No CHL for Property Owned Out of State

[JustThisGuy]

Although my main U.S. residence is in Texas, I own property in Oregon which I rent out. I travel there at least once each year to look after the property and to see family there.

Oregon does not honor a CHL from Texas (or any other state). Although they will issue a license to any non-resident who lives in a state bordering Oregon, they will not issue a CHL to a non-resident who lives away from that area, but who has legitimate ownership of Oregon property and thus a need to visit the state.

Similarly, my rights to carry a weapon in my RV or car are also highly restricted (unloaded and locked up thus not accessible in any emergency). I have been told by Oregon LE that "It's just best if you leave your gun in Texas." Well, that means that I also have no protection in every other state that I cross to get to Oregon. Not a good solution.

I'm sure something similar applies to some other states as well. Has anyone any knowledge on whether there has been any challenge to such laws either legislatively or in the courts, or has anyone heard of any interest by anyone in pursuing a cause of action on this?

How is it that my constitutional right to keep and bear arms ends if I cross the border to another state? I'm still a U.S. citizen. Do my rights to free speech end if I go to Chicago (well maybe).

[MadHatter1]

What Constitutional right? As of this moment in time, the 2A only applies within the home, per the SCOTUS. The cases brought to them thus far did not address carry, so the Court -rightly so- did not rule or comment on the issue.
Some carry cases are have been brought, and are in the system.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

As of this moment in time, the 2A only applies within the home, per the SCOTUS.

That is not correct. As you pointed out, the Second Amendment cases that the Supreme Court has dealt with only involved the right to keep a firearm at homes; but nowhere has the Supreme Court said that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to the home. In fact, in the McDonald dicta, they seem to strongly imply otherwise.

So far our opponents have argued that the right protected by Heller is only the right to keep a firearm in the home; but the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on any of those cases or adopted the argument put forth by our opponents. There are currently several cases on carrying firearms that are winding their way through the court system. As they better outline how the Supreme Court views the "and bear" part of the Second Amendment, I expect to see local governments slowly and reluctantly change their laws to comply with those rulings.

[Chuck Dye]

Try again. Oregon HB 2792 was signed into law 2 August 2011.

[BlueTrain]

If you own property in both states, you ought to be able to vote in both places, shouldn't you?

[Hardcase]

If you own property in both states, you ought to be able to vote in both places, shouldn't you?

You only reside in one state and that's what counts for voting (generally speaking). In JustThisGuy's case, the situation is even more clear because he rents the property out, so he clearly doesn't reside there.

But it looks like his specific issue is academic - Oregon now has reciprocity with other states. I suppose that at some point, if Congress does not act, somebody will challenge a state's lack of reciprocity.

[JustThisGuy]

Oregon HB 2792 - Wonderful!

I had checked on www.handgunlaw.us which still has it listed as a no-reciprocity state.

You guys are fabulous.

BTW, as to 2A... the words are "keep and bear arms" Keep as in keep in the home and bear as in carry (presumably away from home). At least that's how I interpret it. (disclaimer - I am not a member of SCOTUS).

[MadHatter1]

That is not correct. As you pointed out, the Second Amendment cases that the Supreme Court has dealt with only involved the right to keep a firearm at homes; but nowhere has the Supreme Court said that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to the home. In fact, in the McDonald dicta, they seem to strongly imply otherwise.

So far our opponents have argued that the right protected by Heller is only the right to keep a firearm in the home; but the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on any of those cases or adopted the argument put forth by our opponents. There are currently several cases on carrying firearms that are winding their way through the court system. As they better outline how the Supreme Court views the "and bear" part of the Second Amendment, I expect to see local governments slowly and reluctantly change their laws to comply with those rulings.

With all due respect sir, my original statment is absolutly correct. The SCOTUS has not made a ruling on the right to bear arms outside the home one way or another. What they may have implied is not a ruling. I also said that there are a few cases pending. But until one of them makes it to the SCOTUS -and wins- there is no precident or decision that CURRENTLY affirms a right to carry outside the home. I do believe that if the current Court hears such a case, they will rule in our favor. Once such a decision is made, State and local govenments will whine, cry, panic, and then have to scramble to come into compliance.

[Gary Slider]

House Bill 2792 does not have any wording in it that states Oregon will honor any other states permit/license. It was in the bill but was stripped out before it was passed. You can read the bill yourself here.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/mea.../hb2792.en.pdf

[Bartholomew Roberts]

With all due respect sir, my original statment is absolutly correct. The SCOTUS has not made a ruling on the right to bear arms outside the home one way or another.

No, still not correct. I get the point you are trying to make; but let's look at your statements:

"the 2A only applies within the home, per the SCOTUS."

"The SCOTUS has not made a ruling on the right to bear arms outside the home one way or another."

Those two statements are mutually exclusive, so you apparently agree with me that the first one is not correct. I realize it probably seems like nitpicking to you; but from a legal perspective there is a huge difference between those two statements. I like to snip those minor confusions in the bud early because otherwise they blossom into Internet-lore

[Powermwt]

The House version had it in, the Senate verion took it out, the house refused to concur, there was mediation between the two in which the CCW issue with other states was taken out... then it was passed into law.

http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2011/HB2792/

and from another forum...

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ney-Now!/page3

Sucks for sure.

[MadHatter1]

OK MR Roberts, I do see the distinction you're making, and it is valid.

[Aguila Blanca]

Let's keep something in mind: Although in both Heller and McDonald the immediate question revolved around "keeping" an operable firearm in the home, the Constitutional right being questioned was -- and is -- a two-pronged right. The 2nd Amendment guarantees "the" (as in one, singular) right to keep AND bear arms.

In Heller, the SCOTUS ruled that "the" RKBA is an individual right rather than a collective right based on militia service.

In McDonald, the SCOTUS ruled that "the" RKBA applies to the 50 states as well as to the DC Federal enclave.

The SCOTUS having thus ruled that "the" RKBA (one, single, two-pronged right) is an individual right that extends to all citizens of the U.S., it is nothing short of gamesmanship of the worst order for any lower court to argue that "the" right means only a right to keep a firearm in the home and that it does not encompass carrying a firearm outside of the home.

[JustThisGuy]

So, we're back to "I own Oregon Property, but I cannot carry in Oregon because they don't acknowledge either a Texas CHL or a right for Oregon Property Owners who are not residents of the state to obtain an Oregon CHL."

In other words... I am screwed in Oregon.

I wonder if a SCOTUS ruling on the right to bear arms will have any bearing on states accepting out of state CHLs. It seems that it could compel them to accept open carry from out of state. Wouldn't that be a twist!

Are there any SCOTUS cases being presented that address the right to bear arms issue?

[Frank Ettin]

There are a lot of cases on various RKBA issues working there ways through the courts -- some will no doubt get up to SCOTUS. See this thread. I believe that both Peruta v. County of San Diego and Peterson v. Garcia deal with non-resident permit issues.

[hermannr]

Just...I would suggest you just read Oregon State Law very carefully and don't ask any LEO's other that this one: If you really want the straight up scoop, call the Grant County (Oregon) Sheriff Glenn Palmer (541) 557-1131. He is every gun friendly and helps us neighboring state types like me a lot. He KNOWS the law and supports the citizens right to bear arms. He will not lie to you.

Second, even if it is against your way of thinking, Open Carry is legal without a permit in OR and WA. Some cities in OR (but not WA) put a bit of a crimp on OC (Portland/Salem etc) in that without a CHL you cannot have a loaded OC within their boundries without a CHL, but you can have the mag or ammo right next to the weapon..no problem. There should be no problem at all with any weapon in your RV, Oregon even allows full auto if the weapon has the fed stamp (don't bring full auto to WA though)

I would suggest you go to www.OpenCarry.org and look on their map, they have the scoop on OC in OR laid out pretty well. Maybe even check out teh Oregon specific state threads.

Where in OR is your other property? How much you need to even think about it is limited to only a few places, OR as a state is very OC friendly.

[Frank Ettin]

+1 on Glenn Palmer. He issued me my non-resident Oregon permit. He's very good to deal with.

[Skans]

How is it that my constitutional right to keep and bear arms ends if I cross the border to another state?

Well, I own property in Georgia. I pay real estate taxes in Georgia. But, because I'm not a resident, folks I don't get to vote on anything. Yet, folks who do nothing but collect their food stamps and welfare checks get to vote. Do you think that's taxation without representation?

[Hardcase]

Do you think that's taxation without representation?

No. While you do not have the right to vote for your representatives (by virtue of not being a resident of Georgia), you do have representation in the various civic bodies.

The original concept of no taxation without representation relied upon the fact that the British colonies in North America had no representation at all in Parliament - out of all of the members of that body, not a one was from America.

In the case of a non-resident property owner, you do have representation. It may not be the most satisfactory representation in that you do not have a direct voice in the selection of that representation, but you have it.

As to you other point:

folks who do nothing but collect their food stamps and welfare checks get to vote.

That is the outcome of universal suffrage. They have the right to vote by dint of their citizenship. Bear in mind that non-citizens, no matter how successful, no matter how much property they own and no matter how much they pay in taxes, do not get to vote in the US.

It's a crying shame that more people don't take as much interest in the rights that their citizenship conveys upon them as you obviously do. Sometimes the answers aren't terribly satisfying, but I wish that more people would ask the questions.

[BlueTrain]

They may get to but do you think they do?

[JustThisGuy]

hermannr, thanks for your tips. I'll call him.

I'll also check out the Peruta v. County of San Diego and Peterson v. Garcia case references.

To everyone... I appreciate your kind help.

[JustThisGuy]

There is another possible interesting point here and that is one of lack of equal protection under the law.

Under what legal precedent do the citizens of adjoining states (who do not even pay taxes to Oregon) have greater rights than citizens of states farther away (who do pay Oregon taxes)?

I wonder if that might be an interesting test case?

[Hardcase]

It turns out that in several states, non-resident voting rights (or privileges, pick your poison) are at the discretion of municipalities, at least for local elections. So if you're paying property taxes out of state and you're concerned about your representation, I'd say lobby the local taxing districts (city, county, school district, etc.) to change their residency requirements. Or write a letter to the appropriate legislators to introduce legislation to change the state law.

Now, what about the folks who live in one state and work in another? Folks who live in border towns know all about that particular drama. You pay income tax to one state and live in another.

What about the miscellaneous taxes that you pay when you're traveling out of state? Sales tax, fuel tax, room tax...the list goes on.

I can see some headaches that would require a smarter person than me to resolve - what about joint ownership? For example, before we created a trust, my parents, my sister, my wife and I jointly owned a property in another county. Since none of us reside in that county, we don't get to vote. But if the law was different, how would it work? Would we all get to vote? Or would just one of us? Some of us?

I think that it boils down to the difficulty of achieving perfection in a nominally good, but imperfect system.

Here's an interesting article: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16595

[JustThisGuy]

Hardcase, I understand your points about taxes but I was talking about the equal protection issue.

Gun owners in adjacent states have greater rights than gun owners in far away states. Oregon allows non-resident permits, but only for adjacent states. That is such an arbitrary reason as to pass all reason.

OK, it makes sense for those who live next door and work in Oregon, but it's still very very arbitrary. So the idea is that citizens of other states who have a NEED to travel to Oregon for WORK are treated differently than citizens of other states who have a NEED to travel to Oregon TO TAKE CARE OF PROPERTY THEY OWN THERE. Reasonably equal needs ... plus the property owners pay taxes. Adjacent state residents do not (and before you go there, there are no sales taxes in Oregon).

It seems like unequal protection to me.

[Hardcase]

Ah, yes, I see your point. I guess the question that would be germane is what is it about the lack of Oregon (or adjacent state) residence that disqualifies an otherwise eligible individual from carrying a concealed weapon?

It seems to me that the obvious answer is "nothing", but I guess that I am not wise in the political ways.