Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Which less of a Police State?

  1. #1
    Regular Member vermonter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    341

    Post imported post

    I have a friend who is considering a move to either Washington or Oregon. In whichstate are the police more respectful of your constitutional rights and harass you less for petty nonsense? Posted on WA board also.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    32

    Post imported post

    Can't compare the two, myself, but Oregon's fairly open.

    If you've got the CHL, darned near anything goes (except for the restricted court house, federal security area of airports). Sure, like many places, there are bad apples that flex the LEO muscles where the authority doesn't exist, but that's rare.

    Oregon's an open carry state, as well. No laws against open carry, though there are a handful of municipalities that have prohibitions against carrying a loaded firearm. It has state preemption of local laws, which means CHL gets around all the few local variations. Yes, the CHL is "asking permission" for the right, but it is what it is.

    Machine guns and other Class 3 items are fairly plentiful, and shooting on public lands is a common thing for many.

    No laws against brandishing, though there's the standard statutes on intimidation, assault, which essentially (rationally) require clear intent and action.

    As anywhere, if you get your butt in a sling over a firearms charge, it can harm your future ability to legally carry. So, while the national situation is what it is, you've got that basic worry anywhere you go.

    In short: so long as your firearm usage is safe and sane, in Oregon you're very unlikely to even get noticed, even by law enforcement. Even in the larger cities where now and then fearful libs can get bent about "dangerous" firearms in their midst. But, it comes to this: both concealed (with CHL) and open carry is legal in Oregon, for every upstanding adult, with a few municipal ordinance hurdles regarding loaded carry.

    Check the basic statutes here: ORS 166, ORS 163, ORS 161, Municipal ordinances regulating loaded firearms for non-CHL persons, Pamphlet summary of basic laws related to open carry. Basically, if you're an upstanding adult, feel free to carry openly. If you've got a CHL (must-issue state), feel free to carry concealed nearly anywhere. If you need to defend yourself, just be able to justify it as reasonable. No "Castle" law, and nothing ensuring survivors/estates can't sue you in civil court, so that's a big strike against.

    With, say, a Utah non-res CHL, you'll have both Oregon and Washington covered, as well as nearly every other state west of the Mississippi.

    If seriously considering, I'd recommend two books:

  3. #3
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    vermonter wrote:
    I have a friend who is considering a move to either Washington or Oregon. In whichstate are the police more respectful of your constitutional rights and harass you less for petty nonsense? Posted on WA board also.
    What exactly is a constitutional right?



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    32

    Post imported post

    It can be assumed he meant Constitutionally-protected right to bear arms.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Basically, if you're an upstanding adult, feel free to carry openly. If you've got a CHL (must-issue state), feel free to carry concealed nearly anywhere. If you need to defend yourself, just be able to justify it as reasonable. No "Castle" law, and nothing ensuring survivors/estates can't sue you in civil court, so that's a big strike against.
    Oregon needs no "castle" law because it's not required. "Castle Doctrine" is usually an exception to duty to retreat. Oregon had a "castle doctrine" previous to 2007, due to Oregon having duty to retreat in it's case law until State of Oregon v. Sandoval, decided a little over a year ago by the Oregon Supreme Court. The state supreme court chastised the past Supreme Court for relying on an interpretation of a law journal rather than the language itself, and putting in a "duty to retreat" where none existed in the text of the statutes.

    As for civil immunity, this isn't in the statute of either state anyway.

Posting Permissions

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