Restraining order = loss of 2a rights in Multhomah Co.

[DoubleTapDrew]

I heard about this on the radio today. Apparently they are going to crack down on people who own firearms and have restraining orders filed against them. I don't know how easy those are to obtain but it sounds like a way to eliminate someone's rights who hasn't been convicted of a crime, just because they have a beef with a spouse/significant other/friend

Multnomah County beefs up enforcement of firearm surrender orders in domestic violence cases | OregonLive.com

You have 3 days to turn over all your firearms to the Police. Yeah, lots of luck getting those back even if you are found innocent...

Read More

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Oops, how to I edit the title. I misspelled Multnomah.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

That is an off shoot of a Federal law...the "Lautenberg Amendment" or something like that, if'n I disremember right. Domestic violence and all that

 

[RB87]

Yup, this is a result of the Lautenberg ammendment. Pushed by the geezer who just croaked from NJ. Restraining orders are handed out like candy, often to make sure the courts and cops don't look bad if someone isn't protected by them in time. All while they work to ban guns that could be used to protect people from "domestic violence". Nevermind that most of those orders are given out ex parte (aka no right to face the accuser).

My favorite "wtf" story on restraining orders:

"The ultimate poster child for restraining-order reform is David Letterman. In December 2005, New Mexico resident Colleen Nestler requested a restraining order against the late-night host, accusing him of mental cruelty and blaming him for her bankruptcy and sleep deprivation. Nestler charged that Letterman -- along with purported accomplices Kelsey Grammer, Kathy Lee Gifford, and Regis Philbin -- had alternately wooed and rejected her with coded messages that he sent through the TV.

Judge Daniel Sanchez quickly approved the order but overturned it after Letterman's lawyers confronted him."

The High Price of Restraining Orders - DailyFinance

 

[Hawaiian]

It is too bad the courts don't evaluate each case closer. I know there is a lot of disgruntled x's that seek these without valid reason.
However, is someone is actually convicted of beating his wife, he should have his firearm rights revoked. If you can not control your temper enough to refrain from beating a woman, you are a danger to society.

 

[Morpheus]

It is my understanding, that in most counties if you have a restraining order taken out against you then the Sheriff yanks the persons' CHL.

I know that in Cali, it is SOP if not state law that if you have a restraining order taken out against you for any sort of possible violence the Sheriff shows up to confiscate your firearms as well.

On one side of the fence, you have people who legitimately have restraining orders taken out against them because they are violent ***-hats who shouldn't have firearms let alone be in jail. It is usually done in cases where the person has a pending court case against them already.

On the other side, I know that a lot of divorce lawyers will take out restraining orders automatically to add to their case (and fees) when they are representing woman. This helps them get leverage against the soon to be husband.

Yes, courts need more discretion on this type of crap.

 

[PiratePast40]

If you're not totally P.O.'d and foaming at the mouth yet, you should be. This is the kind of crap that us "gun extremists" have been talking about. They're now bringing Bloomberg money into Oregon so Burdick and her ilk can start being more like Feinstein and that group of Cretens. Family heirlooms, hunting rifles, self defense guns, completion guns, all confiscated because of accusations. So we're supposed to "compromise" with "common sense" laws that will now say that the state police MAY retain firearms sale information. THIS, this is why we must stay strong and continue the fight. It costs you nothing to email and call your legislators. This is no time to slack off.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

And the shame of it is, its not all that hard to get a restraining order. Essentially, any "out of line" or outspoken 2A advocates are subject to this new law if any "victim" (politician) feels or sees the need to shut someone up.. And trust me they'll find a use for this new law.
Yet another firearm owner harassment legislation under the guise of "protection" or security.

 

[44mag2ndamend]

What an ordeal Socialist Against America Political 2nd Amendment committee is getting away with right now. Vote them out next session.

This is not an American thing we are letting happen. Do you deed to contact all your state reps to curtail this legal madness. They are just voting in new regulation so the can collect more money for their pensions. We will be forced to spend money just to keep our current rights.

 

[deen_ad]

In WA any of the parties of a divorce can ask for a restraining order. The last divorce papers I looked at just said something like "does the respondent have any guns?" If you answer yes, then the guns are confiscated until the decree is granted. The question doesn't even ask if you're afraid of them having the guns, just do they have them. It's not really a fair question and your 2nd amendment rights are taken away.

 

[44mag2ndamend]

In WA any of the parties of a divorce can ask for a restraining order. The last divorce papers I looked at just said something like "does the respondent have any guns?" If you answer yes, then the guns are confiscated until the decree is granted. The question doesn't even ask if you're afraid of them having the guns, just do they have them. It's not really a fair question and your 2nd amendment rights are taken away.

So let us say the ex (male or female) say they are afraid of their spouse, just to put the hurt on them knowing this little detail. More of your valuable property gone poof.

Most educated males know that most DV cases brought by females are full of false claims. I have read on the net that in most cases its the female party instigating the whole issue through emotional abuse.

Boy what a can of worms, I will stop future tripping at this point.

 

[The B]

It is too bad the courts don't evaluate each case closer. I know there is a lot of disgruntled x's that seek these without valid reason.
However, is someone is actually convicted of beating his wife, he should have his firearm rights revoked. If you can not control your temper enough to refrain from beating a woman, you are a danger to society.

If you're a danger to society, how is taking away your personally owned firearms going to prevent you from buying your next door neighbor's?

Nothing but a stupid *** feel'er good law.

BTW - the right to bear arms, the right to self-defense, is a natural right- having made a mistake (letting the bubblegum bring you to the brink) in your life doesn't justify disarming a man and setting him loose defenseless in the world. And since it's impossible anyway...... ARTARDED.

 

[44mag2ndamend]

If your reading this and the county of Multnomah has your rights tied up. Do the following. 1. Hire an attorney 2. Read the law.
Oregon Constitution Article I, Section 27

The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

The Law and Peoples rights are only afforded to those who stay on the right side of it. Check the following link I found on another thread, Personally enlightening.

<broken link removed>

 

[John Gault]

The ultimate goal is to make all of us "criminals" by statute so that the gun issue is a mute point and can be confiscated at any point. In the mean time just press us in small groups and make us seem silly, dangerous and intolerant so that when our rights are removed the larger groups all say "it couldn't happen to me".......it was just One gun taken after all.....

 

[LoneStar]

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws..."
~Atlas Shrugged

 

[RB87]

It is too bad the courts don't evaluate each case closer. I know there is a lot of disgruntled x's that seek these without valid reason.
However, is someone is actually convicted of beating his wife, he should have his firearm rights revoked. If you can not control your temper enough to refrain from beating a woman, you are a danger to society.

As long as you hold that to women as well, you might have a point.

Reading for you:
The Duluth Model - Wheel Gallery

Equality for some, special rights for others.

 

[ocarolan]

Good news: In lieu of confiscation, the restrainee has three days to turn his guns over to a friend.

Plenty of room in my basement if anyone has this predicament! I promise to keep your guns clean and well-fed with ammo.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Or, they can transfer their firearms to a friend or relative who must pass an Oregon State Police background check and sign a notarized affidavit.

I wonder if that's like a typical FFL "transfer". Like $25 per gun plus the $10 OSP fee? I've met some people who would need to make several trips and go through a LOT of paperwork.

 

[Colt Carbine]

This type of mentality by government is no different than Child Services Division pulling your kids from your home without having to prove in a court of law that you are an unfit parent.

It is up to you to prove your innocence to get your kids back.

and governmental employees wonder why there is so much animosity/distrust towards them by the populace.

 

[gimpyhunter]

I'm not totally up on Oregon law but doesn't one have to apply for a restraining order? Then there is a hearing where you have a chance to respond to the allegations. Most often the "defendant" doesn't show up in court. Then the order is issued and must be handed to the "defendant" to take effect?

So if you got one against you, perhaps it's not he fault of the other party?

As for child services, no comment.