• 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.

Showing CHL if OC in Portland

Allfat

New member
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
2
Location
Oregon
Hey guys,

I have searched, but can't find this information. I have my Oregon CHL and CC daily. I do not open carry much, mostly when camping and hiking. If I were to open carry in Portland or one of the other areas that has banned it, and I was approached by a LEO, would I have to produce a CHL if prompted?

Thanks in advance for your help!
 

Warren Drouin

Regular Member
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
125
Location
Medford, Oregon, United States
My answer would me a no. why? Because the officer must have reasonable suspicion of a crime to detained any individual. If a officer detained you, you should tell him/her that you are audio recording (if you have a audio recorder), that you don't consent to this detainment (illegal or legal it can help in the a lawsuit), you don't consent to any searches and seizure, and you plead the 5th (right to remain silent). If the officer ask you any question and you don't want to answer, just say "no comment" or "I plead the 5th". Most officer will ask these question such as "do you have a CHL", "Is it loaded", "Do you have ID" all you have to do is say no comment. You are not legally required to answer any of the officer questions. If the officer start to demand you, just let them know and on audio recording "for the record I don't consent to any search and seizure, but I won't resist" In Oregon, we don't have an stop and ID law except when you are driving.

Disclaimer: This is not legal advice, please seek a lawyer for legal advice.
 

Warren Drouin

Regular Member
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
125
Location
Medford, Oregon, United States
Side note: For your information it is not illegal to open carry in the state of Oregon without a CHL, but city and county have the authority to banned LOADED firearms in there jurisdiction when a person does not have a CHL. So you can legally carry a firearms unloaded without any restriction anywhere in the state of Oregon except for public building, capital building, court building, federal building, and the (GFSZA) Gun Free School Zone Act (1995 federal law) of a 1000' radius of a property from K to K12. Once you have a CHL, then you are exempt with any firearm from all gun bans and GFSZA except court buildings and federal buildings.

Disclaimer: This is not legal advice, please seek a lawyer for legal advice.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
The real law answer is yes and no. Yes if you are in a public building, no, if you are elsewhere. Same as if you were CC.

Law specifically states you must produce your CHL, if requested by proper authority, while in a public building.

If you have a CHL, but do not have it on you, they can ticket you, but charge will be dismissed if you present your valid CHL to the court. That is also spelled out in state law.
 
Last edited:

Teddybearfrmhell

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
348
Location
Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
the goal of some people is to create conflict..... the goal of others is to avoid it. while oc in a banned city the arguement has been made that you need not produce your chl..... its a banned city, you are going to be hassled, ticketed at a minimum, arrested if they can IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO SHOW YOUR CHL.

you need to understand that IF you are arrested and they can make ANY firearm charge stick, you will have your chl revoked AND most like be barred from ever getting another chl in any jurisdiction. ANY firearms conviction will be enough to deny you.

my policy, if asked, i produce it. if not asked, i dont volunteer it....
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
The short, easy answer is yes, show your CHL if open carrying in PDX.

The long, convoluted answer where you end up being a test-case in a courtroom is probably (in my opinion) no.

Law specifically states you must produce your CHL, if requested by proper authority, while in a public building.

I don't believe this to be 100% accurate. Can you provide a citation?
 

Warren Drouin

Regular Member
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
125
Location
Medford, Oregon, United States
You should ask Oregon Firearm Federation they will give you the RIGHT answer. http://oregonfirearms.org/
Since you only will get arguments in this site, Oregon Firearm Federation is my recommendation or a lawyer. Truly there will be people
on this site that will immediately type you to give away your rights to any public official. I will never recommend you to surrender your
personal privacy to anyone.
 

Teddybearfrmhell

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
348
Location
Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
You should ask Oregon Firearm Federation they will give you the RIGHT answer. http://oregonfirearms.org/
Since you only will get arguments in this site, Oregon Firearm Federation is my recommendation or a lawyer. Truly there will be people
on this site that will immediately type you to give away your rights to any public official. I will never recommend you to surrender your
personal privacy to anyone.


huh?
 

Judge.410

New member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
77
Location
, ,
Why should we have to show our CHL, when we open carry which is perfectly legal? (without any kind of permission slip from the teacher) Except of course in Porkland area, where alot of laws are different. It's a totally seperate communist country. "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE "INFRINGED". Even a CHL is an "INFRINGEMENT" Constitutional Carry for everyone ! That would cause the brady bunch some concern. Lock and Load Folks....they are coming !










WHEN PEOPLE LOSE EVERYTHING.....THEN THEY LOSE IT !
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
well since the OP was about the need to show your CHL if you open carry in portland.... the answer is still YES

Not to throw gasoline on a fire but....well okay just a little gasoline......

NOTE: This is merely a thought exercise in the technicalities of the law as written, not as it is enforced in real life.

What is the difference between an officer in say, Medford, stopping an OCer "to make sure you're not a felon and therefore prohibited from carrying" and an officer in Portland stopping an OCer "to make sure you have a permit to carry because you might be carrying loaded" (he can't tell if your clip is loaded if it's installed in the pistol.

Since ORS 166.173 states that local ordinances "do not apply to CHL holders" then the ordinance does not apply (i.e. it is not enforceable). If it does not apply, the officer has no means by which to lawfully demand production of the CHL (for open carry). Also, since loaded open carry is not unlawful for anyone with a CHL, and unloaded open carry is lawful for anyone not otherwise prohibited, case law would seem to make the mere presense of a firearm, in and of itself, insufficient to provide Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that a crime is being committed.

Further, ORS 166.170 specifically states that only the Legislature can regulate firearms "Except as expressly authorized by state statute...". ORS 166.173, while granting authority to cities and counties to "...adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession of loaded firearms in public places as defined in ORS 161.015" it does not, as required by 166.170 grant express authority to inspect firearms. In fact, the only time that the legislature allows inspection of a firearm for loaded condition is under ORS 166.380 (in or on a public building). 166.173 does not grant express authority to cities and counties to broaden the occasions upon which they may inspect firearms for loaded condition and combined with the wording of 166.173 that specifically states it does not apply to CHL holders, cities and counties are, technically, unable to stop for inspection of documents (CHL) or load condition in the absense of some OTHER reason that gives them RAS that you are comitting a crime.

However, as I've said before.....REALITY CHECK...Do YOU want to be the test case (no, not you Tedde, I'm fairly certain neither of us wants to be the test case).
 

Teddybearfrmhell

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
348
Location
Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
its funny what people opine but would never actually DO.

i belong to a motorcycle forum where this asshat often tells newbs that they dont need to balance their new motorcycle tires (something he READ in a magazine about how this famous racer doesnt use anything to balance his new tires) .....

well this asshat has pics of his bikes posted and each and everyone of his bike has visible lead weights on the rims..... so this asshat is not only a foolish know-it-all but also a danger to some newb who is going to listen to him AND die in a wreck because he thinks said asshat is right BUT the asshat doesnt even follow his OWN advice.......

so, what that got to do with this???? not a thing IF you are in portland and want to OC without a chl..... not just a chl and refusing to show it, but no chl at all because its an INFRINGEMENT ....... seriously guys........ put up or shut up..... BE THE TEST CASE!!!

not one of you who espouses the refusal, or claims infringement will ever do it, you would rather some witless newb do it for you and you should be ashamed.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
The OP question was "would I have to". The OP also stated that he already had his CHL...so

It is quite simple. You state what the law states, and that is "only if you are in a public building." ORS 166.380

If you were to ask a lawyer, that is the same answer he would give to the OP question as posed, with the supplimental information given.

I did not say, nor did anyone else say, that the person should/or should not show his CPL at any other time. I only stated that was the only place it was required if asked by "lawful authority".

Does not mean that you may possibly be asked for your CHL at some other time? Of course not, you know that (some of) the Portland police like to play by their own rules and don't really care what the law states. It is up to the person, in that particular position, at that particular time, to determine for him/herself if they want the hassel, or not. If they have some method of backing up their side of the story, or not.

BTW: IMHO even with Oregons crazy wiretap laws, I do not believe you need to tell a police officer, in the course of his public duties, that you are recording him. I think there are enough court cases (yes in other states) that have proven that...again...you may create another hassle for yourself doing that, but I also think it would be more impressive in a civil rights suit if you did tell the office he is being recorded and he still abuses his position.

There are other places beside Portland that have police officers that think OC is for their own elite private club only too, again reguardless of what the law states. Of course, those kinds of officers can end up costing the local tax payers, but that is what happens when you don't train and control them properly.
 

Historyman1942

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
55
Location
Salem, OR
The only time according to the law you are required to show it is if you are in carrying what would be defined as a concealed weapon upon your person or in your immediate possession in a vehicle.

The 166.173 only indicates that individuals who are exempt must be licensed. Indicates nothing about having the CHL on their immediate person. To quote:

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.

166.262 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. [1999 c.1040 §5]

Nowhere in 166.262 does it indicate anything regarding 166.173, only 155.250 (1)(a) or (b) or 166.370 which are

166.250. (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;

(b) Possesses a handgun that is concealed and readily accessible to the person within any vehicle;

and

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......

Again I just quote the law. I am not saying anything on how some police officers will react.
 
Last edited:

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
I see a lot of this....

"It's an infringement of my rights to be required to show a CHL or required to have a CHL as it's an infringement".

If the Supreme Court of United States agreed with you, they would have taken Charles Williams v. State of Maryland. They did not.

2A constitutional doctrine is still in it's infancy in terms of effects on the gun owning public at large. We've had numerous state cases, where the Oregon State Supreme Court nullified the state RKBA provision (which was later partially restored by not fully by a later case) over a semi-auto ban passed by Portland. They were challenged in court by OSSA, and they lost. This resulted in a state preemption statute passed by the Legislature and put into law by veto-override over then (and now again) Governor Kitzhaber, which annihilated the local ordinance.

In the next 2 years, there will be a right to carry decision coming out of the SCOTUS. There will be further litigation coming from that decision, but most of the battle will be won.

If something is a right, it cannot be subject to discretionary licensing, either prior restraint form or post-hoc. Oregon allows cities and counties to ban loaded carry but exempts a CHL holder. Though Oregon claims to be a shall-issue state, there is still too much discretion for residents in terms of the "willies clause" in the statute, definitely too much discretion for contiguous state residents (it's may-issue fully), and does not issue to residents of non-contiguous states (WY, MT, UT).

When you eliminate the discretion involved, they cannot justify doing anything to the courts in terms of charging money for the $50 portion of the fee. The fingerprinting check, sure (which is already $15). But remember that the sheriff's are required by state law to charge the $50 fee, and cannot lower it, even in cases of indigent applicants (court case opportunity here).

If we get to the level that Sheriff's cannot have discretion and then cannot dote over applications to the point they have been because now it's a rubber stamp, and they cannot do a bunch of "investigation time" to justify that $50 to a federal court, the sheriff's will not want anything to do with it and will ask the legislature to repeal the concealed carry ban and remove the state preemption exemptions law (ORS 166.173). You win it politically, it won't come back, and you'll have Vermont/Arizona-style carry (without the problematic disclosure requirement that's in Alaska law...)

Getting back to the subject at hand. Legality and practicality are two completely different things. The federal district court of Oregon is not going to rule that you do not have to show your CHL in a plaintiff civil rights action against officers demanding your CHL, you refusing to disclose, and them arresting you for a crime under local law. The police will be covered by immunity principles under Ex Parte Young, even if you win the underlying case that says they cannot require it in the first place. Your lawyer will get court fees, and *maybe* you'll get your non-refundable bail money back, but that's about it.

Until we get some better case law out of SCOTUS in terms of identifying the right to carry already pre-existent, and some Federal District Court or 9th Circuit case law involving the applicability of such cases to California (currently being litigated in Richards v. Prieto in the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit), the best choice of options is to show the CHL to spare yourself the bail money and the arrest, and spare the rest of us bad case law which can bite us in the ass.
 
Top