Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Visiting Rhododredron, Oregon over Christmas Break From Wash.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    My family and I are vacationing at Mt. Hood this Christmas, staying in Rhododendron, Or. I am from Washington. I know my CPL is no good down there, so I'll have to OC. I've found the OR code that says I have the right keep my Glock for personal protection in my rental cabin. However I can't find a single thing about transporting my gun to the location.

    So my ques. is this. Can I have my gun in my holster, loaded, while driving threw Oregon? Or do I have to have it in a locked case with the mag. unloaded? Recommendations?

    Also, is there anything else that might be a NEED-TO-KNOW?

    Thanks for your help.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    You only need to remove all ammunition from your sidearm and magazine* as you travel through Portland. Once you cross over into Gresham, you're back among the sane and free population of Oregon. Even in Portland there is no requirement to case your sidearm for transport. In fact, it's probably a good idea not to as Oregon's definition of 'concealed' does not include any exceptions for firearms transported in a case.

    *Portland's loaded magazine prohibition is arguably in violation of state law, but it's up to the individual if they want to risk/fight that.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Beaverton (Ugh!), Oregon, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    Phssthpok wrote:
    *Portland's loaded magazine prohibition is arguably in violation of state law, but it's up to the individual if they want to risk/fight that.
    There are also "loaded magazine prohibitions" in Beaverton and Tigard city ordinances as well. Any word on the legality of these?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    TiP wrote:
    Phssthpok wrote:
    *Portland's loaded magazine prohibition is arguably in violation of state law, but it's up to the individual if they want to risk/fight that.
    There are also "loaded magazine prohibitions" in Beaverton and Tigard city ordinances as well. Any word on the legality of these?
    I am unaware of any prohibition on a loaded magazine which is NOT attached to the firearm in either of those cities, but such ordinances would be of similar questionable legality as Portland's.

    Follow my logic:
    ************************************************** *****************
    166.170 State preemption.
    (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.
    (2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]
    ************************************************** ******************
    166.173 Authority of city or county to regulate possession of loaded firearms in public places.
    (1) A city or county may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession of loaded firearms in public places as defined in ORS 161.015.
    (2) Ordinances adopted under subsection (1) of this section do not apply to or affect:
    (a) A law enforcement officer in the performance of official duty.
    (b) A member of the military in the performance of official duty.
    (c) A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.
    (d) A person authorized to possess a loaded firearm while in or on a public building or court facility under ORS 166.370. [1995 s.s. c.1 §4; 1999 c.782 §8]
    ************************************************** ******************


    Note that nowhere in ORS 166.170 - 176 is there any authorization for a "county, city or other municipal corporation or district" to restrict or prohibit the possession or transportation of ammunition, or magazines (empty or not)...only firearms.

    A magazine is NOT a firearm...it is a component, and as such is specifically exempt from regulation by the above mentioned political subdivisions.

    IMO, so long as the magazine is not attached to the firearm then neither Portland nor any other political subdivision has any la
    wful authority to dictate whether it may contain ammunition or not as to do so would be regulating the 'possession' of ammunition, and (firearm) components.



  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Beaverton (Ugh!), Oregon, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    So, to review: A handgun with no magazine inserted, with loaded magazines in the magazine pouch on the front of the holster, but NOT actually inserted into the weapon, should be good, right?

    Also, "ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void", we should assume that only the "loaded magazine prohibition" clause itself is void, and not the whole ordinance? I.E. the ordinance would read the same, except with a line through the language referring to magazines?

    I hate to belabor this topic, but it's clearly something that none of us can afford to be wrong about. (Especially ME, for reasons made obvious in another thread.)

Posting Permissions

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