Firearms & Restraining Orders (in Oregon)

[RB87]

Y

Anyway, back to ROs, filing them and having them stick are two different things. The ones that stick are the ones that matter. And I stand by my previous statement that if someone has an RO against them that they shouldn't be allowed to own firearms throughout the duration of the RO.

I would buy into your theory about the ones that stick if well the modern system wasn't rigged to favor the first filer and the court's so called integrity above all. See the notion of "the best interests of the child" or the Duluth model of domestic violence (written by man hating feminists).

Most RO's are ex-parte, meaning filed and executed by the courts without the accused being able to defend themselves (one might deem that unconstitutional- the right to face your accuser and all). Many judges across the land hand those RO's out like candy to a baby to avoid looking bad if someone dies or gets hurt. The fact that you want to take away property, property used to defend onself (yes it can be used to hurt too) without an actual judgment of the facts from both sides is immoral, unethical and flies in the face of 800+ years of Anglo-Saxon law.

TLDR: Your bulb/brain seems to operate off of feeelings, nothing more than feelings. Not logic.

 

[RB87]

Yup. Maintaining a good image of gun owners is important.

The image/perception argument ceased to mean anything the second you had children being suspended or expelled from school for toy guns, nerf guns, little guns that come with gi joe dolls and toaster strudels eaten into the shape of a gun. Toss in steak knives for lunches (in racist brown bags) and pictures of daddy firing guns to save the day from the martian invaders (well ok, that one was in Canada, sue me).

You counter the bad stuff involving guns by mocking the nanny staters who want everyone walking around in a bubble.

 

[edison bulb]

I wasn't responding to OP or his situation. I was responding to two posters who believe most ROs are BS. You do have due process when it comes to contesting your RO. I'm not anti-gun (anyone can go back far enough and see I post about shooting too and have donated $1000+ this year alone to OFF and the NRA) but do have an interest in keeping firearms away from abusers. I've worked with both women AND men suffering from intimate partner abuse, seen enough cut marks, burns, strangulation, gun shot wounds, and deaths that the benefit of the doubt AT FIRST must be with the petitioner.

I'm NOT saying OP is an abuser or that in his particular situation the RO isn't BS. I'd like to see some changes in family court, especially in the length of time required to contest the RO. I think ~30 days is too long, especially if someones firearms were removed. The ability to contest the RO needs to be much sooner than that IMO.

 

[1990Turbo]

I had an RO about 10 years ago from when I was getting a divorce from my ex. Never laid a hand on her in any way got one anyway. I also feel as some others have said most women who are getting divorced get a RO first thing when SHTF. It almost guarantees them a way to get everything they want in the divorce custody hearing. Its up to the judge in the RO hearing what will be held from you. My ex told them I had a knife collection and some rifles. I was allowed to keep those but was not able to puichase any firearms for the duration of the order. In OR that is 1 year and after the year is up the filer can get another one filed.

 

[Sstrand]

All of this says one thing to me . . . "You should be very careful who you take up with," as my mother used to say.

Sheldon

 

[USAF Medic]

CHL is just another form of registration. Why did they even look into your CHL
Status? CHL has become a sort of cult following among gun owners. I don't
know why so many have bought into registering themselves as gun owners.
Crazy!

 

[edison bulb]

The ex wife probably mentioned that the OP has a CHL.

 

[Gunner3456]

Make sure you "cross your T's" and "dot your I's" and use a good lawyer. If you loose in appeals your loss of rights to firearms could be indefinite. Be cautious and do it right!

Don't forget. Any legal argument you could make but fail to make at trial can't be brought up on appeal. You can appeal only what the judge rules and he's forbidden by law from ruling on something you don't put before him.

Arguing a point of law or other legal matter at trial is called "preserving it for appeal." Get it right the first time. Get a really good criminal defense attorney. Yes it isn't a crime but the attorney's reactions have to be the same.

 

[WalkenBear]

The above post cannot be stressed enough.
Your lawyer MUST raise an objection. The classic failure to preserve the record is not making appropriate objections, particularly regarding the admission and exclusion of evidence. For example, courts of appeal will not generally set aside a verdict or finding based on the erroneous admission of evidence unless the other party made a timely objection to such evidence that makes clear the specific ground of the objection.
I like the idea of having a lawyer with a shock collar on and you have the remote. Hit the button and he yells "OBJECTION"

 

[Garg]

I like the idea of having a lawyer with a shock collar on and you have the remote. Hit the button and he yells "OBJECTION"

I like that idea, just because......

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

All lawyers should come with a shock collar installed.

 

[Member 5605]

With the passage of SB525 my butt is puckering now.

The mere accusation....

 

[Gunner3456]

The above post cannot be stressed enough.
Your lawyer MUST raise an objection. The classic failure to preserve the record is not making appropriate objections, particularly regarding the admission and exclusion of evidence. For example, courts of appeal will not generally set aside a verdict or finding based on the erroneous admission of evidence unless the other party made a timely objection to such evidence that makes clear the specific ground of the objection.
I like the idea of having a lawyer with a shock collar on and you have the remote. Hit the button and he yells "OBJECTION"

You're absolutely right but it also applies to affirmative arguments. If you have an argument about a point of law and fail to raise it you also lose it.

 

[WalkenBear]

Good info Gunner,
echoes the old axiom "raise it or waive it", objections not made are waived. Good to know it applies to arguments on points of law and I would assume evidence that has been introduced.

 

[Gunner3456]

Repeat. An appeal is nothing more than appealing the judge's actions or rulings. If he didn't do something you can't appeal it so you force him to make rulings by bringing up every possible point of law you can think of.

This isn't the time however to make an "argument of first impression" which is asking for a new meaning in a law including the constitution that's never been decided before. An example would be to ask the courts to declare that gay marriage is a civil right under the Constitution. I mention that because it's before the court right now. The gays are making an argument of first impression that they are guaranteed equality in marriage by the Constitution.

Don't go there with something like that because it takes too long and is too expensive. Find a fatal flaw in her request for the order or prove you didn't do something she said you did... Beat her on the facts.

I'm betting there's a fatal flaw in her paperwork for the order because she couldn't have known what the hell she was doing.

 

[Member 5605]

July 13th I'll stand before a judge.

Consult tomorrow with lawyer regarding subpoenas and stuff.

 

[NWGlockgal]

We are all pulling for you....keep us updated.

 

[41Slinger]

July 13th I'll stand before a judge.

Consult tomorrow with lawyer regarding subpoenas and stuff.

What a PILE Dyjital, just read you entire thread. WOW !!!
Wishing you a stout lawyer, a common sense judge and a solid winning outcome.

 

[Member 5605]

This didn't even make it to trial.

The day of court (today), the petitioners legal aide was heavily pushing the issue to have this dropped. It may have been the overwhelming evidence against her claims of misconduct. Imagine that.



So I did not have to remove firearms from the house OR transfer them to another entity while awaiting trial.

 

[deadeye]

This didn't even make it to trial.

The day of court (today), the petitioners legal aide was heavily pushing the issue to have this dropped. It may have been the overwhelming evidence against her claims of misconduct. Imagine that.

View attachment 247045

So I did not have to remove firearms from the house OR transfer them to another entity while awaiting trial.

getting permit back also?