-
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.
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Open carry where alcohol is served
- Thread starter bigboar
- Start date
adamsesq
Regular Member
imported post
bigboar wrote:
No restrictions in Oregon, unlike many other states.
-adamsesq
bigboar wrote:
Is there any statute that prohibits open carry in bars or taverns? Bear in mind I'm not advocating getting loaded while loaded, I just would like to enjoy a burger and a beer. Any help?
No restrictions in Oregon, unlike many other states.
-adamsesq
adamsesq
Regular Member
imported post
SKN wrote:
Can you please find me anywhere in Oregon law where posting makes a difference?
-adamsesq
SKN wrote:
Unless it's posted or you're asked to leave there's no statutory prohibition but it would be ill advised, even if you personally do not intend to imbibe adult beverages.
Can you please find me anywhere in Oregon law where posting makes a difference?
-adamsesq
adamsesq
Regular Member
imported post
SKN wrote:
-adamsesq
SKN wrote:
Again, can you please find me where this is the law in Oregon. I propose that it is not. If something is posted I decide whether I would want to patronize such a place, but if I do I walk right in. I do not believe that a posting means anything in Oregon.To clarify: NO requirement to post BUT if it is, it's a NO GO.
-adamsesq
imported post
Trespassing statute. These are not alcoholic beverage establishments but they do have signs posted so please try to attend a motion picture at any AMC or Regal theatre facility, or try to visit Oregon Gardens, or shop at Clackamas Town Center (1 sign on 1 door) or some business establishments in NE Portland. I'd be interested in the results so please post your account of what occurs.
Trespassing statute. These are not alcoholic beverage establishments but they do have signs posted so please try to attend a motion picture at any AMC or Regal theatre facility, or try to visit Oregon Gardens, or shop at Clackamas Town Center (1 sign on 1 door) or some business establishments in NE Portland. I'd be interested in the results so please post your account of what occurs.
adamsesq
Regular Member
imported post
SKN wrote:
OK. The closest I could come up with is criminal tresspas with a firearm:
Note that this requires you to "enter or remain unlawfully." The definitions used for this section are here:
The general public is a invitee/licensee of a business open to do business with the public. In order for you then to violate this section you would have to be "lawfully directed not to do so (remain or re-enter) by a person in charge." I am not aware of any law (case law or statutory) that equates a posting of some sign with a lawful direction by a person in charge. Such a case might exist as I have not searched case law thoroughly for this so I can't say for certain it does not exist but I don't believe it does.
If I get really bored some time (or someone pays me to do so) I just might pursue that further. But until then I don't have a problem, for me, ignoring a posted sign and entering and remaining in a business unless I am asked to leave by a person in charge. This is not my legal advice and not for anyone to rely on, it's just what I do personally.
-adamsesq
SKN wrote:
Trespassing statute. These are not alcoholic beverage establishments but they do have signs posted so please try to attend a motion picture at any AMC or Regal theatre facility, or try to visit Oregon Gardens, or shop at Clackamas Town Center (1 sign on 1 door) or some business establishments in NE Portland. I'd be interested in the results so please post your account of what occurs.
OK. The closest I could come up with is criminal tresspas with a firearm:
164.265 Criminal trespass while in possession of firearm. (1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.[/b]
(2) Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. [1979 c.603 §2]
Note that this requires you to "enter or remain unlawfully." The definitions used for this section are here:
164.205 Definitions for ORS 164.205 to 164.270. As used in ORS 164.205 to 164.270, except as the context requires otherwise:[/b]
(1) “Building,” in addition to its ordinary meaning, includes any booth, vehicle, boat, aircraft or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying on business therein. Where a building consists of separate units, including, but not limited to, separate apartments, offices or rented rooms, each unit is, in addition to being a part of such building, a separate building.
(2) “Dwelling” means a building which regularly or intermittently is occupied by a person lodging therein at night, whether or not a person is actually present.
(3) “Enter or remain unlawfully” means:
(a) To enter or remain in or upon premises when the premises, at the time of such entry or remaining, are not open to the public or when the entrant is not otherwise licensed or privileged to do so;
(b) To fail to leave premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed to do so by the person in charge;
(c) To enter premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed not to enter the premises; or
(d) To enter or remain in a motor vehicle when the entrant is not authorized to do so.
(4) “Open to the public” means premises which by their physical nature, function, custom, usage, notice or lack thereof or other circumstances at the time would cause a reasonable person to believe that no permission to enter or remain is required.
(5) “Person in charge” means a person, a representative or employee of the person who has lawful control of premises by ownership, tenancy, official position or other legal relationship. “Person in charge” includes, but is not limited to the person, or holder of a position, designated as the person or position-holder in charge by the Governor, board, commission or governing body of any political subdivision of this state.
(6) “Premises” includes any building and any real property, whether privately or publicly owned. [1971 c.743 §135; 1983 c.740 §33; 1999 c.1040 §10; 2003 c.444 §1]
The general public is a invitee/licensee of a business open to do business with the public. In order for you then to violate this section you would have to be "lawfully directed not to do so (remain or re-enter) by a person in charge." I am not aware of any law (case law or statutory) that equates a posting of some sign with a lawful direction by a person in charge. Such a case might exist as I have not searched case law thoroughly for this so I can't say for certain it does not exist but I don't believe it does.
If I get really bored some time (or someone pays me to do so) I just might pursue that further. But until then I don't have a problem, for me, ignoring a posted sign and entering and remaining in a business unless I am asked to leave by a person in charge. This is not my legal advice and not for anyone to rely on, it's just what I do personally.
-adamsesq
adamsesq
Regular Member
imported post
SKN wrote:
At most I find a sign a desire of the owner that they don't want weapons there just like they don't want a lot of things that are also on mall signsbut just knowing that it is not wanted is not the same thing as lawfully directed not to enter. Further I have no reason to know that any signs I might see are placed there by a person in charge nor that they were specifically directed at me like the statute seems to require.
There is further persuassive, though not controlling, support in that other states where they want signs to be sufficient do have statutes that so state.
-adamsesq
SKN wrote:
While I believe someone might try and argue that point, I do not consider it so nor can I find any statutory or case law that says it is - and I went back and looked for case law. There is no case in Oregon that I could find that finds that a sign is sufficient notice. In fact there are no cases on signs and 165.205 period.Thanks for posting ORS 164.205 (3) (c).
So you consider a posted sign placed by the owner of the property to NOTbe a lawful direction to not enter?
At most I find a sign a desire of the owner that they don't want weapons there just like they don't want a lot of things that are also on mall signsbut just knowing that it is not wanted is not the same thing as lawfully directed not to enter. Further I have no reason to know that any signs I might see are placed there by a person in charge nor that they were specifically directed at me like the statute seems to require.
There is further persuassive, though not controlling, support in that other states where they want signs to be sufficient do have statutes that so state.
-adamsesq
DenWin
Regular Member
imported post
I'm not certain about this, but I remember something about 6 or 7 years ago in a criminal justice class about signs. Although signs are requirements in some instances, ie I believe it is no trespassing signs need to be posted every 50 feet, you can still only get a warning for trespassing, even if you trespass at the sign. I believe this was to protect people who are illiterate or maybe are literate but may not understand the wording of the signs. Some one with english as a second language may misinterpret the meaning of the posted sign, especially if it has any sort of legal jargon in it. Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but that's just my two cents.
I'm not certain about this, but I remember something about 6 or 7 years ago in a criminal justice class about signs. Although signs are requirements in some instances, ie I believe it is no trespassing signs need to be posted every 50 feet, you can still only get a warning for trespassing, even if you trespass at the sign. I believe this was to protect people who are illiterate or maybe are literate but may not understand the wording of the signs. Some one with english as a second language may misinterpret the meaning of the posted sign, especially if it has any sort of legal jargon in it. Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but that's just my two cents.
imported post
I have acted on signs just as adamsesq has opined on the subject and have had no problems with OC as of yet. I also have read the statutes for Oregon as well as my local city and have found no teeth behind the sign issue. As far as I am concerned, the sign is an opinion of owner/management and it takes someone in charge to enforce tresspass. I manage a private property in my town with public access and I know I have to jump through a few hoops to enforce tresspass on invited persons.
I try never to assume anything regarding firearms law, always.. always do the research. I really enjoy everyones opinions here but always look it up in statute as well. Then I usually ask for help deciphering those statutes.. hehe.. it is not always real clear. Then you have conflicting statutes.. arg.. sorry, I have to go get some coffee now.. Dutch Bros. here I come!!
I have acted on signs just as adamsesq has opined on the subject and have had no problems with OC as of yet. I also have read the statutes for Oregon as well as my local city and have found no teeth behind the sign issue. As far as I am concerned, the sign is an opinion of owner/management and it takes someone in charge to enforce tresspass. I manage a private property in my town with public access and I know I have to jump through a few hoops to enforce tresspass on invited persons.
I try never to assume anything regarding firearms law, always.. always do the research. I really enjoy everyones opinions here but always look it up in statute as well. Then I usually ask for help deciphering those statutes.. hehe.. it is not always real clear. Then you have conflicting statutes.. arg.. sorry, I have to go get some coffee now.. Dutch Bros. here I come!!