Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: ORS 166.663: Another abortion of firearm law?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    This is in a similar vein to the Oregon No Guns on ATVs law, in that it's only a Class B Traffic Violation (11-20mph speeding ticket).

    Even though it's minor, since the ATV law is mentioned in books, forums, and on sites like handgunlaws.us and the Oregon Firearms Federation, I can't believe I've never seen this one mentioned anywhere but the law itself!

    So I thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention.

    Basically, my guess is that the law was intended to prevent you front shining a flashlight in a police officers face during a traffic stop, or perhaps stop you from using a tac light attached to a firearm from a vehicle.

    But it seems to have the ironic side effect of preventing a person who is open carrying a firearm without a license from turning on their dome light to allow the officer to more clearly see the openly carried weapon. Doh!

    Anyway... thoughts?

    166.663 Casting artificial light from vehicle while possessing certain weapons prohibited. (1) No person shall cast from a motor vehicle an artificial light while there is in the possession or in the immediate physical presence of the person a bow and arrow or a rifle, gun, revolver or other firearm.
    (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a person casting an artificial light:
    (a) From the headlights of a motor vehicle that is being operated on a road in the usual manner.
    (b) When the bow and arrow, rifle, gun, revolver or other firearm that the person has in the possession or immediate physical presence of the person is disassembled or stored, or in the trunk or storage compartment of the motor vehicle.
    (c) When the ammunition or arrows are stored separate from the weapon.
    (d) On land owned or lawfully occupied by that person.
    (e) On publicly owned land when that person has an agreement with the public body to use that property.
    (f) When the person is a peace officer or government employee engaged in the performance of official duties.
    (g) When the person has been issued a license under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed weapon.
    (3) Violation of subsection (1) of this section is punishable as a Class B violation. [1989 c.848 §2; 1999 c.1051 §159; 2005 c.22 §116]

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    428

    Post imported post

    This sounds like the anti-spotlighting law that's on the books here in Virginia. It is designed to prevent people from spotlighting deer. The way it is written here is :"It is unlawful to cast a light attached to a vehicle or from a vehicle beyond a roadway upon places used by deer without written permission of the landowner or at anytime while in possession of a rifle, shotgun,pistol, archery tackle, or speargun." From "Hunting and Trapping in Virginia", July2007-June2008, pg. 22.

    At least Oregon law has an exemption for concealed weapon permit holders.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Scappoose, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    Lasers?



    Ken

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    glocknroll wrote:
    This sounds like the anti-spotlighting law that's on the books here in Virginia. It is designed to prevent people from spotlighting deer. The way it is written here is :"It is unlawful to cast a light attached to a vehicle or from a vehicle beyond a roadway upon places used by deer without written permission of the landowner or at anytime while in possession of a rifle, shotgun,pistol, archery tackle, or speargun." From "Hunting and Trapping in Virginia", July2007-June2008, pg. 22.

    At least Oregon law has an exemption for concealed weapon permit holders.
    I contacted OFF about this. They had the same idea; it was probably only enforced as a hunting regulation. (That's also the likely reason behind our ATV law.)

    None the less, they are going to post a FAQ entry about it. As written, it could be interpreted a lot of different ways, and (no offence to law enforcement) we can usually count on the police to interpret the laws in the ways least favorable to us.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    428

    Post imported post

    grishnav wrote:
    glocknroll wrote:
    This sounds like the anti-spotlighting law that's on the books here in Virginia. It is designed to prevent people from spotlighting deer. The way it is written here is :"It is unlawful to cast a light attached to a vehicle or from a vehicle beyond a roadway upon places used by deer without written permission of the landowner or at anytime while in possession of a rifle, shotgun,pistol, archery tackle, or speargun." From "Hunting and Trapping in Virginia", July2007-June2008, pg. 22.

    At least Oregon law has an exemption for concealed weapon permit holders.
    I contacted OFF about this. They had the same idea; it was probably only enforced as a hunting regulation. (That's also the likely reason behind our ATV law.)

    None the less, they are going to post a FAQ entry about it. As written, it could be interpreted a lot of different ways, and (no offence to law enforcement) we can usually count on the police to interpret the laws in the ways least favorable to us.
    If you could get them to modify it to include something about the illegal taking of game, then it would preclude any misinterpretation by law enforcement.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    grishnav wrote:
    This is in a similar vein to the Oregon No Guns on ATVs law, in that it's only a Class B Traffic Violation (11-20mph speeding ticket).

    Even though it's minor, since the ATV law is mentioned in books, forums, and on sites like handgunlaws.us and the Oregon Firearms Federation, I can't believe I've never seen this one mentioned anywhere but the law itself!

    So I thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention.

    Basically, my guess is that the law was intended to prevent you front shining a flashlight in a police officers face during a traffic stop, or perhaps stop you from using a tac light attached to a firearm from a vehicle.

    But it seems to have the ironic side effect of preventing a person who is open carrying a firearm without a license from turning on their dome light to allow the officer to more clearly see the openly carried weapon. Doh!

    Anyway... thoughts?

    166.663 Casting artificial light from vehicle while possessing certain weapons prohibited. (1) No person shall cast from a motor vehicle an artificial light while there is in the possession or in the immediate physical presence of the person a bow and arrow or a rifle, gun, revolver or other firearm.
    (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a person casting an artificial light:
    (a) From the headlights of a motor vehicle that is being operated on a road in the usual manner.
    (b) When the bow and arrow, rifle, gun, revolver or other firearm that the person has in the possession or immediate physical presence of the person is disassembled or stored, or in the trunk or storage compartment of the motor vehicle.
    (c) When the ammunition or arrows are stored separate from the weapon.
    (d) On land owned or lawfully occupied by that person.
    (e) On publicly owned land when that person has an agreement with the public body to use that property.
    (f) When the person is a peace officer or government employee engaged in the performance of official duties.
    (g) When the person has been issued a license under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed weapon.
    (3) Violation of subsection (1) of this section is punishable as a Class B violation. [1989 c.848 §2; 1999 c.1051 §159; 2005 c.22 §116]
    It sounds like a hunting restriction, like glocknroll said.

    What qualifies as a motor vehicle? Not that it's a big problem in Oregon, but the common way to hunt gators along the Gulf Coast is to troll around in a motorboat with a spotlight and look for eyeshine. Would aquatic hunting that way become illegal?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    grishnav wrote:

    166.663 Casting artificial light from vehicle while possessing certain weapons prohibited. (1) No person shall cast from a motor vehicle an artificial light while there is in the possession or in the immediate physical presence of the person a bow and arrow or a rifle, gun, revolver or other firearm.
    (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a person casting an artificial light:
    (a) From the headlights of a motor vehicle that is being operated on a road in the usual manner.
    (b) When the bow and arrow, rifle, gun, revolver or other firearm that the person has in the possession or immediate physical presence of the person is disassembled or stored, or in the trunk or storage compartment of the motor vehicle.
    (c) When the ammunition or arrows are stored separate from the weapon.
    (d) On land owned or lawfully occupied by that person.
    (e) On publicly owned land when that person has an agreement with the public body to use that property.
    (f) When the person is a peace officer or government employee engaged in the performance of official duties.
    (g) When the person has been issued a license under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed weapon.
    (3) Violation of subsection (1) of this section is punishable as a Class B violation. [1989 c.848 §2; 1999 c.1051 §159; 2005 c.22 §116]
    My thoughts are as follows:

    First, section (g) expempts CPL holders, so that covers MOST situations. Second, I belive your drivers license is an 'agreement' between yourself and the state (read: Public) which enables you to 'operate' your 'motor vehilcle' on 'publicly owned land' (read: roads), and therefore you would be covered by section (e).

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    Phssthpok wrote:
    My thoughts are as follows:

    First, section (g) expempts CPL holders, so that covers MOST situations. Second, I belive your drivers license is an 'agreement' between yourself and the state (read: Public) which enables you to 'operate' your 'motor vehilcle' on 'publicly owned land' (read: roads), and therefore you would be covered by section (e).
    Hah! I love it!

Posting Permissions

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