CHL denial, Multnomah County

[One-Eyed Ross]

rur862, don't confuse people with truths...it get in the way of the tin foil

 

[TroutSlayer]

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?

Try James Leuenberger
Fights 4 Rights - James Leuenberger - Portland Oregon

 

[deen_ad]

I am wondering what gives. Maybe you should, too.

I have both a WA and OR license, have never been arrested, nor detained (other than a speeding ticket in 1986 or so) either. Also a member of WAC, which requires a background check or CPL. Never been delayed/denied on a purchase either.

I don't need to worry about my record, nor hire an attorney to defend it. Looks like you have had enough scrapes with the law to make it questionable in the laws eyes.

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[FarmerTed1971]

I believe he was completely justified in denying your application. Remember there are so many applicants right now that anything besides a quick record check is probably not getting done. They look for the squeeky clean and approve them with no delay. You have enough red flags raised to draw suspicion. I think he was doing his job.

You now need to appeal and prove your point. If all you say above is true then after careful review you should not have a problem getting approved. Go for it.

And don't get arrested anymore. It only leads to stress, aggravation and the thinning of your pocketbook.

 

[Partsproduction]

Guilty until YOU prove you are innocent, that's how things are when liberals are in charge. Convictions (Plural) may make it reasonable, but not arrests. No one who isn't convicted of any crime should be punished, that's totally wrong.

We should probably get used to it.

 

[rkoreis]

Guilty until YOU prove you are innocent, that's how things are when liberals are in charge.

So you personally know the LEO who denied the license?

 

[Partsproduction]

So you personally know the LEO who denied the license?

No, do you? What difference does it make either way. We have to take the word of the OP that he had no convictions. Assuming he had no convictions how can it be right to punish him? I don't understand why that is even a consideration. Should he be fined for violations of laws he wasn't convicted of breaking? Should he be thrown in jail for laws he wasn't convicted of breaking? Why do we even have courts if an arrest is all that's needed to destroy someone?

 

[BVB]

i think we need to hear the rest of the story.

 

[Partsproduction]

I agree. But if it's true that there haven't been any convictions this is not right and a just people would demand rectification.

 

[BVB]

yes you are right. just alot of blanks or spaces missing in this thread.

 

[rkoreis]

No, do you? What difference does it make either way.

Then why make the statement? I'm not making any judgement on the OP, just your leap to an unsubstantiated assumption.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

Its really simple.
Jurisdictions are exposed to a massive amount of liability every minute of every day, 24/7/365. That kind of liability makes people who make decisions very anal.
While the pressure they agreed to assume when they took the job is no excuse for overstepping the law, they are well within their rights to modify the award of the CHL when things just look different in someones background. I don't like it, but I completely understand why their 'spider sense' is tingling.
My guess is that it will be issued prior to ever making it to court as long as all the details are as presented.

 

[duldej]

Try James Leuenberger
Fights 4 Rights - James Leuenberger - Portland Oregon

Thank you. I am retaining Short Law Group. I consulted with an attorney there today. He claims to be friends with the OFF guy, and even produced for me the OFF guy's book for me to take home.

 

[duldej]

I have both a WA and OR license, have never been arrested, nor detained (other than a speeding ticket in 1986 or so) either. Also a member of WAC, which requires a background check or CPL. Never been delayed/denied on a purchase either.

I don't need to worry about my record, nor hire an attorney to defend it. Looks like you have had enough scrapes with the law to make it questionable in the laws eyes.

That's awesome, deen ad. I wish I could boast the same. I understand your conservative approach.

That's the truth of the matter, but my case is indicative of what I consider to be a problem with the ORS. That's why I brought it to this forum. Not that people with scrapes with the law should unquestionably be licensed, but that A) there is needless ambiguity in the law as it stands that brings about spurious, biased judgement calls, and B) an arrest is merely an allegation that could be construed as indicative of a problem, but that is not necessarily so.

Cops are part of the Criminal Justice system, so their role is vital to it, but it is never the final word. The judge/jury is the final word, and it's a good thing like that because the judge hears both sides of the issue, and then makes an informed decision. Cops are out there to root out criminals, and operate on a "guilty until proven innocent" modus operands, but judges really don't operate on that M.O. because they hear the defendant and the plaintiff, too.

With you, deen ad, I am barking up the wrong tree, so probably this thread is boring. I am passionate about this sort of thing, though, and having been in California for many years, I know that others out there are passionate about gun laws/rights/legal fights, too.

We've got it good here in Oregon, but if you ask me, it is a fight to keep it that way. Sometimes stones are overturned where the law is hardly developed, as it is in this case, so that piques my curiosity.

I am in love with "shall issue," but something is not right.

Deen ad, you are fortunate not to have had to butt heads with the system in this respect, but others like me have, and do.

 

[duldej]

Their are restraints on "the law's" ability to deny people their rights without due cause. Besides, duldej's problem is not necessarily even with "the law," but rather one police lieutenant's arbitrary interpretation of it.

Let's remind ourselves that duldej is perfectly legal to buy, own, and possess a gun under Oregon and federal law. Why is he being denied his CHL? This is extremely upsetting to me, and should be upsetting to all of us.

Moreover, it's upsetting to see people uncle tom-ing about, implying how lucky we are that massa law-man is looking out for our safety.
Police officers, in general, have an incredibly poor record for looking out for our safety, and an even poorer record of safeguarding our rights.

Thanks for taking my side. the due process is the hearing, and I am bellying-up to pay $1,500.00 to attend. From what I understand it is a pretty speedy process, so I should know fairly soon, like within a month or so.

Someone somewhere once said that cops are powerful and that arrests really mean something in and of themselves. I disagree. Lawyers and judges are the powerful ones. They go to law school so that they can make educated decisions. In some respects, it is sort-of a privilege to appear in court, so I am welcoming the opportunity. I sincerely hope that the judge can see through the haze of the alleged importance of arrests, in and of themselves.

In other words, when you measure crimes and crime statistics, I would only go with convictions.

In my case, it's sort -of dumb. I have an expunged conviction, and several arrests, and the conviction is not posing a problem... but the arrests are?

Every conviction starts out as an arrest, so I'll be darned!

 

[duldej]

I believe he was completely justified in denying your application. Remember there are so many applicants right now that anything besides a quick record check is probably not getting done. They look for the squeeky clean and approve them with no delay. You have enough red flags raised to draw suspicion. I think he was doing his job.

You now need to appeal and prove your point. If all you say above is true then after careful review you should not have a problem getting approved. Go for it.

And don't get arrested anymore. It only leads to stress, aggravation and the thinning of your pocketbook.

I am 100% with this... and thanks for your vote of confidence!

 

[BVB]

i know you are looking for support and legal advise. did you go down to the sherriff's office today? and talk with them? you had brought this up on the weekend and got good advice. here it is 11:00pm with no answers, but you have no one else to blame but yourself. if you are as deticated to the cause. you would have taken action first thing this morning. and you didn't?
WHY?

 

[duldej]

No, do you? What difference does it make either way. We have to take the word of the OP that he had no convictions. Assuming he had no convictions how can it be right to punish him? I don't understand why that is even a consideration. Should he be fined for violations of laws he wasn't convicted of breaking? Should he be thrown in jail for laws he wasn't convicted of breaking? Why do we even have courts if an arrest is all that's needed to destroy someone?

100% behind this, too.

 

[BVB]

well? i think i might have hit a nerve. if this is true"I have a Master of Science degree in Criminal Justice" why would they have not got the answer thru the proper channels. like i had asked before. and lets hear the rest of the story