Oregon Judge orders return of woman's concealed carry permit

Status
Not open for further replies.

searcher451

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
2,516
Location
Oregon
Here's one you don't see every day, from the Bend Bulletin in Central Oregon:

Nurse to get concealed handgun license back
Weapon went off in hospital, prompting permit revocation


By Cindy Powers / The Bulletin

Published: August 02. 2008 4:00AM PST

Former St. Charles Bend nurse Belinda Hallcraft appears Friday in Deschutes County Circuit Court for a hearing on her petition to get her concealed handgun license back. Deschutes County Sheriff Larry Blanton, front, revoked her license after her handgun went off at the hospital. A judge reinstated her license after the hearing.

A former St. Charles Bend nurse whose concealed handgun license was revoked after her gun went off inside the hospital will get the license back, under a court ruling handed down Friday.

Belinda Sue Hallcraft, 52, fought the revocation, saying Deschutes County Sheriff Larry Blanton didn’t have a legal basis to revoke it.

On Friday, Deschutes County Circuit Court Judge Stephen Tiktin ruled from the bench that, while Blanton was right to pull the permit based on what he knew at the time, Oregon law doesn’t support a permanent revocation.

“I think the sheriff did the right thing, and I think now that we have had a chance to evaluate the circumstances completely, I think it is appropriate that the license be reinstated.”

Hallcraft testified that she had taken the .38 caliber Derringer Cobra into the hospital inside her purse on May 9 when she went to work her shift as a registered nurse.

When her shift was over at about 7:30 p.m., Hallcraft accidentally knocked her purse off a counter and the gun fired into a nearby wall, according to a report filed by the Bend Police Department.

Hallcraft, who had been a nurse at the hospital for 17 years, was fired after the incident, and Blanton revoked her concealed handgun license May 15.

Hallcraft testified that, after the gun went off, she did some research and found out the model was particularly susceptible to misfires. She also testified that the gun had the safety on and was inside a holster and a zippered pouch when it went off.

Sue Brewster, the Deschutes County sheriff’s legal counsel, put on evidence at the hearing that St. Charles Bend has signs posted at every entry advising visitors that only law enforcement officers are allowed to carry weapons inside.

Hallcraft responded that she tried to find an official policy against weapons by asking hospital staff, but that no one knew of one.

Brewster also showed that Hallcraft had failed to update her address with the Sheriff’s Office, as required by law, after she moved.

But the Oregon statute only allows for the revocation of a concealed handgun license under very limited circumstances, Tiktin said.

The law says the sheriff can revoke a handgun license if he finds that a person is a danger to self or others as a result of the person’s mental or psychological state, or if the person has shown a pattern of behavior involving violence or threats of violence.

Blanton said that, in revoking the license, he had concerns about a permit holder whose weapon would suddenly discharge.

“It was my opinion that, given both the nature and the circumstances when the weapon went off, it was my belief that Ms. Hallcraft’s mental state as demonstrated by her poor judgment in letting a firearm go off around other people in a place where they were restricted based on St. Charles policy was a danger,” Blanton testified Friday.

But Tiktin found that the accidental discharge of the gun did not constitute even a single act of violence.

“She was apparently unaware of the danger that this particular gun posed and, when she knocked it off the counter, it was nothing more than a noncriminally culpable accident,” Tiktin said.

Tiktin also said he had no reason to believe that Hallcraft suffered from a mental or psychological disorder that would render her a danger to herself or others.

He did express concern about her disregarding the hospital’s policy against weapons.

“I don’t think you can disregard that sign because, once you get inside, there is no one who clearly knows what the policy is,” he said.

Though he acknowledged he had no legal authority to do so, Tiktin advised Hallcraft to take another gun safety class before getting her license back, as well as demonstrating knowledge of gun safety to the Sheriff’s Office.

After the hearing, Hallcraft said it was a bit intimidating to take on the sheriff, but she felt it was important to clear her name.

“Because it was an accident, and I didn’t feel I was a threat to the community,” she said, “I have worked in this community as a caring nurse for 30 years, and I don’t want to say I was insulted, but it kind of hurt when they said I was dangerous. And I really thought I needed to be heard.”

-----

Published Daily in Bend Oregon by Western Communications, Inc. © 2008
 
+1 for restoration of permit.

I haven't conducted a search, but I can think of 2 recent events with "gun went off when I dropped it" -

1. Oregon, bike bag fell on garage floor and gun inside went off, bullet striking person's knee.

2. Gun went off when it fell, still in holster, bullet striking person in stomach, killing them.

This one makes three.

One of the guys that used to work with me had a story of a guy who was killed when he dropped a revolver beside his pickup truck. He had 6 loaded in a revolver without a transfer bar.

Maybe there is something to gun safety education. A responsive government would at least fund free training. A "we know what's best" government would make it mandatory.

As dropped gun accidents happen, California may not be as crazy as I originally thought with their "drop test"... :)
 
Yet another reason why your weapon should be on your person.

Not really, just a reason to pay more attention to what kind of gun you buy for protection.

Make sure it's drop safe, how hard is that?

As dropped gun accidents happen, California may not be as crazy as I originally thought with their "drop test"...

Regulating it is always a bad idea. Solving the problem with education and training is a MUCH better way.
 
Action type

I believe the Cobra (slightly redesigned Davis) derringer has a half-cock hammer and a safety button. Safety won't go on if hammer is down.

However, you don't have to put the hammer in half-cock. If you don't, it's probably resting on the primer.

Story on the dropped bike bag also mentioned a derringer, I think, but not the model.

Here's an opinion of Cobra's that made me laugh -

I have a Cobra Derringer in .32 ACP but I have not fired it yet, because I believe it would blow up in my hand.
I plan to either sell it to a pawn shop (possible guilt factor)
or fill it with J.B. Weld and use it as a paper weight.

Here's the thread -

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=213883
 
Regulating it is always a bad idea. Solving the problem with education and training is a MUCH better way.

+1.

I wasn't sanctioning California's drop test, just admitting that it wasn't as crazy as I originally thought when I heard about it. Which was "off the wall crazy, what are those :cuss: thinking down there?"

I still think it's an improper use of government power. (Maybe this is more High Road than my initial thoughts.)
 
If Oregon law doesn’t support a permanent revocation for what the nurse did then she should be able to get her permit back. Seems simple enough.


However, she seems to be somewhat careless and disrespectful of the rules.

I wonder if her firing will stick?


"Weapon went off in hospital..."

Sheesh. The good ole passive voice dodge...
 
derringer

I had to look that one up. A .38 derringer cobra is one of those little pocket guns. Gunbroker was selling one for $149. Not the best choice for safety or personal defense. :eek:

View attachment 82413
 
Last edited:
Picture of the gun in question.

pix612647515on5.jpg


I wonder if her firing will stuck?


"Weapon went off in hospital..."

Sheesh. The good ole passive voice dodge...

What?
 
"Yet another reason why your weapon should be on your person."


Yet another reason why people who buy guns for self protection should spend a few more coins and buy a RELIABLE, WELL MADE gun!

L.W.
 
"Weapon went off in hospital..."

Sheesh. The good ole passive voice dodge...

I think the "passive voice dodge" refers to guns doing things by themselves.

Perhaps the phrase "Accidental discharge" or even "Negligent discharge" would be more accurate, but the media isn't up on the correct language for many of the events they cover.
 
she did some research and found out the model was particularly susceptible to misfires
Wouldn't AD more correct? I always thought a misfire was when you pulled the trigger and the gun didn't fire as intended (light strike, squib, hangfire, etc.).
Methinks she needs a better carry gun and a better way of carrying it, but I'm glad she got her license back.
 
What is it with derringers being dropped in Oregon?

1) Oregon house member shot in leg when bike bag dropped (as noted above in another post)

2) .22 derringer goes off when dropped in Corvallis WinCo store (hits coke can

3) This one in Bend

It seems pretty clear that people shouldn't be carrying derringers (at least these kinds).
 
I never have put much faith in that type of gun not to mention the only 2 shots deal too. Some sheriffs here in Oregon do seem to forget that it is a shall issue state that is very blunt to that point by law. Several years ago a guy in Ashland did the same in court as he was denied for having a medical pot permit. The court ordered the sheriff to issue the permit.
 
Hallcraft testified that, after the gun went off, she did some research and found out the model was particularly susceptible to misfires.

Lesson Learned? Do your research before you purchase the firearm.
 
“It was my opinion that, given both the nature and the circumstances when the weapon went off, it was my belief that Ms. Hallcraft’s mental state as demonstrated by her poor judgment in letting a firearm go off around other people in a place where they were restricted based on St. Charles policy was a danger,” Blanton testified Friday.

Just to make sure I follow, her mental state is too much of a danger to ever concealed carry again but her mental state was good enough to be a nurse. Apparently the county sheriff is the only one professional enough to use a gun.
 
excellent for her to get her ccw back. Very poor choice of guns to carry.

+1

...and when is the media going to learn that the word "misfire" is the absolutely incorrect word to describe a negligent discharge?

When a gun FAILS TO FIRE when the shooter intended it to fire, the correct word is "misfire."
 
However, she seems to be somewhat careless and disrespectful of the rules.

I wonder if her firing will stick?
While that is a valid opinion,just to be clear, it has nothing to do with the legality of CCW in posted locations in OR, nor is it a legal reason to revoke her permit here. "No guns" signs have NO legal effect here, so while some may consider it disrespectful to ignore them, it's perfectly legal, so it become a personal choice based on your personal thoughts on it.

as for her firing, it will likely stick unless she wants to take it all the way to the state supreme court, as we have already had a teacher here sue to avoid being fired for carrying on school grounds (also legal with a permit, she could just be fired if caught), when she has a permit, and a R.O against a violent ex who has threatened her. She lost, as has appealed. So, this womans firing would probably hold up based on that case. That may change on appeals though, but I'm guessing it probably wont.

I think the sheriff was out of line on this, and HOPE it was an honest mistake/judgment on his part, and not an indicator he is anti-gun or anti-ccw, as I just sent off an application to that county for a job with that very sheriff's office to repair their electronics. Would be a REAL bummer to get the job and find out the guy I'm working for is anti-gun or anti-ccw :(

Also, I agree that this was a kind of freak accident, and not really negligence. Now, I personally disagree with off-body carry, but given her situation and dress as a nurse, there is probably no really good, safe way for her carry it all day, and for all we know, she keeps it in her purse, and keeps the purse securely locked up all day until she gets ready to leave (she may really only have it for the walks to her car at night), and this happened right when she had taken it out to get ready to leave. Sat it down for 1 second, to do something, and bumped it. Or maybe she left it in the purse, and just sitting around somewhere, none of us really knows for sure either way. Just wanted to present a scenario where purse carry would be a bit more reasonable before anyone gets upset about it.
 
"Weapon went off in hospital..."

Sheesh. The good ole passive voice dodge...

I think the "passive voice dodge" refers to guns doing things by themselves.
Exactly. Guns don't go off....they don't operate by themselves.

The passive voice to describe the nurse's firing of the gun is just a dodge of her responsibility.

It's like a thread someone started here with the subject line: "My Carry Gun Was Outed" which masks the true situation. Let's face it, if your friend who plowed his car into a toll booth came to you and said, "My car was crashed into the toll booth," you'd wonder if he was trying to shirk his responsibility.


Perhaps the phrase "Accidental discharge" or even "Negligent discharge" would be more accurate, but the media isn't up on the correct language for many of the events they cover.
Well, negligent discharge is the preferred term, I think. And this case with the nurse illustrates why. Although she and a few others seem to be wanting sluff off her firing a gun by blaming the hardware, the gun she deployed is a hunk of junk that she personally selected. And how she selected to to it around was very poor. On top of that, she manipulated a loaded hunk of junk and carelessly dumped it on the floor--in a place that specifically prohibited firearms.

She was a ND waiting to happen.

And she did.
 
Flame suit on.

I think she should have gotten her ccw taken away. People have to be responsible for their actions and choices. It may have been accidental, but I'm betting if someone got hurt things would be different.

I wish she didn't get fired but she did break company policy.

I'm a big believer in less gun control, but HARSH punishment for offenders (gun use). Maybe she should have gotten her CCW back after she went to a mandatory safety course. I believe she got slapped on the hand for the AD (not the termination part).

PS

Still waiting for my VA CCW. I thought it was 45 days from the initial process. Nope. 45 days when the courthouse gets the application from the PD. It will be closer to 90 days.
 
--in a place that specifically prohibited firearms.
Again, the fact the hospital had sign up is irrelevant. They mean nothing here.So, they are in no way "prohibited". At best, they are requesting that people don't carry there, but all they can do is fire you if you are an employee, or, if the hospital is 100% privately owned and funded, they can ask you to leave, if they aren't 100% private, and you aren't an employee, they can do nothing at all, so the fact she ignored the signs really doesn't say anything about her, or mean anything, as she is 100% free to do so if she chooses.

If she is willing to risk getting fired for it, thats her choice, just like if she chose to quit whenever the mood struck her.

On top of that, she manipulated a loaded hunk of junk and carelessly dumped it on the floor-
Actually, she didn't manipulate the gun at all. She never touched it while she was in the hospital, as far as the info in the article says. She had it in her purse when she got there, and thats where it was when the purse fell, and the gun fired, so presumably, there was no manipulation of the gun by her. She bumped the purse, it fell, and something in the purse pulled the trigger, or the hammer hit the floor hard enough to fire, or something in the gun failed.Implying, which you statement seems to be doing, that she manipulated (as in handled, touched, operated, etc) is disingenuous.

As I said, I think purse carry is bad for lots of reasons, and this looks like the worst type of gun to pick for purse carry on top of the deal, but implying that she did something wrong by ignoring the "no weapons" signs (notice it says weapons, not guns, would you have taken your small pocket knife, Gerber, leatherman, etc out and left it in the car when you saw the sign? If not, you have little right to talk about here ignoring the same rule in the same way), or implying she was handling the gun when it fired, just isn't very honest, or supported by the facts known.You may personally think its wrong to ignore the sign, but that is merely your opinion, and your personal morality may not be the same as others, and is certainly not binding on them.She obviously doesnt feel ignoring a meaningless sign is wrong, and I happen to agree, but that doesnt make us "right" either. Our opinion is just different than yours seems to be.

Luckily for her though, there are a TON of openings for nurses in this state. There is a big shortage, as I see a LOT of openings for nursing jobs all over the state during my job hunting online.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top