• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

ORS 166.663: Another abortion of firearm law?

grishnav

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
736
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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]
 

glocknroll

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
428
Location
Hampton, Virginia, USA
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.
 

grishnav

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
736
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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. :(
 

glocknroll

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
428
Location
Hampton, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Liko81

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
496
Location
Dallas, TX, ,
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?
 

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
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). :cool:
 

grishnav

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
736
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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). :cool:
Hah! I love it!
 
Top