Open Carry in a police station in medford oregon

[We-the-People]

To Soldier.... recently joined, four posts, and what I've read in those posts, it appears that you might (might not are) be trolling or an agent provacateur....(which is an "enemy" agent who comes in to stir the pot in an attempt to get "dirt" on those being provoked) basically they're the same thing, the former is amateur action while the latter is generally endorsed by an organization of some sort (like the brady bunch, government, etc.). That you are now attempting to engage in a civil debate tends to discount those possibilities and point to a simple matter of being new.

To Tedde.... in the Corps we call Hearts the "forgot to duck" medal. It's not to discount that the individual shed blood (or was otherwise injured) in service to our country but rather to differentiate it from the much more "prestigious" awards for heroism. Hearts are respected, they cause emotions to surface when one meets a fellow with a Heart (or several), but they also are recognized as not rising to the level of heroism in combat. Those honors, with even more severe emotional attachments, are reserved for those awards for personally bravery, gallantry, and actions above and beyond the call of duty. The Bronze and Silver stars, Navy Cross, and Congressional Medal of Honor (CMH).

I've met many (as I'm sure you have) Heart recipients. On active duty they were usually not even mentioned because most recipients would minimize the meaning of the award, calling almost unanimous attention to the fact that they "simply were in the wrong place" while Star, Cross, and CMH recipients "earned" their awards.

I respect anyone who served or currently serves, I respect those that have shed blood in enemy actions, but the simple fact is that Hearts are not an award for heroism. Heroism requires particular personal action, beyond that of ones peers, to be taken in the face of enemy contact, Hearts "merely" require one to be present and take a hit. That isn't meant to minimize the fact that they were there, in harms way, serving their country, only to differentiate having been hit in enemy action from the heroic acts which garner Stars, Crosses, and CMH awards (and the many such actions that go unnoticed).

Drill Instructor Sergeant Collins, MCRD, 1979. In explaining the "effective range" of hand grenades he related how he got his Heart. While stitting on a log in Vietnam, eating lunch with two friends, a grenade landed in front of them. Collins survived, his buddies didn't. He made two points. One the grenade had indeed met it's "effective range" specifications and two, that Hearts are not an indication of heroism.

lI will never forget the first time I met a CMH holder. SgtMaj Kellog, USMC. It was late October of '82 at NCO Acadamy, Camp H.M. Smith, HI. Kellog had thrown himself on a grenade in Vietnam to save his fellow Marines. Shaking his hand I felt I was in the presence of a great man, a hero of our nation. The Heart that came with his injuries was nothing compared to the unselfish heroism that "earned" him the CMH.

The comments in the video at the police station, regarding the Heart medal, were inappropriate but were obviously (to me anyway) made out of ignorance rather than disrespect. Considering that the first (and likely only) knowledge of the Purple Heart award that the older of the two young men had probably ever received was during the Kerry campaign in which his three Hearts were alternately presented as proof of his being "a war hero" and as his "quick ticket out", is it any wonder the young men have no concept of the significance of a Purple Heart?

I don't disrespect the Heart, but I recognize its proper place in the heirarchy of personal awards. The Stars, Crosses, and CMH are often accompanied by a Heart from the same action but by itself it is not an award for heroism.

 

[Teddybearfrmhell]

i am not going to debate this further, it doesnt matter a bit to me what it was called in the corps.... its disrespectful.

and while we are at it, its NOT the Congressional Medal of Honor, or CMH..... its the MEDAL OF HONOR..... nothing more, nothing less

 

[bigtoe416]

You're right, one's demeanor and how they act is not juris prudence in any criminal arrest, however courts and attourneys all over America routinely use them to set up something called "reasonable suspicion". Reasonable suspician, as you may know, is cause for a stop and frisk - otherwise known as a detention.

I'd love to read any citation you have where somebody's demeanor was the only thing used for reasonable and articulable suspicion. Perhaps in some states there is a broad law for disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace but disorderly in Oregon can only be one of a short list of things, none of which include having a poor demeanor. But again, if you have a citation, please provide a link.

Additionally, having reasonable and articulable suspicion is not the same as having the ability to frisk somebody. In Terry v. Ohio the Supreme Court says that RAS is required as well as the officer having a reason to believe that the person is armed as well as dangerous. In this case the Medford PD would be hard pressed to talk about the many open carriers or CHL holders that are dangerous. Thus not only did RAS exist, but even if it did a frisk would not be allowed.

Here is my citation from Terry v. Ohio, it's the fifth holding of the opinion:

5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed.

 

[Gunslinger]

To Soldier.... recently joined, four posts, and what I've read in those posts, it appears that you might (might not are) be trolling or an agent provacateur....(which is an "enemy" agent who comes in to stir the pot in an attempt to get "dirt" on those being provoked) basically they're the same thing, the former is amateur action while the latter is generally endorsed by an organization of some sort (like the brady bunch, government, etc.). That you are now attempting to engage in a civil debate tends to discount those possibilities and point to a simple matter of being new.

To Tedde.... in the Corps we call Hearts the "forgot to duck" medal. It's not to discount that the individual shed blood (or was otherwise injured) in service to our country but rather to differentiate it from the much more "prestigious" awards for heroism. Hearts are respected, they cause emotions to surface when one meets a fellow with a Heart (or several), but they also are recognized as not rising to the level of heroism in combat. Those honors, with even more severe emotional attachments, are reserved for those awards for personally bravery, gallantry, and actions above and beyond the call of duty. The Bronze and Silver stars, Navy Cross, and Congressional Medal of Honor (CMH).

I've met many (as I'm sure you have) Heart recipients. On active duty they were usually not even mentioned because most recipients would minimize the meaning of the award, calling almost unanimous attention to the fact that they "simply were in the wrong place" while Star, Cross, and CMH recipients "earned" their awards.

I respect anyone who served or currently serves, I respect those that have shed blood in enemy actions, but the simple fact is that Hearts are not an award for heroism. Heroism requires particular personal action, beyond that of ones peers, to be taken in the face of enemy contact, Hearts "merely" require one to be present and take a hit. That isn't meant to minimize the fact that they were there, in harms way, serving their country, only to differentiate having been hit in enemy action from the heroic acts which garner Stars, Crosses, and CMH awards (and the many such actions that go unnoticed).

Drill Instructor Sergeant Collins, MCRD, 1979. In explaining the "effective range" of hand grenades he related how he got his Heart. While stitting on a log in Vietnam, eating lunch with two friends, a grenade landed in front of them. Collins survived, his buddies didn't. He made two points. One the grenade had indeed met it's "effective range" specifications and two, that Hearts are not an indication of heroism.

lI will never forget the first time I met a CMH holder. SgtMaj Kellog, USMC. It was late October of '82 at NCO Acadamy, Camp H.M. Smith, HI. Kellog had thrown himself on a grenade in Vietnam to save his fellow Marines. Shaking his hand I felt I was in the presence of a great man, a hero of our nation. The Heart that came with his injuries was nothing compared to the unselfish heroism that "earned" him the CMH.

The comments in the video at the police station, regarding the Heart medal, were inappropriate but were obviously (to me anyway) made out of ignorance rather than disrespect. Considering that the first (and likely only) knowledge of the Purple Heart award that the older of the two young men had probably ever received was during the Kerry campaign in which his three Hearts were alternately presented as proof of his being "a war hero" and as his "quick ticket out", is it any wonder the young men have no concept of the significance of a Purple Heart?

I don't disrespect the Heart, but I recognize its proper place in the heirarchy of personal awards. The Stars, Crosses, and CMH are often accompanied by a Heart from the same action but by itself it is not an award for heroism.

Being honorably wounded in the service of your country implies you were in combat. Some, PHs are BS--including Hanoi john kerry's; others, as noted, accompany an award for valor. You left out the Distinquished Flying Cross, btw. As an Aviator, I must include it. IMO, PHs may be given for many reasons, but I feel the majority denote an act of honor, shall we say, if you want to take valor out of it. That alone makes them, with exceptions, worthy of our respect. While I know you mean no disrespect, I think your answer needs to be elaborated on a bit.

 

[Jared]

.......

.......Ummmmm, I thought this thread was about OC'ing in a police station. This thread appears to be hijacked.

To answer the original question.

If you have a CHL, you can carry any firearm in any manner into a public building (except court houses) in Oregon. Also, if you have a CHL, you can openly carry a switchblade, blackjack or other similar type weapons.

 

[bigtoe416]

Jared, you're correct except you can't carry in federal buildings, I'm sure you know that, I'm just adding the clarification for others.

 

[Jared]

Jared, you're correct except you can't carry in federal buildings, I'm sure you know that, I'm just adding the clarification for others.

A Federal Building is not a "public building" as defined in the O.R.S. I am speaking to Oregon, and Oregon alone. Federal Law is a different matter. But thanks for the clarification because I would not like it if someone walked into a federal building in Oregon under the mistaken impression that it's a public building.

 

[Jared]

I don't know what is more disturbing

I don't know what is more disturbing, the illegal actions of the Medford PD or some people posting on this thread.

The guy went to city hall/PD to file a complaint since he was continuously being harassed for exorcizing, not just a natural right, not just a constitutional right, but a LEGAL right.

The cops should have known he was legal. There is no excuse. They should have asked to see his CHL (since the statute is an affirmative defense) and that should have been the end of it.

The reality is that too often LEO's are held to a lower legal standard then regular joe's... especially gun owning joe's. Having been a Federal LEO for quite a while now, It never ceases to amaze me the crap that goes on. If they didn't harass the original poster for OC'ing, he would most likely not have gone to city hall to file a complaint.

Quick breakdown...

Oc'ing in Oregon... mostly legal..... almost ALWAYS legal anywhere in Oregon with a CHL
OC'ing in a public building.... legal with a CHL
Original's posters comment about the purple heart..... factually incorrect but it is IRRELEVANT to the violation of his civil rights.
People's opinion of his actions.... irrelevant since the issue here is criminal conduct on behalf of some (not all) of the Medford PD.

You should give Kevin a call over at Oregon Firearms Federation.

 

[Gunslinger]

I don't know what is more disturbing, the illegal actions of the Medford PD or some people posting on this thread.

The guy went to city hall/PD to file a complaint since he was continuously being harassed for exorcizing, not just a natural right, not just a constitutional right, but a LEGAL right.

The cops should have known he was legal. There is no excuse. They should have asked to see his CHL (since the statute is an affirmative defense) and that should have been the end of it.

The reality is that too often LEO's are held to a lower legal standard then regular joe's... especially gun owning joe's. Having been a Federal LEO for quite a while now, It never ceases to amaze me the crap that goes on. If they didn't harass the original poster for OC'ing, he would most likely not have gone to city hall to file a complaint.

Quick breakdown...

Oc'ing in Oregon... mostly legal..... almost ALWAYS legal anywhere in Oregon with a CHL
OC'ing in a public building.... legal with a CHL
Original's posters comment about the purple heart..... factually incorrect but it is IRRELEVANT to the violation of his civil rights.
People's opinion of his actions.... irrelevant since the issue here is criminal conduct on behalf of some (not all) of the Medford PD.

You should give Kevin a call over at Oregon Firearms Federation.

When the thread opens up with a comment not directly on the OP's point, it will get replies. That isn't hijacking a thread. Comments on the poster's actions are completely material to a discussion as to whether or not his rights were violated and 'why.' The legal term "goes to state of mind" applies.

 

[Jared]

When the thread opens up with a comment not directly on the OP's point, it will get replies. That isn't hijacking a thread. Comments on the poster's actions are completely material to a discussion as to whether or not his rights were violated and 'why.' The legal term "goes to state of mind" applies.

Agreed, up until the point where he is being accused of OC'ing in city hall "to get reactions". He has a right to carry any firearm in city hall openly or concealed and he has a right to carry any knife/sword, switchblade, taser, or billy club into city hall in an unconcealed manner.

He walked in to file a complaint for unlawful harassment from Medford PD, and he was unlawfully arrested. The cop said detained but it seemed like an arrest from my law enforcement training.

If he OC'ed in city hall to get attention and scare people then the same could be said about EVERY OC'er.

A lot of people are afraid to file complaints with the police, let alone doing so while exercising his rights (which caused the original problem). That seems like courage to me.

 

[donny]

There's a thin line between courage and stupidity. Both of which, I might add, can result in a Purple Heart...

 

[Grapeshot]

There's a thin line between courage and stupidity. Both of which, I might add, can result in a Purple Heart...

There's a very broad line of just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Simply bad luck.

 

[aadvark]

To ALL:

Contact The Oregon Firearms Federation about This whole Mess in Medford!

I would Bet that They would do something about it..., and in a Hurry too!

Laying all other Personnal Opinions aside...: 1 Law Enforcement is in The Business of Law Enforcement, not Opinion Enforcement, 2 Oregon Revised Statute says Firearms are Allowed in Public Buildigns by Oregon Permit Holders..., and that means Police Stations too, end of Story!

aadvark

*** Furthermore..., Oregon ALLOWS Firearms in Public Buildings..., well..., My State does not, or, at least not yet. Clearly, This is a Second Amendment Issue, and EVERYONE in Oregon should be Grateful and Support Their Right to Openly Carry Firearms in Public Buildings (except Courts) throughout Oregon State, because; some of us, like Me, who Live in other States, have been Begging Our Legislatures (for Years might I Add...), with Moderate Success, to Allow Law-abiding Permit holders Carry Firearms into Our Own Public Buildings. I Fully Support his Actions, and it is Clearly a Second Amendment Issue! ***

 

[Teddybearfrmhell]

To ALL:

Contact The Oregon Firearms Federation about This whole Mess in Medford!

OFF already knows and one of their reps appeared on a local radio talk show with a local OC member.....

 

[We-the-People]

OFF already knows and one of their reps appeared on a local radio talk show with a local OC member.....

Yup and the city is ignoring the letter they got (addressed to Chief of Police and info'd to: City Council, city Attorney, Mayor, city manager, and local media). Once school settles down to the normal routine I'll be figuring out the next step. Possibly an Oregon Public Records request to show that they received the e-mail (i.e. they're on notice of the violations) or whether I should send it via certified mail next, or perhaps some other route.

I'm really thinking hard about trying to do law school afer my BS degree (no comments from the peanut gallery please) is finished. We need more lawyers that are hard core supporters of the 2nd and 4th amendments. There is definitely a civil suit sitting on top of the city with the City Hall arrest (it's not a detainment when they remove you from where you were and put you in a small room under guard no matter what they say).

 

[Teddybearfrmhell]

Possibly an Oregon Public Records request to show that they received the e-mail (i.e. they're on notice of the violations) or whether I should send it via certified mail next, or perhaps some other route.

we KNOW the city attorney is aware of the situation based on his response to my email and his refusal to clarify the law

 

[Motofixxer]

(i.e. they're on notice of the violations) or whether I should send it via certified mail next, or perhaps some other route.

Certified mail and a reasonable time limit on their reply, say 15 or 30 "calender" days to be generous. Their ignoring because they have no motivation to do otherwise.