Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: Oregon OC Tri-fold pamphlet

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Scappoose, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    There was an old thread where we collectivley worked on a tri-fold paper that put down the basic gun laws. I'm reviving this in hopes to get some more input.

    Please take a moment to download the PDF and provide some feedback on any changes that could be made to improve this.

    Ken


    Edited - removed PDF file - updated. Refer to later post for newest draft pdf.

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

    Post imported post

    First, Independence repealed it's ordinance. Second, there was a recent court decision which destroyed the idea of the inside of your car not being a "public place".

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    +1 on what Gray has said.

    I would like to add something just before the City Regulations that says something like:

    "The legislature has allowed cities to regulated loaded carry of firearms by persons who do not have a CHL. The following cities have enacted such ordinances:"

    I intend this to compliment the similar paragraph on the reverse side, not replace it.

    I do not like the cartoon front center and would rather see the space used for more useful information. Maybe a "what to do if you are approached by police" or something?

    When it comes time to print I'm in to help.

    -adamsesq

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Scappoose, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    Good input/ideas. I've made the changes.

    What about:

    Engagement with an officer of the law:

    Am I free to go?
    Yes- walk away
    No - Am I being detained?
    For what crime am I being detained?
    Etc?

    I'm sure someone can word-smith it much better than me.

    What about a blurp about recording devices in Oregon?

    You can make a recording of a public conversation as long asyouinform all parties(not asking for permission).



  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    I too thought about recording information but didn't want to push too far. I think it should be there if there is room and having done a lot of layout work I think there will be.

    I don't know if this is any better:

    If you happen to have an encounter an officer be polite and firm and never attempt to resist. Under most circumstances you do not have to voluntarily speak with an officer.If you are carrying a concealed weapon you must produce your CPL if asked.

    Ask: "I am being arrested?"

    If the answer is "Yes" say "I want to speak with my lawyer." and say nothing else.

    If the answer is "No" ask "Am I being detained?"

    If the answer is "Yes" ask "What is your reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is being, has been or is about to be comitted?" (A purely legal act like carrying a weapon openly is not RAS).

    If the answer is anything other than the suspicion of a specific crime politely ask the officer "May I go now?" And do it.

    If the officer gives you a suspicion do not answer further questions with anything other than "I have not, am not and am not about to commit any crime." and "May I go now?" Continue until you are released or arrested.

    This is an example of what you can do, at a minimum and is not legal advice for every encounter.Only you can decide what you will actually do and under what circumstances.
    -adamsesq

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Another thought - we do want to make sure it is police friendly so that they can be some of the people that we hand them to!

    -adamsesq

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Scappoose, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    i.e. - don't put the officer encounter in?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Puddin99 wrote:
    i.e. - don't put the officer encounter in?

    I don't think I am saying that. Just saying that we might want to be careful how we word it. I'm not convinced one way or the other without more thought. What do others think?

    ETA: thinking out loud... What is the purpose of the pamphlet? It's to explain that OC is legal. Is it to promote it? Maybe so. If so then maybe we don't need to put a section in there that says "you may be accosted by police" no matter how nice of words we use????

    OR is it to explain to someone what all of their rights are and how to stand up for those rights? If so then maybe it is appropriate.

    And to a lesser extent this same thought process applies to putting something in on recording...

    -adamsesq


  9. #9
    Regular Member Cremator75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    393

    Post imported post

    Beings that it is an OC pamphlet, I think recording should just be left out. Before you know it, the pamphlet would just be a link to the ORS statute page.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Here is some perspective from a police officer's point of view.

    I'm surprised at the sense of animosity held towards the police. Perhaps, I'm reading into the posts more than I should. I would suspect most advocates of OC or CC are law and order minded folks. Most police officers enjoy firearms and are supporters of gun owner's rights. We aren't looking to intentionally infringe on anyone's right to carry a firearm. It is a supported and understood activity as long as it is done safely and legally.

    If you are contacted by a police officer because you are carrying a firearm, it is important to understand the police officer probably has extremely limited information about the situation. What I mean by this is, I might be sent to Wal Mart for a "Man with a gun" call with no further information. For obvious reasons, we need to assume the worst and take immediate control of the situation and then sort it out.

    In a situation where you are contacted by a police officer, you will be asked to temporarily give him or her your firearm for safety reasons. If you have done nothing wrong and are completely complying with the law, you should have nothing to worry about. It might take us a few minutes to determine no crime has been committed.This does not have to be an adversarial situation.

    Red flags go up in our minds when people immediately become defensive and don't want to discuss the situation. Again, if you've done nothing wrong then you should have nothing to worry about. I'm not aware of police accosting people for carrying a firearm as one of the posts suggests.

    We all need to understand that most of the general public are not well informed on the rights of people to carry firearms. Until that becomes the case, the police will continue getting calls to respond to a "man with a gun" even when no crime has been committed

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Scappoose, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    I'm second guessing this too. I think we should leave out the 'what to do in an encounter'. But I would be for putting in a blurb about audio.

    Thoughts?

    Ken

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    thhanford wrote:
    Here is some perspective from a police officer's point of view.

    I'm surprised at the sense of animosity held towards the police. Perhaps, I'm reading into the posts more than I should. I would suspect most advocates of OC or CC are law and order minded folks. Most police officers enjoy firearms and are supporters of gun owner's rights. We aren't looking to intentionally infringe on anyone's right to carry a firearm. It is a supported and understood activity as long as it is done safely and legally.

    If you are contacted by a police officer because you are carrying a firearm, it is important to understand the police officer probably has extremely limited information about the situation. What I mean by this is, I might be sent to Wal Mart for a "Man with a gun" call with no further information. For obvious reasons, we need to assume the worst and take immediate control of the situation and then sort it out.

    In a situation where you are contacted by a police officer, you will be asked to temporarily give him or her your firearm for safety reasons. If you have done nothing wrong and are completely complying with the law, you should have nothing to worry about. It might take us a few minutes to determine no crime has been committed.This does not have to be an adversarial situation.

    Red flags go up in our minds when people immediately become defensive and don't want to discuss the situation. Again, if you've done nothing wrong then you should have nothing to worry about. I'm not aware of police accosting people for carrying a firearm as one of the posts suggests.

    We all need to understand that most of the general public are not well informed on the rights of people to carry firearms. Until that becomes the case, the police will continue getting calls to respond to a "man with a gun" even when no crime has been committed

    TH, welcome to the group and thank you for your perspective. I am an attorney. I work with law enforcement at that job. I am also a Firefighter/EMT and work with law enforcement at that job too. That is where I come from when I say your perspective is part of the problem. Spend some time looking around opencarry.org and you will see that there is actually a great respect for the LEOs of this country but there are a few bad/unknowledgable ones that law abiding citizens have reason to fear.

    If your dispatcher received a phone call for "man with a cell phone" and actually dispatched it to you and you arrived you would not even think about taking away someones cell phone. A person carrying a weapon is doing nothing more wrong than a person carrying a cell phone and you have no more right to remove their weapon from them than you do a cell phone.

    Now if EITHER their cell phone OR their gun are being used in a threatening manner that isa completely different story and I support you fully. Terry and it's progeney are there to protect you but they do not give you the right to remove a weapon from an otherwise law abiding citizen.

    " If you have done nothing wrong and are completely complying with the law, you should have nothing to worry about. " With all due respect this is not accurate. Or at best this is a line used by oppressors not protectors of our freedoms. It assumes guilt until in your mind you prove we are innocent and that is not how this country works. Law abiding citizens of this country DO have something to worry about every time their rights are stepped upon whether or not they have done something wrong.

    Again, I do not want to detract in any way from the wonderful work that you are doing but I do want to point out that they system that you have obviously been trained in has done you and is doing us a great dis-service.

    If someone makes a MWAG call on me I expect the disptacher to collect as much information as possible. Since I know that is a dream world I expect the officer responding to observe me before approaching (even if that is just a situational awareness review) and after they determine no illegal activity being observed they can approach me and ask me if I want to voluntarily speak with them. I will probably ask them the reason for asking me and politely explain that I have not broken, am not braking and do not intend to break any laws. As they do not have RAS they should say nothing other than "Thank you and have a nice day."

    -adamsesq

    ETA: TH - where are my manners? Please join us in Hillsboro next Sunday (the 19th) for some great food and fellowship. It would be nice to share perspectives personally where the anonymity of the words ona screen don't get in the way.


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Puddin99 wrote:
    I'm second guessing this too. I think we should leave out the 'what to do in an encounter'. But I would be for putting in a blurb about audio.

    Thoughts?

    Ken
    Maybe something like:

    "Remember, police officers are people too and many don't know or understand your right to open carry in this state. Be educated yourself and if you are ever speaking with one of them please do not argue with or resist the police but rather take the opportunity to be a good ambassador and politely educate them; maybe even share one of these pamphlets with them."

    -adamsesq

  14. #14
    Regular Member Cremator75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    393

    Post imported post

    adamsesq wrote:
    Maybe something like:

    "Remember, police officers are people too and many don't know or understand your right to open carry in this state. Be educated yourself and if you are ever speaking with one of them please do not argue with or resist the police but rather take the opportunity to be a good ambassador and politely educate them; maybe even share one of these pamphlets with them."

    -adamsesq
    I like that idea.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Gentlemen, I just want to say I did not post a comment to start an argument, call people names or degrade their training. I simply want to provide perspective. I appreciate youropinion Mr. Attorney and you are right about one thing...Iprobably won't take someone's cell phone when I arrive to a call. However,if I come across someone with a gun, I will control the firearm until the contact is over. Cell phones don't deliver deadly projectiles. Ido not know who the person is with the firearm and I plan on going home at the end of the day. Again, the contact does not have to be adversarial. I always treat people with the respect they deserve and how Iwould like to be treated. I would never argue it unreasonable for an officer to take control of a firearm from an unknown person in any situation. This is called officer safety and the courts have determined it is okay for officers to take reasonable steps to ensure their safety. You should understand that carrying a firearm out in the open is not the 'norm' and suspicions are raised when people see it. Thank you

  16. #16
    Regular Member Cremator75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    393

    Post imported post

    thhanford wrote:
    However,if I come across someone with a gun, I will control the firearm until the contact is over.
    To preface, this is not meant to be derogatory, just simply a question.


    Would you be ok with a law abiding civilian to take control your firearm to ensure their safety. They don't know you either. Civilians have just as much right to ensure their safety and carry firearms as police. I know a guy who's gun was being held by an office who had never handled that model gun before. Guess what, Accidental discharge by the officer. He quickly handed it right back.


    And please try to make it to the lunch. It is always nice to meet new people. I am still trying to get work off.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    I suppose all I can say is if you are going to openly carry a firearm, exercise good common sense if you are contacted by a police officer.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Cremator75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    393

    Post imported post

    thhanford wrote:
    I suppose all I can say is if you are going to openly carry a firearm, exercise good common sense if you are contacted by a police officer.
    Amen to that. I think that is the problem with our world today. No one has any common sense. I personally have never had any problems with officers, but I just threat them with respect and stay calm. Not one has ever taken my gun when staying composed.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Well, thats just it Cremator. We can all treat each other normally and have a normal/decent conversation and walk away with a good experience or possibly a new friend. Otherwise, its possible to turn into a ******* match which is not something I want with guns around.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    thhanford wrote:
    Well, thats just it Cremator. We can all treat each other normally and have a normal/decent conversation and walk away with a good experience or possibly a new friend. Otherwise, its possible to turn into a ******* match which is not something I want with guns around.
    Hopefully you can all make lunch next Sunday and we can have lots of new friends!

    -adamsesq

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    How you coming Puddin?

    I was thinking that this might find a place there too?:
    166.380 Examination of firearm by peace officer; arrest for failure to allow examination. (1) A peace officer may examine a firearm possessed by anyone on the person while in or on a public building to determine whether the firearm is a loaded firearm.[/b]

    (2) Refusal by a person to allow the examination authorized by subsection (1) of this section constitutes reason to believe that the person has committed a crime and the peace officer may make an arrest pursuant to ORS 133.310.
    -adamsesq

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Scappoose, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    It's all good. Getting the changes put in it.

    Was wondering if anyone thought we should put a blurb about the 1000'Fed lawwith schools.

    Ken

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Puddin99 wrote:
    It's all good. Getting the changes put in it.

    Was wondering if anyone thought we should put a blurb about the 1000'Fed lawwith schools.

    Ken
    My gut reaction is no but I think that is because I have a CHL which makes schools totally permissible in Oregon. Since part of this pamphlet is to educate people with OR WITHOUT CHLs, then maybe its not a bad idea.

    Pop me a draft when you get one. I'd love to have some printed by Sunday's OC lunch.

    -adamsesq

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    COME ON GUYS/GALS? Someone has to have some more input. You know the minute Puddin puts this out someone will complain that it is missing something!

    -adamsesq

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    Deleted by moderator known troll.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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