Oregon Castle Doctrine Petition Drive

[ZachS]

Anybody know if there is any update on this?

It didn't even come close to making the ballot.

 

[RVTECH]

There is NO need to shoot someone which is in your yard!

I agree (somewhat) but what if those who are in your yard are intent on breaking in your house evidenced by their appearance, maybe you see weapons on them and they are headed for your front door and you just happen to preempt on them? I would rather confront them outside than inside personally - IE. take the fight to them.

 

[Decidion]

I guess the lawyers are happy once again....

 

[MikeIsh]

Someone email me with the locations of the petitions.
We would love to get the Castle Doctrine passed in Oregon.
It is long past due. Socialists take a hike on this one.
If you walk along staring at your feet while going to your next handout, I hope a truck runs you down or you do fall into someone's pit. It will reduce the stupidity gene pool in this country.

Someone seriously email and tell me where a petition can be found to get this one going.

Oregon already has a Castle Doctrine. (see below) here is a link: <broken link removed>


OREGON CASTLE DOCTRINE
The Oregon Castle Doctrine makes changes to Oregon statutes. The principle behind the Oregon Castle Doctrine is simple: My home/property is my castle, and I should be able to protect myself from those who do not belong. This measure has two distinct, yet equally important parts.
The first part of the Oregon Castle Doctrine provides that if a person is on your property, committing a crime, and you as the property owner use deadly physical force in order to protect yourself or another person who is lawfully on your property, the Oregon Castle Doctrine presumes that your use of such deadly force is justified.
Currently in Oregon, a homeowner is only allowed to use deadly force against an intruder if the intruder posed an “imminent deadly threat” to either the homeowner or the homeowner’s family. This means that Oregon law forces a homeowner to choose between protecting him/herself and/or the homeowner’s family, and deciding whether an intruder poses an imminent deadly threat. No homeowner should be forced into making such a decision. The Oregon Castle Doctrine makes it clear that you have a right to protect your home.
The second part of the Oregon Castle Doctrine says that if a person is trespassing on your property and through no fault of your own injures him or herself, that person is not allowed to file a law suit against you. Under the currently law, if a person is trespassing on your property and injures him or herself, you could be sued – even though the person was trespassing on YOUR land! The Oregon Castle Doctrine makes it clear to trespassers that if you decide to trespass, you do so at your own risk. Law abiding property owners should not be forced to pay for injuries someone sustained while violating your property rights.

 

[The B]

am i crazy? in the OP, the OP states that you can only shoot somebody in your home if they're posing a "threat" to you... but the ORS clearly states that deadly force is legal against somebody committing the crime of residential burglary.

that's "castle doctrine."

oregon IS a "castle doctrine state"

i'm getting in this thread late, obviously, and didn't read the whole thing... maybe all this has been addressed and somehow satisfied? i'm all for expanding the right- especially the part about the presumption of innocence- THATS HUGE. but lets NOT be deceptive in our tactics.

 

[MikeIsh]

Oregon Law links:
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/161.225
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/161.219
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors161.html
<broken link removed>
Oregon Statutes - Chapter 161 - General Provisions - Section 161.225 - Use of physical force in defense of premises. - Oregon Attorney Resources - Oregon Laws
<broken link removed>


C992168CR;
State v. Taylor :: June, 2002 :: Oregon Court of Appeals Decisions :: Oregon Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia

Go to the third post down on this link, see "Old Hick's Post"
<broken link removed>

That should keep you busy, and hopefully explain some things. I highly recommend Oregon Firearms Federation's book on Understanding Oregon Gun Laws by, Kevin Starrett: Oregon Firearms Federation
Please help support the OFF, they do a lot of work for our rights, and have paid legal defense for cases against CCW holders.

 

[2ANewbie]

This topic started a year ago, so I assume that any petitioning is dead by now, but there are two aspects to this discussion that cannot be mixed. There is the criminal aspect regarding ORS Chapter 161 which allows me to legally defend myself in my home and I will not likely be prosecuted for a criminal charge. The Castle Doctrine would cover the tort aspect and protect me from a civil suit. To my knowledge, Oregon does not have a Castle Doctrine to protect the home owner from a civil suit, and yes, criminals have successfully sued homers for being shot and injured by a homeowner. A Castle Doctrine law would be important to introduce.

 

[Cougfan2]

This topic started a year ago, so I assume that any petitioning is dead by now, but there are two aspects to this discussion that cannot be mixed. There is the criminal aspect regarding ORS Chapter 161 which allows me to legally defend myself in my home and I will not likely be prosecuted for a criminal charge. The Castle Doctrine would cover the tort aspect and protect me from a civil suit. To my knowledge, Oregon does not have a Castle Doctrine to protect the home owner from a civil suit, and yes, criminals have successfully sued homers for being shot and injured by a homeowner. A Castle Doctrine law would be important to introduce.

This is exactly right. While you have a legal right to defend yourself in your home, it doesn't keep the criminal or his family from bankrupting you with a civil suit even if they don't prevail.