No CHL for Property Owned Out of State

J

JustThisGuy

New member
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).
 
Last edited:
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.
 
As of this moment in time, the 2A only applies within the home, per the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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).
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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?
 
Do you think that's taxation without representation?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top