Firearm possession restriction lifted...?!

[Lured In]

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife


For immediate release
Date: Thursday, August 28, 2003
Contact: Anne Pressentin Young (503) 947-6020
Information and Education Division
(503) 947-6001
3406 Cherry Avenue NE
Salem, OR 97303-4924

New rule eliminates restrictions on possessing firearms during hunting seasons
SALEM – The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has rescinded all administrative rules that restrict the possession of firearms during certain hunting seasons. However, hunters must follow existing rules that govern the type of weapon used to hunt big game, game birds or furbearers. As a result of the action, for example, bow hunters may choose to carry a firearm while deer or elk hunting. However, a firearm cannot be used to hunt deer or elk during the bow season. The temporary rule was adopted as a result of a recent legal review that concluded the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission does not have the statutory authority to adopt administrative rules that prohibit possession of a firearm or ammunition. Earlier this month, the Commission directed ODFW Director Lindsay Ball to develop and adopt the temporary rule and suspend firearm and ammunition possession restrictions in the 2003 big game and furbearer regulations. Permanent rules will be adopted in October for the 2004 Oregon Big Game Regulations and the 2003-04 Oregon Furbearer Trapping and Hunting Regulations. The 1995 Legislature adopted statute 166.170 that restricts the authority to regulate the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation and use of firearms and ammunition to the Legislative Assembly. However, Oregon Revised Statutes allow the Fish and Wildlife Commission to regulate the manner in which wildlife can be taken by hunting and trapping. ### Editor’s Note: Following is the language of ORS 166.170 AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS 166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly. (2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]
###
_____________________________________

Two thoughts come to mind on this.

1. Cool. I love muzzleloader hunting and would appreciate the ability to carry a sidearm to deal with cougars/bears if needed. (I haven't needed it before, but my wife would feel better I'm sure.)

2. Was this really that big of a problem that someone needed to have this changed for this reason (ODFW's rule making authority.)

I would guess the likely outcome would be a legislative decision from the state congress outlawing this by next year.

Thoughts....?

[2LEYS]

It is a violation of your right to keep and bear arms. They can't restrict what you carry.

[Gun Rod Bow]

No Way.

You have an absolute statistically better chance of getting struck by lightning than being eaten by a bear or cougar. You have a greatlty higher chance of dying from injuries and exposure (falling out of stands, etc.) or being killed in a car wreck on the way there or back.

Archery season is for archery. Hunting is a right/priveledge. It has nothing to do with the second ammendment. If you choose archery, leave your guns at home. If you're afraid of the nasty critters in the woods, hunt with a gun.

Hunters have a responsibility to be and appear "straight arrow" to help our public image.

JM not very HO

[2LEYS]

Not talking about bears or cougars, just protection in general. You have that right. And they cannot restrict that right. It is like saying that you can not carry a handgun on your boat. You might use it to shoot the fish to make it easier to land.

Saying that you cannot have carry a fire arm during bow season because you might use it to illegally take game is like saying that you can not carry or own a fire arm period because you MIGHT use it for something illegal.

[ 09-04-2003, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: 2LEYS ]

[Lured In]

GRB...you'll get no arguements from me regarding the likelyhood of either of those scenarios (bears or cougars) . I was half kidding regarding this, hence the comment about my wife. [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] While I don't buy into this theory, some could argue that "defending" yourself in the woods in no different than defending yourself at home. I see them as different issues completely.

What really concerns me about this is that someone had to do an awful lot of research/pushing to get to this point. Is this really the best use of gov't resources in OR right now?

How many people (if any) complain about not being able to carry a modern firearm during bow/muzzleloader seasons anyway? I haven't heard anything on the order of an uprising on this. Why fix a problem that isn't broken.

Personally I don't really care if ODFW has the legislative authority to regulate possession of firearms. I believe the potential for poaching increases greatly with this type of rule and at the same time, the ability to monitor suspect behavior is greatly diminished. As I stated earlier, I would imagine the legislature will pass a new law prohibiting carrying firearms during primitive weapon seasons.

[2LEYS]

You can't restrict something because of the chance that it will be used for illegal activity.

Lets make a law saying that you can't have barbed hooks on your boat when fishing for sturgeon because you "might" use them....

[Bait O' Eggs]

GRB - you call it like it is you are one of the few around here I could spend my precious hunting time with.

I wrote a long response to what others think, but it was a waste of time so I deleted it and will just bite my tongue and move on.

[ 09-04-2003, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Bait O' Eggs ]

[Tilla]

Didn't see or hear about anyone packing firearms on the first few days. But if anyone were to fire a shot in the woods, it would sure to get some attention.
I just can't see carrying more weight up the side of that darn canyon! Another 16 oz of water seems more practical.

[tailchaser]

I'm not against carrying a handgun, but I'm not FOR carrying a rifle. I heard five or six gunshots this weekend and it made me raise some eyebrows. At first I was happy that I wasn't breaking the law when I pack into the wilderness carrying a handgun anymore, but I have mixed feelings about people having rifles. It's kinda the reason I bowhunt is to stay away from the rifle crazies. It'll be interesting to see what comes of this.

tc

[2LEYS]

You could always hunt bear and cougar with a rifle during bow season as long as you did not have your bow tags or any archery tackle on you. So all you had to do was go bear hunting and shoot yourself an elk with your rifle. Bury it with branches and then head back to twon and get your bow and tag and leave your rifle home.

Moral of the story is.....Poachers are poachers and will continue to poach reguardless of what the laws are. So making laws against me and you does not affect them.

I agree with some of the points about why someone would want to pack a rifle while bow hunting though.

[ 09-04-2003, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: 2LEYS ]

[skahorse]

I can't say this happens often, but I do agree with 2LEYS. Poachers, or for that matter, anyone else involved in illegal activity, don't obey the rules/laws in the first place. You can't shoot a deer during bow season, plain and simple. If someone is going to break that law, they will do it regardless. How is carrying a handgun going to increase the amount of poachers? That's just illogical.

GRB,

You have an absolute statistically better chance of getting struck by lightning than being eaten by a bear or cougar. You have a greatlty higher chance of dying from injuries and exposure (falling out of stands, etc.) or being killed in a car wreck on the way there or back.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Just like Lured In, I will not argue statistics with you, as I would surely lose. However, people still get killed by cougars and bears, regardless of the statistics. I don't want to be one. Plus, there's not many people I trust in this world. I always carry my handgun(legally) concealed when I go into the woods(or on roadtrips, or downtown Portland, or anywhere else), who knows who you'll run into.


GRB also said:

Archery season is for archery. Hunting is a right/priveledge. It has nothing to do with the second ammendment.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Now, this I disagree with. First, you are semi-correct with your assertion that this has nothing to do with the second ammendment. However, it does have to do with Oregon Law. Which states that no other government agency(ODFW, state, city, or county) can enact rules about carrying firearms. That's the law. Now, as Lured In is suggesting, the Legislature may outlaw it. However, until then, it's legal, and has nothing to do with our "Straight arrow" appearance.

Personally, I think there is nothing to lose here, people who poach, will poach. Oregon Law says that I can carry a handgun, where ever I want, (except Airports and courthouses) and until they change that, I will do so.

--Skahorse

[Bubzilla]

Skahorse is exactly right. Except to go a little further and say that this is really just a simple issue of basic adminstrative law. That is, any agency, be it state or federal, can only act within the scope of its rulemaking authority. In this case, the state legislature retained jurisdiction over the issue of firearm and ammunition possession. Therefore, the previous ODFW rule was ultra vires--or beyond the scope of their authority.

While I wish it did, the Second Amendment does not have much relevance here. Even if the Second Amendment had been held to protect an individual right to own and bear arms by the United States Supreme Court, which it has not, it would not necessarily apply to state actions. Why? Well, the Bill of Rights was originally intended to apply only to the federal government. Through a process referred to as "incorporation," most of the first ten amendments have been held to apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. The Second Amendment has never been part of this process, however. What's that mean? Well, unless and until the highest court in the land rules that the Second Amendment protects indivicual rights, the amendment's legal importance is minimal. And, unless at the same time the court held that the Second Amendment guaranteed individual rights it also held that the amendment applied to the states, only the actions of the federal government would be limited.

[MasterMariner]

I would imagine that those bow hunters that are in the gray area will be less likely to receive a break... but thats fine with me.

[Gun Rod Bow]

I am all for keeping government in it's place and out of our lives to whatever degree we can accomplish.

On that basis, right on for keeping ODFW from overstepping their legal authority.

Regardless of the mechanism that needs to be used, I am expressing my OPINION that archery hunting should involve no modern weapons.

The "gonna get eaten" argument just doesn't hold water.

I worry more about the people I meet in the woods than the critters. I too have carried a side arm in the wilderness in years past. I also shot at everything that moved with a BB gun when I was a kid. I don't do either anymore.

[MountainLion84]

You should be able to go in the woods and hunt bear, cougar, or coyotes after filling your deer or elk tag. This should give us the right to do that. This will obviously increase party hunting, but anyone that will do that, is doing it already. It will be a lot tougher to catch someone doing it. But if a guy takes a week vacation and has a deer,bear and cougar tag, he shouldn't be stuck in camp after filling the deer tag.

[Lepper]

you haven't hunted until you are walking down a trail and you hear a cat scream.... That little pointy stick just doesn't feel to comforting after that..

d

[Mello-Yello]

I personally have mixed feelings about this. As a life-long bowhunter (30+yrs), I like the reduced odds of encountering wackos with guns when afield. On the other hand, I've always felt a little insulted that ODFW would restrict my freedom to carry a handgun if I choose to. Truth be known, my strongest desire to carry "heat" is derived from a sense of paranoia...a fear that I'm still gonna run into some wacko with a gun.

As for having a cat scream while packing a pointy stick...I've had it happen on more than one occasion. My hair stands on end and I get goose-bumps from my toes to my nose. Then I knock that "pointy stick" and say..."here kitty, kitty, kitty"! I've seen a pointy stick make short work of 1,200lbs of bull elk, 300 lbs of bear, etc, etc. I would absolutely savor the chance to add a 200lb felix to my list. In fact, If I saw a cat coming up the trail, and I had my handgun strapped to my hip, I guaranfreekintee I'd be slinging 100 grains of surgical-sharp stainless steel. Why? Simple.....because I hunt with bow and arrow.

[elkaholic]

I basically agree with GRB in that we choose to hunt with pointed sticks and that is what I prefer to stay with in the field. I do not see the need to give those who don't like hunting (or bowhunting specifically) a reason to bash me or the sport. Some rifle guys already think we have a huge advantage in hunting the rut, now this give them more to criticize us for,IF WE CHOOSE TO GIVE THEM THE AMMUNITION.

Yes, it appears to be "legal" to carry heat but I'm taking the high road and leaving it in the rig for emergencies. Let's show we are responsible and don't need these aids or the security they may give us to archery hunt. :smile:

I too have carried a sidearm when packing/riding in the wilderness areas, during archery season, but I didn't have the bow in hand. Usually only a 22 auto in case I had to put a horse down or something.

My 2 cents and first thoughts.