Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Jackson County refuses to honor Safety Course that meets ORS requirements

  1. #1
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Jackson County refuses to honor Safety Course that meets ORS requirements

    So a close friend attempted to get her CHL using the Maryland State Police, Gun Safety Course (online) to satisfy the ORS 166.291(f) requirement. The clerk wouldn't accept the certificate without checking with her Sergeant. After about a month with no response, my friend contacted them to follow up.

    Their reply was (QUOTED emphasis added)

    Sheriff Winters asked me to respond to your request. First of all let me apologize for the delay in getting an answer to you. I was reassigned temporarily for the last month or so and did not see your initial request.

    As you may know, there are a number of different courses which have recently become available on line purporting to satisfy the requirements of ORS 166.291 (f). Unfortunately not all of those available meet the requirements. I have personally contacted the Maryland Police Training Commission and learned from them that the course curriculum does not meet the Oregon requirements. I was informed that the course in question is simply a brief introductory course for Maryland residents only and for the sole purpose of receiving a certificate of completion necessary for the purchase of a weapon in Maryland. It does not include the specific Oregon requirement of "handgun safety" as a component of the course.

    Unfortunately we are unable to accept the Maryland Police Training Commission's certificate of completion as demonstration of competency with a handgun. If you have further questions, feel free to contact me directly.

    Sgt. Bob Grantham
    Supervisor, Civil Division

    So....what are the Oregon requirements? ORS 166.291(f) says:

    166.291 (f) Demonstrates competence with a handgun by any one of the following:

    (A) Completion of any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife or a similar agency of another state if handgun safety was a component of the course;

    (B) Completion of any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course if handgun safety was a component of the course;

    (C) Completion of any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by law enforcement, community college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or a law enforcement agency if handgun safety was a component of the course;

    (D) Completion of any law enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, reserve law enforcement officers or any other law enforcement officers if handgun safety was a component of the course;

    (E) Presents evidence of equivalent experience with a handgun through participation in organized shooting competition or military service;

    (F) Is licensed or has been licensed to carry a firearm in this state, unless the license has been revoked; or

    (G) Completion of any firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a firearms instructor certified by a law enforcement agency or the National Rifle Association if handgun safety was a component of the course;

    So.....the Maryland State Police course (available here: http://mdgunsafety.com/ ) is SPECIFICALLY TITLED "Firearms Safety Training".

    AND..,...ORS 166.291(f)(c) ONLY requires that handgun safety be "A COMPONENT OF THE COURSE".

    So why isn't the Jackson County Sheriff's department abiding by the state law?

    Unfotunately, my friend wants her CHL more than she wants to force the issue so she's already obtained an "acceptable" certificate....I will probably contact O.F.F. but wanted to put it out there to see what you all think first.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  2. #2
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Yeah. I'd really hit up Kevin with that.

    Also, I might take in a copy of the law highlighted appropriately to the sheriff there, perhaps with appointment to "chat" about something. Perhaps as an interview?

    Edit : Also, first I've heard of the Maryland course not "working".
    Last edited by VW_Factor; 03-27-2012 at 01:09 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  3. #3
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    She did cite the law to the Sheriff and the officer that replied cited the correct part right back to her. They apparently just can't realize that the law only requires handgun safety to BE A COMPONENT of a class and that there is no requirement for any knowledge of Oregon Law (lord knows you don't get that from the cops or most certified trainers anyway...well the CORRECT law).
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    I used the Maryland online course for a Benton county CHL and it worked fine. The course doesn't cover much (legal aspects to lethal defense, concealed carry best practices, holsters, clothing considerations, tips on how to properly shoot), but it definitely covers safety. Safety seems to be what the Oregon CHL law deems to be the important bit, and thus it should qualify.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    HANDGUN safety must be a component and stated, not just FIREARMS safety in general
    *Disclaimer~ I am not an attorney, i do not give legal advice. Any opinion stated here is in no way meant to insinuate, imply, compel or encourage that you should do anything that is illegal either knowingly or otherwise. My answers however valid may not be complete or applicable to your individual situation. I strongly recommend that you do your own research, make your own decisions and hire an attorney for legal advice ~

  6. #6
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Teddybearfrmhell View Post
    HANDGUN safety must be a component and stated, not just FIREARMS safety in general
    Handgun safety is a component of the course. In fact, they use handgun slides for the safety instruction. Since handgun safety is a component (i.e. it need not be the entire focus) of the course, it meets the requirements of the ORS.

    When my friend took an "acceptable to the JaCo SO" course I got the opportunity to sit in. There were only a couple of issues where the instructor was wrong....for instance:
    1) Stating that the police have the right to inspect your firearm if you are in a "public place".---The law (ORS 166.380) allows police to inspect your weapon in a "public building" but no law authorizes them to do so if you are in a "public place". Of course if they have RAS then we are dealing not with an "inspection" of the weapon but rather, an investigation....a totally different animule (sp on purpose).

    2) Stating that you can't carry at the airport terminal because it is federal property.---The airport terminal is county property and there is no restriction if you hold a CHL. The O.F.F. fought this against the Port of Portland a few years back and finally got them to back off on their unlawful firearms prohibitions. While you can't take a firearm into the TSA controlled area (i.e. beyond the junk grabbers), the terminal is not off limits.

    3) Calling the new OUS policy "law" when in fact it is merely an internal policy based on contract law with no force of criminal law. Carrying on an OUS campus is NOT a crime under any statute. It is merely a violation of their stated (and contrary to state law) policy. Unless they spot a firearm and then trespass a student/vendor/faculty member who then refuses to leave, there would be no violation of the law. It is questionable if they can legally trespass a person who has legitimate business on public property but let's throw them a little bone.

    Then again, the "accepted" course didn't have much about "handgun safety", far less than the MD course, and much more about where you can and can't carry (though some was incorrect) and when you can or can't legally shoot.

    Maybe they figure the "when you can and can't shoot" part to be "handgun safety" because it may help to keep someone from getting hurt?
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Cremator75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    393
    I've seen the Maryland course work in Washington County for several friends.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    I used the Maryland course to obtain my non-resident CHL from Sheriff Palmer in Grant, Co.
    Live Free or Die!

  9. #9
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Well I'll be sure to mention to Kevin (when I get something put together), what counties have (properly) accepted it in the past.

    Anyone else that's used the MAD course sucessfully?
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •