Monday, January 4, 2010

Open Carry Experience in Oregon

I was recently traveling through Oregon where they currently have zero reciprocity for any out of State CCW permits (for additional info on gun laws impacting armed travel check out these gun travel tools). In addition to zero reciprocity Oregon is also unwilling to issue CCW permits to non-residents unless you happen to live in a bordering State. As an Arizona resident, the only way I'm not prohibited from protecting myself while traveling through Oregon is to open carry, and even then I have to stay out of six of their Nanny State cities like Portland who prefer to make out of State visitors easy targets for criminals. As a result, before I crossed into Oregon I tucked in my shirt to transition from concealed to open carry.

As we traveled through Oregon stopping from time to time to eat or refuel our vehicle, most of the people encountered didn't appear to notice my handgun. However, while we were at a gas station paying someone else to do my normal task of refueling our car, I went into the convenience store to buy some soda and snacks. While there, I overheard a child nearby ask his father: "Dad, why does that man have a gun?"

His father didn't answer, so I took the opportunity to respond myself. While pointing to our car outside I said: "you see, I have a wife and children in that car out there who I love very much, and I'll do whatever it takes to keep them safe. My handgun is just one of the tools at my disposal to help me do that."

He seemed satisfied with my answer, and even gave me a smile.


Unknown said...

What was the reaction from the father?

Dustin said...

He didn't say anything but he smiled. Not sure if it was a smile of "yeah right" or "that's a good point"

Hopefully the latter. Either way, hopefully he'll have something to think about as how he can best plan to keep his own family safe. :)

bombloader80 said...

I honestly can't figure out OR's concealed carry laws. Unlike CA, they're a shall issue state for residents, so don't know why they won't do reciprocity, at least with the states that most states reciprocate with.

Dustin said...

So very true. Everyone should at the very least have the opportunity to apply for an out of state permit if they are unwilling to allow reciprocity. Otherwise they are completely prohibiting a natural individual right that is protected by the Bill of Rights.

States like Oregon & California will be ripe for a lawsuit once we get Incorporation of the 2nd Amendment later this year, allowing it to protect our right to bear arms against infringement by State & Local governments.

Bob G. said...

Good for you...carry on!

Dustin said...

Thanks Bob, have a good weekend :)

tom said...

Wandered over here from Bob S.-land and have a bone of contention:

I ate a misdemeanor over the above in an unfriendly state a few decades ago, quite knowingly as far as risk of it happening and am not a criminal. Was a hassle but I'd do it again the same way with the laws as they were existing at the time. Some might see that as advocating breaking laws, honestly, I do as well...I advocate law breaking if need be to preserve the life of one and one's family and friends.

If somebody had been breaking the USA and USA(R) rules just north of me at Fort Hood it could have turned out quite differently for Hasan.

Problem is, there were too many people like me that voted with "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" that most everywhere has made what used to be misdemeanors into felonies because breaking the law would put you at risk of entirely losing your right to own firearms...

That's something that needs to be addressed. Universal carry permit recognitions, IF that is what we have to do to carry, I find abhorrent because they involve licensing people to have permission to defend themselves. Just because I took the CHL course doesn't mean I was happy about it and I did it more for the sake of simplifying firearms transactions with FFLs rather than for any other reason.

Just off the top of my head: If your wife defended herself against an attempted rape with an unauthorized carry weapon would you want her to go to jail for it? Police tend to look the other way in such instances where an injury was prevented to an otherwise law-abiding citizen but what if that same wife raised a flag during a traffic stop and got done for having a snubby in her purse or glove box? Got done to the tune of a now FELON wife.

Whether people like to admit it or not, people carried concealed, men and women (in my experience growing up mostly in Texas, it was more often women than men that carried concealed before the permits became available because they usually got away with it legally speaking with blind eyes turned and it's a significant equalizer for lower upper body strength), LONG before many places even had a useful system of permitting. Now we have permits and what used to be misdemeanors are felonies for all.

Was that really an improvement or a wrong fix of the laws?

It's an honest question and one few people bother to honestly ask themselves. Still requires asking. As often noted by many a CCW/CHL "criminals don't get permits to carry anyway" etc.

Is having a NATIONAL HABITUAL CARRYING GUN OWNER REGISTRATION PROGRAM really what we want? In my case I'd say it was never anything I wanted. It was a huge legal WRONG TURN. Criminalizing otherwise legal behaviors without a permit is never a good response to bad behavior by a few.

Yes, I realize getting people on board to eliminate any permitting is unlikely just as eliminating the NFTR is not particularly popular in the world of feasible things that may happen in my lifetime that won't because of people that are afraid to think about it BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT NOT A GOOD IDEA.

If you get a "national uniform system of carry and reciprocity recognitions" you WILL get it administered by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NOT YOUR STATES. That's the only way it would fly on a governmental level politiaclly or otherwise. And along with that you'll have detailed CENTRALIZED FEDERAL files on Every Gun Owner in America. Sounds like Sarah Brady's wet dreams to me, not a victory for human rights and natural rights of man.

Durham said...

That's not true at all, it would be a reciprocity agreement between states, much like driver's licenses. Each state carries records and regulates requirements for its drivers. And they don't necessarily match each others requirements. But they do honor another states driver's license. There is no federal database of drivers, nor would there be of Concealed carry holders, with a national reciprocity agreement. That is the purpose of the Interstate Commerce clause.

Unknown said...

Here is a solution to reciprocity. Before I retired in 2008, I was a Grand National Tractor Puller. I had a 4 engine, 6400 horsepower Modified Tractor. The tractor weighted 7500 lbs, plus all the spare parts, spare engine, tools, etc and some living quarters, and our trailer was too heavy and too big to be safely pulled with a pickup. So, most of us drove Semi's, but converted them to meet the definition of an RV, so we didn't need a CDL, and Commercial Tags and Insurance.

Back in the last 70's/early 80's two of my friends, Mike and Ron, were taking their Semi RV's from their home in Ohio to Tomah, Wisconsin. Somewhere in southern Wisconsin, they got stopped by the DOT. WI would not recognize their R plates and took their trucks out of service and had them park them at a Weigh Station until someone with a CDL came to pick them up. Both men received about $5000 in fines.

Turns out, Mike was good friends with the top DOT official in Ohio. When they returned, Mike talked to his friend, let's call him Bob, and said what can we do. Bob called his Wisconsin counterpart and pleaded his case get the fines against Ron and Mike dropped. The Wisconsin guy, let's call him Jim, said the vehicles did not meet WI standards for an RV. Bob said Wisconsin is not allowed to interpret Ohio's laws on what constitutes an RV. The two were at an impass and Bob politely hung up the phone.

He then called the border scale houses and told them that Ohio no longer recognizes Wisconsin's commercial plates and to park ALL trucks with WI tags.

A few hours later, with hundreds, if not thousands, of trucks on the side of the road, Bob's phone rings. It's Jim. "WTF are you doing!" says Jim. Bob replies, Ohio no longer recognizes commercial truck plates from Wisconsin. They don't meet our definition of a Truck. According to you, we have the right to determine how vehicles are licensed.

Jim dismissed Mike and Ron's tickets.

I think this can be solved. If reciprocity of drivers licenses were dependent on reciprocity of carry licenses, the problem would work itself out.

Durham said...

That might work, except that is already the case. That is the reason there is such a patch work of reciprocity agreements. I think the thing you forget is that there are many, many people in the requisite official positions who do not believe people should be able to defend themselves, let alone with firearms. Of course most would not let that be known. The problem with your assessment is that concealed carry reciprocity is not a necessary condition of interstate commerce, whereas trucking is.

Anonymous said...

Good for you! I'm glad you did that. I live in Portland and your assessment of my state is spot on. It's like we're a haven for mindless sheep. Everything in this city/state has to be controlled or regulated, parking, crossing the street, cold medicine, spray paint, etc.

I wrote a letter to Senator Merkley asking for support of the Federal Reciprocity Act last year to which he replied "I believe states should
have the right to establish and enforce their own gun laws, particularly since views tend to vary widely across regions. I believe that Oregonians, not politicians, should determine who has the right to carry within the state."

This explains partly why there is no reciprocity with other states. Oregon doesn't trust the firearms training standards of other states. I really have a problem accepting that because my CHL class in Multnomah County was a joke. Getting a CHL in Multnomah County is probably about as easy as getting a coupon for cookies at the grocery store, as long as you can legally own a firearm. While some people might appreciate that, I'm not opposed to the more structured and comprehensive training that is required in states like Nevada and Utah. So why can't Oregon have reciprocity with those states?

I just finished writing another letter to my Congressman, trying to clear up some more anti-gun ignorance. We all have to keep fighting in whatever way we can to preserve our natural right to defend ourselves.

Dustin said...

Thanks for putting in the good with your representatives. Be sure to contact your local State representatives as well to ask them to establish reciprocity either with all States like we do in Arizona, or at a minimum with those States that meet or exceed the same minimum training Standards that Oregon requires for its own permits.

If they go for the 2nd option, ask them to not do something incredibly dumb like prohibiting non-resident permits. For example, if they opt to only recognize the Florida & Utah permits, they should not prohibit Arizonans who go through the process to obtain a non-resident Utah or Florida permit as they have to go through the exact same training and process.

tom said...

You're still fighting a losing battle out of the gate by allowing a permit to be mandated on a Natural Right.

I'll believe National Reciprocity without Federal Meddling when I see the NEA get out of local school districts and the DEA get out of state drug laws.

Even if you get reciprocity, you're shut out of a number of states that won't allow concealed to be forced on them by the Federal government in any way shape or form. Never gonna happen in my lifetime.

I'm glad you are all optimists and it's noble and all but allowing a right to become a privilege will be a PERPETUAL LIABILITY. No two ways about it no matter how well you know cops in the land of competition motors or even firearms competition.

Best of Luck. It's still the wrong tree and you by default are giving away a right to ostensibly get a right.

Maybe I'm knowbody but how about Jeff Knox of the FIREARMS COALITION? QUOTE: If you want to cut my leg off and I don't want you to cut my leg off and we compromise at you cutting my leg off at the knee or foot, how is that a compromise? You got my foot or lower leg. What did I get out of it? I lost part of my body. That isn't a compromise." Nobody much calls the Son of one of the Board of Directors of the NRA a loose cannon for bringing it up.

You might reflect on that. Compromising since the Bill of Rights was written has all been in one direction other than firearms rights for minorities of primarily the negro persuasion and Heller left as many questions as it answered, especially the clause related to "unusual weapons and such." They just have to redefine some things and it may end up like Heller never even happened if that's how enough of the activist populace is. Most people don't care about guns either way. those of us that aren't stupid about caring about guns are very vocal because we have to be because there are more vaguely anti or afraid of gun people than their are vaguely pro gun people.

I just call things as I see a couple centuries of history and what things look like on the ground. Call me nutty.

Dustin said...

Personally I'm in favor of States Rights over any type of National Reciprocity mandate. I'm a libertarian at heart. I'd like to see the Federal Department of Education to vanish - it is a single point choke hold for special interests to get their perversions pushed on our children nationwide.

My preferences listed in order of my preference for Oregon to implement:

1) Remove the requirement for any permit at all - Alaska & Vermont style freedom to carry. If you are not a Felon, you are free to carry concealed or openly.

2) Recognize all permits.

3) Recognize some permits, and offer out of State application for a permit.

Dustin said...

Arizona is an excellent example for recognizing all permits. That is a model everyone should push for on their own home turf if you don't already have it. This year we're pushing to go a step further - in addition to continuing to offer permits to those who wish to have them for out of State travel, we'd like to institute freedom to carry. If you are not a felon, you would be able to carry openly or concealed in Arizona. No special government permission required, end of story.

tom said...

AZ is an example of what should be everywhere, maybe, outside of it still being a state that legislates things instead of behavior --- BUT politically it won't be everywhere even if it is a good idea. Facts on the ground, not what be a good idea or good ideas. That's what we actually are working with. No offense intended, but the AZ model is pie in the sky NO WAY in a lot of the country and most definitely on a federal level. That's a fact and no insult to anyone. I like the "tom in the parts of Africa he likes as well as some parts of Mexico model" of carry whatever you want wherever you want, pretty much no questions asked, because I know people who know people...but I'm not expecting to ever see that happen in Pennsylvania or Chicago of California or even Arizona either. You have to work with realities and the biggest reality is people gave away a right and let it become made a privelege and all the machinations and fine tuning of the privelege restrictions DO NOT CHANGE THAT FACT. "The law is an arse," as it were, and the less laws the better. Any way you regulate a right you have turned it into a privelege. You can't be a little bit pregnant and you can't give away only part of your right to bear arms because it gives legal standing and precedent for ALL OF YOUR PRIVELEGES TO OWN FIREARMS, as THEY ARE NO LONGER A RIGHT, to be taken away.

Some people have a hard time of wrapping their head around that, but it's reality.

The people that didn't mind a couple percent tax for a good cause never expected the modern welfare state we have either. Davy Crockett got fired by one of his constituents over that one in his D.C. days and few people remember nor know about that one. One of his farmer constituents in Texas called him on use of public funds for something he actually thought was a nice thing to do, BUT, the government had no right to spend his money without his permission on somebody else, even if his contribution was minor and it wasn't much money, and the case in question involved a widow that needed a lift up that caused the residents of the U.S. Capitol to render her a tad bit of state aid to help her out of a jam. D.C. had never thought a bit about it being wrong until he got called on it and he fought against such things for the balance of his life.

Point taken yet? If not, I'll give up trying to get you to re-evaluate your apradigm. It's all well and good, as long as thy don't impede you, to have more or less reasonable state laws -- BUT -- WHETHER OR NOT A LAW IS REASONABLE MIGHT NOT BE DECIDED BY WHO YOU AGREE WITH -- Therfore, if you allow people to legislate something you care about you are also giving them the PRIVIlEGE of potentionally RUINING IT.


...more follows

tom said...

If that doesn't explain it, nothing will, and I'd do as well speaking to the Brady Campaign except they would agree with me and are counting on it to meet their goals. Think about that. They are evil people but they are quite thoughtful in their biased way and against people with my attitude that don't want to yield an inch. They know that the people that are most likely to scupper gun rights are lawful gun owners just like Reagan signed a S.O.T. related bill he never should have that has made a friend of mine that was a machine gun collector at the time and still is, a MILLIONAIRE MANY TIMES OVER. Reagan, not Clinton, Reagan...the fact I despised Clinton and wife and liked REagan's general policies once again does not change the actual pertinent facts of history. Facts people don't want to think about, but that doesn't make them not facts.

Maybe it takes actually having been arrested over it just like some people don't believe that guns might have some defensive utility until they had something happen to them that made them wish they had had one? If California actually fully managed to enforce all their gun laws, they couldn't build enough prisons because they'd have nobody to staff them. D.C. same. Laws for Federal things are made in D.C....That would clear a lot of people's heads, people like you getting unfortunately arrested because of something that shouldn't be legislated at all (not that I would wish the costs and hassles of that on anyone, yourself included) and that very well might start happening in the not so distant future in our more and more urban and non-firearms oriented society where people mostly associate firearms ownership with bad things. Think of the above performance machinery related story in inverse as it can cut both ways. They could start targeting people from the other state the wrong way.

Y'all readers and writers here are NOT America, although a very important tiny part of it hopefully not getting suckier for me/us, unless people scupper their own boats. I had to deal with medical personnel related to diabetes today and the mid 20s medical person jabbing a medical needle in my arm didn't know how to make a graph. He didn't talk in gang vernacular and seemed from a middle class background. They only take 4 tests over 2 hours in the medical test but when I personally graph things on myself I tend to take 12 for more precise following of the insulin/sugar curves. Nice fellow, seemed intelligent as above. HE managed to become a LPN without ever learning to make a simple curve of data points. I learned this by telling him about my methods and he had no understandings of even rudimentary graphmaking when I told him of my methods and means at home.

Those are your voters and who will decide things as things default to LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR FIREARMS PRIVS unless we stop shooting ourselves in the foot. I'm heavily vested in these devices as a life and career. I'd like things to not get worse and I will complain when they do or when I see people moving them towards worse. Minimal hopes of anything much improving from where we are. I guess if you accept that there is no hope of us getting a RIGHT back instead of a PRIV it makes YOUR approach seem more reasonable than mine but my morals and principles are not negotiable, especially when I can't see being able to ever negotiate them back.

Eventually I'll likely complain and retire to the third world for above reasons and those of you that big game hunt can use my services if something goes amiss on your safaris with equipment if I'm not retired or maybe even if I am, as I doubt my interests will have changed and not too many people play with the odd things I do in the marketplace.


Dustin said...

Excellent points Tom. I agree 100% that there should be no regulations on firearms ownership - regulate actions with ANY object, don't regulate objects. For example, make it illegal to kill people, don't make it illegal to walk around holding a rock in your hand.

In fact, I think the ATF should be disbanded as it was only created to enforce the prohibition on alcohol which was also an idiotic idea that we already have gotten rid of.

My only question is, how do we best arrive there from here? I wasn't even around when the ATF was created, but I'd sure like to see it go away.

tom said...

Oh. Felon thing. Quick Take. Forgot to hit on it.

If a person is in free society that allows firearms and wants one they will have one. Felon or not. Actually it is statistically more likely that a felon with criminal intent WILL have a firearm than your average citizen and, by the nature of the fact that GUNS EXIST, bad people will have guns. Not all felons are bad people. There's a recent book called "Three Felonies a Day" that would serve you well to read. you can commit a FELONY without even knowing you are doing it. You know that, I know that, it just hasn't happened to you yet and you try to be careful about it.

Back to legislating things and possessions instead of behaviors, as legislation does NOT prevent behaviors by any means.

Any gun law disarms safe people to have guns in society and has very negligible effect on criminal firearms behavior. Londun has a thriving black market for machine guns and an acquaintance of mine collects knives made in the prison he works at. Many are quite nice, even some sophisticate custom switchblade types that would go for 3 bills in a store made by a mechanic with access to a vise and files and such in minimum security. I have a murder knife in my knife collection acquired by that exact same route and NO, in spite of my misdemeanor crime of having a inanimate object commit a crime I was charged for, it wasn't me as I don't murder people.

If you can't be allowed in polite society without a minder you shouldn't be. THERE is the problem. It's not whether or not my aunt's friend in Boston has a .380 bersa in her glovebox.

Dustin said...

Well said Tom. In fact, I read a story recently about a fellow in Washington who is going to jail because his wife owned a gun, and he had made a mistake as a youth - got into trouble breaking into his High School after hours - for which he became a Felon.

If a person is trusted to walk our streets, they should be trusted to have a firearm for their own protection. Our society has a very big problem of letting people on the streets with long wrap sheets that should not be let out of Jail, and putting people in Jail that should not be put in jail. This fellow is one person who should not be taking up a bed in Prison for the next 3 years, but it looks like he will be due to existing Federal Firearms Regulations.

tom said...

Working on putting criminals in jail. REAL death penalty crimes. Immigration controls. Treatment for drug addicts and euthanasia for chronic recidivists or else re-institutionalize them with the mentally ill that got de-institutionalized... Those are where I'd start. I've got Jewish heritage on one side of my family and one of my hunting buds always introduces me to people as "the Jewish Nazi" :-) I guess in a way I am. I'm a Nazi about my favorite rule in the world and it's corollary.

Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose.--Will Rogers


My right to do whatever I want short of hitting you in the nose with my fist (here lies the problem grey area as to menacing behavior / pre-emptive legislations to keep noses from getting punched and potential threats, I know this) includes everything I might do with it short of touching your nose.

THIS is essentially the battleground.

I don't know what to do about Treasury's BATMen, as they are currently in a makework job that was made for them because Prohibition went away and A and T enforcement couldn't support their staff. No other LE Agency wants their staff for the most part because they have a bad rep as LEOs for themost part. The FBI can be real a**holes to deal with, but they are generally very competent at being such. Creating a "new crusade for BATFE" would likely involve violating some other demographic's rights, as that's mostly what they are competent at. They sure can't do accounting for being Tax Agents. Maybe task them in with TSA/Homeland Security, as they've been trying to do it anyway of late anyway, by all outward appearances? They'd fit in and feel at home with the people that "save the world by looking intensely at shoes"...similar minds, practices, lack of accountabillity, decent govt. benerfits. It's an idea.

tom said...

Yup, we're back to IMPRISON PEOPLE THAT NEED IT and STOP IMPRISONING PEOPLE FOR THINGS THAT AREN'T THREATENING SOCIETY. IT really is that simple. In the current Len Savage case they are actually in court with a Len Savage / Historic Arms firearm, like the DAs sometimes sue houses and cars. It really is written as U.S. vs. Len's Firearm, last I heard. They're trying to get the court to acknowledge that Len's particular upper is a machine gun when everybody else's uppers are just uppers. I'm not sure how hard they've tried to convince the lumps of steel of this but it would probably feel about like trying to convince a Tech Branch agent that a new .700-ish idea is solely intended as sporting and falls in the exceptions of NFA rulings. I can sympathize with the plight of the Fed lawyer in court against a lump of steel because I've talked to lumps of steel on the phone and through my lawyers for years now on a semi-reuglar basis :-)

Dustin said...

So true. :)