Permit Rule, Residency Rule, Local Open Carry Bans: GOA Lawsuit Says Oregon Stacked Them Into a Total Nonresident Carry Ban

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

EUGENE, OR — Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and Arizona resident Cynthia Ladd have filed a federal lawsuit challenging Oregon’s refusal to let most nonresident Americans carry a handgun for self-defense while inside the state. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division, and names Marion County Sheriff Nick Hunter, in his official capacity, and the City of Salem as defendants.

The complaint lays out a three-part problem. Oregon bans concealed carry without a permit and recognizes no other state’s concealed handgun permit. Oregon then generally conditions its own Concealed Handgun License on residency. And Oregon lets cities and counties ban loaded firearms in public places while exempting only CHL holders, which the complaint says turns the state’s open carry allowance into a dead letter for nonresidents in much of Oregon. In GOA’s announcement of the filing, the group put it this way: “Apparently Oregon thinks your constitutional rights have a residency requirement. They don’t.”

Here is the reciprocity piece in plain terms. Across the country, states honor out-of-state permits in one of two ways. Some sign formal agreements with each other. Others simply choose to recognize other states’ permits on their own, with no agreement at all. My concealed carry reciprocity maps show which states do which. According to the complaint, Oregon does neither. A traveler with, in the complaint’s own example, a Texas License to Carry cannot use it to carry concealed in Oregon.

That leaves the Oregon CHL as the only path, and the complaint says that path is closed to most Americans. Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.291(1)(c) requires an applicant to be a resident of the county where they apply. The only waiver, under § 166.291(8), lets a county sheriff issue to a resident of a contiguous state who shows a compelling business interest or other legitimate demonstrated need. Ladd lives in Arizona, which does not border Oregon. Under the statute as the complaint describes it, she is ineligible to apply at all. My Oregon concealed carry guide covers how the CHL process works for those who do qualify.

Open carry is the piece that looks like an escape hatch on paper. Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.250(3) says firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed, so in theory a nonresident could carry openly without any license. The complaint argues that theory collapses in practice because §§ 166.173(1) and (2)(c) let a city or county regulate, restrict, or prohibit loaded firearms in public places, with an exception only for people licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Many Oregon localities have used that authority, the complaint alleges. The person who cannot get the license is the same person the local bans reach.

Put the three together and the complaint’s description of the result is a total nonresident carry ban in much of the state. No recognition of your permit. No application you are allowed to file. No open carry where the local ordinance says otherwise.

More from USA Carry:

The legal argument leans on the two cases you would expect. The plaintiffs cite Heller for the holding that the Second Amendment right “is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans,” and Bruen for the holding that it includes “a right to ‘bear’ arms in public for self-defense.” The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, meaning a court declaration that the scheme is unconstitutional as applied to nonresidents and an order stopping its enforcement.

I will continue tracking Ladd v. Hunter as it moves through the District of Oregon.