Comments in Mult Co. CHL Class

Chromaflage · Mar 5, 2009

During a CHL class, taught by a volunter Sgt, a couple statements were made that have been echoing in my head.

1. He stated that an assistant DA once told him that although you may not be prosecuted criminally for a self-defense shoot, there is a 100% chance that a civil suit would be brought against the shooter. What are your thoughts on this comment?

2. (a bit more complicated) He also stated that Indian reservations do not recognize an Oregon CHL and you must obtain permission from a tribal judge in order to carry concealed on an Indian reservation. So, I'm wondering if anyone has ever attempted to obtain permission from a tribal judge. I've looked at the Warm Springs rules, and they only specifically apply to "Indians" as stated in the rules. But here's a scenario. You have a concealed handgun and launch a driftboat just off Highway 26 at the ramp in Warm Springs. You are now carrying concealed in tribal land. Float away, your under BLM jurisdiction. Float under the bridge, on one side of the river, your in BLM jurisdiction, on the other side, you're on tribal land. While floating - still BLM. Looking for comments and thoughts on the implications here.

Thanks!

clearconscience · Mar 5, 2009

I would assume/hope this wouldn't apply to people passing through tribal lands.

Either way, I don't think the tribal judge wants anyone other than Indians carrying guns, and probably doesn't want them to either.

It doesn't spark my curiousity as well. I'm interested to hear what people think.

Chromaflage · Mar 5, 2009

The Warm Springs Tribal code only addresses Indians:

WARM SPRINGS TRIBAL CODE, CHAPTER 305, CRIMES

305.412 Carrying Concealed Weapons.

(1) For purposes of this section, a dangerous weapon shall be any revolver, pistol or other firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, nay knife, other than an ordinary pocket knife, or any dirk, dagger, sling shot, metal knuckles, explosive or incendiary devices, or any instrument by the use of which injury could be inflicted upon the person or property of any other person.

(2) Any Indian who shall go about in public places armed with a dangerous weapon concealed upon his person or concealed within his vehicle unless he shall have a permit signed by a Judge of the Tribal Court and countersigned by the Superintendent of the Reservation, shall be deemed guilty of carrying a concealed weapon.

305.415 Carrying Weapons, When Prohibited.

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of WSTC 305.412 any Indian other than a duly authorized law enforcement officer who carries any dangerous weapon as defined in WSTC 305.412(1), whether concealed or openly, in any public building, office, store, school or at any public gathering shall be deemed guilty of unlawfully carrying a weapon.

(2) Any Indian who carries or possesses a firearm while under the influence of intoxicants shall be deemed guilty of unlawfully carrying or possessing a firearm.

And that's all that's in the code on the subject.

Gray Peterson · Mar 6, 2009

1) FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD.

2) This is not correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Law_280

Oregon's Tribal Reservations have criminal and civil preemption by PL280. They don't have their own "tribal law". Warm Springs is the exemption to that rule, but that doesn't apply to non-Indians anyway.

wichaka · Mar 6, 2009

100% chance of a suit every time????

That's so far fetched, its almost a lie.

Rackir · Mar 6, 2009

Chromaflage said:
During a CHL class, taught by a volunter Sgt, a
1. He stated that an assistant DA once told him that although you may not be prosecuted criminally for a self-defense shoot, there is a 100% chance that a civil suit would be brought against the shooter. What are your thoughts on this comment?

I think it would be accurate to say there is a 100% chance that a civil suit CAN be brought against you, but not a 100% chance that one WILL be brought against you.

Essentially saying that if a shoot is considerd justified without contention, there may be no criminal trial.
However since civil suits don't rely on criminal charges theres is nothing in place to prevent a civil suit being brought up against in a justified shooting.

Trlsmn · Mar 6, 2009

A 100% percent chance is a definite maybe. People will sue Mcdonalds because their coffee is too hot.

Wow those laws suck for Indians, I'm part Indian do I get partially convicted? a definite maybe.

wichaka · Mar 6, 2009

Rackir said:
I think it would be accurate to say there is a 100% chance that a civil suit CAN be brought against you, but not a 100% chance that one WILL be brought against you.

Essentially saying that if a shoot is considerd justified without contention, there may be no criminal trial.
However since civil suits don't rely on criminal charges theres is nothing in place to prevent a civil suit being brought up against in a justified shooting.

That sounds much better.....well put!

There's many shootings that never go either way, its just we hear about the worst, thanks to the media.

Wierzbowski · Mar 6, 2009

This month's newsletter from the Washington County Sheriff's Office repeats the bit about the Indian Reservation restriction. Link here: http://www.co.washington.or.us/cgi/sonews/letter.pl?searchstring=currentidx

Concealed Handgun License Holder Update
Where can you carry concealed?

Woman aiming a handgunOregon law provides very few limits on where a person with a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) can carry a firearm, and federal laws contain a few more prohibitions. It is actually easier to answer a slightly different question, "Where can a CHL holder not carry a firearm?"

Even if you have a Concealed Handgun License, you cannot carry a firearm on any of the following properties:

* Federal facilities - federal courthouses, social security offices, in secured areas of airports, and on airplanes
* National forests marked or posted by signs prohibiting all firearms
* Indian reservations or Indian property - you may not carry a firearm concealed without the written permission of the tribal judge; this may also apply to certain casinos on Indian lands
* Courts - in a courtroom, jury room, judge's chambers or adjacent areas that the presiding judge determines should be free of firearms to ensure the safety of the litigants, court personnel, witnesses and others
* Private property where the owner prohibits firearms possession

Learn more, read ORS 166.370.

(Vol_6 Issue_3-March, 2009)

ZombieAssassin · Mar 6, 2009

Wierzbowski said:
Washington County Sheriff's Office Newsletter
(Vol_6 Issue_3-March, 2009)
* Courts - in a courtroom, jury room, judge's chambers or adjacent areas that the presiding judge determines should be free of firearms to ensure the safety of the litigants, court personnel, witnesses and others

Learn more, read ORS 166.370.

Correction to misinformation:

ORS 166
166.370 Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging firearm at school. (1) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony.

166.360 Definitions for ORS 166.360 to 166.380.
(2) "Court facility" means a courthouse or that portion of any other building occupied by a circuit court, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court or the Oregon Tax Court or occupied by personnel related to the operations of those courts, or in which activities related to the operations of those courts take place.

THEREFORE traffic court, municipal court, divorce court, etc. are NOT courts where you can't carry concealed. When in doubt, check the ORS and ask Oregon Firearms Federation.

However, attorneys like to play word games, and some will define a courthouse as any place where court is held, thus covering any type of court.