Wedding Problems

OK, so I have a wedding to go to next summer in Oregon and I figured I needed to start preparing now. I would have posted this on the Oregon board but it appears that no one has been there in 2 years.

Oregon appears to be very carry hostile, they refuse to recognize concealed carry licenses from any other state, and will only issue non resident licenses to people from ajoining states. I live in Michigan. So it appears that Oregon insists that I be defenseless. They are as bad as California.

So, Open Carry right? Nope, not really, while legal it looks like Open Carry is so heavily restricted that it is effectively impossible (stupid no gun signs have the force of law, and businesses can even dictate how you carry, so basically it is banned everywhere, as is concealed carry, for the same reason), and state preemption does not cover Open Carry, so local governments can randomly pass whatever laws they want. Not many cities have, but the wedding happens to be in one of them, and they ban Open Carry completely. If you have a concealed carry license than local laws do not apply, but as I already said, getting one is impossible for me.

So am I reading it right? Do I really have to be defenseless for a week in a city over run with bums and drug addicts?

Is there any loophole I can exploit?

What about antique guns, does it apply to them, or are they considered non guns under the law? Can I legally carry one?

What about Cap and Ball revolvers?

Many people read and respond to multiple sub-forums. Moved this for better exposure.

State v. Christian, 307 P. 3d 429 - Or: Supreme Court 2013
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...6819&q=bear+arms+AND+heller&hl=en&as_sdt=4,38

OR. Supreme Court basically say you don't have a right to carry outside your home per Heller.

However, that is not what the Heller said.

The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution.

This was clarified and confirmed in 2008, when the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed,’” id. The Court reiterated at page 613, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

Now that the USSC has declared the Second Amendment applies to the states McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S._742), they too can’t regulate the keeping and bearing of arms in case of confrontation.

Additionally, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts 577 U. S. ____ (2016) has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.” In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.”

Based on the provided state/municipal legalities....don't go to OR if you desire to be lawfully armed.

I have a buddy who lives in Boise ID and takes US95 north to Lewiston ID then US 195 north if needs to go into WA...so as to avoid OR all together.

Those poor souls in OR were rounded up and reeducated or deported to ID...no wonder there has been no activity in the OR sub-forum.

Oregon

I moved from VA to OR in 2015 so I'm familiar with going from a gun friendly state to one that is less friendly. I actually got my OR concealed carry license before moving because OR recognizes residency if you own property in OR.

So here is the skinny. Open carry is allowed anywhere in the state except some cities. In these cities, to open carry a loaded firearm on must have a valid OR concealed carry license. If you do not have a valid OR concealed carry license then the gun must be unloaded, no ammo in the chamber and no ammo in the magazine. If the magazine is removed from the gun, it also must not have ammo in it.

It is true that OR has no reciprocity with any other state and non-resident licenses are either not allowed or at the whim of the sheriff n the county you are applying. I think they had non-resident in the past but I don't think so now.

Outside of the Liberal hot spots, rural OR is very gun friendly. I carry every time I leave my property, sometimes OC sometimes CC. I also see many folks that carry, mostly CC.

I would recommend that you review the OR state law to verify. If you are going to be outside those hot spots I would think you can OC with no issue.

Go here: http://vb.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?35648-Loaded-Firearm-Carry-Ban-Cities

What about a knife. Do you have any training there. Not ideal at long range. Definitely a GOOD weapon at contact distance if you are trained w/ a blade. Depending on your age and training a full length walking stick is a good alternative. I carried one numerous times before campus carry took effect here in Texas. Again close quarters only but way better than empty hands when gun or knife are restricted.

RedNeck Texan said:

What about a knife. Do you have any training there. Not ideal at long range. Definitely a GOOD weapon at contact distance if you are trained w/ a blade. Depending on your age and training a full length walking stick is a good alternative. I carried one numerous times before campus carry took effect here in Texas. Again close quarters only but way better than empty hands when gun or knife are restricted.

Click to expand...

I have zero training with either a knife or staff. I will rely on a knife as a last resort but that is not ideal.

JohnWeinrich said:

I moved from VA to OR in 2015 so I'm familiar with going from a gun friendly state to one that is less friendly. I actually got my OR concealed carry license before moving because OR recognizes residency if you own property in OR.

So here is the skinny. Open carry is allowed anywhere in the state except some cities. In these cities, to open carry a loaded firearm on must have a valid OR concealed carry license. If you do not have a valid OR concealed carry license then the gun must be unloaded, no ammo in the chamber and no ammo in the magazine. If the magazine is removed from the gun, it also must not have ammo in it.

It is true that OR has no reciprocity with any other state and non-resident licenses are either not allowed or at the whim of the sheriff n the county you are applying. I think they had non-resident in the past but I don't think so now.

Outside of the Liberal hot spots, rural OR is very gun friendly. I carry every time I leave my property, sometimes OC sometimes CC. I also see many folks that carry, mostly CC.

I would recommend that you review the OR state law to verify. If you are going to be outside those hot spots I would think you can OC with no issue.

Go here: http://vb.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?35648-Loaded-Firearm-Carry-Ban-Cities

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I anticipate about 90% of my time will be spent in Portland.

I have been reading the laws over the last 2 nights and I’m not really liking what I am seeing.

The current option I am looking at is carrying a cap and ball revolver concealed (cap and ball revolvers are defined as antiques under Oregon law (ORS 166.210), and ORS 166.460 specifically exempts antiques from ORS 166.250, the law which bans concealed carry without a license). Carrying concealed would hopefully prevent my arrest in Portland, which bans all carry by those without an Oregon concealed carry license, whether open or concealed, however would be illegal with a modern gun, but by my interpretation would be legal with a cap and ball revolver.

The problem is that looking at the Portland ordinance it looks like it might even ban antiques, but I am unsure:

The ordinance (14A.60.010) specifically addresses “firearms,” but it does not define that term. Does Portland have a statutory definition of “firearm,” or does the state definition apply? If it is the state’s than it would seem not to cover antiques. Can anyone find a definition?

Both sections A and B contain the line “... in a public place, recklessly having failed to remove all the ammunition from the firearm.” It is more of a stretch, but “recklessly having failed to remove all the ammunition from the firearm” is a parenthetical statement, I.E. failing to remove the ammunition is not illegal, provided such failure was not reckless. The prosecution would seem to have to prove that merely having a loaded gun or magazine is inherently reckless, the defense would merely have to ask the court bailif if his pistol was unloaded.

Then it lists as an exception a person who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun, but fails to mention from whom the license must be issued. In other words it does not say “licensed by the state of Oregon,” but merely “licensed.” Oregon may not recognize a Michigan CPL, but it does not say that it must be a license recognized by the state, but merely that it be a license.

I suspect it may be a case of “you may beat the rap but not the ride,” and probably has not been tested, but then concealed is concealed. What says those who are more familiar with Portland ordinances and courts?

I see another potential chink too, Portland is granted exception from ORS 166.170 (State Preemption) by ORS 166.173 to ban Carry of a loaded firearm in a public place. However ORS 166.173(2)(c) states, as an exemption from section 1, “A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.” It does not, however, define under which section of law the license must be issued, or even if it needs to be issued (or recognized) by Oregon at all.

Could Portland be preempted after all?

Thoughts?

Small_Arms_Collector said:

I have zero training with either a knife or staff. I will rely on a knife as a last resort but that is not ideal.

Click to expand...

That is a problem that is easily remedied there are plenty of training videos that well give you a good start.

Using a knife or a staff for defensive purposes is relatively easy keep it simple learn simple techniques and practice them until they become 2nd nature.

No need for fancy movie moves.

I also suggest that if you don't have any hands on skills learn to throw a good punch, kick, knee or elbows.

Most people on the street don't know how to fight people who know how avoid them for the most part. Because they know how easy it is to get hurt.

Good hands on skills and good mind set well transfer into good weapon handling skills.

It all depends on what level physically, mentally you want to commit to.

POSSESSION OF WEAPON OR DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE IN PUBLIC BUILDING OR COURT FACILITY
166.360 Definitions for ORS 166.360 to 166.380. As used in ORS 166.360 to 166.380, unless the context requires otherwise:
(10) “Weapon” means:
(a) A firearm;
(b) Any dirk, dagger, ice pick, slingshot, metal knuckles or any similar instrument or a knife, other than an ordinary pocketknife with a blade less than four inches in length, the use of which could inflict injury upon a person or property;
(c) Mace, tear gas, pepper mace or any similar deleterious agent as defined in ORS 163.211;
(d) An electrical stun gun or any similar instrument;
(e) A tear gas weapon as defined in ORS 163.211;
(f) A club, bat, baton, billy club, bludgeon, knobkerrie, nunchaku, nightstick, truncheon or any similar instrument, the use of which could inflict injury upon a person or property; or
(g) A dangerous or deadly weapon as those terms are defined in ORS 161.015. [1969 c.705 §1; 1977 c.769 §2; 1979 c.398 §1; 1989 c.982 §4; 1993 c.741 §2; 1999 c.577 §2; 1999 c.782 §6; 2001 c.201 §1; 2015 c.351 §1]

Click to expand...

You are down to carrying a folding pocket knife with a blade no longer than 4 inches.

color of law said:

You are down to carrying a folding pocket knife with a blade no longer than 4 inches.

Click to expand...

A razor sharp blade of almost any size ripped across the tendons of an opponents hand, arm can have a great effect in convincing them to let go of you.

Some times it is not the size of the tool, but their use, that can be the most effective.

Firearms Iinstuctor said:

A razor sharp blade of almost any size ripped across the tendons of an opponents hand, arm can have a great effect in convincing them to let go of you.

Some times it is not the size of the tool, but there use, that can be the most effective.

Click to expand...

the term

O U C H

comes to mind!

solus said:

the term

O U C H

comes to mind!

Click to expand...

Let alone the wire, staples and sutures that might be needed to repair the damage.

Any thoughts as to my legal interpretation?

Small_Arms_Collector said:

Any thoughts as to my legal interpretation?

Click to expand...

Your legal interpretation won't fly. The statute is referring to state issued carry licenses.

ORS166.170(1) says: "Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly."

This is unconstitutional and is in direct conflict with Oregon's constitution, Article 1 Section 27 - The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.

Unless you have deep pockets to fight for your rights if need be, you are stuck with a folding pocket knife, or carry and don't let anybody know. Buy your ticket and take your chances.

color of law said:

Your legal interpretation won't fly. The statute is referring to state issued carry licenses.

ORS166.170(1) says: "Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly."

This is unconstitutional and is in direct conflict with Oregon's constitution, Article 1 Section 27 - The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.

Unless you have deep pockets to fight for your rights if need be, you are stuck with a folding pocket knife, or carry and don't let anybody know. Buy your ticket and take your chances.

Click to expand...

That is the preemption law, I’m not sure what it has to do with what your trying to say. All that is saying (which it makes an annoying exception to in another statute) is that local governments cannot make gun laws as that power is reserved to the state. It says nothing about carry. And even if it did, it also says “Except as expressly authorized by state statute,” and since the other laws I’m talking about are also state statutes than they would not be effected.

Did you maybe mean to post a different law?

Small_Arms_Collector said:

That is the preemption law, I’m not sure what it has to do with what your trying to say. All that is saying (which it makes an annoying exception to in another statute) is that local governments cannot make gun laws as that power is reserved to the state. It says nothing about carry. And even if it did, it also says “Except as expressly authorized by state statute,” and since the other laws I’m talking about are also state statutes than they would not be effected.

Did you maybe mean to post a different law?

Click to expand...

No, the section I posted says the legislature decides what gun rights you have. They don't that power. I made it clear that Oregon law and their own supreme court ruling are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. As I clearly pointed out that the USSC in Heller stated clearly that “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” But, Oregon doesn't care what the USSC says, hence my statement: you are stuck with a folding pocket knife, or carry and don't let anybody know.

color of law said:

No, the section I posted says the legislature decides what gun rights you have. They don't that power. I made it clear that Oregon law and their own supreme court ruling are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. As I clearly pointed out that the USSC in Heller stated clearly that “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” But, Oregon doesn't care what the USSC says, hence my statement: you are stuck with a folding pocket knife, or carry and don't let anybody know.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that the law is unconstitutional, but I’m not seeing how the one you posted means that I am stuck with a folding pocket knife. It only says that gun laws can only be written by the legislature, it mentions nothing about what is or is not legal to carry. Elsewhere the legislature wrote laws that would seem to suggest that what I’m planning is legal, I posted those laws earlier, it’s those laws I am asking about.

If you do not have a valid OR concealed carry license then the gun must be unloaded, no ammo in the chamber and no ammo in the magazine. If the magazine is removed from the gun, it also must not have ammo in it.

Click to expand...

Figure out the best setup you can manage within these constraints. Still better than nothing.

Small_Arms_Collector said:

I agree with you that the law is unconstitutional, but I’m not seeing how the one you posted means that I am stuck with a folding pocket knife. It only says that gun laws can only be written by the legislature, it mentions nothing about what is or is not legal to carry. Elsewhere the legislature wrote laws that would seem to suggest that what I’m planning is legal, I posted those laws earlier, it’s those laws I am asking about.

Click to expand...

I'm getting the feeling that you are a neophyte. Oregon law is like most state law, a jigsaw puzzle. I pointed out that the legislator makes all the gun law. I pointed out that, or someone did, that Oregon does Not accept any other state licenses. I then pointed out that just because they mentions license it is ONLY referring to Oregon license. Then I pointed out that all the law allows is a folding pocket knife with a blade no longer than 4 inches. That is it or what HP995 said.