By Donovan Beard

February 23, 2025

The decision to carry a concealed firearm for personal protection has a lot of responsibility associated with it. Most importantly is knowing when you are justified in applying force on another person. From a legal perspective, a responsible person who is lawfully carrying a concealed handgun would read the criminal statutes to a point where they fully understood not only what the law says but also how to apply it to real life defensive situations.

In Oregon, the laws regarding using force in defense of a person can be found in ORS 161.209 – ORS 161.229. If you have questions regarding how to interpret those laws, it is advisable to seek legal advice from an attorney who specializes in criminal law. Additionally, we are not lawyers and this is not legal advice but rather a theoretical discussion referenced by the Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training law Enforcement curricula that can assist you when having further discussions with your legal counsel.

When it comes to the decision-making process to apply force on another person in defense of yourself or another person it is helpful to review the principles taught to law enforcement officers at the police academy. Law enforcement typically uses 2 factors when considering applying force which are means/ability, opportunity and intent/jeopardy as the first factor and the totality of circumstance as the second.

Means/ ability refers to the other person having a weapon or an object that can be used to cause death or serious bodily injury or having some sort of ability that could cause death or serious bodily injury. For example, a person having a firearm, a knife, a baseball bat or other similar object would be a good example of “means.” Ability usually refers to someone who has a physical advantage over another person, for example if a fit 23 year old male typically has a lot more physical strength than a 70 year old in poor health. However, just because someone has a firearm is not justification alone to use physical force.

Opportunity generally refers to proximity. Is the person close enough to use the “means/ ability” that they possess? A good example would be a person armed with a knife who is 4 feet away from you. In that circumstance the person would have both the “means” and the “opportunity”. If we take that same situation and the person armed with a knife is 100 feet away from you, the person has the “means” but not the “opportunity” and the use of force would not be able to be applied.

Intent/ jeopardy is a little more difficult to quantify however refers to the person communicating either verbally or non-verbally their intention of unlawfully using the “Means” that they have the “opportunity” to use. A good example of this would be a person who is brandishing a knife from 4 feet away telling you that they are going to stab you and moving in your direction while swinging the knife at you. In this circumstance the person has demonstrated that they have the “means”, the “opportunity” and the “intent” to cause you death or serious physical injury.

From a decision-making standpoint, you would want to make sure that all 3 elements (means, opportunity and intent) exist together and at the same time. If someone changes their course of action and they no longer exhibit any 3 of those elements, you probably should avoid using force.

In addition to having means, opportunity and intent criteria met, you also need to consider the “totality of the circumstances” when making the decision to use force. This refers to any other influencing factors that need to be taken into consideration when making the decision to use force. A good example of this would be the disparity of age, size, fitness and gender. Using the example above, if a person has a knife, is 4 feet away from you and is communicating their intent to stab you and is swinging the knife at you, then all elements of means, opportunity and intent have been met. However, if you are a fit 23 year old and the person wishing to cause you harm is an 80 year old wheelchair bound individual, then you probably should not use force regardless of the fact that all 3 elements of “means,” “opportunity,” and “intent” are met. Having said that, if you take that same situation and flip it around where you are the 80 year old wheel chair bound person being attacked by a fit 23 year old who has all 3 elements met and have no way to remove yourself from the situation, that would be an influencing factor to your decision to use force in defense of yourself.

In closing, if you can remove yourself from the situation and call the police, that is generally the better way to handle the encounter. Additionally, it is important to understand that the person attacking you is the one who makes the decision for you that force needed to be applied to stop their unlawful use of force. You want to make sure that any action you take would be the same action taken by anyone else who was in the same situation.

If you are interested in getting online training for your Oregon Concealed Handgun License, click the Get Certified Now button below.