The Open Carry Report

[FattyKrack]

My wife and I took our 3 yr old grand daughter to the zoo on Thursday the 9th,
I oc my xdm .40c .
We parked and went to the main gate and I saw the sign about fire arms and it didn't say no fire arms, something about fire arms thru this line, or something like that.
No one said anything and we went to our first exhibit and realized we had forgot to pay for parking and so we rushed out to get our parking permit and put it on the window of our car.
On the way back in a zoo security patrol was driving by and I said hi and let him know he had a tire going low.
He said thanks and waited for us to cross the road toward the main gate.
I watched him park his patrol car and he went running towards me and I told my wife that I think he is going to stop me, but he went passed me and into the admin. building.
We went in and I went to use the rest room and on my way out of the rest room I was stopped by the same security officer and the zoo admin.
He asked if he could have a chat with me and , I said sure and he asked me if I had a chl and if he could see it and went on about my gun might scare the people or the kids , and at the time, there was allot of kids there on a field trip.
The admin was cool and polite to me the whole time , I told him that I did have a chl and that he had no authority to look at my chl or even stop me.
He agreed to that and I showed him my chl any ways and he asked if I could conceal my gun and I told him I didn't have to by law and my rights , but I would for I was there for grand daughter and wife to have a good time , not to worry anyone even though just because other people are miss informed about their rights.
All in all, it went pretty good and we had a good time even though allot of the animals that I remembered seeing there are not there anymore, elk, penguins, rhinos, zebras and few more.

Good man. I feel the same way.

 

[Grapeshot]

My wife and I took our 3 yr old grand daughter to the zoo on Thursday the 9th,
I oc my xdm .40c .
We parked and went to the main gate and I saw the sign about fire arms and it didn't say no fire arms, something about fire arms thru this line, or something like that.
No one said anything and we went to our first exhibit and realized we had forgot to pay for parking and so we rushed out to get our parking permit and put it on the window of our car.
On the way back in a zoo security patrol was driving by and I said hi and let him know he had a tire going low.
He said thanks and waited for us to cross the road toward the main gate.
I watched him park his patrol car and he went running towards me and I told my wife that I think he is going to stop me, but he went passed me and into the admin. building.
We went in and I went to use the rest room and on my way out of the rest room I was stopped by the same security officer and the zoo admin.
He asked if he could have a chat with me and , I said sure and he asked me if I had a chl and if he could see it and went on about my gun might scare the people or the kids , and at the time, there was allot of kids there on a field trip.
The admin was cool and polite to me the whole time , I told him that I did have a chl and that he had no authority to look at my chl or even stop me.
He agreed to that and I showed him my chl any ways and he asked if I could conceal my gun and I told him I didn't have to by law and my rights , but I would for I was there for grand daughter and wife to have a good time , not to worry anyone even though just because other people are miss informed about their rights.
All in all, it went pretty good and we had a good time even though allot of the animals that I remembered seeing there are not there anymore, elk, penguins, rhinos, zebras and few more.

Good man. I feel the same way.

Unfortunately, that reenforces the perception that guns are bad; although I agree that how you carry and when is up to you.

 

[We-the-People]

unfortunately, that reenforces the perception that guns are bad; although i agree that how you carry and when is up to you.

^^^^^^ ditto ^^^^^^^^

 

[We-the-People]

Open Carried at the Corvallis City Council meeting where they were considering a loaded carry ban. I spoke for 3 minutes, not about that ordinance but about existing firearms ordinances they have which violate state preemption.

VIDEO HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_yO9ZeSg0I&list=UU7EBNPqafXDoUn_ZE1ncy_A

 

[Rand0m411]

After having carried openly for months I've been told not to enter the Rogue Valley Mall (security met me at the door) and until this afternoon, nothing but good encounters (curioius, education, etc).

Today at Bi-mart in Medford on Main street the manager came to the sporting goods counter where I was checking on reloading supplies. He asked my WIFE, not me, to have me cover the weapon with my shirt. Good wife she is let me know and I told him that I could leave if he wanted me to but that I would not conceal. He then said he's escort me around the store then as it sometimes makes customers nervous.

I told him those customers must be from California and that they needed to learn that it's legal in Oregon.

I'd call it a "mixed" encounter as while I offered to leave several times he didn't want me to leave but wanted to "escort" me to calm any nervous customers (from which there hadn't been a complaint on my visit) and then left while I remained at the gun counter. Mixed because had I not asserted my rights, which he could have trumped with trespass but obviously didn't want to, he wanted me to conceal....just assuming I had a CHL.

I recently read that Bi-Mart has made it a company policy not to let customers open carry in their stores. I Don't agree with it, but this is what I have seen recently around different forums here in Oregon. Please write the CEO and let him know your opinion on the matter.

 

[Rand0m411]

My wife and I took our 3 yr old grand daughter to the zoo on Thursday the 9th,
I oc my xdm .40c .
We parked and went to the main gate and I saw the sign about fire arms and it didn't say no fire arms, something about fire arms thru this line, or something like that.
No one said anything and we went to our first exhibit and realized we had forgot to pay for parking and so we rushed out to get our parking permit and put it on the window of our car.
On the way back in a zoo security patrol was driving by and I said hi and let him know he had a tire going low.
He said thanks and waited for us to cross the road toward the main gate.
I watched him park his patrol car and he went running towards me and I told my wife that I think he is going to stop me, but he went passed me and into the admin. building.
We went in and I went to use the rest room and on my way out of the rest room I was stopped by the same security officer and the zoo admin.
He asked if he could have a chat with me and , I said sure and he asked me if I had a chl and if he could see it and went on about my gun might scare the people or the kids , and at the time, there was allot of kids there on a field trip.
The admin was cool and polite to me the whole time , I told him that I did have a chl and that he had no authority to look at my chl or even stop me.
He agreed to that and I showed him my chl any ways and he asked if I could conceal my gun and I told him I didn't have to by law and my rights , but I would for I was there for grand daughter and wife to have a good time , not to worry anyone even though just because other people are miss informed about their rights.
All in all, it went pretty good and we had a good time even though allot of the animals that I remembered seeing there are not there anymore, elk, penguins, rhinos, zebras and few more.

How would you feel if he asked you to sit at the back of the bus to make everyone else feel secure? Should you really have to fight for a right you already have?

 

[solus]

I recently read that Bi-Mart has made it a company policy not to let customers open carry in their stores. I Don't agree with it, but this is what I have seen recently around different forums here in Oregon. Please write the CEO and let him know your opinion on the matter.

do you have a cite for your statement about bi-mart's firearm policy so when we ping the ceo, we can reference their policy by number or date or quote it to them? otherwise it could cause the ceo to direct a policy be developed and implemented for their stores where none exists today. kinda like pointing out to someone you can't throw me out you do not have a sign on the door...shortly thereafter a sign appears on the door...

I have seen a lot of innuendo about this but have been unable to unearth anything official from bi-mart specifically except some forum member somewhere stating 'oh I was told it was policy' rhetoric on the forums...

look forward to seeing that cite and verbiage of the policy...

ipse

 

[solus]

How would you feel if he asked you to sit at the back of the bus to make everyone else feel secure? Should you really have to fight for a right you already have?

personally, I would feel better in the back of the bus as would provide me better SA capabilities when the bus drives through the zombie's attack.

ipse

 

[Lord Sega]

North Oregon coast OC at my daughters schools

Last Thursday and Friday I had IEP annual update meetings at both of my daughter's schools.

First was at Warrenton Grade School, my youngest is in 7th grade. The other was at Astoria High School, my oldest is a senior (unfortunately looking at having to do a "super senior" year plus summer school to graduate). Arrggh, teenagers.

Both meetings were right at the end of the school day. I OCed the entire time, Beretta 92FS in a Blackhawk OWB retention holster. Parked, walked in, and checked in for the meeting(s) at the front office desk. Lots of kids and some parents outside and inside. Most didn't notice, but many did, yet no alarm. No freak-out, no lock-down, no calling 911, not even a confrontation or comment. Went to the meeting(s) with teachers and staff, each lasted about an hour.

I was more than willing to have a discussion, but after the IEP meeting (first priority), and then only if or when the staff or teachers bought it up. They never did ask or comment about my OC.

I truly feel it's all about how a person behaves, not the sidearm. Kudos to the staff and their non-reaction.

Note: Astoria has a unloaded carry city code (poorly written and parts are void under Oregon preemption) and Warrenton does not, and of course both fall under the Fed GFSZ (yes, I do have a CHL). So, if asked I would have shown my CHL, but there were no problems or issues raised at either meeting.

 

[HPmatt]

so in OR you dont have issue w Federal Gfz carrying in schools? State law preempts Fed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

so in OR you dont have issue w Federal Gfz carrying in schools? State law preempts Fed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The guy has a CHL,,, that gets him safely through the Fed GFSZ...
Once he is inside the zone, Oregon law takes effect.

 

[HPmatt]

Guess I need to read up on State law interactions w Federal GFZ laws. Will be interested to see which states are okay w guns in schools.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lord Sega]

Guess I need to read up on State law interactions w Federal GFZ laws. Will be interested to see which states are okay w guns in schools.

Every state has their own laws that are separate from Fed laws, and the Fed GFSZ does not preempt the state from making their own GFSZ state laws.

The Fed GFSZ law (see (q)(2)(B)(ii)) exempts those with a carry license of that school's state. So, if my Ex moved just across the river to Ilwaco, Washington and my daughter went to Ilwaco High School (I have full custody, so she would have to get the court's permission to move more than 60 miles away), I could not carry in that school (or within 1000 feet) until I got a CCW for Washington, and then I would have to follow Washington state gun laws which are very similar to Oregon's laws, but just different enough to catch ya.

If you want to have fun, pull up a Google Map of your city (at 1000' scale) and search "school". Screen capture that into an art program and make a circle at 1000' radius and copy / paste that circle over every map tag for a school.

This won't be exact since it's going off a center point, not the school boundary + 1000', but it will be close. Now look and see how many times you break the Fed GFSZ in your daily travels if you have a firearm and it's not unloaded and in a locked container (another exemption to GFSZ).

Fed GFSZ penalty: 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(4)...
Whoever violates the Act shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of imprisonment imposed under this paragraph shall not run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed under any other provision of law.

A conviction under the GFSZ Act will cause an individual to become a "prohibited person" under the Gun Control Act of 1968 and bar them from legally owning firearms for the rest of their life

 

[We-the-People]

SNIPPED

Last Thursday and Friday I had IEP annual update meetings at both of my daughter's schools.

Note: Astoria has a unloaded carry city code (poorly written and parts are void under Oregon preemption) and Warrenton does not, and of course both fall under the Fed GFSZ (yes, I do have a CHL). So, if asked I would have shown my CHL, but there were no problems or issues raised at either meeting.

Astoria's 5.010 (a), (b), and (d) ALL exceed local authority under ORS chapter 166. As such, the entire ordinance is VOID per ORS 166.170 which does not say that offensive PARTS or such ordinances are void. It states that such ordinances are void.... ALL OF THE ORDINANCE.

Astoria is on the list for contact regarding their unlawful ordinances. They will likely resist. Their park prohibition in particular will be easily challenged on the ground and defeated in the courts.

 

[Lord Sega]

Astoria's 5.010 (a), (b), and (d) ALL exceed local authority under ORS chapter 166. As such, the entire ordinance is VOID per ORS 166.170 ... [snip]

I agree, but IANAL so I wrote it that way since I wasn't sure if legally an "OR" would allow part to be enforced and the other part non-enforceable. Void in-part or in-whole.
I.e. 5.010 (A) ... loaded (allowed by ORS 166.173, with exemptions) OR unloaded (not allowed and void).

The other part I'm not sure about is: (C) Subsections (A) and (B) of this section shall not apply to: [snip]... (3) Any person having a valid permit issued to the person by lawful authority to carry or use concealed firearms; ...[snip]

I can't find if Oregon law states elsewhere that it must be an Oregon CHL or if any state's permit is "lawful authority" as used here, especially considering Oregon does not have reciprocity with any other state.
Some ORS have references such as " A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) and 166.292 (Procedure for issuing) to carry a concealed handgun.", but some don't specifically reference 291 & 292.

I agree that the entire Astoria city code 5.010 fails under ORS 166.170, 172, and 173 and is VOID.

I am now semi-retired and I do plan to address this with the Astoria city council. I am researching the best way to approach this. I want to have a step by step game plan going in and not jump several steps. I would prefer not getting arrested in order to have standing in court.

My starting point is to write a letter, copy to each council member, politely explaining the issue in detail and requesting that the city lawyer review 5.010 w/ ORS 166.170, 172, & 173 for correction. I would also request that after the city lawyer has his findings that this issue be added to the next city council meeting agenda and that I be notified so I can attend and speak as necessary.

If you or anyone else has experience dealing with city councils and what the process is to correct or repeal a city code ordinance, please contact me and/or link samples.

Thanks.

 

[We-the-People]

I agree, but IANAL so I wrote it that way since I wasn't sure if legally an "OR" would allow part to be enforced and the other part non-enforceable. Void in-part or in-whole.
I.e. 5.010 (A) ... loaded (allowed by ORS 166.173, with exemptions) OR unloaded (not allowed and void).

The other part I'm not sure about is: (C) Subsections (A) and (B) of this section shall not apply to: [snip]... (3) Any person having a valid permit issued to the person by lawful authority to carry or use concealed firearms; ...[snip]

I can't find if Oregon law states elsewhere that it must be an Oregon CHL or if any state's permit is "lawful authority" as used here, especially considering Oregon does not have reciprocity with any other state.
Some ORS have references such as " A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) and 166.292 (Procedure for issuing) to carry a concealed handgun.", but some don't specifically reference 291 & 292.

I agree that the entire Astoria city code 5.010 fails under ORS 166.170, 172, and 173 and is VOID.

I am now semi-retired and I do plan to address this with the Astoria city council. I am researching the best way to approach this. I want to have a step by step game plan going in and not jump several steps. I would prefer not getting arrested in order to have standing in court.

My starting point is to write a letter, copy to each council member, politely explaining the issue in detail and requesting that the city lawyer review 5.010 w/ ORS 166.170, 172, & 173 for correction. I would also request that after the city lawyer has his findings that this issue be added to the next city council meeting agenda and that I be notified so I can attend and speak as necessary.

If you or anyone else has experience dealing with city councils and what the process is to correct or repeal a city code ordinance, please contact me and/or link samples.

Thanks.

I would suggest that you copy all councilors, mayor, city attorney, city manager, and Chief of Police. Of those, I would select either the Mayor or City attorney as the addressee.

Here is a SAMPLE (for another city with a preempted ordinance) which, with careful editing to fit Astoria's circumstances, could possibly be used to address the issues. (formatting is off as it has ben pasted from MS Word).




October 15, 2014

City of _______

To whom it may concern,

It has come to our attention that the City of _________ has promulgated regulations for the use of parks within the city which are in conflict with state law in such a manner as to make them void. In addition, these regulations include provisions which violate the civil rights of citizens and expose the city to both criminal and civil liability.

The specific regulations are contained in 7.28.070 of the _________ Municipal Code as published at http://www.__________/residents/municipal-code. This regulation violates state law by attempting to regulate the possession of unloaded firearms and it does not contain the exceptions required under ORS 166.173(2).

The Oregon Legislature, in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 166.170, declares the authority to regulate firearms “in any matter whatsoever” within the state “is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.” In ORS 166.170(2), the Legislature further declares that “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.”

The Legislature does, in ORS 166.173(1), grant express authority to cities and counties “to regulate possession of loaded firearms in public places.” However, in ORS 166.173(2), the Legislature publishes a list of those to which such ordinances “do not apply to or affect.”

With these state imposed limitations in mind, lawfully a city can only regulate the loaded condition of open carry by those without concealed handgun licenses (CHL) and nothing more. Only state law applies to UNLOADED firearms. Therefore if a firearm is carried unloaded, the city has no authority to regulate that firearm even if the possessor does not have a CHL.

We are unaware of any enforcement actions that have taken place under these regulations. However, they are active regulations of the city and, enforced or not, have the potential for enforcement in the future. Any such action would expose the city, its officers, and its agents, to expensive civil and criminal litigation. In addition, there is the potential for preemptive civil litigation from individuals or organizations dedicated to the preservation and protection of civil rights.

Our goal in bringing this matter to your attention is to avoid litigation and help the City of __________ bring its regulations into compliance with state law. We stand ready to offer guidance and assistance in rewriting this regulation to comply with state law. To that end, we have attached proposed changes to 7.28.070 that would satisfy our concerns.

SIGNED

 

[Lord Sega]

Astoria 5.010 changed

I sent a e-mail letter to the Mayor of Astoria and each of the four City Council.
Got a response the next morning, pleasantly surprised at the response speed.

Turns out that the city code was updated to align with ORS 166.170 & 173 in September 2013. *egg on my face*

I had previously bookmarked to the official city code .pdf which was still active as a direct link, but if you go through the city website to the city code you get the current one (different path & file name).

Astoria 5.010 as of September 2013 LINK

So, I e-mailed back an apology and let them know that parts (A) and (B) are perfectly aligned with what ORS authorizes a city to do (this is good, rescinded in its entirety would be better, but oh well).

I have pointed out that there is still two problems... part (C) is still there from the old code, causing a list of exceptions to the exceptions now listed in (B).
Also, that part (D) (officer must be allowed to inspect firearm) is also still there.
Part (C) looks to be accidentally not removed, but (D) could have been left in on purpose or like (C) not removed.

I explained that (D) "has several issues, primary of which is that it violates 4th amendment protections. Search and seizure of a person and/or their property by police has many requirements that must be met, see Terry v. Ohio (current standard)." AND "This section is also void under ORS 166.170 as not expressly authorized by the Oregon Legislature."

They responded back, again the next day:"I will refer your inquiry to our City Attorney to see if he feels we need to further amend the code. He is out of town and will be for several days. It might be a week or so before you hear back from us." - Russ Warr

Stand by for updates, but at this time (A) and (B) look to be good and they are reviewing (C) and (D).

 

[We-the-People]

I sent a e-mail letter to the Mayor of Astoria and each of the four City Council.
Got a response the next morning, pleasantly surprised at the response speed.

Turns out that the city code was updated to align with ORS 166.170 & 173 in September 2013. *egg on my face*

I had previously bookmarked to the official city code .pdf which was still active as a direct link, but if you go through the city website to the city code you get the current one (different path & file name).

Astoria 5.010 as of September 2013 LINK

So, I e-mailed back an apology and let them know that parts (A) and (B) are perfectly aligned with what ORS authorizes a city to do (this is good, rescinded in its entirety would be better, but oh well).

I have pointed out that there is still two problems... part (C) is still there from the old code, causing a list of exceptions to the exceptions now listed in (B).
Also, that part (D) (officer must be allowed to inspect firearm) is also still there.
Part (C) looks to be accidentally not removed, but (D) could have been left in on purpose or like (C) not removed.

I explained that (D) "has several issues, primary of which is that it violates 4th amendment protections. Search and seizure of a person and/or their property by police has many requirements that must be met, see Terry v. Ohio (current standard)." AND "This section is also void under ORS 166.170 as not expressly authorized by the Oregon Legislature."

They responded back, again the next day:"I will refer your inquiry to our City Attorney to see if he feels we need to further amend the code. He is out of town and will be for several days. It might be a week or so before you hear back from us." - Russ Warr

Stand by for updates, but at this time (A) and (B) look to be good and they are reviewing (C) and (D).

Don't feel bad (egg on face). MY research on local ordinances was done between April and June of 2014 and Astoria had the old text up at that time. I have now made the appropriate changes to the Local Oregon Firearms Ordinances doc and they will appear with the next release.

5.005 is invalid as it attempts to define firearms. Something the legislature has reserved unto itself and their definition requires POWDER unlike the Astoria definition which includes air and spring guns (bb guns).

I agree with the repeated exceptions, it sure looks like someone forgot to take out the old exceptions by mistake. Whether that was an executive mistake (council) or a clerical one would be interesting to find out.

I also agree that section D is problematic. It violates the fourth amendment of the federal Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights within the Oregon Constitution (Article I).

 

[Blaine]

Howdy, I've been reading the forum for a long time now and decided to make a profile so I can participate. Ive been OC for about 2 years (a lot of Portland Metro and downtown, Central Oregon, all over the Willamette Valley, the coast, and now Ashland/Medford), and the only negative encounter was at Bimart in Gresham. Outside of that, as yall have noticed, the majority don't notice or don't care. With me being new to the Ashland area I was wondering if any of yall still did get togethers.
Blaine

 

[Grapeshot]

Howdy, I've been reading the forum for a long time now and decided to make a profile so I can participate. Ive been OC for about 2 years (a lot of Portland Metro and downtown, Central Oregon, all over the Willamette Valley, the coast, and now Ashland/Medford), and the only negative encounter was at Bimart in Gresham. Outside of that, as yall have noticed, the majority don't notice or don't care. With me being new to the Ashland area I was wondering if any of yall still did get togethers.
Blaine

Welcome to OCDO Blaine. Good to see you found the Oregon state sub-forum.

Not a lot of meet-n-greets in your area. Pick a place, date and time - build it and they will come, even one or two can have a lot to share.