of a crime?
    Nope, not at all any more than stopping a motorist because he might not have a license to drive.

    Actually not knowing proves that there is no RAS of a crime. Now if the gun is found as a result of a search related to another witnessed crime, that is another matter.

    Woops - I should read the staute first. There does not have to be RAS of a crime - a LEO has the right to stop you and check

    D. It is unlawful for any person who possesses a firearm, clip or magazine in or upon a public place, or while in a vehicle in a public place, to refuse to permit a police officer to inspect that firearm after the police officer has identified him or herself as a police officer.
    http://www.portlandonline.com/audito...332592&c=28514
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 07-31-2013 at 05:31 PM. Reason: Amended response
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Mattimusmaximus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hillsboro
    Posts
    261

    Oregon Zoo Letter

    That last part.. Mandatory 30 days! Whoo!!! Vacation!! Not!


    -Matt of Hillsboro OR-

  22. #22
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    snip... There does not have to be RAS of a crime - a LEO has the right to stop you and check

    D. It is unlawful for any person who possesses a firearm, clip or magazine in or upon a public place, or while in a vehicle in a public place, to refuse to permit a police officer to inspect that firearm after the police officer has identified him or herself as a police officer.
    http://www.portlandonline.com/audito...332592&c=28514
    RAS is the possible breaking of the Portland ordinance / law, showing that it's unloaded OR showing your CHL is your defense to the detainment investigation / arrest.
    The rest of 14A.60.010:

    D. It is unlawful for any person who possesses a firearm, clip or magazine in or upon a public place, or while in a vehicle in a public place, to refuse to permit a police officer to inspect that firearm after the police officer has identified him or herself as a police officer. This Section does not apply to law enforcement officers or members of the military in the performance of official duties, nor persons licensed to carry a concealed handgun or persons authorized to possess a loaded firearm, clip or magazine while in or on a public building or court facility.

    So, RAS to inspect the firearm to see it is unloaded OR you show your CHL so that loaded or unloaded doesn't matter.
    Showing your CHL should end the detention encounter at that point. If you have a CHL, but not on you, showing it in court (after arrest) is an affirmative defense to the charge.
    Of course, they could "temporarily seize" the firearm for "officer safety" during the encounter
    Also, 30 days is a minimum "must impose" sentence with 6 months + $500 as a maximum "absence of the aggravating factors"
    6 months seems excessive if there are no other factors / crimes other than carrying loaded.



    E. Penalty
    1. In the absence of the aggravating factors listed in Subsection 14A.60.010 E.2., the court may impose a sentence of up to 6 months imprisonment and a fine not to exceed $500 for violation of this section.

    2. When this offense is committed by carrying a loaded firearm containing ammunition that employs gunpowder as a propellant in a vehicle, including a transit vehicle, the court must impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 days for violation of this Section.


    SIDE NOTE: This is for Oregon STATE statutes 166.250 & 166.370 ... I could not find a similar limitation for the Portland ordinance.

    § 166.262¹
    Limitation on peace officers authority to arrest for violating ORS 166.250 or 166.370

    A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating ORS 166.250 (Unlawful possession of firearms) (1)(a) or (b) or 166.370 (Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility) (1) if the person has in the persons immediate possession a valid license to carry a firearm as provided in ORS 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) and 166.292 (Procedure for issuing). [1999 c.1040 §5]
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

  23. #23
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Sega View Post
    RAS is the possible breaking of the Portland ordinance / law, showing that it's unloaded OR showing your CHL is your defense to the detainment investigation / arrest.
    The rest of 14A.60.010:

    D. It is unlawful for any person who possesses a firearm, clip or magazine in or upon a public place, or while in a vehicle in a public place, to refuse to permit a police officer to inspect that firearm after the police officer has identified him or herself as a police officer. This Section does not apply to law enforcement officers or members of the military in the performance of official duties, nor persons licensed to carry a concealed handgun or persons authorized to possess a loaded firearm, clip or magazine while in or on a public building or court facility.

    So, RAS to inspect the firearm to see it is unloaded OR you show your CHL so that loaded or unloaded doesn't matter.
    Showing your CHL should end the detention encounter at that point. If you have a CHL, but not on you, showing it in court (after arrest) is an affirmative defense to the charge.
    Of course, they could "temporarily seize" the firearm for "officer safety" during the encounter
    Also, 30 days is a minimum "must impose" sentence with 6 months + $500 as a maximum "absence of the aggravating factors"
    6 months seems excessive if there are no other factors / crimes other than carrying loaded.



    E. Penalty
    1. In the absence of the aggravating factors listed in Subsection 14A.60.010 E.2., the court may impose a sentence of up to 6 months imprisonment and a fine not to exceed $500 for violation of this section.

    2. When this offense is committed by carrying a loaded firearm containing ammunition that employs gunpowder as a propellant in a vehicle, including a transit vehicle, the court must impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 days for violation of this Section.


    SIDE NOTE: This is for Oregon STATE statutes 166.250 & 166.370 ... I could not find a similar limitation for the Portland ordinance.

    § 166.262¹
    Limitation on peace officers authority to arrest for violating ORS 166.250 or 166.370

    A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating ORS 166.250 (Unlawful possession of firearms) (1)(a) or (b) or 166.370 (Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility) (1) if the person has in the persons immediate possession a valid license to carry a firearm as provided in ORS 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) and 166.292 (Procedure for issuing). [1999 c.1040 §5]
    I would think the the US Supreme Court ruling in Delaware V Prouse that ruled that a stop just to inspect a license (no other reason noted) for a licensed activity is illegal would negate this Portland Ordinance. Not legal, contrary to the 4A.
    Last edited by hermannr; 08-01-2013 at 01:13 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    55

    Re: Oregon Zoo Letter

    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    [strike]

    Woops - I should read the staute first. There does not have to be RAS of a crime - a LEO has the right to stop you and check

    D. It is unlawful for any person who possesses a firearm, clip or magazine in or upon a public place, or while in a vehicle in a public place, to refuse to permit a police officer to inspect that firearm after the police officer has identified him or herself as a police officer.
    http://www.portlandonline.com/audito...332592&c=28514
    The preemption in state law voids anything more than what 166.173 allows as well. Portland also restricting the carry of mags on you for an unloaded weapon is void by preemption, and the ORS also defines a loaded weapon. A round in the chamber or in a mag attached to the weapon.

    Since that's only for loaded carry they would still have yo know its loaded. RAS that its loaded is not RAS of a crime. Can't Daisy chain RAS per say. The courts have ruled the absence of a license does not give rise to RAS of a crime. So even if they knew for sure it was loaded without any doubt, stopping you to do a license check is unconstitutional. l, just like with drivers.

    ----- Sent from my mobile phone.
    Last edited by Historyman1942; 08-01-2013 at 11:02 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by Historyman1942 View Post
    snip... Since that's only for loaded carry they would still have yo know its loaded. RAS that its loaded is not RAS of a crime. Can't Daisy chain RAS per say. The courts have ruled the absence of a license does not give rise to RAS of a crime. So even if they knew for sure it was loaded without any doubt, stopping you to do a license check is unconstitutional. l, just like with drivers.
    Ok, I see your point and I agree. A LEO would need RAS that it is loaded in order to perform the Terry stop to investigate and confirm, and a LEO can't get that from viewing it at a distance prior to performing the stop.

    Kind of a Schrodinger's Cat dilemma for the Leo.

    Just to play devil's advocate... it goes to court and when asked for his RAS the LEO uses gun owner's logic / safety rules against us, i.e.:

    "Well, from a distance I am unable to tell if the holstered firearm is loaded, but since an unloaded gun is useless for defense, and safety rules say to treat all firearms as loaded until you have personally verified it's not, my reasonable suspicion was that much more likely than not that the firearm would be loaded otherwise why would he / she be carrying it. Since carrying loaded in Portland city limits is illegal without a CHL I approached the person to investigate whether he /she had a CHL or to confirm the firearm was in fact unloaded."

    While it is weak, circular logic, I bet a judge and/or jury would buy it.
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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