Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/28/2005 1:46:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2005 1:47:45 PM EDT by Scollins]
I'm wondering about CCW while at the PDX airport (outside the security checkpoints, but in the terminal building.) I'm in WA, and here it is legal to CCW at the airport with a CPL except in the security screened portion. I have both OR and WA CPLs. I remember from my class they said that CCW at the airport isn't allowed, but I didn't have the knowledge at the time to ask the instructor. I did poke around the ORHTF, but didn't see anything addressing this specifically.

Anyway, from Ordinance 348, section 3.8, it states:

3.8 FIREARMS OR DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES No person shall carry or possess a firearm or destructive device on the airport except:
(a) Firearms in a motor vehicle while the motor vehicle is upon the airport streets and roads, or in the motor vehicle parking and storage area;
(b) Firearms enclosed in a container for shipment by air in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration Regulations.
(c) Firearms carried by peace officers, government employees, or members of the Armed Forces of the United States, when such person is on official duty which authorizes the possession of a firearm. (d) Unconcealed firearms carried by persons employed by armored car companies under a permit issued by the Port's Chief of Police, or his designee, to service banking and other tenants at the Airport, which permission shall be consistent with the terms of the Port's most current Airport Security Plan, as that may be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration.



No exemption for CPL holders that I can see. BUT, from OSR 166.173, it states:


166.173 Authority of city or county to regulate possession of loaded firearms in public places.
(1) A city or county may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession of loaded firearms in public places as defined in ORS 161.015.
(2) Ordinances adopted under subsection (1) of this section do not apply to or affect:
(a) A law enforcement officer in the performance of official duty.
(b) A member of the military in the performance of official duty.
(c) A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.
(d) A person authorized to possess a loaded firearm while in or on a public building or court facility under ORS 166.370.



So how does the Port of Portland fall into "city or county government" in terms of ordinances? Wouldn't it be a sub-set of city goverment? The Port of PORTLAND? Wouldn't it stand to reason that OSR 166.173 trumps Ordinance 348.3.8 with regards to licensed CCW? It seems to me that carrying a concealed pistol at the airport is not allowed, unless you are licensed to do.

Thoughts?
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 1:55:50 PM EDT
The PDX port authority believe that they have authority exceeding that of the State of Oregon.
The fact that their ordinance is illegal has been pointed out to them, and their response is basically -- "So what?, Fuck you".

See this.

The section you want reads as follows:

I've noticed signs at the Portland Airport that say "No Firearms." There is no exception for license holders noted. Is this legal?
Marv in Milwaukiee.


Good question Marv. The Port of Portland issued an ordinance in 1996 saying "no guns, no exceptions." This was ordinance 377-R (Of couse, this does not apply if you are legally traveling with a firearm and it's in your checked baggage.)
This obviously was not a reaction to 9/11, sinced it was written well before that.
The problem is, Oregon law very clearly PROHIBITS the Port of Portland from enacting any such ordinance. When we contacted the Chief of Police of the Port of Portland, Chief Phil Klahn, and asked him (very politely) about this contradiction, he had their lawyer, Barbara Jacobsen call us back She left a voice message telling us that she had given our name to the Department of Homeland Security. (Insert joke about them here.)
After numerous attempts to get an answer, we finally recieved a long letter from Jacobsen explaining why she believed the Port had the right to create such an ordinance.
We then forwarded THAT letter to House Representative Wayne Scott. He took it to "Legislative Counsel." These are the lawyers for the legislature. They actually write the laws the legislators request.
Their response was pretty straightforward. In their opinion, the Port of Portland may NOT enact any such ordinance.
Here's a direct quote from their opinion: "You have asked whether the Port of Porland has the authority to enact regulations prohibiting a person from carrying a firearm in the terminal at the Portland International Airport. The short answer is no."
We then fowarded their opinion to both Chief Klahn and Barbara Jacobsen. The Chief had advised us to advise you (our supporters) not to carry in the terminal. After reading the opinion of Legislative Counsel, he replied once again that his officers could cite license holders and then they could "have their day in court." Attorney Jacobsen has not responded at all. Your tax dollars at work.
So, as it stands, the law says you may carry in the terminal. The Port of Portland says you can be arrested if you are obeying the law. Legislative Counsel says the Port of Portland may not enforce this ordinance, and the Port of Porland Police say they don't care.
Hope this clears everything up
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 1:57:29 PM EDT
Let's put it this way. The letter of the law allows you to carry up to the security gates (becomes federal jurisdiction at that point).

However, the Port Authority says "no".

That's it in a nutshell.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 2:00:54 PM EDT
Ah, so my interpretation was correct, but it sounds like anyone caught would be in for a legal battle. Naturally, they are likely to win the case against the Port, and may even be able to sue for harrassment and improper arrest. This is especially true given the fact they have been notified by the State's Legal Counsel that they are not allowed to do that. Sounds like the Port is really asking for a lot of trouble.

But, it will take that one person with the time, determination and resources to get "busted" then fight it out in court. Isn't it nice to know that there are some law enforcement officers who have no respect for the law?
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 2:04:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2005 2:04:57 PM EDT by Scollins]

Originally Posted By PhilipPeake:

See this.




Great link! I've got it book marked for future reference.

We come down to OR for the Albany MG shoots, and this next time will be my first with NFA items (DD and suppressors.)

Thanks.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 2:14:28 PM EDT
You don't have to get arrested ans spend a fortune to change this.
If you think its worth the effort, and worth stirring up something for the likes of Ginny Burdick to get her teeth into, we could fire up a letter writing campain, with letters looking something like this:

To: Port of Portland Police Chief

Dear chiefy,

it has come to my attention that despite Oregon law specifically forbidding you to do so (ORS 166.173) you have an ordinance in place (384 section 3.8) which forbids holders of a current Oregon State concealed handgun license from carrying their weapons within Portland Airport.

I also understand that this contravention of Oregon law has been pointed out to you, and an opinion sought from Oregon Stae Legislative Council, which re-iterates that this ordinance is, in fact, illegal, and that you have refused to act to correct this situation.

The fact that an officer of the law can be so pig-headed, and a scofflaw to the extent that you appear to be is a disgrace to law enforcement.

Please have this section of the ordinance removed as soon as practical. If you should fail to do so, I will be contacting my state representatives and requesting that they introduce legislation to make the deliberate flouting of Oregon law by a sworn officer of the law a felony offence, and will enjoy seeing you as its first incarcerated victim.

Your sincerely -- a voting, law abiding, citizen of Oregon.


A few hundred of these, along with follow-up to your reps should get things moving.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 2:55:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PhilipPeake:
You don't have to get arrested ans spend a fortune to change this.
If you think its worth the effort, and worth stirring up something for the likes of Ginny Burdick to get her teeth into, we could fire up a letter writing campain, with letters looking something like this:

To: Port of Portland Police Chief

Dear chiefy,

it has come to my attention that despite Oregon law specifically forbidding you to do so (ORS 166.173) you have an ordinance in place (384 section 3.8) which forbids holders of a current Oregon State concealed handgun license from carrying their weapons within Portland Airport.

I also understand that this contravention of Oregon law has been pointed out to you, and an opinion sought from Oregon Stae Legislative Council, which re-iterates that this ordinance is, in fact, illegal, and that you have refused to act to correct this situation.

The fact that an officer of the law can be so pig-headed, and a scofflaw to the extent that you appear to be is a disgrace to law enforcement.

Please have this section of the ordinance removed as soon as practical. If you should fail to do so, I will be contacting my state representatives and requesting that they introduce legislation to make the deliberate flouting of Oregon law by a sworn officer of the law a felony offence, and will enjoy seeing you as its first incarcerated victim.

Your sincerely -- a voting, law abiding, citizen of Oregon.


A few hundred of these, along with follow-up to your reps should get things moving.



Therein lies the rub, if you make a big stink about it, some nefarious legislator might just take the opportunity to push for removal of the preemption clause, which would then be followed by people like Ginny Burdick (who is running for Portland Counsel, by the way) to enact local regulations which would really screw us.

The preemption is the only thing stopping the city from doing what San Francisco has done, which is ban all handguns and closing gunshops.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 3:13:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:
Therein lies the rub, if you make a big stink about it, some nefarious legislator might just take the opportunity to push for removal of the preemption clause, which would then be followed by people like Ginny Burdick (who is running for Portland Counsel, by the way) to enact local regulations which would really screw us.

The preemption is the only thing stopping the city from doing what San Francisco has done, which is ban all handguns and closing gunshops.



Actually, I believe CA does have state pre-emption. SF has had bans in the past that have been over turned because of the pre-emption law. Doesn't mean they don't do it anyway....
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 3:20:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Scollins:

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:
Therein lies the rub, if you make a big stink about it, some nefarious legislator might just take the opportunity to push for removal of the preemption clause, which would then be followed by people like Ginny Burdick (who is running for Portland Counsel, by the way) to enact local regulations which would really screw us.

The preemption is the only thing stopping the city from doing what San Francisco has done, which is ban all handguns and closing gunshops.



Actually, I believe CA does have state pre-emption. SF has had bans in the past that have been over turned because of the pre-emption law. Doesn't mean they don't do it anyway....



Why do I get the funny feeling that, somehow, any suits against SF will get thrown out this time around? Maybe I'm just being pessimistic. Oh well. Four months until the confiscations and boating accidents begin. Wheeeee!
Top Top