- Messages
- 591
- Reactions
- 415
Some good and some bad information on this thread. For the record, I've been studying this issue for a long time and I've been providing the training you would need for a concealed pistol license for several years as an NRA certified trainer, UT BCI concealed Firearms Instructor and use of force under other programs as well..
First- go to the source. ORS 166 is available online (as pointed out above) and is also available as an iTunes app to download for free. The language of it is as "plain language" as the law ever gets, so an average person, of average intelligence and average reading skills should be able to get most everything necessary out of it with a little effort and can ask questions on the remainder. RCW 9.41 is also available online.
A firearm carried in a belt holster is not legally considered to be a threatening move absent other circumstances. There's no lawful duty to conceal in Oregon or Washington.
Contrary to above, there IS a very good reason to pull a firearm that you are not 100% sure you're going to fire: it is to be ready to fire should it become necessary to do so quickly. An attacker can cover an amazing amount of distance in an instant. Google Tuellar drills for examples. This needs to be a criteria you decide on and understand the principles of in advance of a situation. Self defense is a defense to assault in this case. You had better be ready to explain it in terms of force escalation and de-escalation. The model penal code has some verbiage around that, and the Utah legislation is closer to that than Oregon's is, but similar. Being ready is not the same as "threatening in order to discourage." Be sure you understand the difference and train yourself to use the correct strategy. I can't give you every scenario where you would or would not pull a firearm and then refrain from firing, but there definitely are some where each is appropriate. Scenarios are only useful to the point that you use them to explore and understand principles.
Likewise, using the verbiage "to stop the threat" vs "to kill the threat" is not mere sophistry and pc terminology. We all need to absorb and deeply imprint the concept that it DOES NOT MATTER whether the attacker is killed. Whether or not the attacker is killed is completely irrelevant to the point of self-defense. We're stopping the threat in order to prevent serious bodily injury or death to ourselves or another innocent party. If the attacker is injured to the point of being unable to press the attack, or discouraged from continuing the attack: that's plenty good enough. Note, I am NOT advocating that you do less than your best effort against the attacker or that you "shoot to wound". The most effective means of stopping the attack is two rounds to center of mass, assess and try for a head shot if that doesn't work. The most effective means to stop the attacker is highly likely to result in death, but even more likely to stop the threat.
I can say not only that pulling the firearm and firing it (a "warning shot" is a use of deadly force: one I don't recommend) is only justified in a situation where there is a credible, immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death, but also ANY action that results in serious bodily injury or death of the innocent being averted is justified. So running down an attacker with a car (if it's the only option available) or hitting them with an object, or stabbing them with a kitchen knife... all justified in the face of immediate credible threat of serious bodily injury or death. The point of the exercise is to stop the threat. Not to harm, shoot, kill, or cow the attacker. Stop the threat.
A note on firing warning shots. The entirety of your defense in claiming self defense will hinge on the necessity of the action taken in relation to stopping an immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death, not the type of action itself. It is very believable that a threat could be deterred by firing a warning shot- in fact this is often given out as advice against a grizzly bear- shoot to make a noise to scare the bear off before trying to shoot the bear with a pistol round that may only enrage it. However, it's a potential angle for a prosecutor to claim that you were not in fact in immediate danger, or to challenge your state of mind by saying that you didn't actually fear for your life but were in fact acting aggressively in attempting to intimidate or inflict fear or even that you simply missed the "victim". You'd better have a VERY clear line of explanation if you intend to use this to defend yourself. I can't personally recommend this strategy.
First- go to the source. ORS 166 is available online (as pointed out above) and is also available as an iTunes app to download for free. The language of it is as "plain language" as the law ever gets, so an average person, of average intelligence and average reading skills should be able to get most everything necessary out of it with a little effort and can ask questions on the remainder. RCW 9.41 is also available online.
A firearm carried in a belt holster is not legally considered to be a threatening move absent other circumstances. There's no lawful duty to conceal in Oregon or Washington.
Contrary to above, there IS a very good reason to pull a firearm that you are not 100% sure you're going to fire: it is to be ready to fire should it become necessary to do so quickly. An attacker can cover an amazing amount of distance in an instant. Google Tuellar drills for examples. This needs to be a criteria you decide on and understand the principles of in advance of a situation. Self defense is a defense to assault in this case. You had better be ready to explain it in terms of force escalation and de-escalation. The model penal code has some verbiage around that, and the Utah legislation is closer to that than Oregon's is, but similar. Being ready is not the same as "threatening in order to discourage." Be sure you understand the difference and train yourself to use the correct strategy. I can't give you every scenario where you would or would not pull a firearm and then refrain from firing, but there definitely are some where each is appropriate. Scenarios are only useful to the point that you use them to explore and understand principles.
Likewise, using the verbiage "to stop the threat" vs "to kill the threat" is not mere sophistry and pc terminology. We all need to absorb and deeply imprint the concept that it DOES NOT MATTER whether the attacker is killed. Whether or not the attacker is killed is completely irrelevant to the point of self-defense. We're stopping the threat in order to prevent serious bodily injury or death to ourselves or another innocent party. If the attacker is injured to the point of being unable to press the attack, or discouraged from continuing the attack: that's plenty good enough. Note, I am NOT advocating that you do less than your best effort against the attacker or that you "shoot to wound". The most effective means of stopping the attack is two rounds to center of mass, assess and try for a head shot if that doesn't work. The most effective means to stop the attacker is highly likely to result in death, but even more likely to stop the threat.
I can say not only that pulling the firearm and firing it (a "warning shot" is a use of deadly force: one I don't recommend) is only justified in a situation where there is a credible, immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death, but also ANY action that results in serious bodily injury or death of the innocent being averted is justified. So running down an attacker with a car (if it's the only option available) or hitting them with an object, or stabbing them with a kitchen knife... all justified in the face of immediate credible threat of serious bodily injury or death. The point of the exercise is to stop the threat. Not to harm, shoot, kill, or cow the attacker. Stop the threat.
A note on firing warning shots. The entirety of your defense in claiming self defense will hinge on the necessity of the action taken in relation to stopping an immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death, not the type of action itself. It is very believable that a threat could be deterred by firing a warning shot- in fact this is often given out as advice against a grizzly bear- shoot to make a noise to scare the bear off before trying to shoot the bear with a pistol round that may only enrage it. However, it's a potential angle for a prosecutor to claim that you were not in fact in immediate danger, or to challenge your state of mind by saying that you didn't actually fear for your life but were in fact acting aggressively in attempting to intimidate or inflict fear or even that you simply missed the "victim". You'd better have a VERY clear line of explanation if you intend to use this to defend yourself. I can't personally recommend this strategy.
Last Edited:
