CC long gun, no CHL

imported post

grishnav said:

Oregon law makes it illegal to conceal a handgun without a license (concealing a long gun is A-OK), but does not make it illegal to carry one openly.

Click to expand...

So I could put on a trench coat with a 18" barrel over-the-top folding stock Rem. 870 under it without a CHL? Could I get some more on this, do you really think it'd hold up in court.

Btw, I don't actually plan on doing this.

imported post

"166.250 Unlawful possession of firearms. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section or ORS 166.260, 166.270, 166.274, 166.291, 166.292 or 166.410 to 166.470, a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly: (a) Carries any firearm concealed upon the person;"

"166.210 Definitions. As used in ORS 166.250 to 166.270, 166.291 to 166.295 and 166.410 to 166.470:
(3) “Firearm” means a weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of powder and which is readily capable of use as a weapon."




So no. It is not legal to do so.


"166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250. (1) ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affect:
(h) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun."




But I'm not a lawyer

imported post

I guess I would maybe suspect that the person that said that might be talking about in a car? Because you CAN carry a loaded concealed long gun in a car. But I'm not sure about in certain city's rules...

imported post

GSXRrider wrote:

I guess I would maybe suspect that the person that said that might be talking about in a car? Because you CAN carry a loaded concealed long gun in a car. But I'm not sure about in certain city's rules...

Click to expand...

I was told on Wednesday by a local PD officer that you can't carry a long gun with a round in the chamber in a vehicle (without CHL). I told him I thought he was wrong but he insisted that "a lot of hunters get in trouble with that one".

I told him I was pretty sure (being non confrontational ya know) he was wrong and that he might want to look that one up.

I also wonder how many people have been cited while on their way to/from hunting or fishing as they are exempt from 166.250 as well even without a CHL. (edit add) But then there are those pesky city ordinances that I believe would come into play as there is no exception on that one, just to 166.250. (end edit add)

imported post

Yeah...pretty sure he is wrong....i'll look it up when i get time.

and what kind of attitude is that?? He sounds like he's TRYING to find a way to give somebody a ticket, and not help them learn one more of the thousands of rules we are supposed to follow. but still haven't found anything about a long gun with a round in the chamber...

imported post

Nah, he was very cool, good attitude, though I was CC. And yeah, he IS wrong.

However, when a citizen brings up gun issues like walking down the street in the town of a uniformed citizen and explaining that his CHL even lets him do that when cities have ordinances against it........ ALL IN A NICE, CALM, CIVIL, CONVERSATION.......

You just KNOW that uniformed citizen KNOWS that the other citizen is CC.

SMILE

Pssst I used to be a politicians.

imported post

I think I was writing that from memory, and may have remembered incorrectly and/or confused it with "in a vehicle," as another poster mentioned. It's illegal to conceal a long gun on your person; but a concealed handgun license (in spite of what the name implies) does exempt you from this.

There is a prohibition on carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle that is emitting artificial light from the inside. I've talked with some people about this (including lawyerly types), and they believe it was intended to be a hunting regulation, and "artificial light" is supposed to mean, for example, a spotlight, but agree it could be construed to something like a dome light. A CHL exempts you from this regulation as well (and again, in spite of what the name implies, exempts you for the purpose of long guns as well).

So ironically, if you get pulled over and have a loaded firearm openly carried, at night, you're prohibited by law from turning on the dome light for officer friendly. Go figure. I suppose we should expect nothing less from the Oregon legislature.

(On the flip side, if you are caught in this situation, it's a Class B moving violation, which is equivalent to exceeding the speed limit by 11-20mph. Eat the ticket and avoid getting shot.)

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]

Click to expand...

Oh yeah. I myself am not a lawyer, none of this is legal advice, blah blah blah blah blah... (little nervous now that I've been quoted on something it appears I was wrong about )

imported post

Personally, I can't imagine the officer that is going to write someone on an obscure law like that which is obviously intended for stopping people from using a light source to illuminate a target (whether 4 legged or 2). If one did though, I'm pretty sure taking it to court would be a simple matter of self representation, explaining to the judge, and getting a precedent set (at least in that jurisdiction).

I've noticed a few inconsistencies in the ORS as well and while I'm digging through them I'm going to start noting them along with recommendations. Then schedule an appointment with my legislators office to present the inconsistencies along with proposed (simple plain English) corrections.

imported post

I think it would be a really, really good idea to turn on the dome light.

And I don't think they would even consider trying to get you on 166.663 for it.

"Casting a light from a vehicle" - I would say only lights specifically designed to cast light from a vehicle - such as headlights, fog lights, mounted or hand-held spot/flash lights - those allowing target acquisition - would be considered under this statue.

Incidental light emitting externally from a light source otherwise designed to illuminate the interior of a vehicle should be excepted.

It would be nice if that were in the statute.

I've been reading the ORS too much recently...

IANAL, etc.

~Auto