Are Business Considered "Public Places"?

[chivalryfirst]

Hey all! I'm a little unsure as to the definition of a "public place" in Oregon. Obviously, all of the places listed in ORS 161.015(10) are public:

"hallways, lobbies and other parts of apartment houses and hotels [...] highways, streets, schools, places of amusement, parks, playgrounds and premises used in connection with public passenger transportation."

But what about business places open to the public? If I'm in Starbucks, is that a 'public place' since the public is allowed/invited in? How about a plaza outside businesses? If the hallways of privately held apartment complexes are 'public' why not Starbucks?

Thanks all!
Paul

 

[JamesCanby]

Hey all! I'm a little unsure as to the definition of a "public place" in Oregon. Obviously, all of the places listed in ORS 161.015(10) are public:

"hallways, lobbies and other parts of apartment houses and hotels [...] highways, streets, schools, places of amusement, parks, playgrounds and premises used in connection with public passenger transportation."

But what about business places open to the public? If I'm in Starbucks, is that a 'public place' since the public is allowed/invited in? How about a plaza outside businesses? If the hallways of privately held apartment complexes are 'public' why not Starbucks?

Thanks all!
Paul

If I remember correctly from Business Law classes taken many years ago, people patronizing a place of business are referred to as "business invitees." That is, they are 'invited' into the store by the permission of the store owner. They do not have an inherent 'right' to enter the store, and the business owner retains the right to grant or deny admission or continued presence, subject only to the prohibition against discriminating against protected classes.

 

[countryclubjoe]

If I remember correctly from Business Law classes taken many years ago, people patronizing a place of business are referred to as "business invitees." That is, they are 'invited' into the store by the permission of the store owner. They do not have an inherent 'right' to enter the store, and the business owner retains the right to grant or deny admission or continued presence, subject only to the prohibition against discriminating against protected classes.

+1-- 100% correct.

My .02
Regards
CCJ

 

[chivalryfirst]

If I remember correctly from Business Law classes taken many years ago, people patronizing a place of business are referred to as "business invitees." That is, they are 'invited' into the store by the permission of the store owner. They do not have an inherent 'right' to enter the store, and the business owner retains the right to grant or deny admission or continued presence, subject only to the prohibition against discriminating against protected classes.

Hmmm, that would make sense. I'd love to see some Oregon legalese on the topic stipulating that as a differentiation.

Paul

 

[solus]

Hey all! I'm a little unsure as to the definition of a "public place" in Oregon. Obviously, all of the places listed in ORS 161.015(10) are public:

"hallways, lobbies and other parts of apartment houses and hotels [...] highways, streets, schools, places of amusement, parks, playgrounds and premises used in connection with public passenger transportation."

But what about business places open to the public? If I'm in Starbucks, is that a 'public place' since the public is allowed/invited in? How about a plaza outside businesses? If the hallways of privately held apartment complexes are 'public' why not Starbucks?

Thanks all!
Paul

paul, welcome to the forum.

while not an attorney, i believe, after personal review of your cite you provided, you might have taken the term out of context per se and appears to apply to criminal provisions of OR's statutes.

now, there have been numerous discussions on these threads regarding businesses, e.g., private entities doing business with the general public. as such, most concede these business entities can regulate access to their property within established federal guidelines, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. however, open carry is not delineated by the feds.

additionally, based on OR's state's lack of preemption, numerous municipalities have instituted firearm carry ordinance which has led to a landmine for carry in the state.

hang in there, i am confident there will be further contributors to respond to your query...

ipse

 

[chivalryfirst]

paul, welcome to the forum.

while not an attorney, i believe, after personal review of your cite you provided, you might have taken the term out of context per se and appears to apply to criminal provisions of OR's statutes.

now, there have been numerous discussions on these threads regarding businesses, e.g., private entities doing business with the general public. as such, most concede these business entities can regulate access to their property within established federal guidelines, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. however, open carry is not delineated by the feds.

additionally, based on OR's state's lack of preemption, numerous municipalities have instituted firearm carry ordinance which has led to a landmine for carry in the state.

hang in there, i am confident there will be further contributors to respond to your query...

ipse

Thanks for your input Solus!

I totally might have taken it out of context, and I'm DEFINITELY no legal genius, but it seems correct. ORS 166.250 is the section that outlines most illegal uses of firearms in Oregon, and 166.291 lays out the requirements for a conceal carry permit. Neither of these reference 161.015 for the definition of a public place (slight side note, does the fact that the gun laws are in section 166, and the definitions section is 161 have any legal implications?), 166.173, which is the section that allows local municipalities to restrict gun freedom DOES reference 161.015.

For example, Oregon allows OC, Portland (legally) bans it. But if I'm in a business in Portland, theoretically I'm fine so long as I remain within the business (assuming I don't have a ccw). Is this correct?

Potential Complication, in Portland ordinance 14A.10 Definitions a 'public place' is defined as follows:

"Public Place: a publicly or privately owned place to which the general public has access and may include but is not limited to public property and areas of private property open to the public, such as spaces within apartment houses and hotels not constituting rooms or apartments designed for actual residence, schools, places of amusement, parks, playgrounds, and premises used in connection with public passenger transportation."

Very similar to the states definition, but slightly different in that it get's a little more specific and includes "privately owned place to which the general public has access." Does this make private business 'public' places?

Thanks so much all for your input!
Paul

 

[solus]

Paul, this might provide some further insight..

Black's law dictionary:
Pertaining to a state, nation, or whole community; proceeding from, relating to, or affecting the whole body of people or an entire community.


http://thelawdictionary.org/public/

this is the problem in OR which, as mentioned, doesn't have a state wide firearm preemption which precludes municipalities like Portland and others from enacting their own narrow focused anti-firearm ordinances.

paul, legalese BS is Greek to me also but as you stated if i might paraphrase...private businesses normally allow the 'general public' to enter to engage in commercial enterprise based on due consideration of exchange of funds, etc.

ipse

 

[chivalryfirst]

Thanks for the link Solus! I think that site will be quite helpful!

So sounds like it's a bit on the vague side, and probably somewhat of a gray area legally, so for day-to-day life, I'll just consider any establishment that invites the general public onto it's premises as a 'public place.' Thankfully I have my CHL, so I'm covered regardless. The REALLY annoying part is the fact that Portland has decided that the inside of my car is a public place. Like, really? I have a friend down in AZ who said that they ruled that your car is your private property (fancy that!), and so they had to take down all the traffic and speed cameras because they were violationg the citizen's privacy.

Paul