Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Oregon Castle Doctrine Petition

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by KahrHeart, Feb 28, 2014.

  1. KahrHeart

    KahrHeart Cheshire Member

    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    8
    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!

    The Oregon Castle Doctrine Act | Common Sense For Oregon

    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
     
  2. pokerace

    pokerace Newberg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    754
    Can't get the d** to print?????????????
     
  3. swoop

    swoop Milwaukie, Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    Likes Received:
    281
    Working now.
     
  4. NoOne

    NoOne Puget Sound Active Member

    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    73
    I like the part that exempts people from civil penalties for use of force. That is HUGE!
     
  5. Meridian7750

    Meridian7750 Portland Area Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    341
    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!
     
  6. JustShoot

    JustShoot Oregon . Hillsborito area Active Member

    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    136
    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 ??? .
    .
     
  7. GunRightsCoalition

    GunRightsCoalition Vancouver Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    412
    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.
     
  8. ocarolan

    ocarolan Portland, Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    426
    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.
     
  9. Nick Burkhardt

    Nick Burkhardt NE Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    1,825
    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?
     
  10. pchewn

    pchewn Beaverton Oregon USA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    289
    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?

     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2014
  11. Nick Burkhardt

    Nick Burkhardt NE Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    1,825
    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.
     
  12. Koda

    Koda Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,193
    Likes Received:
    2,995
    doesnt ORS 161.219(2) pretty much cover it? ...or are you still subject for civil lawsuits?
     
  13. Darknight

    Darknight Salem Active Member

    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    118
    Then throw in a good stand your ground law with the castle doctrine.
     
  14. Nick Burkhardt

    Nick Burkhardt NE Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    1,825
    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.
     
  15. Vaultman

    Vaultman Clackamas Co, Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    233
    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.