visiting OR, trying to understand OC law

I'm going to be in OR this weekend, and reading the laws is a bit confusing, coming from WA where laws are straightforward and uniform throughout the state.
Part of the time I will bein Portand, and I understand there is an OC ban or something similar?
Also, is there anything about unconcealed carry in a vehicle I should be concerned about?

Oregon allows open carry but also permits cities and counties to restrict carry of loaded firearms in public places. Oregon CHL holders are exempt from these city and county ordinances, but you won't be. You may openly carry unloaded anywhere. Unloaded in these places usually means also emptying magazines and speed loaders.

Places you can't carry loaded w/o an Oregon CHL that you will be near: Multnomah County, Portland, Oregon City, Tigard and Beaverton. There are other cities on the list, but those are the ones in the Portland area. Be aware that you also can't carry in a public building without a CHL (hospital, courthouse, library, etc).

Right now in Oregon case law says that your car is a public place so the above carry restrictions are not lifted because of being in your car where the public has no right to enter. Thank a Multnomah judge for that brilliant ruling.

If you are in a public building you must allow an officer to inspect your firearm to see if it is loaded or they can arrest you. If loaded you must produce a valid CHL or be arrested. If caught on the streets of Portland open carrying they have no way to prove you are violating the ordinance unless you commit a crime, that is how unenforceable the loaded firearm ordinances are, thanks to the 4th amendment.

SteveM said:

You may openly carry unloaded anywhere. Unloaded in these places usually means also emptying magazines and speed loaders.

Click to expand...

Since you brought it up... I've always wondered what the point is of carrying an unloaded gun, especially when it has to be unloaded to the extent of magazines being unloaded as well? Might as well just leave it at home for all the good it would do you in an emergency, no?

DaveT319 said:

Since you brought it up... I've always wondered what the point is of carrying an unloaded gun, especially when it has to be unloaded to the extent of magazines being unloaded as well? Might as well just leave it at home for all the good it would do you in an emergency, no?

Click to expand...

Well I guess you could always pistol whip someone so you don't break your hand punching them.

DaveT319 said:

I've always wondered what the point is of carrying an unloaded gun, especially when it has to be unloaded to the extent of magazines being unloaded as well?

Click to expand...

Yep, pretty pointless. Requiring unloading magazines just shows that what they really want isn't greater safety but complete disarmament. I don't consider it an option, but one should be completely versed in the law so they don't unknowingly break the law. If anyone chooses to break these unconstitutional laws in order to get it into the courts then you have my support.

The Ashland Police Chief said in a recent city council meeting that in CA the definition of a loaded firearm was spelled out in such detail that a single round duct taped to the firearm was enough to consider it loaded.

SteveM said:

Yep, pretty pointless. Requiring unloading magazines just shows that what they really want isn't greater safety but complete disarmament. I don't consider it an option, but one should be completely versed in the law so they don't unknowingly break the law. If anyone chooses to break these unconstitutional laws in order to get it into the courts then you have my support.

The Ashland Police Chief said in a recent city council meeting that in CA the definition of a loaded firearm was spelled out in such detail that a single round duct taped to the firearm was enough to consider it loaded.

Click to expand...

Actually, when the Chief in Ashland was talking about rounds taped to a firearm he was discussing California law.

Well I'm safely back in WA, just shocked by your state laws (and ammo prices.)
That Portland law against possession of loaded magazines is beyond insane, and the part giving a 30 day minimum sentence to anyone who doesn't turn over the weapon for inspection is far beyond the 4th Amendment.
Makes me wonder about the merits of carrying an unloaded airpsoft pistol and refusing all unlawful orders, and then using it to show that the law provides for violation of civil rights or law abiding citizens.

You're welcome to test it for us!

I wouldn't try that with an airsoft since it still fires projectiles. Depending on how the ordinance is written you could be in big trouble. A better choice might be a completely fake gun that looks real. Like one of those "collector's replicas". If you had one with replica bullets that might be even better.

You would need to be careful not to lie while also not saying it is a replica, which could be tough to do. Get the whole thing on video and simply tell the officer that you refuse to allow him to search anything you are carrying because his request to do so is not lawful. But don't ever say words like weapon, gun, firearm, etc., and if he says "I need to check your gun" you have to be careful not to just say "no", because that implies it is indeed a gun and makes his order lawful. It would be very hard to do without screwing totals unless you tell him it is a replica almost immediately, and then it just won't have the intended affect.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

I'm not so sure a non firearm is the best way to go. ORS 166.170 is about FIREARMS and non firearms wouldn't be covered. I'm pretty sure Portland includes BB guns (which an airsoft would be considered). So you could end up hung out to dry. The fourth SHOULD still protect you but do you trust our courts?

But it's not about challenging the firearms portion; it's about the violation of 4A.

DaveT319 said:

But it's not about challenging the firearms portion; it's about the violation of 4A.

Click to expand...

It is usually about the 4A. That's a point I try to make with a lot of people who want to say "my 2A rights were violated". Well, no, it was your 4A rights. Sometimes they get it, sometimes they don't.

However, in this instance, the fact that the legislature has taken all FIREARMS regs unless they give authority to a subdivision, we find ourselves in a strange situation if you take a non firearm.

Yes, the 4th still applies but if they have an ordinance against a BB gun for instance, well then you might well be committing a crime which kicks in Terry. Might not, but with the actual firearm, you know what their limitations under the law are. With a BB gun, they're free to publish whatever they want.

Not saying it's not a possible tactic, just that it needs to be well thought out and vetted. Rosa Parks wasn't an "accidental activist", she was hand chosen by the NAACP to get on that bus and say "NO" that day. The support was in place and ready to go into action.

All too often I hear people saying they're going to go out and challenge some law, take it to court, sue the officers, etc. My questions for them are usually:

1) Do you have a lawyer lined up and already in the loop?
2) Do you have at least $10,000 to get started and access to more?

Some of the answers I hear:

They have to appoint an attorney for me -- This is a losing strategy
I'll get a lawyer to take it on contingency -- Really? Do you have him lined up?
I don't need a lawyer, it's obvious they can't do that -- Do you know how to file a motion? Answer a motion?

The system is messed up but it's the system we must work with in order to get our wins. Running head first into the machine gun nest is usually far less effective than flanking it and sneaking up on them.

DaveT319 said:

But it's not about challenging the firearms portion; it's about the violation of 4A.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Requiring "papers please" and/or inspection of your property while lawfully going about your business, and that that could literally happen over and over and over again completely sidesteps Terry. If they have no reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that you are committin a crime, then they have no grounds to seize you to begin with.
If somone were to test this, going about the "am I being detained" route and then actually being detained in order to inspect would be the issue in court. The way it is now, if applied as such, bsicaly means they can detain you for lawful carry. Its just as absurd as a roadblock to check for insurance.
I'd do it, but I live in WA. Been arrested before, ended up getting my local PD retrained in search and seizure procedure, and I'm told that the cities insurance company sends out memos to every department in the state whenever they have an incident like that.

We-the-People said:

1) Do you have a lawyer lined up and already in the loop?
2) Do you have at least $10,000 to get started and access to more?

Some of the answers I hear:

They have to appoint an attorney for me -- This is a losing strategy
I'll get a lawyer to take it on contingency -- Really? Do you have him lined up?
I don't need a lawyer, it's obvious they can't do that -- Do you know how to file a motion? Answer a motion?

The system is messed up but it's the system we must work with in order to get our wins. Running head first into the machine gun nest is usually far less effective than flanking it and sneaking up on them.

Click to expand...

Questions:

1) It's amazing how many don't.
2) Emphasis on the "at least." Criminal defense, if you've got a militant (or young) prosecutor and you're not willing to roll over and take the deal can bump into 6 figures easily.

Answers:

Not guaranteed, but I know which way I'd bet.

Contingency fees are generally for personal injury cases (McDonald's Hot Coffee and suchlike). If anyone finds an attorney taking criminal cases "on contingency," PLEASE SHARE!!!!

And how to present the case in general. "Nuh-uh, because Constitution" is not going to be much of a winning argument in court.

**
System's messed up, but I'm not sure what you'd replace the system with. Oregon elects its judges (which puts it ahead of the FedGov), but electors tend to not pay attention to things like "will he (or did he, for reelection purpses) follow the Constitution," but rather "which name do I remember most." Along with that delightful elector habit of wanting to vote for the winner, rather than voting for the best.