Pretty sure that if you've got a CHL, Tri-Met isn't allowed to keep you from packing.

ORS 166.173 has been on the books for quite awhile.

 

IMHO, Pretty much so true. That's why ODFW can no longer tell you what weapons you can have in the field when hunting. Example Bow hunters can now carry firearms. They can regulate what you shoot with them, but can't regulate what you carry. Takes an act of the legislature.

The Key point is to have your concealed permit on your person and make sure your handgun is where it is not going to be seen regardless of the activity you are engaged in. No reason to go looking for trouble. Even if you are 100% in the right, it could still be pretty expensive "proving your point".

ORS 166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly
(2) 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.


Tri-Met Code.

D. Prohibited Risks to Transit System Security and Order:
(2) Weapons: No person, except a peace officer, shall bring or carry aboard a District Vehicle any firearm, knife (except a folding knife with a blade less than 3 ˝ inches in length), or any other instrument, article, device, material or substance specifically designed for, or attempted to be used to, inflict or cause bodily harm to another, except in accordance with administrative rules as may be promulgated by the General Manager or otherwise provided by law. Where possession of such weapons cannot be prohibited by law, a person in possession of a weapon may not display or carry the weapon in a manner which is likely to result in fear or alarm by other persons or District employees.

 

Yeah, that seems in line with Portland's ordinance about open carry, which is prohibited.

Beaverton has a similar ordinance.

The difference is, Beaverton has an explicit exemption for CHL holders, but in Portland, a CHL becomes an affirmative defense, which means hassle, even if the outcome is ultimately in your favor.

As you said, keep it concealed, which is the whole point. Open carry, while legal, isn't practiced by most civilians, and therefore you become a very visible target for increased attention.

That said, I also double my chances of not getting hassled: Not only do I keep everything very concealed, but I also avoid Portland.

 

There also was a US supreme court case with a similar outcome. I can't remember the specific state, but that state had a statute just like Oregon that you weren't supposed to carry a firearm in the woods during a hunt without a valid tag. Some guys were out target practicing at a rock quarry and were ticketed for being in the woods without a tag.

The supreme court ruled that this did fall under the 2nd amendment, the state game department couldn't deny the right to carry arms because of the lack of a tag. The attorney general of Oregon then sent out a notice that the Oregon law would be unenforceable so the OSP quit trying this. IIIRC, this was something like 1 year before ORS 166.173 made it moot.

 

I've been hearing that some newspapers here in Oregon have been trying to get lists of CHL holders published.

Why? It only makes sense if you want to "out" people and make them pariahs.

 

Yeah, no open carry in Portland metro area, but you can carry concealed with a CHL. You aren't even allowed to have a loaded weapon in your car in Portland unless you have a CHL.
Open carry is allowed everywhere else in the state, but private businesses have the right to ask you to leave and if you don't you can be brought up on trespassing charges.
Of course, if you carry concealed and are in a private business they'll never know that you have one so they won't ask you to leave for that reason.

I think the crime rate would really go down if open carry was allowed everywhere (except specific places like court buildings, federal buildings, etc.)

Yeah, I heard that too. They've been trying to get a bill passed that would protect all personal info for CHL holders but it's not getting through...

 

The attempt was to out school teachers with permits. The Ashland paper was one of them trying to do this.

 

Yes they have.
I think it was a Medford or Ashland paper that finally managed to get a list out. They claimed, under the Oregon Public Records Law, that the publics need to know was compelling as they were looking to see which Teachers had CHL's.
The fish wrapper (i.e. The Oregonian) in Portland and Willamette Weekly both tried pulling similar stunts, but got usurped and cut off at the knees because the State Sheriff's Association got ahead of them. They reached out to all of their CHL holders asking if they wanted their info kept private. 99% said they did and filled out official forms indicating this. Apparently this was enough to satisify the Ore Crt of Appeals ruling and blocked the news papers, at least for now.
My thought is that there is no "right" to know who has a permit for enough reasons and experiences to fill a book. It's just a permit to carry. Doesn't mean they are.


There is a bill before the Or Senate right now that will codify the CHL privacy. It has passed the House, but a Senator, Sen. Prozanski, from Cottage Grove / Eugene has promised to block it from a vote. They want an amendment to it making it subject to the Oregon Public Records Law, which essentially puts us right back to where we are at now. It would probably kill anything that the Sheriff's have done to keep it private too.
You can find info at the Oregon Legislature site, Oregon State Legislature
You have to peck around a bit, it's HR 4045. I've written letters / sent email to the Reps and Sen.
Jim,
Thank you for your email to Senator Boquist regarding HB 4045.
We have received a lot of mail on this issue and many letters similar to yours.
I have made a copy of your well written letter for Senator Boquist to review.
If you have not already done so, it would be good to send an email to Sen. Prozanski, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as the other member of that Committee who will be hearing this Bill first on the Senate side.
Marjorie
Prozanski has publicly stated that as far as he is concerned all gun legislation is dead, but has not responded to me. Courtney is the Senate President and he hasn't responded to me either.

 

Didn't they finally make private DMV records, so you can't go and request the owner information for a license plate any longer?

If, as some have argued, that CHL holders have no right to privacy, certainly vehicle owners have no greater right to privacy.

Was Ashland or Medford's paper ever allowed to publish the information? I know that it was tied up in a legal battle for awhile, but I thought the outcome ended generally positive for CHL holders.

 

I carry everywhere, except for instance Fed/County courthouses with signs explicitly prohibiting.(and metal detectors)
It's called "concealed carry".............no one needs to know.

Politicians and organizations be damned.

 

First, DMV records are "semi" private. You won't see the Oregonian publishing the DMV database, but your insurance company, boss, certified private security and a host of other people can get it and use it for business purposes. Under the right circumstances, John Q. Public can walk into DMV and get your record.

The short version of the court case was that the courts ruled that if a person obtained the permit for security / safety reasons, the record wasn't public. That's why the Oregon Sheriffs Association was able to stop it. They reached out to the CHL holders and had them document that. All new applicants have that as part of the permit process now.

What I don't understand is how the paper could use the excuse that they wanted the information because the teacher had been "caught" carrying a weapon at school. The teacher had already produced the permit, it was already public and it was a major part of the teachers suit / fight against the school district. So the papers arguement that they wanted to check on the teachers permit was just cannon fodder.

The Oregonion has said several times it has to do with the publics right to hold the Sheriff accountable and the publics right to know.

Sen. Burdick of Portland (a staunch anti-gunner) wants to know if teachers have CHP's.

They and others argue a compelling reason for the public to have access to the records so they can check to see that a permit holder is not a criminal, an employee or a fellow employee may be carrying - including teachers.

Whey you apply for a permit, the Sheriff runs a CCH and submits your finger prints to OSP Ident division. OSP enters the prints in the computer. They will notify the Sheriff if something pops up indicating a disqualifier or that you may have lied on the application. Therefore there is no compelling reason for the public or the paper to check up on the Sheriff.

I probably sound like a broken record but, Just because a person has a permit, does not mean they carry or are carrying at the moment.

Regardless of the excuses or reasons given the most "compelling" reason (that the news papers will never admit to) is that they will make money selling the list through their news paper.

It is so problematic / difficult for a private citizen to obtain a CCH on a person that most wouldn't do it and certainly could not afford to get criminal records on multiple persons. Only the big corporations who stand to make a profit doing so, will. (Selling Papers).

So they can hide behind their self righteous piety all they want. Every time any news paper publishes an editorial or story that they just want to hold the sheriff accountable or protect the publics right to know, they are, to be blunt, lying. Papers are in the business of making money and have a biased "stick" in the fire.

 

Ooh, Germany. 'Member when Moussolini (sp?) promised to make Italy's trains run on time? Well, Germany has no problem. I was on one from Berlin to Frankfurt-- an all nighter trip-- and it arrived within 2 minutes of the scheduled time. Love Germany. Fear Germany. They have their ***** together. They put the rest of the First World to shame.

I haven't been in your fair state for very long, so can you guys please fill me in on the local patterns of bigotry? Why should I hate a teacher who has a CHL?

 

Because guns are evil, and we can't have someone like that around impressionable youth...

 

Oh.

My first thought was "Because OR doesn't want to put metal detectors in schools like NYC and they are afraid that teachers are going to be shooting students?.... No wait, that can't be right."

And then I didn't get it, given the fact that teachers are the more responsible class of people in the school setting.

I'm not that smart and I have a lot to learn.

 

Following the extreme lines of certain media outlets, apparently any teacher with a CHL is going to be carrying a gun in the classroom and will cause death and destruction with said gun.

Some of the media in Oregon seems to be mostly anti-gun. The Oregonian, Register Guard and Mail Tribune to name 3. (See the Dave....Gun smoke thread). They love to stir the "anti-gun" pot to MAKE MONEY selling papers under the "ruse" that the public has a "compelling" reason to know who has a gun. (Simplified version). They apparently see themselves as the self-anointed guardians of all that is holy and righteous.

Anyway, if you follow the apparent thinking of these and other media along with their followers then you come to the conclusion that any teacher (or other person) who has a CHL is carrying a gun 24/7 and therefore a menace to society and endangering our children in school.

There was also a recent case of a Marine arrested on a local college campus for having a gun even though he had a CHL. He went to court and won. Media outlets and some politicians lost face.

Attempts to obtain and publish lists of people who have CHL's have been made by the Mail Tribune, Register Guard, Oregonian and Willamette Weekly. Maybe others, but I know of those 4 for certain.

Their excuses for needing access to the CHL lists primary focus on the Publics compelling reasons to know which teachers are packing guns in the classroom and holding the Sheriff accountable for doing his job correctly. (Not giving the bad guy guns). See OSP web site for info on getting a persons CCH and see if John Q. Public will go through that just to "check" up on the Sheriff.

What they don't tell you is that the Sheriff takes your information and your fingerprints, runs a CCH through LEDS and NCIC as well as local records and then sends the fingerprints on to OSP Ident who creates a CCH entry with them which connects with any previous CCH entries, FBI and other agency connections. If you’re a non-qualifying candidate, a red light is going to flash and you are not going to get a permit. If you have given false information on the app and clear the initial CCH / background check, when OSP plugs your finger prints in, the lights will still flash when then match a previous entry under another name.

If a permit holder is later arrested, the CHL permit will pop up on the CCH, the information will be forwarded to the Sheriff via the arresting agency and OSP and the permit will be pulled. Checks and balances.

But according to Ceasefire Oregon, The Brady Institute, the above media and others I'm just a gun toten, scared of my own shadow, upside down, backwoods, redneck country hick that has no idea of what it takes to create a decent and livable peaceful society.