Firearms & Restraining Orders (in Oregon)

[Nick Burkhardt]

No expert but I would remove all firearms from the house as I have known guy that have had everything taken by the LE. It will take some doing to get them back.Or until you prove in court that she's a psycho.
Good luck with all this.

Too bad that once SB941 becomes active he can't store his guns in a buddy's safe and get them back after the lunacy has been quashed.

 

[Member 5605]

Too bad that once SB941 becomes active he can't store his guns in a buddy's safe and get them back after the lunacy has been quashed.

Proactive. January 15th Trusts were setup. Saw the writing on the wall with the Oregon legislature making things harder and harder to do. Expected the Form 1 items to be done already and be in a trust so trusted friends and family could use them as well. Glad I'm not waiting on a stamp.
Doesn't matter if it's 10 days or 180 days, will never be a transfer fee.

 

[Goosebrown]

Good luck to you getting it sorted out. Seems to me that documented mental illness and a history of evasion from you so you can't perform court ordered cost oft should carry weight in court before a judge.

 

[Gunner3456]

Did she ask for a prohibition against you having guns? Here is the Oregon State Bar's write up on RO's.

https://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1140_RestrainingOrders.htm

 

[Member 5605]

Did she ask for a prohibition against you having guns? Here is the Oregon State Bar's write up on RO's.

https://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1140_RestrainingOrders.htm

Negative. Nothing specific requested.

The text in question is the federal note at the end...

That's where the gray area starts that I don't understand 100%.

Going under the pretense of "better safe than sorry" right now.


Keep in mind she didn't use the Family Preventative abide act... She used the disability one. I'd love to compare but I want to make sure it's apples to apples. You know, the court could have a different view on the disability/elderly prevention act.

 

[Member 5605]

@Gunner3456, found this;
http://www.osbar.org/!newsletters/eld9a7b!.pdf

Page 6 at the end.

(By the way we never lived together, and besides that poking around that happened to conceive a child was 12 years ago.). So any "intimate" status is looooooooooooooooooooooooooong gone.


So if my reading of that is correct, none of those apply for firearms prohibition.

 

[U8395279]

Same lawyer will get this that's handling our custody case. No sense in paying two people and two retainers.

My only point was that you need an aggressive attorney, willing to fight for you. That is paramount. Don't think for a second that these matters are not 100% related. Your filing for custody generated these allegations. You need an attorney that can show that to the court and make the judge understand that is the case.

Some attorneys are wimps in court, and allow their clients to be steamrolled over. I sure hope that your attorney is not like that. Just because a person has a license to practice law, does not mean that they are competent or good at representing people.

Hopefully if you are seeing a custody specialist, he is experienced in dealing with mud being thrown at his clients.

.

 

[Member 5605]

My only point was that you need an aggressive attorney, willing to fight for you. That is paramount. Don't think for a second that these matters are not 100% related. Your filing for custody generated these allegations. You need an attorney that can show that to the court and make the judge understand that is the case.

Some attorneys are wimps in court, and allow their clients to be steamrolled over. I sure hope that your attorney is not like that. Just because a person has a license to practice law, does not mean that they are competent or good at representing people.

Hopefully if you are seeing a custody specialist, he is experienced in dealing with mud being thrown at his clients.

.

Ah, yes yes. He was highly recommended fed by some very good friends who had to do some papers as well for their nephew.

Not only is he a no BS guy, he is also about 6'2" with about 28" wide shoulder and a voice as deep as John Wayne.

He informed us from the start there would be fallout and what to look for, be prepared for down to the numbers of percentages on his cases that go either way (default or get into court judgement).

Yes, the very high recommendation from the friend in all areas deals the deal.

 

[U8395279]

Regarding possession:
Wife is changing codes when she gets home to safe. I will have no access..

I do not believe that is sufficient as far as the law is concerned. I believe that the standard is whether the person has control over the area where the firearms are stored.

Have you discussed this matter with your attorney yet? Did he sign off on doing this?

Intimate status:
She filed this under "Elderly Persons and Persons With Disabilities Abuse Prevention Act" ORS 124.020
I haven't been "intimate" with her in over 11 + years..

I don't see anything at all in that act that talks about authorizing a ban on firearms possession.

As far as I know, your guns are only in danger if she can claim "intimate status". Now According to that State Bar document that Gunner posted, it would seem that she can indeed do that under the Oregon Family Abuse Prevention Act. According to that law, the mere fact that you are the father of her child qualifies you.

An Oregon CHL gets suspended immediately whenever ANY KIND of restraining order is filed. That is a totally different issue and section of the law. But if you fight this in court and win, you should get your license back right away.

I believe I am barred from leaving the state in this order.
View attachment 240668

That does not sound like the case at all to me. That order bars you from leaving the state for the purpose of abusing her. That is a very specific context. It certainly would not apply to you at all, since she lives in Oregon.



.

 

[Member 5605]

@Lance Jacobs
24 hours away from clarification by lawyer.

 

[Brutus57]

That's some efffed up sh. Man.

Brutus out

 

[9c1ny]

Sorry man she has you over a barrel , I dealt with a psycho ex years ago when I lived in NY, all I wanted to do was be left alone by her! She had me arrested, got a restraining order against me, tried to say I had all sorts of guns I did not. Long story short, I spent $$$$ on an attorney and when it was all said and done was on 6 months of ACD (stay out of trouble it gets thrown out). Did I mention at the time she had fresh scars on her wrists and zero evidence against me??!! The prosecutor's exact words to me "even a crazy person is due their day in court" . Good luck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Member 5605]

Update:

Edited title to better reflect this for future access by anyone.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

After speaking with attorney briefly (can't afford to take them out on an all day excursion), while Lane County (where it was filed) does not have a box checked to exclude the respondent from firearms, his advice was to get them out of the house and relocate all.

So with money we just spent on down payment for house, retainer for the lawyer handling our custody case, now I will be paying even more to clear my name so I can have my 2nd amendment rights back... I am barred from selling said firearms if I need a cash infusion. I told the wife if it came down to it she or the other person listed in the Trust would have to handle that.

The good news though is I stayed at Holiday Inn last night, in my dream which was nice. Then I woke up and realized I was back in this real world.



Moral of the thread: if you have a RO, dispose of firearms or relocate them to a safe location even if the RO does not specifically say so. Firearm trusts are a good thing too in this situation with 941 looming around the bend. There is no reason to pay the outrageous fees to have them transferred to a buddy or from a buddy back to you.

 

[bnsaibum]

Yay! The system works. And by that I mean it is meant to nickle and dime you to death while it strings you along fighting to exercise a Right that was abrogated without due process by abuse of said system and the instigator of this abuse will likely face little to no repercussions. SMFH!!!

 

[U8395279]

... and the instigator of this abuse will likely face little to no repercussions. SMFH!!!

That is where the system is totally unbalanced. There are virtually no negative consequences for women who make up false allegations of abuse. There is like no District Attorney anywhere that is going to prosecute a woman and claim that she is lying about being abused. Can you imagine the outrage doing that would stir up with feminists?

I can think of only one case here locally, where our DA decided to prosecute a woman for making false allegations of abuse. And she was making totally crazy calls to 911 claiming that police officers were raping her in her home.

The best that Dyjital can hope for is for his attorney to get the judges in his two cases with her to see that she is lying, and making the allegations up as part of their custody battle over their son. A good judge can see through such lies. And when they do, making up such allegations can end up backfiring on a woman. Let's hope that Dyjital's lawyer does a good job, and that the judges handling his cases are fair minded.

But as far as the crime of lying to the police and making up false allegations, very rarely are there any prosecutions for doing that.

.

 

[Member 5605]

Spoke with attorney that we will be dropping a retainer on, somewhere around 3:00 today,

Since Lane County does not have the specific section stating in a RO that firearms should/will be prohibited, according to him: "There is no need to give up your firearms right now. The only reason to relinquish them is if you go to trial AND you lose. Only at that point. Right now you do not have to give them up." I repeat, this was only for LANE COUNTY-OREGON and the RO issued there under the Elderly and Disabilities Abuse Prevention Act.

This is not legal advice nor should this be taken as such. This is my personal experience based on the conversation regarding my situation only.

@Lance Jacobs when I get the Eugene attorney paid, I will be getting the two in contact so they can share information about the cases and such. That should really help both cases.

 

[edison bulb]

Hate to say it but every time I look at a woman now I ask myself is she worth every thing I have put together in life.

A bit of overreaction I think. Most women who are decent don't go around filing false ROs. I've worked in the legal system for awhile...and will tell you that ~95%+ of ROs filed are truthful. And sorry, this may rustle some feathers on the board here, but if someone has a RO against them they shouldn't be allowed to own firearms for the duration of the RO. Too bad. I guess they'll have to wait until it expires before they can legally own firearms again!

her claims need to be stuffed up her vag.............

Misogynistic language like this is incendiary and doesn't look good. Would this be something you would say in front of your significant other, an unknown person, your employer?

 

[9c1ny]

A bit of overreaction I think. Most women who are decent don't go around filing false ROs. I've worked in the legal system for awhile...and will tell you that ~95%+ of ROs filed are truthful. And sorry, this may rustle some feathers on the board here, but if someone has a RO against them they shouldn't be allowed to own firearms for the duration of the RO. Too bad. I guess they'll have to wait until it expires before they can legally own firearms again!


Misogynistic language like this is incendiary and doesn't look good. Would this be something you would say in front of your significant other, an unknown person, your employer?

95% really?! Must be everyone I know that falls into this BS is in the 5%. Let me guess your one of the people who also believe 95% of people on public assistance sincerely need it

Your know what is really 'incendiary' is the leftist's who have turned this country into what it is today, what 'doesn't look good' is not calling BS on BS, worrying about proper image and feelings is what has empowered BS to flourish

 

[bnsaibum]

@Dyjital, perhaps you should consider reaching out to Kevin Starrett as well. I would imagine that SB 525 (relating to domestic violence) will be up for a vote soon.
http://www.oregonfirearms.org/more-gun-bills
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Committees/HJUD/AssignedMeasures

 

[edison bulb]

95% really?! Must be everyone I know that falls into this BS is in the 5%.

Anecdotal fallacy. And just out of curiosity, how many people do you know who have had ROs filed against them?

Let me guess your one of the people who also believe 95% of people on public assistance sincerely need it

Red herring. You know absolutely nothing about my political ideology.

what 'doesn't look good' is not calling BS on BS, worrying about proper image and feelings is what has empowered BS to flourish

Breath. Now take a look at the definition of misogyny and then reread Classic's statement.