CHL denial, Multnomah County

[duldej]

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

I have no guilt.

 

[4Freedom]

What were the other little things you were arrested for? Just out of curiosity. The Portland PD is not my favorite, but the only people I met who have been hauled to jail by them have had it coming.

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

move to WA....here, it's SHALL issue, not "maybe, I might, if I'm in a good mood" issue

 

[Stomper]

LOL.... OR is a shall issue too. Its just going to take a little more work on the OP's part to navigate through this set of "rapids" in the river of CHL acquisition. At least the police are DOING their job, (NOT saying he actually is) but what if the OP is/was a combative schmoe (he DOES play the trumpet after all... ) that shouldn't own a slingshot let alone carry a firearm in the general public and something BAD happened? Then you'd all be crying about how useless the police are. Its always a lose-lose for the police with some of you.

 

[Contract_Pilot]

I think an honesty thing may play a roll here also , Being honest on the application will always work best for you lets them know your not hiding anything.

What did you check for "I have NOT, within the last four years, been convicted of or found guilty of a misdemeanor."

If you checked it I would have attached the Expungement order!

What did you check for, I do NOT have any charges pending in any court resulting from any citation or arrest.

Again I would have attached dismissals to the application.

With out knowing the other arrests and what the conviction was for and if the arrests were taken care of it hard to say. If any of the arrests or citations Involved Drugs and you checked "I have never been to court for any charge involving drugs "it don't matter if you convicted then Denial I would assume.

But if you had not attached a certified copy of your Expungement Order with the app the state may not have updated their records or transmitted to the feds showing a conviction still there.

Trust me about Gov. not updating their records, I was briefly denied a PA CC for something that happened when I was as 13, 21 Years ago at the time was listed as "Disposition Unknown" with the Feds. I had the burden of proof to show I was not convicted which few months later I got my letter saying yes, I was approved!

It cost me some FRN's to get the right person to write the right letter to PSP as records were actually destroyed back then it was Sheriffs Records Office Mistake for not destroying the Juvenile fingerprint record and converting it to digital some 6 or so years ago submitting them to the feds.

Below I think is what got ya, it is their fail safe for denial if they think you are not being honest.

I have read the entire text of this application and understand it completely. The statements I have made are correct and true. "I understand that making false statements on this application is a crime. If I have made false statements in this application, I am subject to prosecution and my application will automatically be denied or revoked."

If you are all up and up and legal you should have or get a copy's of all "Disposition's" of all arrests showing dismissed, charges dropped, etc.

The way the fed's work is if you are charged, arrested, and Finger printed it will list "Disposition Unknown" until notified by the state if that ever happens.

If you are legal and if it is a state thing I would appeal it may cost you some FRN's but worth it to clear the record.

Oregon law provides an appeal process for denials and revocations through the filing of a petition through Circuit Court. You have 30 days from the date you receive the revocation letter to appeal the decision. For additional information refer to ORS 166.293(5).

 

[deen_ad]

I have no guilt.

Whether you feel guilty or not doesn't matter.

Apparently you've been arrested multiple times and the officer did his duty and denied you CPL application. Now, it's up to you to disprove his reasoning.

 

[duldej]

What were the other little things you were arrested for? Just out of curiosity. The Portland PD is not my favorite, but the only people I met who have been hauled to jail by them have had it coming.

I don't want to get into a laundry list, but none of the arrests resulted in convictions, and they all happened in Los Angeles County, which is what I was trying to explain earlier. Again, Los Angeles Police is a Zero Tolerance organization. They look for trouble, and, some might argue, cause trouble before it starts. That's the way it happened with me, anyway. They bring in lots of offenders, but often do not prosecute because of any number of reasons. Me, I was just on their sh*t list, hence my trouble.

 

[Contract_Pilot]

As i said, arrest may be showing pending if they have not updated the database.. and if any were for drugs/DV then your gonna be SOL..

 

[duldej]

I think an honesty thing may play a roll here also , Being honest on the application will always work best for you lets them know your not hiding anything.

What did you check for "I have NOT, within the last four years, been convicted of or found guilty of a misdemeanor."

If you checked it I would have attached the Expungement order!

What did you check for, I do NOT have any charges pending in any court resulting from any citation or arrest.

Again I would have attached dismissals to the application.

With out knowing the other arrests and what the conviction was for and if the arrests were taken care of it hard to say. If any of the arrests or citations Involved Drugs and you checked "I have never been to court for any charge involving drugs "it don't matter if you convicted then Denial I would assume.

But if you had not attached a certified copy of your Expungement Order with the app the state may not have updated their records or transmitted to the feds showing a conviction still there.

Trust me about Gov. not updating their records, I was briefly denied a PA CC for something that happened when I was as 13, 21 Years ago at the time was listed as "Disposition Unknown" with the Feds. I had the burden of proof to show I was not convicted which few months later I got my letter saying yes, I was approved!

It cost me some FRN's to get the right person to write the right letter to PSP as records were actually destroyed back then it was Sheriffs Records Office Mistake for not destroying the Juvenile fingerprint record and converting it to digital some 6 or so years ago submitting them to the feds.

Below I think is what got ya, it is their fail safe for denial if they think you are not being honest.

I have read the entire text of this application and understand it completely. The statements I have made are correct and true. "I understand that making false statements on this application is a crime. If I have made false statements in this application, I am subject to prosecution and my application will automatically be denied or revoked."

If you are all up and up and legal you should have or get a copy's of all "Disposition's" of all arrests showing dismissed, charges dropped, etc.

The way the fed's work is if you are charged, arrested, and Finger printed it will list "Disposition Unknown" until notified by the state if that ever happens.

If you are legal and if it is a state thing I would appeal it may cost you some FRN's but worth it to clear the record.

Oregon law provides an appeal process for denials and revocations through the filing of a petition through Circuit Court. You have 30 days from the date you receive the revocation letter to appeal the decision. For additional information refer to ORS 166.293(5).

You're absolutely right, but I did not lie. I told the truth, certifying each point. I would not have applied if I was not eligible. What this denial represents, and I have now consulted with an attorney, is a judgement call made by the Sheriff's Office that is permitted by the ORS that have, above, been cited. Or, some might argue, it was "unilaterially decided," which it was.

 

[duldej]

Whether you feel guilty or not doesn't matter.

Apparently you've been arrested multiple times and the officer did his duty and denied you CPL application. Now, it's up to you to disprove his reasoning.

Thanks, Mac. I know that. The fact of the matter, however, is that I am not guilty of any crime. It's a double entendre, what I said. The law is so vague, and permits so much discretion on the part of said officer that I need an attorney to argue it in court for me. My point is that that is too great of a burden just to exercise one's rights, and also that the ORS is drafted in a shabby way, in this respect. Basically, I do not want to pay an attorney $1,500.00 to argue this for me, but it looks like I will have to do that. I would prefer to handle it out of court. Wouldn't you? I understand due process and all of that. I've been to court before.

As it was mentioned above, Oregon is a "shall issue" state, which means that if you do the required paperwork correctly and honestly, that you get your license. I did all of that, and... no license. I am wondering what gives. Maybe you should, too.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

It's not shall issue if the LEOs can stop it. In WA, if you can buy a handgun, you SHALL be issued an CPL....

Now, what with the status of LAPD, if someone was arrested by them, I'd not worry about that much, especially if it was the Rampart Division...

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[Stomper]

It's not shall issue if the LEOs can stop it. In WA, if you can buy a handgun, you SHALL be issued an CPL....

Now, what with the status of LAPD, if someone was arrested by them, I'd not worry about that much, especially if it was the Rampart Division...

That is not what, "shall issue" means. It means that the LEO having authority to issue a CHL/CPL cannot deny you a CHL/CPL just because you wear clown shoes and he/she doesn't like them, or you having to "have a compelling reason" (usually subject the the LEO's opinion) to have a CHL/CPL. The problem is the OP has a SNAFU going on that has triggered a red flag in the process. He can either wait a couple more years until the prescribed ORS guidelines are met if he doesn't want to spend the money on legal fees, or lawyer up and get it rectified sooner. It IS possible to do your own research and represent yourself. The info is out there, you just have to know the proper procedure and what paperwork to properly submit... Just sayin'.

 

[duldej]

That is not what, "shall issue" means. It means that the LEO having authority to issue a CHL/CPL cannot deny you a CHL/CPL just because you wear clown shoes and he/she doesn't like them, or you having to "have a compelling reason" (usually subject the the LEO's opinion) to have a CHL/CPL. The problem is the OP has a SNAFU going on that has triggered a red flag in the process. He can either wait a couple more years until the prescribed ORS guidelines are met if he doesn't want to spend the money on legal fees, or lawyer up and get it rectified sooner. It IS possible to do your own research and represent yourself. The info is out there, you just have to know the proper procedure and what paperwork to properly submit... Just sayin'.

Section 166.291 (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.

In my humble opinion, section (B) delineates when to issue and when to not issue, but is too vague in its wording. It should be developed, some, what exactly constitutes a pattern of behavior of such. Is it arrests or is it convictions. if it is convictions, then they are being redundant. If it is arrests, then they are inviting hearsay, gut reactions instead of evidence-based decision making, and discrimination. Plus it compromises a good policy in "shall issue."

Shall issue is a good way to keep it simple logic. if a then b. a, you have no convictions in the past four years, etc, b, you get issued a license. I have provided them with "a," and still, because of the bolded clause, above, I get no license. In some respects, Oregon law, described here and elsewhere, is "shall issue," in name only, I would argue, because of the above bolded clause. A consequence of the Oregon "shall issue" law, as it stands, is too many court hearings regarding CHL denials.

 

[duldej]

It's not shall issue if the LEOs can stop it. In WA, if you can buy a handgun, you SHALL be issued an CPL....

That's right. Washington law is different than Oregon law, but the logical principle of "shall issue" states is intact. feed into the computer "A", and you get "B" as a result. no room for human error. In computer science, I think they call it "garbage in/garbage out." In Criminal Justice, they call it "evidence based" practice, as opposed to "gut reactions."

 

[Contract_Pilot]

The poster has not posted his Past Expunged Conviction nor his Arrests.. so with very few posts I am assuming he is not being open and honest with the forum to give good advice. I would say Troll.

I am going to assume either DV or Drug arrests!! or a Citation for Possession or Something else witch translates to a crime in Oregon! CA has some wired citations that = or translate in to crimes in oregon!

 

[duldej]

The poster has not posted his Past Expunged Conviction nor his Arrests.. so with very few posts I am assuming he is not being open and honest with the forum to give good advice. I would say Troll.

I am going to assume either DV or Drug arrests!! or a Citation for Possession or Something else witch translates to a crime in Oregon! CA has some wired citations that = or translate in to crimes in oregon!

Knock it off, Contract Pilot. You seem more interested in your own posts, of which there are many; and some of them are long-winded, than in actually reading the posts that have already been put up. I already cleared the air concerning your complaints. If you're not going to take me at my word, then that's your problem.

I've assured the nw firearms public that there is no DV--what do you think I am?! and there's no drugs.

I am not misrepresenting myself, here. My problem is the $1,500.00 sticker price of my 2A rights, which is indicative of a problem with the ORS the way they are drafted, today.

I really think it would be tacky to enumerate the arrests and what they were here on a public forum. I already alluded to the one that the Lieutenant had a problem with, earlier in this thread. Plus, I am seeking attorney representation, and I do not want to hurt my case.

You've just not been doing your homework... and since you don't care to do the homework, but just cause a problem for me, meanwhile admiring your own posts, then you're the troll. You don't care about this issue as it pertains to me or to the Oregon public, so right back at you... troll.

 

[Mark W.]

I'm curious about something.

If you didn't want other people opinions and discussions then why on earth did you post this here in the first place? Were you expecting someone here to help your cause? Or were you looking for advice on how to either deal with it or seek a way around it?

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.