Oregon Osp and expungement rule

[greydoor100]

Does OR, reconize sealed recods from WA or other states as a "set aside" for the purpose of Oregon firearm ownership or purchase, if your a resident of oregon but had a conviction somewhere else, and is sealed not expunged, since in oregon, its the same thing?

 

[MrJoshuaYoder]

Does OR, reconize sealed recods from WA or other states as a "set aside" for the purpose of Oregon firearm ownership or purchase, if your a resident of oregon but had a conviction somewhere else, and is sealed not expunged, since in oregon, its the same thing?

According to how the law is written, yes. Although I know of a case where the set aside was in California and the set aside explicitly did NOT restore firearms rights, Oregon denied them.

As for other states I haven't heard of anyone else being jammed up over it, but I'm sure it's possible. If they check with Washington and Washington shares the info…..

 

[greydoor100]

According to how the law is written, yes. Although I know of a case where the set aside was in California and the set aside explicitly did NOT restore firearms rights, Oregon denied them.

As for other states I haven't heard of anyone else being jammed up over it, but I'm sure it's possible. If they check with Washington and Washington shares the info…..

Is this the mohidean case?

 

[greydoor100]

If expungements and sealing are treated the same in oregon because in Oregon its considered the same thing. Both are non acceptable for firearm ownership, and the court can't restore firearm rights to out of state convicts because there conviction was out of state. How does a resident with a "set aside" record sealed/expunged in oregon , get the right to posses firearms , outside of the state of conviction, that gave all rights back already but Oregon doesn't reconize any of that either...

 

[greydoor100]

Its like saying I have a fully EXPUNGED record in oregon because my records sealed from elsewhere, its set aside, but Oregon says no, they dont respect the seal or expungement reguardless of what kind it was, and u cant restore formally due to out of state convictions.. where does that leave relief ?

 

[MrJoshuaYoder]

Is this the mohidean case?

Yes

 

[MrJoshuaYoder]

If expungements and sealing are treated the same in oregon because in Oregon its considered the same thing. Both are non acceptable for firearm ownership, and the court can't restore firearm rights to out of state convicts because there conviction was out of state. How does a resident with a "set aside" record sealed/expunged in oregon , get the right to posses firearms , outside of the state of conviction, that gave all rights back already but Oregon doesn't reconize any of that either...

So if you have prohibitors from out of state, you CAN petition to Oregon under 166.274 and Oregon can grant you STATE firearm rights so you can possess. You won't be able to buy because the other state has prohibitors on you and you're federally disqualified. It's playing with fire, but I knew someone that went through a similar situation while waiting for a pardon to go through in the state where his conviction was.

For California I know there are 2 types of set-asides, one restores gun rights, the other doesn't. Federal law states that a set-aside or expungement works to nullify the conviction so it doesn't count as a prohibitor, as long as that order doesn't expressly prohibit firearms.


To truly get Federally Restored, you must get your rights restored in EACH STATE that there's a conviction. However, SOON, there will be a FEDERAL restoration of rights process as well. Just waiting on US DOJ to open that back up, it's in the works.

 

[MrJoshuaYoder]

Its like saying I have a fully EXPUNGED record in oregon because my records sealed from elsewhere, its set aside, but Oregon says no, they dont respect the seal or expungement reguardless of what kind it was, and u cant restore formally due to out of state convictions.. where does that leave relief ?

The reason Mohiadeen's set-aside wasn't valid for Oregon is because somehow Oregon was aware of it. Probably because California left it on the NICS record as a prohibitor, despite the set-aside. That said, there was a 9th circuit case where California was actually told they CAN'T use someone's out of state set aside record against them for firearms. That was a record out of Arizona, where as I understand, the set-aside does restore firearm rights.

There's a bit of a difference between the two.

I have another friend in a similar California situation, where he got the wrong set-aside. He can't go get the right one now, instead he has to get a governors pardon.

 

[greydoor100]

I see, if the state of conviction restored all rights then you should be allowed to restore in the courts of oregon, and with all civil rights restored post1435 saves from federal prosection, you can buy in oregon cause the state that prohibted u restored u before oregon and federally ur lifted .. am i making sense on that part

 

[MrJoshuaYoder]

I see, if the state of conviction restored all rights then you should be allowed to restore in the courts of oregon, and with all civil rights restored post1435 saves from federal prosection, you can buy in oregon cause the state that prohibted u restored u before oregon and federally ur lifted .. am i making sense on that part

If the state of conviction restored all rights then you should be good under state and federal laws, Oregon should recognize that restoration.

Oregon proxies the NICS background check. Meaning that Oregon State Police conducts both a State (Oregon) background check and the FBI NICS check and returns an approve, delay, or deny.

Assuming that there's nothing in Oregon that prohibits, AND the FBI prohibits have been lifted by whatever other convicting state, an approve should be returned.

If the convicting state didn't remove them, but SHOULD have, then submitting an appeal and providing the set-aside paperwork SHOULD fix it, however you might have to file suit in the state of conviction to compel them to clear the FBI NICS prohibitors.

You can also run your own FBI background check.

https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/identity-history-summary-checks

The list of Online channelers is helpful, I've used Fieldprint many times. You pay the fee, make an appointment, go scan at a terminal and while they say it takes 48 hours, I had all my results same day.
I haven't used any of the other options.

 

[pharow]

If the state of conviction restored all rights then you should be good under state and federal laws, Oregon should recognize that restoration.

Oregon proxies the NICS background check. Meaning that Oregon State Police conducts both a State (Oregon) background check and the FBI NICS check and returns an approve, delay, or deny.

Assuming that there's nothing in Oregon that prohibits, AND the FBI prohibits have been lifted by whatever other convicting state, an approve should be returned.

If the convicting state didn't remove them, but SHOULD have, then submitting an appeal and providing the set-aside paperwork SHOULD fix it, however you might have to file suit in the state of conviction to compel them to clear the FBI NICS prohibitors.

You can also run your own FBI background check.

https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/identity-history-summary-checks

The list of Online channelers is helpful, I've used Fieldprint many times. You pay the fee, make an appointment, go scan at a terminal and while they say it takes 48 hours, I had all my results same day.
I haven't used any of the other options.

So what does all that mean for us. Are we good to pass transfers yet?

 

[MrJoshuaYoder]

So what does all that mean for us. Are we good to pass transfers yet?

Not yet, I was just responding to the general question, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[MrJoshuaYoder]

UPDATE IN THE CASE!!!

Oregon State Police / Oregon DOJ have replied, read the details HERE

Basically they are using the same and similar weak arguments from their first MSJ. They also cite to some 9th circuit cases, which are semi relevant, maybe, as we're in the 9th circuit. Then they cite to some cases from New Mexico, which is in the 10th circuit, and who knows what the set-aside laws are there. Not sure if that's really relevant at all. Interesting arguments, and they are hyper focused on the Oregon Constitution 15 year period, and that "State law can't supersede that". It seems they are trying to declare the restorative provisions unconstitutional by themselves without a ruling. However, state law says the conviction is deemed not to have occurred. When that happens the conviction AND sentence information are sealed. So it would logically seem that the sentence they claim was served in the last 15 years no longer exists. So how can it have been served?

The way I read this, is if they do get a nod from the court on their stance and win, it could possibly give rise to the notion that the NFA, GCA, Hughes, etc. can all be ignored, without a court ruling stating they're unconstitutional, because those laws can't change the meaning of the 2A. That is my own opinion, and not legal advice, it did not come from my attorney, it's simply a flaw in their logic that I see here.

Anyway, the state has replied. We will now have a hearing on the matter July 31, 2025.
For now we wait. I tried to get the date sooner, but that was the soonest. Maybe the judge will need 2 months to dig through all the law, history, and cited case law to make a determination. Who knows.

Have a great weekend!

 

[greydoor100]

So if you have prohibitors from out of state, you CAN petition to Oregon under 166.274 and Oregon can grant you STATE firearm rights so you can possess. You won't be able to buy because the other state has prohibitors on you and you're federally disqualified. It's playing with fire, but I knew someone that went through a similar situation while waiting for a pardon to go through in the state where his conviction was.

For California I know there are 2 types of set-asides, one restores gun rights, the other doesn't. Federal law states that a set-aside or expungement works to nullify the conviction so it doesn't count as a prohibitor, as long as that order doesn't expressly prohibit firearms.


To truly get Federally Restored, you must get your rights restored in EACH STATE that there's a conviction. However, SOON, there will be a FEDERAL restoration of rights process as well. Just waiting on US DOJ to open that back up, it's in the works.

Yes this would mean protection under post1435 because the civil rights from the state of conviction are restored to the individual. With that complete, you still need to restore in Oregon, can oregon say no because its an out of state conviction and restoration is only for oregon convictions? We talk our selves in circles that way, because expungement or sealing which ever from another state is no good for Oregon. That leaves no avenues and double disability/punishment for the same crime

 

[greydoor100]

Yes this would mean protection under post1435 because the civil rights from the state of conviction are restored to the individual. With that complete, you still need to restore in Oregon, can oregon say no because its an out of state conviction and restoration is only for oregon convictions? We talk our selves in circles that way, because expungement or sealing which ever from another state is no good for Oregon. That leaves no avenues and double disability/punishment for the same crime

Same crime the state of conviction already restored your civil rights for in that state and federally sorry

 

[DrNerfarious]

UPDATE IN THE CASE!!!

Oregon State Police / Oregon DOJ have replied, read the details HERE

Basically they are using the same and similar weak arguments from their first MSJ. They also cite to some 9th circuit cases, which are semi relevant, maybe, as we're in the 9th circuit. Then they cite to some cases from New Mexico, which is in the 10th circuit, and who knows what the set-aside laws are there. Not sure if that's really relevant at all. Interesting arguments, and they are hyper focused on the Oregon Constitution 15 year period, and that "State law can't supersede that". It seems they are trying to declare the restorative provisions unconstitutional by themselves without a ruling. However, state law says the conviction is deemed not to have occurred. When that happens the conviction AND sentence information are sealed. So it would logically seem that the sentence they claim was served in the last 15 years no longer exists. So how can it have been served?

The way I read this, is if they do get a nod from the court on their stance and win, it could possibly give rise to the notion that the NFA, GCA, Hughes, etc. can all be ignored, without a court ruling stating they're unconstitutional, because those laws can't change the meaning of the 2A. That is my own opinion, and not legal advice, it did not come from my attorney, it's simply a flaw in their logic that I see here.

Anyway, the state has replied. We will now have a hearing on the matter July 31, 2025.
For now we wait. I tried to get the date sooner, but that was the soonest. Maybe the judge will need 2 months to dig through all the law, history, and cited case law to make a determination. Who knows.

Have a great weekend!

Thanks for the update.
The arguments seem weak and center more around federal law than state law. As if the state of Oregon was in the business of enforcing federal law, even in the absence of federal enforcement.
Keeping my fingers crossed for July.

 

[arakboss]

For those who have had an unresolved 4473 denial in Oregon, how has it affected your firearm ownership beyond the denial?

 

[MrJoshuaYoder]

For those who have had an unresolved 4473 denial in Oregon, how has it affected your firearm ownership beyond the denial?

So far unaffected except for the gun I bought and was denied for is sitting at the FFL, waiting.

The denial did not impact my CHL, firearms ownership, other state CHL/CWP, or the ability to clear for a suppressor.

In the cross MSJ though, we requested that the unlawful denial be reversed, and changed to "Approved", while obviously the FFL wouldn't be able to transfer on that approval it would prevent future potential delays.

 

[fmvolume86]

Is this the mohidean case?

That case was not set aside, California overturned the charge to Misdemeanor and then by California law you can get misdemeanor expunged (dismissed" which is what happend. Firearm rights are restored. Washington County denied conceal carry but aknowledged he has right to own firearm.

Keep in mind that the Washington County judge asked for Conceal Carry to be granted but Washington County appealed it to State Appeals court because they love disarming Americans. That case is still ongoing being pushed to Oregon Supreme Court.

 

[greydoor100]

Yes the above is correct, that in a set aside case, or what would be considered a set aside in oregon, from another state, the right to own or posses a firearm without consequences of FIP are valid. However LTC, requires different avenues and this is where if the plantiff ever had a conviction reguardless of it being dismissed or expunged afterward, or even the charge itself can get you denied for a ltc, the police can take it into consideration before denying, or approving the plantiff oppose to the standard law that is more relaxed. Its biased its wrong it leaves the power to the police depts to choose who over a general law that fits everyone etc