Oregon Castle Doctrine Petition

[KahrHeart]

Looks like Common Sense for Oregon has added an e-petition to their website so you can now go online and sign the petition to get the Castle Doctrine on the ballots in 2014!

<broken link removed>

You can also request petitions and they will send you as many as you want as well as an envelope to return them when they are full. I have filled several easily.

Citizen Initiative for November 2014
The Oregon Castle Doctrine is based on the saying: “Your home is your castle.”If someone is trying to break into your home or office, you ought to be able to use whatever force is necessary to stop the intruder, without having to worry about being sued afterwards. At least 35 states do have such laws, and it is high time for Oregon to do the same.
The Oregon Castle Doctrine presumes that your use of any form of physical force against an intruder was justifiable, based on self-defense or defense of a third person. It protects you from civil or criminal liability for use of such force.
Under the Act, a person is an intruder if he is committing criminal trespass in the first degree or burglary in the first or second degree. Any person who is lawfully present on the premises is empowered to use force against such an intruder.
The Oregon Castle Doctrine Act also provides that you are not liable for any injury, death, or other damage suffered by an adult trespasser where such injury, death, or other damage is caused by any condition of the land or its fixtures.

Lisanne Dickenson
WillamettePropertiesGroup.com
OregonCHLTraining.com
FreedomFirstFirearms.org

Read More

 

[pokerace]

Can't get the d** to print?????????????

 

[swoop]

Working now.

 

[NoOne]

I like the part that exempts people from civil penalties for use of force. That is HUGE!

 

[Meridian7750]

Printed, signed, and mailed.
Also sent the link to several like-minded friends.
A Castle Doctrine in Oregon would be a huge victory, and would provide some much-needed legal relief to those involved in a righteous use of self-defense.
I'm surprised this isn't gaining more traction on NWFA...seems like the kind of thing we can all agree on.
Thanks for the link!

 

[JustShoot]

Would state of Oregon ever pass a Law that would make you free from of civil prosecution, if that State already gets 60% right off the top from ALL punitive damages received in settlement that is put into fund managed by Oregon's Department of Justice ? . I never heard of Oregon ever trying to create a way Not to Take your money ??? .
.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

I personally do not support castle doctrine laws. They work against us because then people and the law are led to believe that we only have the right to defend ourselves if we are at home. Anywhere else and we need to turn tail and run and unless we are backed into a corner cannot defend ourselves. Self defense is a right we have no matter where we are and therefore there should be no need to have castle doctrine laws.

 

[ocarolan]

Personally I don't think 2014 is a good year for introducing this initiative. The Curtis Reeves shooting will be fresh in everyone's mind and strongly associated with guns/self-defense. Waiting a year or two would be better.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

This has already waited several years. The popcorn shooing (Reeves) was outside the home. The media will always make a mountain out of any molehill shooting for ratings.

I think the way to sell this to non-gun owners is as a homeowner liability limiting measure. Say you own some land, an idiot decides to trespass taking a shortcut across a corner and breaks their ankle by stepping in a gopher hole. The idiot sues you and wins a $30,000 judgement. Wish you had a Castle Law now eh?

 

[pchewn]

This has already waited several years. The popcorn shooing (Reeves) was outside the home. The media will always make a mountain out of any molehill shooting for ratings.

I think the way to sell this to non-gun owners is as a homeowner liability limiting measure. Say you own some land, an idiot decides to trespass taking a shortcut across a corner and breaks their ankle by stepping in a gopher hole. The idiot sues you and wins a $30,000 judgement. Wish you had a Castle Law now eh?

Your example of the idiot hiking on your land and stepping into a gopher hole is an example where the land-owner is already supposed to be protected from being sued under ORS 105.682

That sort of example is entirely different than you shooting the person.

See the words INTENTIONAL below?

§ 105.682¹
Liabilities of owner of land used by public for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or harvest of special forest products
(1) Except as provided by subsection (2) of this section, and subject to the provisions of ORS 105.688 (Applicability of immunities from liability for owner of land), an owner of land is not liable in contract or tort for any personal injury, death or property damage that arises out of the use of the land for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products when the owner of land either directly or indirectly permits any person to use the land for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products. The limitation on liability provided by this section applies if the principal purpose for entry upon the land is for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products, and is not affected if the injury, death or damage occurs while the person entering land is engaging in activities other than the use of the land for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products.
(2) This section does not limit the liability of an owner of land for intentional injury or damage to a person coming onto land for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products. [1995 c.456 §3; 2009 c.532 §4]

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I was thinking more like if your house in town is on a corner lot and people cut across your lawn, then get hurt.

Growing up we lived in the middle of a long residential block next to a school. During the day kids could just cut across the playground, but not when the gates were locked. There was a tall concrete block wall between our yard and the school, but if you went into the unfenced teachers parking lot you could jump on the wall and walk to the alley which emptied on the other side of the block. One day while walking on top of the wall a kid fell off, landed in our backyard and broke his arm. The school district ended up paying for it.

 

[Koda]

doesnt ORS 161.219(2) pretty much cover it? ...or are you still subject for civil lawsuits?

 

[Darknight]

I personally do not support castle doctrine laws. They work against us because then people and the law are led to believe that we only have the right to defend ourselves if we are at home. Anywhere else and we need to turn tail and run and unless we are backed into a corner cannot defend ourselves. Self defense is a right we have no matter where we are and therefore there should be no need to have castle doctrine laws.

Then throw in a good stand your ground law with the castle doctrine.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Then throw in a good stand your ground law with the castle doctrine.

Yeah, that would kill it for sure. Oregon ballot measures are only, legally suppose to be about one topic. Adding SYG to a castle doctrine law measure would get it thrown out by the courts after passing.

 

[Vaultman]

It is SO unfortunate that we have to introduce more law to further define our right to life. It may be the way it is today, but it makes me sad.