CHL denial, Multnomah County

[duldej]

I hope you do not mind a brief testimonial in this Legal/Political forum, but I just applied for a CHL in Multnomah County, and was denied. Furthermore, a Lieutenant at the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office, CHL unit revoked my CHL license, notifying me of both the denial and the revocation in the same letter.

He cited a misdemeanor conviction that I had in California in 2010, which was expunged May 2012.

I don't think this Lieutenant knew about the expungement, so I sent him a copy of the Dismissal Order in the mail.

I was arrested for other things, in the past, but have no convictions from any state, at any time, and essentially have a clean record.

This Lieutenant cited my arrests that turned-up, claiming that due to both the (expunged) conviction, and the arrests that I would be ineligible to be licensed.

I was hoping to get some input, please, from the NW Firearms community.

Read More

 

[deen_ad]

Seems like they determined that you had too many arrests so they pulled your present CHL and denied issuing you a new one.
Looks fine to me.

 

[iusmc2002]

If he's had too many arrests, how did he get a CHL in the first place?

 

[duldej]

Seems like they determined that you had too many arrests so they pulled your present CHL and denied issuing you a new one.
Looks fine to me.

There is no legal basis for a denial solely because of arrests, and no convictions. The Lieutenant abused his discretion.

 

[NoAim]

There is no legal basis for a denial solely because of arrests, and no convictions. The Lieutenant abused his discretion.

Here's the legal basis. Your recourse is #5.

ORS 166.293 - Denial or revocation of license - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes

§ 166.293¹
Denial or revocation of license

• review

(1) If the application for the concealed handgun license is denied, the sheriff shall set forth in writing the reasons for the denial. The denial shall be sent to the applicant by certified mail, restricted delivery, within 45 days after the application was made. If no decision is issued within 45 days, the person may seek review under the procedures in subsection (5) of this section.

(2) Notwithstanding ORS 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) (1), and subject to review as provided in subsection (5) of this section, a sheriff may deny a concealed handgun license if the sheriff has reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant has been or is reasonably likely to be a danger to self or others, or to the community at large, as a result of the applicants mental or psychological state or as demonstrated by the applicants past pattern of behavior involving unlawful violence or threats of unlawful violence.

(3)(a) Any act or condition that would prevent the issuance of a concealed handgun license is cause for revoking a concealed handgun license.

(b) A sheriff may revoke a concealed handgun license by serving upon the licensee a notice of revocation. The notice must contain the grounds for the revocation and must be served either personally or by certified mail, restricted delivery. The notice and return of service shall be included in the file of the licensee. The revocation is effective upon the licensees receipt of the notice.

(4) Any peace officer or corrections officer may seize a concealed handgun license and return it to the issuing sheriff if the license is held by a person who has been arrested or cited for a crime that can or would otherwise disqualify the person from being issued a concealed handgun license. The issuing sheriff shall hold the license for 30 days. If the person is not charged with a crime within the 30 days, the sheriff shall return the license unless the sheriff revokes the license as provided in subsection (3) of this section.

(5) A person denied a concealed handgun license or whose license is revoked or not renewed under ORS 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) to 166.295 (Renewal of license) may petition the circuit court in the petitioners county of residence to review the denial, nonrenewal or revocation. The petition must be filed within 30 days after the receipt of the notice of denial or revocation.

(6) The judgment affirming or overturning the sheriffs decision shall be based on whether the petitioner meets the criteria that are used for issuance of a concealed handgun license and, if the petitioner was denied a concealed handgun license, whether the sheriff has reasonable grounds for denial under subsection (2) of this section. Whenever the petitioner has been previously sentenced for a crime under ORS 161.610 (Enhanced penalty for use of firearm during commission of felony) or for a crime of violence for which the person could have received a sentence of more than 10 years, the court shall grant relief only if the court finds that relief should be granted in the interest of justice.

(7) Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 9.320 (Necessity for employment of attorney), a corporation, the state or any city, county, district or other political subdivision or public corporation in this state, without appearance by attorney, may appear as a party to an action under this section.

(8) Petitions filed under this section shall be heard and disposed of within 15 judicial days of filing or as soon as practicable thereafter.

(9) Filing fees for actions shall be as for any civil action filed in the court. If the petitioner prevails, the amount of the filing fee shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner and may be incorporated into the court order.

(10) Initial appeals of petitions shall be heard de novo.

(11) Any party to a judgment under this section may appeal to the Court of Appeals in the same manner as for any other civil action.

(12) If the governmental entity files an appeal under this section and does not prevail, it shall be ordered to pay the attorney fees for the prevailing party. [1989 c.839 §9a (166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) to 166.293 (Denial or revocation of license) enacted in lieu of 166.290); 1993 c.735 §6; 1995 c.518 §3; 1995 c.658 §89; 1999 c.1052 §7; 2003 c.14 §65; 2007 c.202 §1; 2007 c.368 §3]

 

[NoAim]

ORS 166.291 - Issuance of concealed handgun license - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes

§ 166.291¹
...

(h) Has not been convicted of a misdemeanor or found guilty, except for insanity under ORS 161.295 (Effect of mental disease or defect), of a misdemeanor within the four years prior to the application;

...

It could be a clerical error (misdemeanor came up, but not the expungement), but the sheriff still has the discretion as posted above. You do have an appeals process.

Additionally, just because it's "expunged" (look up the legal definition) doesn't mean it's destroyed or gone. It just limits access. So for employment, standard background checks it won't show up, but for police and government, it's still there. And you stated you were convicted.

Personally, I think you're SOL for a few years.

 

[accessbob]

Two things if you want to have a chance at succeeding.

1. Contact an attorney who has experience with these issues.

2. File the appeal.

 

[duldej]

ORS 166.291 - Issuance of concealed handgun license - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes



It could be a clerical error (misdemeanor came up, but not the expungement), but the sheriff still has the discretion as posted above. You do have an appeals process.

Additionally, just because it's "expunged" (look up the legal definition) doesn't mean it's destroyed or gone. It just limits access. So for employment, standard background checks it won't show up, but for police and government, it's still there. And you stated you were convicted.

Personally, I think you're SOL for a few years.

ORS 166.291 (2) states the following:

A person who has been granted relief under ORS 166.274 or 166.293 or 18 U.S.C. 925(c) or has had the person's record expunged under the laws of this state or equivalent laws of other jurisdictions is not subject to the disabilities in subsection (1)(g) to (k) of this section.

If you've got a misdemeanor conviction, then due to clause (h), you get denied, so except for the, albeit legal, abuse of discretion that I mentioned above, there is no basis for his denial.

 

[duldej]

Two things if you want to have a chance at succeeding.

1. Contact an attorney who has experience with these issues.

2. File the appeal.

I had hoped I could settle this out of court, but I do plan to do both of those points. Thank You. Can you please recommend an attorney?

 

[NoAim]

ORS 166.291 (2) states the following:

A person who has been granted relief under ORS 166.274 or 166.293 or 18 U.S.C. 925(c) or has had the person's record expunged under the laws of this state or equivalent laws of other jurisdictions is not subject to the disabilities in subsection (1)(g) to (k) of this section.

If you've got a misdemeanor conviction, then due to clause (h), you get denied, so except for the, albeit legal, abuse of discretion that I mentioned above, there is no basis for his denial.

Ah, I missed that. Good catch. It may be worth it just to talk to the guy (if you haven't already). However, going in with the attitude of "he abused his discretionary power" likely be successful.

 

[Boomerang]

Ah, I missed that. Good catch. It may be worth it just to talk to the guy (if you haven't already). However, going in with the attitude of "he abused his discretionary power" likely be successful.

This. Make an appointment to talk with the guy who denied you. Don't go in with any type of attitude. Be non-confrontational, but simply ask if he would think about reconsidering based on ORS 166.291 (2) concerning expunged records. Don't demand anything, simply ask. If that doesn't work, then go the attorney / appeals route.

 

[PuddleMonkey]

I was hoping to get some input, please, from the NW Firearms community.

Sure, stop getting arrested.

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[nwdrifter]

Just an idea

Dismissal Order

i think that's the problem, a Dismissal Order might not mean it was expunged it might mean it was dismissed but still on file then he gets to use the "go back 4 years deal" as stated above.

I would talk to him like a man face to face with full respect, if that doesnt work file for appeal.

 

[duldej]

To clarify, the Lieutenant has not written me back yet. The only letter I've received from him has been the initial denial letter.

 

[Stomper]

Yeah, like it has been said, politely stand-up for yourself, present your case and point out the relevant ORS pertinent to your situation. You haven't mentioned what sort of scrape you had with the system, and it mentions they have "discretion" to deny if they suspect you may be a threat to yourself or the public, which implies a bit of latitude is allowed. If the Lieutenant can see first hand a conscientious, rational person who cares enough to present their case, he may be inclined to reverse his decision.

Back in the early 90's I caught a guy breaking into my house and I broke his back (literally) for his trouble. Strangely enough I got hauled off for Assault-lV and Menacing a few months later, as the Multnomah County ADA was a bleeding heart A-hole, but my lawyer got the judge to dismiss the case.

Consequently, I never lost my CHL then, nor have I ever been subsequently denied one since.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

Doesn't the type of crime, even if its expunged make a difference?
Domestic violence etc...?

Or am I way out in right field here?

 

[duldej]

Yeah, like it has been said, politely stand-up for yourself, present your case and point out the relevant ORS pertinent to your situation. You haven't mentioned what sort of scrape you had with the system, and it mentions they have "discretion" to deny if they suspect you may be a threat to yourself or the public, which implies a bit of latitude is allowed. If the Lieutenant can see first hand a conscientious, rational person who cares enough to present their case, he may be inclined to reverse his decision.

Back in the early 90's I caught a guy breaking into my house and I broke his back (literally) for his trouble. Strangely enough I got hauled off for Assault-lV and Menacing a few months later, as the Multnomah County ADA was a bleeding heart A-hole, but my lawyer got the judge to dismiss the case.

Consequently, I never lost my CHL then, nor have I ever been subsequently denied one since.

He mentioned in his letter that I had once been arrested for "assault," which happened in 2007. I had engaged in a shouting match with some security guards in downtown L.A., and happened to be holding my trumpet in my hand. They called for a citizen's arrest, but no charges ever were filed, and the cops that appeared on the scene, the next day told me, when they saw me on the street, that the incident was "bullsh*t."

Like rur862 said, above, they arrest you for some ridiculous stuff sometimes. Notable, perhaps, is that Los Angeles police use a Zero Tolerance philosophy of policing, which is different than the Community Policing that they use here in Portland, which means you get hauled off to jail for just about anything. 100% of my scrapes with the law happened there.

 

[duldej]

Doesn't the type of crime, even if its expunged make a difference?
Domestic violence etc...?

Or am I way out in right field here?

Good point, but the case was not DV.

 

[PuddleMonkey]

There are all sorts of ridiculous reasons police arrest people in this country, even when they haven't actually done anything criminal (damaging someone else's person or property)

If duldje hasn't actually been prosecuted and convicted of a felony, chances are he hasn't actually done anything wrong.

According to him he's been arrested multiple times, I somehow doubt he's an angel.