I was arrested.

EDIT:Sensitive information removed

I would not have posted on open forum any particulars w/o the approval of an attorney.

You would seem to have an excellent case for civil action.

Grapeshot said:

I would not have posted on open forum any particulars w/o the approval of an attorney.

You would seem to have an excellent case for civil action.

Click to expand...

I definitely don't have the money for an attorney or anything like that unfortunately. I know what they did was wrong.

BrandonW said:

I definitely don't have the money for an attorney or anything like that unfortunately. I know what they did was wrong.

Click to expand...

Initial consultation with an attorney is generally w/o charge. Look for an attorney that will accept on a contingency basis - if confirmed, your case is very strong.

Also with such confirmation i.e. redacted arrest papers, media report etc. there are those here that would help you file pro se.

BrandonW said:

I definitely don't have the money for an attorney or anything like that unfortunately. I know what they did was wrong.

Click to expand...

PM sent and also working a few contacts.

Well,,,

BrandonW said:

I definitely don't have the money for an attorney or anything like that unfortunately. I know what they did was wrong.

Click to expand...

Grapeshot said:

Initial consultation with an attorney is generally w/o charge. Look for an attorney that will accept on a contingency basis - if confirmed, your case is very strong.

Also with such confirmation i.e. redacted arrest papers, media report etc. there are those here that would help you file pro se.

Click to expand...

In Portland, without a permit, it is against the code to have cartridges in a magazine or speed loader.
If you carry there, you should should know that.
Guess you do,,, now!

Oregon is not a Duty to notify state.
You should have kept quiet.
Too late for that now!

Never consent to a search without a warrant.
Too bad you did!

Now the search is legal.
The mag found.
The rest is history!

I really am sorry this happened, but I dont think the cop did anything wrong.
I dont think you have any case to pursue.

BTW,,, I have been a "wreckless driver":lol: since about 1980, keeps my insurance cheep.
You are lucky they dropped all the charges against you,
And dont drive in a reckless manner,,, anymore!

1245A Defender said:

In Portland, without a permit, it is against the code to have cartridges in a magazine or speed loader.
If you carry there, you should should know that.
Guess you do,,, now!

Oregon is not a Duty to notify state.
You should have kept quiet.
Too late for that now!

Never consent to a search without a warrant.
Too bad you did!

Now the search is legal.
The mag found.
The rest is history!

I really am sorry this happened, but I dont think the cop did anything wrong.
I dont think you have any case to pursue.

BTW,,, I have been a "wreckless driver":lol: since about 1980, keeps my insurance cheep.
You are lucky they dropped all the charges against you,
And dont drive in a reckless manner,,, anymore!

Click to expand...

I'm leaning towards a possible "test case" challenging the "loaded magazine" restriction in the local ordinance that exceeds their statutory authority. It would be nice to knock that one down especially since Multnomah Co. now has the same or similar verbiage. A win on that might even put a civil rights case on track. Anyone have a knowledgeable answer on that possibility?

Brandon,

This arrest is going to follow you the rest of your life.

Get mad. Fight back. Make them pay cash. A lot of it.

We-the-People said:

I'm leaning towards a possible "test case" challenging the "loaded magazine" restriction in the local ordinance that exceeds their statutory authority. It would be nice to knock that one down especially since Multnomah Co. now has the same or similar verbiage. A win on that might even put a civil rights case on track. Anyone have a knowledgeable answer on that possibility?

Click to expand...

I agree with this, and have wondered the same thing. I will bet the charge will be dropped before a judge rules on it. That way they can keep their illegal law and no one will be the wiser. (Similar to WA state patrol, and their illegal, unmarked, traffic enforcement vehicles)

Never give consent to a search.

Sounds like you're hosed on this one. Reckless driving allows for the detention, you allowed the search of your vehicle. The only part that I don't like is that the officer grabbed your arm, but considering you were detained for reckless driving and volunteered the presence of your weapon, it's possibly permissible.

What you should have done was what others in this thread have already said. Don't post your version of the story until you've spoken to an attorney, but feel free to write down in as much detail as you can remember your recollection of the events. Then talk to an attorney or Kevin at Oregon Firearms Federation to see what an expert has to say. You should also file a public records request for all documentation relating to your arrest so you know what the cop's version of the events is.

Finally, and this is the most important part, don't talk to the cops. If you're pulled over, don't tell them you have a gun. Don't let them search your car. Don't tell them you have a loaded magazine. You nor I nor anybody alive should speak to cops about anything because none of us know the entirety of the law and understand the entirety of the law. Does spinning your tires in the rain constitute reckless driving? I have no idea, you have no idea, and the cop probably has no idea. He just has to convince an 18-year old that it's reason enough to stop you and then go fishing for bigger things like drugs or guns or whatever. You need to be careful out there. Know the laws and try as best as possible to not violate them. Here's the Portland law about loaded magazines, you should have known that having a loaded magazine in your vehicle was something you don't want to volunteer to cops.

Sorry to hear you got jacked. By now you probably realize that you made it easy on the cops. They aren't there to help you have a good day; this isn't the Andy Griffith Show. If you're going to continue to carry in PDX then you need to follow every law to the "T". That includes that stupid empty magazine law that everybody knows is unconstitutional. If you refuse and want to carry a loaded magazine (who could blame you), then make yourself into a nerd and go out of your way to follow every law. Don't jay walk, always stay in those white lines. Always make sure your parking meter is not expired. Drive the speed limit or slower if the speed limit is dangerous. Then at least if/when the cops jack you for your loaded magazine, then that's all they have and lawyers will drool over taking your case for free. Hopefully that makes sense.

This arrest was all about intimidation, they see a young guy and they can change his behavior using the scare tacktics they have learned and use at taxpayer expense. They are hoping that you will not want to carry again and you will line up with the rest of the sheeple.

The next move is yours!

Was there any explanation for the charges being dropped? (Presuming you were in unlawful possession of a loaded mag.)

I know, I know..

I do realize that I made it WAY too easy on those cops. I was just a bit nervous about the whole thing. I knew the whole time that they were just trying to scare me and really grilled me about just WHY I felt I needed to carry a gun. I know you should never say anything or conesnt to the search of anything, but again I was nervous. They have definitely scared me in any way and as soon as I recieve my property back from evidence I will be carrying again. I knew about the PDX loaded mag law, and usually I don't bring one when I have to pass through but I had forgotten to remove it so I lazily just popped it out and put an empty one in. I was told nothing about why they dropped the charges but from the amount of cases that were thrown out, and called no complaint maybe the D.A. was just too busy for any cases that had a good chance to be fought. I'm going to contact Kevin but it seems like some of think this is worth pursuing and some don't.

I don't have the advantage of reading what has happened since the OP has been deleted. However, it seems that you were arrested for having a loaded magazine and probably an otherwise unloaded firearm to go with it.

First of all, the ORS definition of a loaded firearm is simply that there are no rounds attached to the firearm, it doesn't prohibit having loaded magazines on your person. If this is the issue I'd claim that the Portland ordinance exceeds the powers allowed it by the ORS.

If you had a gun that was properly stored for transport in a vehicle (eg. unloaded and locked in the trunk) and a loaded magazine elsewhere I'd fight it by saying that the gun was not in my possession.

Is there any way that you can claim to have been on your way to or from an established gun range or were hunting or fishing? These activities will exempt you, but you have to prove that you were so engaged.

You won't get anywhere arguing that the car on a road isn't a public place, Multnomah County case law says that it is.

Since they dropped the charges I'd only pursue them if you were in fact in compliance with the ordinance.

SteveM said:

I don't have the advantage of reading what has happened since the OP has been deleted. However, it seems that you were arrested for having a loaded magazine and probably an otherwise unloaded firearm to go with it.

First of all, the ORS definition of a loaded firearm is simply that there are no rounds attached to the firearm, it doesn't prohibit having loaded magazines on your person. If this is the issue I'd claim that the Portland ordinance exceeds the powers allowed it by the ORS.

If you had a gun that was properly stored for transport in a vehicle (eg. unloaded and locked in the trunk) and a loaded magazine elsewhere I'd fight it by saying that the gun was not in my possession.

Is there any way that you can claim to have been on your way to or from an established gun range or were hunting or fishing? These activities will exempt you, but you have to prove that you were so engaged.

You won't get anywhere arguing that the car on a road isn't a public place, Multnomah County case law says that it is.

Since they dropped the charges I'd only pursue them if you were in fact in compliance with the ordinance.

Click to expand...

I PM'd you the details Steve.

SteveM said:

I don't have the advantage of reading what has happened since the OP has been deleted. However, it seems that you were arrested for having a loaded magazine and probably an otherwise unloaded firearm to go with it.

First of all, the ORS definition of a loaded firearm is simply that there are no rounds attached to the firearm, it doesn't prohibit having loaded magazines on your person. If this is the issue I'd claim that the Portland ordinance exceeds the powers allowed it by the ORS.

If you had a gun that was properly stored for transport in a vehicle (eg. unloaded and locked in the trunk) and a loaded magazine elsewhere I'd fight it by saying that the gun was not in my possession.

Is there any way that you can claim to have been on your way to or from an established gun range or were hunting or fishing? These activities will exempt you, but you have to prove that you were so engaged.

You won't get anywhere arguing that the car on a road isn't a public place, Multnomah County case law says that it is.

Since they dropped the charges I'd only pursue them if you were in fact in compliance with the ordinance.

Click to expand...

Where is this definition of "Loaded" in the ORS? I'm only finding the definitions in 166.360 which don't apply for 166.170 and 166.173 since 166.360 specifically states that its definitions are "As used in ORS 166.360 to 166.380, unless the context requires otherwise". While the 166.360 definition of loaded might be persuasive, it is not directly applicable. I think that leaves us with the "common definition", which would probably be determined to be at least very close to the 166.360 definition. However, "loaded" for the purposes of a city ordinance under 166.173 isn't defined that I can find.

We-the-People said:

Where is this definition of "Loaded" in the ORS? I'm only finding the definitions in 166.360 which don't apply for 166.170 and 166.173 since 166.360 specifically states that its definitions are "As used in ORS 166.360 to 166.380, unless the context requires otherwise". While the 166.360 definition of loaded might be persuasive, it is not directly applicable. I think that leaves us with the "common definition", which would probably be determined to be at least very close to the 166.360 definition. However, "loaded" for the purposes of a city ordinance under 166.173 isn't defined that I can find.

Click to expand...

Correct, you'd be trying to claim that 166.360 defines "loaded" for the purposes of the city and county regulation. Not to mention "common definition" as you stated. I'm no law expert, but it seems to me like just because Portland made their own definition of "loaded" doesn't mean that it can include whatever they want it to. I hate our laws, they make it a mess for honest citizens to navigate when trying to do the right thing.

BrandonW said:

I PM'd you the details Steve.

Click to expand...

Ok, based on what I read you did violate city ordinance because case law says that the Portland ordinance applies inside of your car when on public roads. If it were me I'd thank my lucky stars and not do it again.

However, I do feel that the ordinance and all like it violate our civil rights. In fact, I am leaving now to go ask the Beaverton City Council to repeal our open carry ban.

SteveM said:

Ok, based on what I read you did violate city ordinance because case law says that the Portland ordinance applies inside of your car when on public roads. If it were me I'd thank my lucky stars and not do it again.

However, I do feel that the ordinance and all like it violate our civil rights. In fact, I am leaving now to go ask the Beaverton City Council to repeal our open carry ban.

Click to expand...

I know I violated the loaded magazine ban. It is a bunch of BS that needs to be changed but it was an accident. Not happening again. I plan on staying out of PDX. But a rather important deatil I left out was the fact that I got the Unlawful Possession of a Firearm charge for carrying it how I was. It was openly carried in a belt holster but obviously not "immediately visible due to the officer being on the drivers side looking in and my weapon on the right side. He said that even though it was in a belt holster, since I was in a vehicle it was concealed. As far as I've read "openly carried in a belt holster" is not considered concealed. But there doesn't seem to be a specific definition of concealed, so is this just a legal gray area?

MattinWA said:

I agree with this, and have wondered the same thing. I will bet the charge will be dropped before a judge rules on it. That way they can keep their illegal law and no one will be the wiser. (Similar to WA state patrol, and their illegal, unmarked, traffic enforcement vehicles)

Never give consent to a search.

Click to expand...

So I was right, the charge was dropped? Figures...