• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Washington OCer busted in Astoria

Lord Sega

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
311
Location
Warrenton, Oregon
Ok, finally had time to go down for more info...

Cost of a full blown FOIA request (911 tapes, recordings/video of officer encounter, reports, etc) would have been too costly, but I did pay for the officer's incident report.
Instead of scanning it, I'm just typing it verbatim (my notes & comments in blue):

**********

Incident Report: A20112292

Summary
I seized a firearm from Russell Jackson at the Astoria Regatta Parade.

Mentioned
Jackson, Russell (personal info / address I'm redacting)
Astoria PD officer (I'm redacting name)

Action Taken
On 08/13/2011 at about 12:48 hrs. I was at the intersection of 16th and Duane. I looked across the street towards the Heritage Museum and saw a male subject, later identified as Russell Jackson wearing a holstered firearm. The firearm was easily seen and no effort to conceal it had been made. I contacted Russell and asked if he had a concealed weapons permit. Ok, so far so good. Astoria does have a unloaded OC ordinance (see below), so the officer has RAS for the stop.

Russell told me he didn't. Russell told me it was "open carry", and that Oregon, with the exception of a few cities was an open carry state. Russell is correct, unfortunately Astoria is one of those cities... oops. I asked Russell if the weapon was loaded. He told me the magazine was loaded, but there was no round chambered. Personally, that's a mistake not to have one in the chamber IMO. I asked Russell to remove the weapon from the holster and hand it to me. He did so. Whoa, personally I would allow the officer to remove the weapon, but I would not touch it myself at this point, no matter how friendly the encounter is going. I ejected the magazine and could see that it was loaded with .45 rounds. I pulled the slide back and found no rounds inside the weapon.

I explained to Russell that the City of Astoria he could not possess a firearm that was either loaded or with a loaded magazine. Yes and no, ORS 166.173 allows cities to have unloaded firearm ordinances, but ORS 166.170 preemption does not allow the Astoria "unloaded magazine" ordinance part. Russell pulled up a web site on his phone and started telling me which cities were not open carry. Mistake IMO. A website, no matter how good, can be wrong or out of date. You would have to go to the official city website (and then Russell would have seen he was in the wrong). I explained again to him that regardless of the website he was looking at, Astoria City Ordinance did not allow him to carry a firearm in the condition he was presently carrying it in. He said he wasn't going to argue the point with me. Good choice at this point. I told him I would be taking the firearm for safekeeping and he could pick it up at APD later in the day. Ok, here is where I have a question. If not arrested or cited, can Russell's handgun be legally seized?

Upon arriving to APD a couple of hours later, I removed the bullets from the magazine and placed the firearm into an evidence locker, that I thought was for temporary storage, however I found out it was not a temporary locker after I closed the door. Oops.

Russell arrived at APD to get his gun. I told him I had mistakenly put it into a permanent locker that I could not access. I provided him contact information for the evidence custodian and directed him to call on Monday to make an appointment. I will assume this was a honest mistake, but now instead of retrieving his handgun at the end of the parade/day and returning home to Hoquiam, WA, Russell will have to make a separate trip back to Astoria during the week (and missing work?) to get his property back.

Statements
See action taken

Evidence/Property
See property report attached
It was a Springfield .45

Action Recommended
Case exceptionally cleared APD clerk I got this from said there was no documentation of this going to the DA's office.

Not sure if the seizure is/was totally legal, but I guess the officer imposed penalty is better than Class C Misdemeanor punishable by up to thirty (30) days confinement and/or a fine in an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00), especially when Russell was in the wrong.
But I would think if the officer was not going to arrest or cite Russell, why would he not just return the handgun after clearing it and informing Russell of the city ordinance and instructing him not to load until outside of the Astoria city limits?

**********

ASTORIA
5.010 Carrying Loaded Firearm Unlawful.
(A) No person shall knowingly carry a firearm, loaded or unloaded, in a park, school ground or public building.
(B) No person on a public street or in a public place shall knowingly carry a firearm upon the person, or in a vehicle under the person's control or in which the person is an occupant, unless all ammunition or missile has been removed from the chamber and from the cylinder, clip or magazine.
(C) Subsections (A) and (B) of this section shall not apply to:
...
(3) Any person having a valid permit issued to the person by lawful authority to carry or use concealed firearms;
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
Thanks Saga! Happy to hear Mr. Jackson was not charged. He may be like my neighbor (and myself for years): because of no permit required for OC he may have just never have bothered...or...it is possible he knew the law just well enough to know that a WA permit was not recognized in OR and that is why he did not produce a WA CPL???.

As you are down there in Clatsup Co, maybe you could ask officer friendly, (the officer involved here); "because the Astoria law only requires a permit issued by a "lawful authority" and does not actually reference the OR CHL...would a WA CPL be enough to comply with their carry law?"
 

Teddybearfrmhell

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
348
Location
Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
Thanks Saga! Happy to hear Mr. Jackson was not charged. He may be like my neighbor (and myself for years): because of no permit required for OC he may have just never have bothered...or...it is possible he knew the law just well enough to know that a WA permit was not recognized in OR and that is why he did not produce a WA CPL???.

As you are down there in Clatsup Co, maybe you could ask officer friendly, (the officer involved here); "because the Astoria law only requires a permit issued by a "lawful authority" and does not actually reference the OR CHL...would a WA CPL be enough to comply with their carry law?"

as state law requires an oregon permit, astoria can not recognize an out of state permit.

166.170¹
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.
 
Last edited:

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
Thanks Sega, it's great to see that the guy wasn't charged. I still don't believe simply being armed in an area where a license is required to have a loaded weapon or magazine constitutes RAS much like driving a car isn't RAS. See Delaware v. Prouse (I believe) and U.S. v. Ubiles for higher court rulings. This should be especially true given the legality of carrying an unloaded firearm without a license, and the inability of officers to detain a person to verify the loaded condition of the weapon (not counting a public building). Of course, none of that matters when you tell the officer you're carrying a loaded weapon and aren't licensed....
 

BadMoon Risin68

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
53
Location
Portland, OR
So if Jackson were to remain silent and not consent to any searches, could he have avoided his weapon being taken away legally? Because the officer was just responded to a MWAG call. He had no probable cause. He wanted to gain knowledge of the suspect that was not doing anything except for spending time with his family.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
FIRST: IANAL Read my disclaimer at the bottom of my post, this is not legal advice only my personal opinion.

Looks like we're back to the "what's the law say" vs "what's the reality" delima. Please bear with me as we examine the black letter law of the ORS and then get to what I believe is something that is going un noticed.


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.


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:

(c) A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.


NOTE: That while ORS 166.173 states that ordinances adopted under it (i.e. local ordinances banning loaded carry) do not apply to "(c) a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun" there is no mention that it must be an OREGON license. Elsewhere in the ORS, this is not the case and the licensing authority required to claim the exemption is identified (by ORS). Let's examine those.


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.

166.262 (1) Limitation on peace officer’s authority to arrest for violating ORS 166.250 or 166.370. A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating ORS 166.250 (1)(a) or (b) or 166.370 (1) if the person has in the person’s immediate possession a valid license to carry a firearm as provided in ORS 166.291 and 166.292.

166.370 Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging firearm at school.
(1) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while
in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
(d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.

NOTE: ORS 166.291 and 166.292 are the Oregon CHL licensing procedures.


Courts place great emphasis upon the specific words used in regulatory statutes. ONLY in ORS 166.173 has the legislature chosen to merely require a license "to carry a concealed handgun" without listing any requirement for the licensing authority of that license (i.e. 166.291 & 292). That the rest of chapter 166 of the ORS DOES require that a concealed handgun license must be issued under ORS 166.291 & 292 is significant.

Therefore, the argument is that while Oregon requires a CHL issued by Oregon in order to:
(1) Be immune from 166.250
(2) Qualify for the protections of 166.262 (LEO can not arrest you for violation of 166.250 or 370) (of course we know how well that works)
(3) Be able to carry in a in public building via 166.370.

It DOES NOT require a concealed handgun license to be issued under ORS 166.291 & 292 (i.e. Oregon CHL) to be exempted from any local ordinances promulgated via the authority of ORS 166.173 (only A license to carry concealed). Nor can the city of Astoria, or any other political subdivision of the state, increase the requirement as they do not have EXPRESS AUTHORITY to override the state statute that exempts people who are "licensed to carry a concealed handgun".

AND THEN THERE IS THE REALITY CHECK

The above argument will NOT keep you from being contacted and arrested (or in the case of this thread merely inconvienienced with no charges). It is an argument to make in a court of law and it would be a

TEST CASE

How much money do you have with which to defend yourself and make the argument HOPING that it will win in court? A MUNICIPAL court which is "owned" by the jurisdiction that has brought you to court? Can you afford an appeal? Do you know how much this might end up costing and you're SURE your can afford the legal fees? The hassles?

AND if you lose, are you willing to pay that price in Money, Time, Stress, and perhaps even loss of rights?
 
Last edited:

Teddybearfrmhell

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
348
Location
Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
@ we the people..... since oregon doesnt not recognize any other states chl wouldnt it be fair to say that they would argue that any other states chl rights exists? therefore the fact that one has a washington chl is irrelevant since its not recognized for any purpose in oregon?

having an out of state chl in oregon is the same as having NO chl in oregon.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
@ we the people..... since oregon doesnt not recognize any other states chl wouldnt it be fair to say that they would argue that any other states chl rights exists? therefore the fact that one has a washington chl is irrelevant since its not recognized for any purpose in oregon?

having an out of state chl in oregon is the same as having NO chl in oregon.


I'm sure they'd argue anything they could think of. Doesn't change the fact of what is written in the black letter law. Nor does it change the REALITY CHECK that it would be expensive and risky.

While I realize that the majority will argue that Oregon does not recognize any other states CHL, there is no statute that states that, it is merely by requiring a CHL issued under 166.291 & 166.292 (Oregon), that causes us not to recognize any others. I would argue that since the "loaded carry ban" provision of 166.173 DOES NOT say the license to carry a concealed handgun must be issued under Oregon statutes, that it does, in fact, recognize other states licenses to carry concealed handguns FOR PROTECTION FROM 166.173 LOCAL ORDINANCES ONLY.

It's a potential legal argument (NOT ADVICE to any of you [not Tedde I know] who would take it as such) and as such may sound sneaky or nefarious but it is based upon the black letter law and if pursued through appeals should prevail. But like we all know, that's expensive. It's not worth it in the big picture which brings us right back to the reality check.

What can I say, I'm not a lawyer...but I'm considering becoming one.

To avoid any further hijacking of this thread, I'll start a new one for this topic.
 
Last edited:
Top