Relating to training of armed public safety officers.
Summary
HB 3515 would require that the training needed to obtain certification as a public safety officer armed with a firearm include two hours of training in nonlethal techniques for every one hour of training in lethal techniques. The measure is directed at the certification standards in ORS 181A.410 and applies to armed public safety officers in Oregon.
In practical terms, the bill would add a specific ratio requirement to the training curriculum for armed officers, emphasizing de-escalation, restraint, and other nonlethal methods alongside firearms-related instruction. It does not appear to create a new licensing system or change who may be certified, but instead changes the content and balance of required training for certification.
Impact
The bill would amend Oregon law governing public safety officer certification by inserting a new training requirement into ORS 181A.355 to 181A.689. Agencies and training providers responsible for certifying armed public safety officers would need to ensure that nonlethal techniques training is provided at twice the amount of lethal techniques training, potentially affecting academy curricula, training hours, staffing, and compliance standards for certification.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available record does not show organized support or opposition. The measure’s framing suggests a policy preference for increasing emphasis on nonlethal tactics in officer training, which may appeal to proponents of de-escalation and police reform. However, no formal sentiment can be inferred from hearings or votes because none are provided.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the mandated 2:1 training ratio between nonlethal and lethal techniques. Supporters would likely view this as a way to improve officer safety, reduce use-of-force incidents, and strengthen de-escalation skills, while critics may argue it is too prescriptive, could reduce time spent on firearms proficiency, or impose additional training burdens on agencies. Because there is no committee record or vote history included, no specific legislators, agencies, or stakeholder groups are identified as taking those positions.