Any reasons "Not" To get carry permit?


PDA






chetrogers
March 18, 2004, 02:50 AM
After searching the threads on CCW IM just curious if there are any reasons that a person should not get one.Other then not being able to shoot somebody if you had too..Im thinking of getting mine and just want last opinions on the issue.Thanks for any info...Im ready for the responcibility and would use a gun to defend myself if i had too In a life or death situation.

If you enjoyed reading about "Any reasons "Not" To get carry permit?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Gray Peterson
March 18, 2004, 03:16 AM
It puts you on a government list, and that's about it.

However, one thing about Oregon carry permits: You don't neccesarily have to own a firearm to have a carry permit. I didn't own a firearm for a year after I got my CHL. So it's not a foolproof list, and if they go door to door, just say that you sold it years ago, and just kept the CHL (just in case). Unless they make it retroactively illegal to sell (which is ex post facto), you won't get in trouble (unless of course they found the guns).

Reasons to get an Oregon CHL:

1) Completely exempts you from any open carry ordinances by Portland, Beaverton, St. Helens, and Salem, or any other city out there that has anti-open carry ordinances.

2) Of course it allows you to carry a concealed handgun.

3) Gets you the ability to carry in quite a few states, not as good as Florida, but at least you can get a Florida as a non-residents.

4) Home state permit gets you the ability to carry in some states that require resident permits only, like Michigan and South Carolina.

fjolnirsson
March 18, 2004, 03:24 AM
Oregon has open carry?
The wife and I are planning a move there. It's looking better and better.

joab
March 18, 2004, 03:37 AM
In the midst of Democratic controlled goverment and during the reign of one of the most anti-gun presidents that this country has ever known CCW swept the nation. I have to ask myself why. While I'm not a total conspiracy freak I wonder if this is not some grand scheme to get gun owners to register themselves voluntarily since goverment registration is , I believe, illegal.
While it is true that some states issue weapons permits common sense would dictate that most people are getting their's to carry guns. In Fla switchblades are legal so I have that excuse to fall back on unless they actually do a search of my house.
I realize that this farfetched but 50 or 60years ago how many people in the south would have thought that they would need a permit to have a gun on your person or that your kid could get expelled from school for making a toy gun out of a piece of chicken, or wearing a military based logo on his shirt.
Like one man said "I love my country, but I fear my goverment" I think that was just before they executed his son and wife in their front yard.

chetrogers
March 18, 2004, 03:46 AM
Open carry in Oregon?????????????????????????

Jim March
March 18, 2004, 04:19 AM
The benefits both personally and "to the cause" FAR outweigh the negatives.

Personal, well, you don't get hassled by cops as much. 'Nuff said.

In the broader sense, the state knows how many people have such permits. Which gives three benefits:

1) The state knows how many "hard core gunnies" would get screwed if they reversed course.

2) Better yet, "stats guys" like John Lott, David Kopel and the like get to come along and sort out how many people are committed to self defense, during what time periods, and what effect that had on crime rates.

3) The general public gets to see that mass carry does NOT cause problems. This tends to get reported in the media - see also http://www.equalccw.com/ccweffects.html for a collection of same. So when some grabber politician runs for office and says "guns are eeeeevil", the population of the shall-issue states gets to go "what the hell is he talking about?"

Make no mistake: long term, I'd rather see Vermont/Alaska type carry than shall-issue. HOWEVER, I think the current period of predominantly shall-issue rules will be long-term beneficial in establishing widespread self defense as a net benefit.

And of all the state "experiments" to date, I predict the one that will be the most long-term valuable will be Michigan.

Do y'all understand how violent Detroit is? A couple years back, somebody calculated that if the US were to simply make a gift of Wayne County (where Detroit is) to Canada, the relative per-capita murder rates of Canada and the US would *equalize* :eek:. Sigh. So they've finally gone shall-issue - Detroit is now the ONLY major inner-city hellhole with shall-issue...and last year, for the first time in 40 years, Michigan's overall violent crime rate was lower than Ohio's.

THAT shook the hell out of the Ohio legislature and was a major factor in Ohio's recent shall-issue reform.

Upshot: keep a close eye on Detroit's violence/murder levels over the next 5 to 10 years, pending of course reforms in even worse areas like WashDC and Chicago.

Detroit is going to be our main proving ground.

Sisco
March 18, 2004, 04:58 AM
Kansas has open carry too, subject to local ordinance. I was once talking to a LEO about this, asked what he supposed would happen if I openly carried my 1911.
He said although there was no law against it, more than likely some concerned citizen would panic and call 911. Cops would show up and ask what your intentions were.
In short, you can do it but you won't do it hassle free.

50 Freak
March 18, 2004, 07:06 AM
Reasons not to get a CCW:

1) bad temper
2) a need to show off
3) carelessness
4) you'll shoot your eye out:D

Diggler
March 18, 2004, 07:22 AM
In the midst of Democratic controlled goverment and during the reign of one of the most anti-gun presidents that this country has ever known CCW swept the nation. I have to ask myself why. While I'm not a total conspiracy freak I wonder if this is not some grand scheme to get gun owners to register themselves voluntarily since goverment registration is , I believe, illegal. Do you think the reason for this could be that gun owners got more organized and active, joining with state legislature to give Slick Willie and his administration the finger?

joab
March 18, 2004, 07:59 AM
Do you think the reason for this could be that gun owners got more organized and active, joining with state legislature to give Slick Willie and his administration the finger?
No not really because the whole thing started way before Clinton. The first CCW state was Fla in '87 during Uncle Ronnie's term and continued on through Papa Bush and Slick Willie and now under Dub's reign things have slowed down a bit but to be fair there aren't that many states left. Notice that the place where all those politicians hang out is still gun free.
If our gun owning bretheren had been so powerful as to change generation old laws that prohibited concealed carry, laws which would have been very easy to call "common sense laws", and that many if not most gun owners just accepted as fate, wouldn't they have been strong enough to prevent the idiotic AWB or the safety lock laws or the gun a month laws, or any of the many other "for the children" laws that have seemingly sailed throught the Democrat controlled House and Senate during the same time frame.

dance varmint
March 18, 2004, 11:03 AM
- See thread about a Ft. Wayne, IN, newspaper considering publishing the names of all CCW holders.

- Where the restrictions on carry are so draconian it's a joke, such as car or restaurants.

- Requirements to register the guns to be carried.

- (Reasons not to even apply in may-issue states) Requirements for a reason/need, references, and invasion of privacy, e.g. interviewing neighbors.

pax
March 18, 2004, 11:17 AM
- Where the restrictions on carry are so draconian it's a joke, such as car or restaurants.

- Requirements to register the guns to be carried.

- (Reasons not to even apply in may-issue states) Requirements for a reason/need, references, and invasion of privacy, e.g. interviewing neighbors.

Absolutely none of those apply to Oregon. :cool:

In Oregon, with a CCW you can carry almost everywhere -- even into schools and bars.

There is no requirement to register your gun, or to qualify with a particular gun. You do have to take a class, but no one writes down what gun you use or anything like that.

You do not have to give the state a reason you want a CCW or "prove need." You do have to show that you haven't been involuntarily committed to the loony bin, and that's about it. No invasion of privacy issue unless you think that the very idea of applying for a CCW permit is itself an invasion of privacy.

Honestly, Oregon is one of the best states in the union for CCW laws -- though of course Alaska and Vermont are better.

pax

benEzra
March 18, 2004, 12:53 PM
The first CCW state was Fla in '87 during Uncle Ronnie's term and continued on through Papa Bush and Slick Willie and now under Dub's reign things have slowed down a bit but to be fair there aren't that many states left.
Florida was really pioneering in that regard, but Florida gunowners have long been well organized.

Shall-issue CCW really took off after 1994, in part because gunowners woke up after the AWB was passed in '94, and in part because state legislators in pro-gun states were frustrated with Clinton & Co. for overrulling them on "AW" issues. I was in Florida in 1994, and Florida had just overwhelmingly REJECTED a statewide AWB when the Clinton administration shoved it down our throats.

Look at a graph of new shall-issue states against the year that the law was passed, and I think you'll see the rate increase after 1994.

RobW
March 18, 2004, 01:07 PM
In essence, it is not only gun-registration, but also gun-owner registration! As far as I know, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about CCW!

DMK
March 18, 2004, 01:46 PM
If you have a Concealed Carry Permit in some states, it is noted on your licence. If a LEO pulls you over and runs you through the computer, it comes up. You are also required by law is some states to notify an LEO if approached in any other way. Both of these scearios allow the officer to disarm you at his/her whim.

Now, I have no problem with officer safety, but unholstering a loaded weapon and toying around with it makes for an accident waiting to happen IMO.

If you don't have a permit and are carrying illegally, you are breaking the law, but have no obligation to incriminate yourself. If you are concealing well, and otherwise a good, law abiding citizen, he has no reason to search you. In fact, you might even be protected by the 4th and 5th amendments, where a citizen licenced for carry my not! (How many stories have we read here where honest folks are patted down when the LEO finds they have a carry permit)

All that said, I do not encourage illegal carry or breaking any other laws. I do have a carry permit.

dwkennedy
March 18, 2004, 01:59 PM
In Oklahoma, having a license opens you up to a bunch of administrative penalties.

If you are convicted of, say, pointing a firearm at someone without an acceptable cause, you can be punished by fines and prison. As a permit holder, you have the additional pleasure of having the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (the okie FBI, not a court) sit in judgement of you. If they decide you've screwed up they can access an additional administrative penalty When you signed up for the permit you gave them the permission to do this, regardless if the situation had anything to do with a concealed carry firearm or not. Just another right you must forfeit for the 'privilege' of keeping and bearing arms.

If you stay out of trouble you'll not have to deal with this- yet another good reason to stay out of trouble (as if we needed another.)

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
March 18, 2004, 02:00 PM
Yes,

In Virginia a carry permit requires providing:

Name
Home Address
Home Phone No.
Place of Employment
Work Phone No.
Place of Birth
Date of Birth
Fingerprints
Social Security No.

All of this to be witnessed by a notary, and all of this is public information available for any identity thief.

Gordon Fink
March 18, 2004, 02:44 PM
The number-one reason not to get a concealed-weapons permit is that by applying for the permit you are formally surrendering your Constitutional right to bear arms in exchange for the state-granted privilege of doing so. By getting the permit you are at least sanctioning, if not actually abetting an illegal and immoral action by the state.

That said, I will eventually apply for a may-issue/will-not-issue California CCW permit. I guess being a free-range subject is better than being a caged subject. :(

~G. Fink

bountyhunter
March 18, 2004, 02:49 PM
After searching the threads on CCW IM just curious if there are any reasons that a person should not get one. One really good reason: the person is clueless and untrained in gun skills. I read a post where some guy said: "I just got my CCW, so now I need to buy a gun. Which one should I get?"

Makes me both sad and terrified.

Patent Works
March 18, 2004, 03:00 PM
Actually, Oregon is not quite as good as it looks on paper. Courts there have rules that Sheriffs may add their own application information requirements, in spite of the statutory requirement that the applications be "uniform throughtout the state." This can include private medical records.

Good legislature, bad activist judges.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=or&vol=A112471&invol=1

"Only one of these specific firearm-related preemption provisions, § 166.170, has been discussed in case law. Langlotz v. Noelle, 39 P.3d 271 (2002), a court of appeals decision, upheld a Multnomah County background check form used for handgun permitting that required more detailed information from applicants than state law mandates. Plaintiff, after being denied a concealed handgun permit because he refused to answer certain questions on the application form, challenged the sheriff’s form on several grounds, including that the sheriff, in adding questions to the application form that are not expressly mentioned in § 166.291 (Oregon’s concealed handgun licensing statute), had acted contrary to § 166.170(1) by regulating firearms beyond what the state permitted. Langlotz, 39 P.3d at 274. In allowing county sheriffs to require more detailed information on concealed weapons permit application forms than provided for under state law, the court stated that “[i]n enacting the statute that is the subject of this case, ORS 166.291, the legislature has ‘expressly authorized’ [the county sheriff] to regulate the possession and transportation of concealed firearms.” Langlotz, 39 P.3d at 274."
http://www.firearmslawcenter.org/content/oregon.asp

Eskimo Jim
March 18, 2004, 03:10 PM
You're on a government list for:
1) social Security
2) Irs
3)BATFE if you buy a firearm on the 4473 form
4) I'm sure you're on a list of workers according to OSHA, IRS, Department of Labor
5) list of voters
6) list of drivers
7) list of car owners/insured to drive
8) list of high school graduates or public school attendee
9 through 1000) some other list for some other reason

Get the permit. It is a nice option to be able to legally carry if you desire. It's better to have the permit and not use it than to need it and have to wait to get it if it is available in the future. Also reciprocity etc with other states.

Here's a great reason to get the permit, It will keep your NRA or GOA card company in your wallet!!! :D

Someone, (Fienstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Brady, Wrangle, Kerry, Annan etc) doesn't want you to have one!!! :evil:

-Jim

bogie
March 18, 2004, 04:06 PM
Why _not_ to get a permit?

If carrying a gun increases the amount of metal on your body, assuming you're already wearing your tinfoil hat, to the point where you attract lighting...

JEEZUS KAYRIST, PEOPLE!

Swamprabbit
March 18, 2004, 04:16 PM
I can think of NO reason to NOT get one if you are of the mind to carry a firearm at all. As alluded to above, there are enough "lists" already existing on us for this to make much of a difference. I know that it wouldn't take a hill of beans effort to find out who the gun owners are IF that was ever an issue. Frankly, I'm not too worried about that.

Black_Talon
March 18, 2004, 06:11 PM
If you have a Concealed Carry Permit in some states, it is noted on your licence. If a LEO pulls you over and runs you through the computer, it comes up. You are also required by law is some states to notify an LEO if approached in any other way. Both of these scearios allow the officer to disarm you at his/her whim.

I have a friend that lives in Idaho and uses a variation of this as his reason not to CCW. He claims that they've imported a bunch of anti-gun ex-Kali cops to Idaho and if they're the ones that pull you over, you'll be hassled a whole bunch.

Here's a guy that's spent 20 years working as a gunsmith, and the last 10 years working for several of the largest gun-related companies in the US, is perfectly comfortable around guns and yet he won't CCW because he's afraid of getting rousted if he gets pulled over. :rolleyes:



......while we down here in the PRK remain unarmed and defenseless. :(

itgoesboom
March 18, 2004, 06:28 PM
Ok, heres the deal.

If you get the permit,

You can carry legally, not worry about having ammo in the same compartment of your car as your gun when you go to the range, can have a means of defense in case you are attacked, and will probably be given a certain extra amount of latitude if you are pulled over, get a certain satisfaction of knowing that you are helping the gun-owners cause by uping the numbers of CCWs and showing that we aren't likely to commit crimes.

If you don't get the permit,

You may not carry legally, the Government will still have plenty of information about you (4473, CC statements, ect), and you decide to still carry, and get caught, you will lose youre rights to vote and own firearms. PERIOD. GONE. Plus, what happens if you do need to defend yourself, even if it is a good shoot your going to get charged with a felony anyways.


Oregon's process is pretty simple. Take the class, pay your dues, fill out the app, and your done. 45 days or less.


Very few places you can't carry, and, it gives you the means to defend your life and the lives of those you care about.

But, by all means, please don't carry if you plan on drinking while carrying, can't control your temper, pick fights, or want it for bragging rights.

I.G.B.

Edited to add,

Chet, don't listen to all the naysayers. If you feel as though you are a responsible gunowner, and would appreciate to have the means to defend yourself, than I say go for it.

The_Antibubba
March 18, 2004, 10:28 PM
In **********, the act of owning a handgun requires registration. So before purchasing a handgun you must take a State-mandated firearms class and register your weapon. No de facto registration, here-it's the real thing! :barf: That's just the "keep" part of the 2A; the "bear" part is a whole other ball of wax.

So, if you were to move to the PRK, would you register all or any part of your handgun collection? :confused: of course, if you don't, it's a felony.


:banghead:

Freedspeak
March 19, 2004, 01:22 AM
In Florida the concealed weapons permit say's you can carry a concealed weapon, not just a firearm.

You need it (legaly) for a knife, blackjack, mace, taser, stun gun, katana (if you can conceal it), or a firearm, but it allows you to carry any combination or all of them.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
March 19, 2004, 02:04 AM
Swamprabbit

I can think of NO reason to NOT get one if you are of the mind to carry a firearm at all. As alluded to above, there are enough "lists" already existing on us for this to make much of a difference. I know that it wouldn't take a hill of beans effort to find out who the gun owners are IF that was ever an issue. Frankly, I'm not too worried about that


What makes the CCW permit registry different from other State databases is that there is so much information, particularly including the Social Security Number, that is publicly available. That's the way it is in Virginia.

IMO having to publicly disclose my name, address, DOB, Place of Birth, place of employment, and most especially the Social Security Number, inorder to carry is a MAJOR infringement on my 2nd Amendment rights.

artherd
March 19, 2004, 02:17 AM
I can think of one CA 'gotcha' but this is not in my opinion a reason to avoid CCW.

In CA and many other states, much of your personal information becomes 'a matter of public record' and may be viewed by anyone!

Your Good Cause statement is a matter of public record. Be careful just how much detail you give!

Your SSN and certin other very personal facts are not supposed to become public record, but there is a long history of abuse of this, and often all data on the application 'leaks out'.

Assume everything is printed in the NY TIMES the next day.


Of course, you're also on a variaety of lists for any number of things, much of which is also Public Record. If you own a house, you're all over the place for instance.

Heraclitus
March 19, 2004, 02:37 AM
Other than not being able to shoot somebody if you had to
Actually, if you had to you should. Not having a permit is no reason to give up defending yourself or those you love.

Having to shoot somebody on the street while carrying a gun without a permit, however, is veeeeery serious business; and you will certainly surrender any right you had before to get a permit, and well after you've done your time. But I'm sure you didn't mean breaking the law up front.

That said, there is no reason I can think of why you should NOT get a permit.

Unless you're already "wanted".



Best regards,

Heraclitus

Andrew Rothman
March 19, 2004, 03:01 AM
Reasons not to get a CCW permit:

Someone will just take it from you and use it against you.
More guns on the street make the state a more dangerous place.
It is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an assailant.
You can just call 911 if you are in danger; the police are there to protect you.
It will make you a violent person. You will use it to settle arguments or express your road rage.
What are you so paranoid about that you think you need a gun?
You've never needed one before -- what makes you think you'll need it now?
Guns just "go off" by themselves all the time. Someone will get hurt.


:rolleyes:

Range Ninja
March 19, 2004, 09:27 AM
Reasons not to get a CCW:

1. You will have to purchase all types of gear.
ie. holsters, mag pouches, gun belts...

Reasons to get CCW:

1. You will have to purchase all types of gear!:D

Heraclitus
March 19, 2004, 09:35 AM
Mpayne:

Those look like Clinton's, Feinstein's and Schumer's reasons for not getting a GUN; not reasons for not getting a permit. :D

bogie
March 19, 2004, 11:57 AM
Nobody has a sense of humor anymore.

I'm getting really tired of this.

MicroBalrog
March 19, 2004, 05:55 PM
Why not open-carry?

CCW is legal here if you have a gun license, but practically every gun owner open-carries, especially Glocks.

rock jock
March 19, 2004, 06:06 PM
No.1 reason not to get a CCW? It prevents certain people from clinging to conspriacy theories that give their sad lives some semblance of purpose.

artherd
March 19, 2004, 08:36 PM
Why not open-carry?

Because the BGs will know who to shoot first.

charleym3
March 19, 2004, 08:50 PM
If you're in a relationship that you want to maintain, see what your significant other thinks (I was most unplesently surprised). Then decide what's most important. :banghead: I'm still thinking.

MicroBalrog
March 19, 2004, 09:07 PM
Because the BGs will know who to shoot first.

The statement is often repeated, but never backed up.

tyme
March 19, 2004, 10:27 PM
Micro, it's common sense. Open carry may deter a crime -- particularly a misdemeanor -- where concealed carry would not, but if it doesn't you can be sure that the felons will disarm you and single you out for battery... if they decide not to kill you outright. Anyone with a firearm is a threat to a felon. IMO it's a terrible idea to make it obvious to felons that you're carrying.

Combined with the fact that society has made many petty crimes felonies and that felons are rejected from much of society and from much of the workforce, there are more felons than ever who might be desperate enough to try to take your firearm away from you. Even if they don't succeed, getting into a tussle trying to retain a firearm is not my idea of fun.

You do not give up your RKBA by getting a license.
(http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=94979&highlight=grain+license)

MicroBalrog
March 19, 2004, 10:32 PM
Where I live, criminals try to refrain from killing total strangers, unless they absolutely HAVE to. Obviously enough, police will run after you if you murder someone much farther then if you beat someone up, so if they see a guy with a gun they just seek another victims.

Jim Simmons
March 19, 2004, 11:21 PM
In Michigan, I tell people who never want to carry concealed that they should get a CPL (concealed pistol license) for its fringe benefits.

1. If you want to buy a pistol, the CPL is the pistol purchase permit. No going to your local police station, applying for a purchase permit, waiting up to 10 days, then having only 10 days to consummate the sale and return with the pistol for registration (sorry; "safety inspection"). With a CPL, a person can go to a gun dealer, a gun show, or a private person and buy the gun then and there. Dealer purchases have to do a BATF 4473, but private sales only need to complete a form available on the State Police website; with easy instructions.

2. It's a second piece of photo ID, for those driving to/from Canada. It irritates Customs Officers to no end, but it's a state issued photo ID, so they have to accept it. (And irritating customs dufuses is a good thing!)

3. It identifies the holder as a "good guy" during a traffic stop. Most LEOs know that only the good guys can get one. Most.

4. If the world explodes (riot, civil unrest, terrorist strike, etc.), then you already have the dealt with the obstacle to carrying a gun to protect you and yours. Because you know that on that day, they'll not be issuing CPLs.

tiberius
March 19, 2004, 11:34 PM
Where I live, criminals try to refrain from killing total strangers So do they know all of the customers at the pizza parlor when they walk in and blow it up then? :confused:

Nothing wrong with open carry IMHO, but it's illegal where I live. Even in states where OC is legal, local governments (cities & towns) can usually prohibit it. I would estimate that something over 90% of Americans are effectively prohibited from open carry where they spend most of their time. CC is easier because it keeps the flock from being spooked.

Rob62
March 20, 2004, 12:40 AM
Having skimmed through most of the replies I don't think I’ve seen anyone mention liability.

Are you willing to accept the potential liability issues that come along with CCW.

I try to think worst case scenario. What would happen if for some reason you have an accidental or negligent discharge (AD/ND) while carrying concealed. Many of us try to avoid talking about that possibility. But I believe its real non-the less.

I associate with people who carry on a daily basis, both professionally and personally. There are those occasions, although very rare, where AD’s and ND’s happen. I can think of a recent event where one round was discharged in a parking lot. Luckily this negligently discharged round did not injure someone. But what if it had? I can only imagine the civil and possible criminal lawsuit that would have followed.

So I guess my point is this. Do you believe that the benefits of CCW outweigh any liability you might occur by CCW.

Whatever you decide good luck and stay safe.

Rob

Edward429451
March 20, 2004, 01:34 PM
Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall proclaimed that "any act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is void", 1803, Marbury vs. Madison.

Questions regarding the "First Law of Nature" (fundamental human right and responsibility of self-defense) were resolved at the time the Second Amendment, principal defender of our Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15th, 1791. The continuous and very real protections that this Amendment affords cannot logically be interpreted as being antiquated. Its purpose remains sound and noble. Accordingly, constitutional law and commonsense should render further discussion respecting the absolutes of self-defense as unwarranted. However, as this primary instinct is now under a vicious attack by the encroaching United Nations, faithless politicians, and other debilitating influences of Socialist activism, a plan of rational reaction is in order.

To the men and women who are outraged by the incremental theft of their fundamental human rights, this essay will be of interest. Some, who are well meaning yet clearly misinformed might also profit by proceeding. For the others who are indifferent, faint of heart or content with the social engineering of their lives by an oppressive nanny-state, they will not benefit by reading further. Because of an inability to direct and accept responsibility for their own lives, these bewildered individuals have by now blended into the flock, heading towards the precipice. Until the grazing meadows of sweet-grass wither, they will not stray.

The Constitution was conceived for the enumeration of legitimate authority and limitations of federal government, states and the people. Justly restrained, government has no constitutional authority, in any degree or manner, to infringe upon our unalienable, Second Amendment rights and responsibility of self-protection. Rebellious of this embarrassing yet straightforward and unalterable Second Amendment, our elected officials have enacted treasonous and unconstitutional legislation, placing millions of men, women and children in jeopardy.

Whether or not the majority of citizens believe in the right of the people (individuals) to keep and bear arms is irrelevant to the application of constitutional law. Intentionally disregarding degrees of social and political popularity, the Constitution equally protects the rights of every individual. Like it or not, this is a nation of laws and not men. We do not consider the political correctness of Socialism (endorsed by liberal Democrats and many so-called moderate Republicans), or polls of public opinion in order to determine which unalienable, constitutional rights government shall permit the people to exercise. We are dependent upon "Constitutional Law" for such judgments. Not any individual or faction has ever been blessed with the luxury of picking and choosing which "Article or Amendment" is more convenient and adaptable to their self-serving needs. The Constitution must be accepted logically, with honesty and in its entirety.

Federal court decision: "A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right. Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942)." For those who rely on constitutional law and commonsense, the possession of firearms is clearly "a constitutionally protected right". Regardless of this truth, most states require a citizen to pay a "fee" (registration or background check "fee") in order to obtain a "license" (concealed carry "license") before keeping and/or bearing a firearm. And, a federal and/or state "tax" (firearms and ammunitions sales "tax" or machine gun "tax" collected by the BATF) is always levied at the time of firearm transaction.

Supreme Court decision: The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944] This rather settles the question concerning the unconstitutionality of licensing, taxation or registration of a constitutional right.

NOTE: "Webster's University Dictionary - Infringed: 1. To violate or go beyond the limits of (e.g., a law). 2. To break (a law or agreement); fail to observe the terms of: violate. 3. To defeat: invalidate. - To encroach upon something. Infringement: 1. A violation, as of a law or agreement. 2. An encroachment, as of a privilege or right". Old Noah Webster must have experienced a prophetic dream prior to publishing these definitions.

Unrelentingly, armed lawful men and women are harassed beyond reason and commonsense with infringing, illogical and asinine gun control laws (forbidding self-defense). In their incremental efforts to abolish all guns, our corrupted government and dishonorable politicians are doing precisely what the Constitution forbids. If the 20,000 (plus) federal and state gun laws (fact) do not flawlessly illustrate Webster's definition of infringed, then no other repressive or invading action will. Within the world of authenticity, our gun laws remain as insidious acts of infringement and severe violations of constitutional law. Contrary to the standards and intent of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, these so-called "gun control laws" should not be enforced as "laws" but instead, denounced as acts of "outlaw gun control legislation". Acts, by the Legislature, which are indeed repugnant to the Constitution. These unconstitutional legislative and judicial illegalities represent direct and treasonous assaults upon the men, women and children of this nation and our sovereign "Constitutional Republic". Without question, it is outlaw legislation that has no constitutional foundation and violates the most basic of all human rights - self-defense. This legislation, under the pretense of legitimate congressional action, must be immediately voided.

The Second Amendment has been assailed on countless occasions. Mesmerized by fanciful visions of United Nations utopianism (world government), our sovereign government refuses obedience to constitutional law. Contemptuously, disloyal legislators defile constitutional principles with blatant violations of the most fundamental commandment, "the right of the people (properly interpreted as individuals in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Contrary to Socialist propaganda, our Founding Fathers did not place limitations on the possession of arms - i.e.. "(After receiving a concealed weapons permit) the right (limited by 20,000 state and federal gun laws) of the people to keep (inside their perilously unhandy gun safes) and bear arms (of specific description and registered with the BATF and equipped with trigger safety locks, rendering the weapon useless for self-protection) shall not be infringed (unless feel-good solutions, opinion polls and Congress deem additional oppressive and unrealistic restrictions appropriate to their self-serving political needs)".

As a former law enforcement officer of many years, I can state with credibility that guns save innocent lives far more often than they kill. Law enforcement documentation also indicates that there are over two million lives saved by guns each year (facts, never disclosed by the local or national media). In opposition to this truth, I have heard many anti self-defense advocates say that they only want "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership. That is of course, "for the sake of our children". My question is, does the number of 20,000 standing gun control laws appear to be "reasonable restrictions" to anyone other than a deceitful politician or an imbecile?

Each day, they rape the Constitution and molest our unalienable rights. Our disingenuous Legislators, Attorney Generals and Supreme Court Justices belittle and dishonor the memory, intent and integrity of our Founding Fathers. These self perceived ethical scholars of law have bastardized the Constitution with their convoluted and ambiguous interpretations of our unequivocal "Bill of Rights". Virtue by virtue, liberty by liberty, our Constitutional Republic is being systematically eroded away. It is they who are the most corrupting of outlaws.

The germane question is, would the peoples of China, Cuba, Nazi Germany (Holocaust survivors know the answer), Soviet Russia, Kosovo, Chechnya and so on, have become victims of rape, torture and genocide, had the citizenry been well prepared with handguns and assault weapons (the real thing, fully automatic) for self-defense? With adequate weaponry at hand, along with an appropriately defensive attitude, the numbers of casualties certainly would not have counted into the millions.

Unarmed, we are all vulnerable to tyranny. In truth, it is occurring to this day. Irrespective of ongoing governmental attempts at deception (BATF , FBI, sniper Lon Horiuchi, Senator Danforth and Federal Judge Walter Smith), the federally sanctioned atrocities involving more than eighty men, women and children (shot or burned to death) at Waco and a young innocent boy (shot in the back) along with his infant bearing mother (shot in the face while nursing her baby) at Ruby Ridge, should serve as profound examples demanding a well-armed citizenry. As a consequence of militarism (deploying lethal equipment such as machine guns, tanks and noxious gases, proper for conventional warfare but not paramilitary assaults upon U.S. civilians), now being discovered within the ranks of our federal, state and local police forces, freedom inspired armed citizens must hold these audacious agencies in check. Black or camouflage garb including ski masks are the costumes of choice, producing the affects necessary to demoralize and secure absolute public submission. Excluding legitimate security responses, these agencies instill terror in the hearts of loyal Americans. Street-wise criminals and the insane are not the only threatening elements within our society requiring constant vigilance and preparedness. Dismissing firm and decisive actions to rectify government atrocities assures us of further tyranny. Refusing to defend self and family by the most effective means possible, not only is an omission of unnatural cowardice but such inaction demeans God's gift of life.

Repeated Supreme Court decision: 1803, Marbury vs. Madison, Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall proclaimed that "any act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is void". Supported by his proclamation, any law or legislative act that attempts to deprive law-abiding citizens of their Constitutional rights is itself illegal and void.

Lawmen, including prosecutors, are obliged to discern "Constitutional Law" from outlaw legislation. On all occasions, conscientious officers must refuse to enforce laws that are egregiously unconstitutional (Confiscation of Constitutionally protected firearms from honest fellow citizens). The success of law enforcement is dependent upon the goodwill of the people and a peaceful community is the result of an equal partnership between police and citizenry. Without reciprocal confidence, the consequences will be minor acts of dissension escalating into mass rebellion. Police are compelled to serve only the people and have no other master.

Lawmen! Consider your predicament with care. Your responses will be either courageous and patriotic, or cowardly and treasonous. You must defend or condemn the Constitution. There is no middle ground for you. Stand with dignity and in contrast to the majority of politicians today. Honor your oath of office.

Demand from your legislators that they cease their unconstitutional assaults on the American people. If your elected officials refused to obey and defend the Constitution of the United States then vote the traitors out of office, for they are nothing less. Elected and appointed officials who with intent, actively attempt to subvert the Constitution of the United States, must be impeached, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for acts of high treason against the people of this nation. Contemplation of leniency for crimes of such far-reaching and destructive consequences is unconscionable. Through organization, our words and votes, we must immediately vanquish the adversaries of Constitutional Law, personal responsibility and individual liberty.

Self explanatory: In 1856, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that local law enforcement had no duty to protect individuals but only a general duty to enforce the laws. South vs. Maryland, 59 US (HOW) 396, 15 L. Ed. 433. (1856) A U. S. Federal Appeals Court declared in 1982, "There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." Bowers vs. Devot, U. S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 686 F. 2d 616 (1982).

The reality is that you have no right to demand of anyone to risk his or her life in the defense of yours. Obviously, preserving your life is a very personal endeavor requiring sound judgment. Make no mistake! Anyone, regardless of ignorance or intent, who deprives you of the means or ability to defend the lives of yourself and family is your enemy and must be consciously and continuously perceived as such. All anti self-defense activists are as deadly a threat to you and your family as any uncontrolled violent criminal or psychopath. Their actions contributing to the same result, government along with many politicians (Clinton, Lieberman, Schumer, Feinstein, Kennedy, Daschel, on and on) and street-wise criminals must all be held accountable for the thousands of men, women and children whose lives are lost to felonious assaults each year.

Because of their ceaseless and malicious distortion of gun related facts, many members of the liberal news media are morally responsible for these horrific losses. Knowing full well that women are far more vulnerable than men to violent assault, the "National Organization for Women" (NOW) is quite negligent by refusing to encourage the arming of their supporters for self-defense. If they were sincere in their concern for the welfare of women they would certainly do so. And, if noted on paper, acts of hypocrisy by the "American Civil Liberties Union" (ACLU) would fill volumes.

How many elected officials venture outdoors without the security of an armed bodyguard standing at their side? Are their lives of greater value than your own? Can you afford to retain the same quality of protection for yourself and family? Dialing 911 will not assure your safety. Although in most cases they are willing to assist, police usually provide an after-the-incident response. After the damage is done, they will always be there to investigate your homicide or rape.

Bureaucrats defiantly and unconstitutionally refuse to permit all honest citizens from exercising the "First Law of Nature". Covertly, government is aiding and abetting the most sadistic malcontents of humanity, the psychopaths and violent criminals within this nation. Indeed, along with former President Clinton and his appointed scoundrels, the blood is also on the hands of many other elected officials. Not only have they violated their oaths of office but actively subvert the Constitution of the United States.

Our Founding Fathers did not endure the abuses of a tyrannical government (England) and learn nothing. Their goal was not to create a document of government sanctioned privileges, to be allotted out by contemporary miscreants in office. Ingeniously, they instead provided us with the "Bill of Rights" which is intended to limit government. Not the people! They protect our Creator bestowed rights and further affirm the "First Law of Nature". The Constitution was conceived by the people and for the people, placing literal and enforceable limitations upon government. Without question, our elected officials have illegally far exceeded the authority of their office.

The establishment of our Constitution demanded a display of courage and independence by a well armed citizenry. Its continued integrity will necessitate the same. Look around you. Be observant! Question all actions of government and propaganda by the bias news media (dependent on distortions and sensationalism for high ratings rather than facts). Our freedoms remain in peril to this day. It will require more than indifference, complacency or fear to sustain your liberties.

As for myself, I am an ordinary, lawful American citizen who has witnessed for the past thirty years, the systematic, ruthless and devastating erosion of our human rights by a government behaving in an unconstitutional and corrupt manner. The bottom line is that I shall not tolerate further infringements on my unalienable rights. Coexisting in harmony with liberty, my Second Amendment rights are not to be compromised. Regarding independence of thought and action, I have never pledged fidelity to any militant cause, religious doctrine or political party. I will, however, defend with dedication and ferocity, the principles and intent behind the United States Constitution. I am a former Deputy Sheriff and have participated in hundreds of criminal investigations including armed robbery, felonious assault, homicide, rape and child abuse. Having tired of the despair related to this profession, with pleasure, I now indulge in the sculpting of wildlife, nudes and portraiture. However, to this day I experience a sense of duty to the public safety.

My final questions are, how many governmental invasions into our personal lives are we willing to tolerate? Have we not yet endured enough bureaucratic molestations? And, lastly, when will "WE THE PEOPLE" of this nation awaken to reality and reclaim our constitutional authority? This nation must be returned to the people. Without detour, we are rapidly approaching the point of no return. For the preservation of yourself and family, do give it some thought.



"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.


Source: http://www.americasvoices.org/avarc2001/archives2001/HoffS/secondamendment.htm

:)

Chip Dixon
March 20, 2004, 01:52 PM
itgoesboom,

I don't know about Oregon laws, but unless you're a felon, or carrying illegal drugs at the same time, (or some other extenuating circumstance) simply carrying a concealed gun on your person is not a felony in all states. You will not lose your rights to own firearms forever just for having a gun on your person with no permit and nothing else in most states. If my state didn't give CCWs, and made it a felony to simply have a gun and nothing else, I'd be on my way out of that state -- as that is absurd.

Even having a CCW doesn't guarantee you won't be charged with a felony if you are forced to used your gun, that is up to your district attorney.

Best Regards,

Chip Dixon

Double Maduro
March 20, 2004, 02:07 PM
When I got my Oregon CHL , last May, I picked up the forms at the courthouse in Portland, took the class, filled out the forms, went to the Multnomah county sherriffs office, (after waiting for a month and a half for the appointment) gave them my money-prints and picture.

45 days (the max allowed by law) later they mailed the permit.

There was no requirement that I prove myself mentally healthy (if you are from out of state you must prove this).

There was a blank on the form for SSN but it said it wasn't required, I didn't give it, and got the CHL anyway.

The process was much the same when I got my out of state Washington Concealed pistol permit. The differences were that they did not take my picture, I didn't need an appointment, I didn't have to take a class, and it was cheaper. The cpp also got to me faster than Oregons chl. Again, I was not required to give my SSN, There was a blank for it but it wasn't required.

I hope this helps clear up some mis-information about Oregon's CHL.

DM

Mornard
March 20, 2004, 04:01 PM
I getting mine, and will also pay for my wife, son and both daughters (and it was THEIR desire to take the course). Personally it's because I want the state (MN) to be forced to legally acknowledge our full and constitutionally-protected rights. It's also good training.

David Park
March 20, 2004, 05:02 PM
Cool Hand Luke 22:36 wrote: What makes the CCW permit registry different from other State databases is that there is so much information, particularly including the Social Security Number, that is publicly available. That's the way it is in Virginia. You do not have to provide your SSN on the concealed handgun permit application in Virginia. Some VCDL members challenged the state to back up that requirement, and they couldn't. Similarly, you no longer have to provide your SSN on the State Police form you fill out when buying a firearm from a dealer. It's now "optional", just like on the federal 4473. Check out www.vcdl.org (http://www.vcdl.org/) for more details.

I think the above example makes a point. By applying for permits and refusing to provide information that (illegally) violated their privacy, a couple VCDL members won a little more freedom for all Virginia gun owners. Similarly, there are people who open carry daily, and put up with the occasional hassle, just to remind everyone (including the cops) that we still have that right. I have a permit, but I'm also a member of VCDL, NRA, GOA (Life), and JPFO (Life), which means I'm probably on a list of "potential terrorists", but it also means I'm out at gun shows at least one weekend every month working to educate people about our rights. I would hope that those who only seem to see the negatives of permits are working to enhance our freedoms in other ways, and not just using it as an excuse to avoid trouble and let others do the heavy lifting in the gun rights movement.

Andrew Rothman
March 21, 2004, 12:16 AM
I try to think worst case scenario. What would happen if for some reason you have an accidental or negligent discharge (AD/ND) while carrying concealed.

What "some reason" would that be?

Having an ND while carrying concealed is exceedingly unlikely if one is not an idiot.

A gun carried in an appropriate holster should NEVER leave that holster unless you are at home taking it off or you draw in the face of danger.

And no, the worst case is not a very preventable ND.

The worst case is needing a gun...


...and not having one.

chetrogers
March 21, 2004, 01:35 AM
If i was to get my carry permit would it be worthless to have a gun holstered and not have a round in the chamber? ..Im new to pistols and I have taken a Nra Class that legally is needed in oregon but i wouldnt chamber a round unless i was intending to shoot it right then and there..Thanks for any thoughts or suggestions.

fjolnirsson
March 21, 2004, 01:59 AM
Chetrogers,

Some people advocate empty chamber carry. I am not one of them. If you need you firearm, you need it then and there, most likely. That's why you carry it.
It doesn't take that long to chamber a round, but in a life or death situation, that could be too long. Better to have a round chambered, and use the extra time to get that round in the BG.
If you are worried about having a ND, get a gun with an external safety. Myself, I have no worries about ND with my Glock while carrying. For the simple reason, I leave it in the holster. The kydex covers the trigger.
Of course, YMMV. Carry empty chamber, if you must. You may have time to draw and chamber a round when the feces hits the high speed air moving device.
Then again, you may not.
Stay safe.

itgoesboom
March 21, 2004, 02:17 AM
Chet,

While I won't go so far as to say a pistol without a round chambered is useless, I would say that it defeats the point.

While in many cases just having a pistol is going to stop the situation, if it becomes needed, there are the times where you would have to fire. In those situations, you will need that firearm to work, and to work quickly. You will not want to take an extra second to have to chamber a round, and that extra second may mean the difference between life and death.

Remember, you can only draw your firearm in Oregon if it becomes a life or death situation, your attacker has the Means, the Motive, and the Opportunity to kill or maim you. Drawing your firearm is considered lethal force, whether or not the chamber is loaded.

If you reach that point, I doubt that you want the only thing between you and death to be an unloaded firearm.

I know that someone earlier in the thread commented on liability in case of an ND/AD, but really, you can take precautions to keep that from happening. If you have a quality handgun, and you have it mounted in a quality holster, something fitted to your pistol that covers the trigger, your pistol will not fire while it is holstered. PERIOD.

You will get used to chambering a round prior to holstering, although it feels odd at first. Just use the same rules that apply when you are at the range. Finger off trigger, gun pointed in safe direction, but then just put it in a good holster. When you need to handle the actual firearm, just unload it before you do anything with it.

I think if you are planning on carrying with a the chamber empty you need to rethink why you are carrying a weapon in the first place. If it is for defense, than you really should carry with a chambered round.

I.G.B.

chetrogers
March 21, 2004, 02:26 AM
Thanks for the post "itgoesboom" Mabye i should wait to get my permit or i could get in now and just not carry.Im thinking of getting a DAO gun maybe something with an external safety with my frame size "big" im thinking either pocket carry or shoulder holster.Thanks guys

Moparmike
March 21, 2004, 03:06 AM
Having to buy another gun so that you can find a holster! Buying another gun because its lighter!

Ok, well, I could have a custom holster maker make one for me, but that would probably cost over 1/3 the cost of the gun itself, which is absurd.

I know, I know, buying another gun would be more expensive....

Double Maduro
March 21, 2004, 07:06 AM
Chetrogers,

If you don't feel comfortable carrying with a round in the chamber, Don't.

It is better to have a ccw and have to charge it, than not to have one at all.

I have 4 that I rotate in my carry scheme. I carry a 1911 locked and cocked. I carry my Ruger P90 the most and it is always carried with a round in the chamber and de-cocked with the safety on. Yeah I know, but I use all the safety devices at hand, always. I carry a Makarov in the same condition.

The other one is a revolver.

The point I am trying to make here is that you have to be comfortable with what you do. Don't leave your gun at home because someone said it is "worthless" in the condition you feel comfortable carrying it.

When you get your weapon, take it to the range and get comfortable with it. Make sure it is pointed in a safe direction when you cycle a round into the chamber and when you hit the de-cock button.

Carry in a holster that completely covers the trigger. I like having a thumb break, Yeah I know about the "suicide strap" as it is called by some here.

The thing is I carry for my protection and the protection of those around me. I don't carry to please anyone but myself. So when I carry I set the rules for how it will be done. You should too.

I hope this helps.
DM

Billmanweh
March 21, 2004, 07:42 AM
the only thing I look back on and feel a little funny about was being fingerprinted. I don't know why, it just makes me feel a little wierd to think that my prints are now in the database with criminals, etc.

Diggler
March 21, 2004, 09:34 AM
I think that if you insist on not having a round in the chamber you should get a double action revolver. Then all you'd have to do is pull the trigger twice to get a 'bang'... you never know when you won't have use of your weak hand.

tiberius
March 21, 2004, 11:39 AM
I think that if you insist on not having a round in the chamber you should get a double action revolver. Then all you'd have to do is pull the trigger twice to get a 'bang'... you never know when you won't have use of your weak hand. The real "advantage" of the revolver here is that you can keep the chamber under the hammer empty but still fire a round with a SINGLE trigger pull.

itgoesboom
March 21, 2004, 11:50 AM
Chet,

Please don't take my post as saying don't carry, because that was not the intent. Carrying can be a very good thing, and you definatly have a right to self defense.

My point is that if you are planning carrying for self defense, I would recommend carrying ready to go. Diggler made a very good point; what if you weak hand is disabled before you can draw? How are you going to rack the slide and get back in the fight?

A better solution would be to try and get comfortable with the idea of carrying "hot".

Many people don't feel comfortable carrying with a round in the chamber when they first get their permit or when they are planning on getting their permit. Its really normal.

So what has been recommended here before, as well as many other places is this.

After you choose your new carry weapon, and you choose your carry method, start to carry around the house, with no round in the chamber, but with the firearm ready to fire otherwise. That is made simpler with your choice of DAO.

After a few days, or a few weeks, you will notice that your firearm never "clicks", the trigger is never pulled, you will start to feel a little more comfortable carrying with a round in the chamber.

Carrying with a round in the chamber can be a little nerve racking at first, the realization that you have a loaded weapon, ready to fire, on your body, and with many types of carry it is facing parts of your body. I don't blame you for being nervous about it. It is just one of those things that takes time to get used to.

But it really is the best way to go. I wonder if you were to go to Thunder Ranch, Front $ight or any of the other training schools if they would recommend carrying unchambered?

I.G.B.

bdhawk
March 21, 2004, 12:57 PM
not necessarily all good reasons but things to keep in mind:

1. you really shouldn't have a couple of big shiner bocks while eating at chili's
2. you really should buy clothes that suit concealed carry, if you carry
3. PITA taking a dump in a public restroom. you have to figure what to do with your gun. don't leave it in your pants on the floor.
4. you have to be a nice guy and defuse your temper.
5. you have to keep in mind not to print or expose your weapon while sitting, bending, reaching, etc. watch the wind to not let it blow open your cover garment.
6. you have to avoid close contact. a hug can give you away.
7. you have to leave your gun in the car to enter certain places. any self respecting bad guy can break into a car and make off with your gun while you are in the post office. you also have to remember which places are legal or not to carry in. no pro ball games, car races, high school games, etc. etc.
8. there are loads of legal ramifications if you have to shoot someone. even if it is justifiable.
9. will your bullet go through the bad guy and hit an innocent bystander behind him that you didn't see in the heat of the moment?
10. you have to decide if you want/need to get involved to go to the aid of strangers in a life threating social encounter, or just be a good witness.
11. is giving up your wallet/car etc. worth escalating the encounter by getting into a gunfight and possibly getting yourself or others shot in the melee? the bad guy may just take the goods and go, you just don't know.
12. i can go on and on. there are countless "what if's" that you have to keep in mind. you also have to make the 'just right', life and death decisions, under a very stressful situation. can you?

concealed carry is a huge responsibility. do not take it lightly.

Third_Rail
March 21, 2004, 01:17 PM
Is open carry in Oregon legal with a CCW?

CleverNickname
March 21, 2004, 01:50 PM
Open carry is legal in Oregon without a license (except for a few cities that have banned it). Open or concealed carry is legal everywhere with a license though.

Third_Rail
March 21, 2004, 01:51 PM
Oregon keeps looking better and better...

Diggler
March 21, 2004, 02:21 PM
I was thinking that; but I figured that if someone is paranoid enough to not trust a bullet in the current chamber, they might not want one in the next chamber too in case the trigger 'accidentally' got pulled... :scrutiny:

fjolnirsson
March 21, 2004, 02:59 PM
The more I learn, the better Oregon looks to me. I can't wait to leave this miserable hel hole, and move back to the U.S.

chetrogers
March 21, 2004, 03:29 PM
Its weired i have never heard anything about open carry in Oregon..For some reason i dont think a person can with or with out a CHL..I could be wrong..

Double Maduro
March 21, 2004, 03:50 PM
When I took my class for the CHL the instructor said that each little area of the state has it's own rules about open carry.

When I was on the Multnomah County Grand Jury, I asked one of the DA's and he said it was legal in the county but I would be so hassled that it wasn't worth it.

I don't know if either of them was correct in their answers so don't take this as gospel.

DM

itgoesboom
March 21, 2004, 10:34 PM
Chet,

Open carry in Oregon is legal.

However, there are a few things you should know before you throw your favorite pistol on your hip and hit the road.

-Open carry is illegal in Portland and Beaverton. Some will argue that you can open carry if you have a CHL, but, for all intents and purposes, don't open carry in Portland or Beaverton.

-You can carry while walking down the street, but you may not enter a store or public building or any business while open carrying. While you will probably not recieve any problems in East Oregon, I wouldn't try it anywhere else.

-If you do decide to open carry, and you aren't in Portland or Beaverton, expect the sheep to cry wolf and have the police show up. You might even get hit with disturbing the peace or some other charge like that.

So yeah, technically, its legal, but its not advisable.

Also, those reasons above are in addition to the normal reasons not to open carry, ie., drawing attention to yourself, letting a badguy know who to shoot first (hey, free gun!!!).

I.G.B.

If you enjoyed reading about "Any reasons "Not" To get carry permit?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!