Oregon Releases Extreme Risk Protection Order

State Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum wants all Oregonians to know how to take advantage of the new Extreme Risk Protection Order process.

Rosenblum’s office last week announced the details on the mechanism to obtain an ERPO. Included in the release are links to a one-page explanation of the process and a four-page online application for the petition itself. The law allows police, or a member of a subject’s family or household, to file a petition with the court which could lead to an order prohibiting firearms possession if it is believed they pose an imminent risk to themselves or others.

“Many of us are asking how we can better keep Oregonians safe and keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people,” Rosenblum said. “While there is still a lot of work to do, Oregon has made significant gains to strengthen our gun safety laws.”

As explained by Rosenblum’s office, those concerned about an individual would petition the court for the ERPO, which would remove firearms and concealed handgun permits from a subject believed at risk. In addition, the order would bar the subject from buying additional firearms for one year. The court is bound to act on the request within 24-hours and must grant a subsequent hearing within 21-days if one is requested by the gun owner.

The measure, also termed a “red flag law,” passed the legislature last year, picking up only one Republican supporter along the way, and was approved by Gov. Kate Brown. The law was modeled on one adopted after a ballot referendum in neighboring Washington following a $3.5 million push by gun control groups, which in turn was based on a 2014 California law.

Second Amendment groups have blasted the ERPO process, arguing it provides no structure for those deemed at risk to receive help, or those dangerous to be taken into custody. Further, they point to due process concerns. However, a ballot initiative to repeal the law backed by state Republicans in Oregon failed to gain the needed signatures to be placed in front of voters.

source: guns.com

  • Ron C

    Gun confiscation in the state of Oregon…wow!

  • Jon

    ERPO is far more dangerous than the weapons it purports to protect us from. It empowers the lawless to be more lawless and weaponizes neighbor against neighbor…the perfect tool for the fulfillment of the communist manifesto.

  • JD Carpanzano

    This ERPO MIGHT, just might stop a criminal event but more likely unjustly label a law abiding citizen as a lunatic simply because he lost his temper one day and some nosy neighbor saw it.

  • JC

    These communists politicians in Oregon and Washington need to be voted out of office—I am so glad I don’t live in one of these cesspool States with these type of people

  • Coeurmaeghan

    At the risk of sounding sexist / misogynistic, Governor Kate(?), Attorney General Helen(?). This is what you get when women not only get the vote but then are elected to high office. 90% of what they do is ruled by their FEELINGS rather than logic and common sense. I’m ready for the S hit Storm, though, so I will leave this post as is.

    • Joan Laviana

      You’d better start ducking Bubba ’cause that’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard today!!

  • Benjamin Flanagan

    Who counted the Ballots? There is some skullduggery here as most Oregonians are gun owners. Well now we know where most Kalifornians are moving to. Look at what they did to Montana! They want to get out of Kalifornia because of the draconian laws and once they resettle in a gun loving State they bring their damn anti-gun laws with them. Do us all a favor and stay where you are! And stay out of Idaho!

    • KeepOnLearning

      Hey, Ben! There’s a smidgen of hope glimmering here in CA! 19 cities are joining the Feds in opposing Gov. Low-Beam Gerry Brown’s Sanctuary State law.

      Seems like rampant leftism digs its own grave when it moves from textbooks into the real world!

  • KeepOnLearning

    Here come Oregon’s family fights and political discussions ending in…

    “Put out an ERPO on Cousin Jake!”

    “No, Auntie Jo started it, She needs the ERPO.”

    “Well, Bill joined in and raised his voice, so he…”

  • ClarenceDeBarrows

    Oregon politicians – you’re messing with the Constitution of our Country! Read it, understand it, and then if you can’t defend it get out of politics as your Oath of Office is a fraud.

  • Sanjosemike

    What about “probable cause?” How is a complaint against someone identified as a risk adjudicated?

    Leftists are always quite willing to take away your Constitutional privileges.

    It’s all in the name of “public protection,”

    Actually that is a lie. The REAL reason Democrats want to disarm Americans is so the Democrats can TAKE OVER America and force you to do their bidding,

    Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

    • scooter

      you are so right, but, let me correct you on your statement. Constitutional privileges, its not a privilege its a right. rights can not be taken away, but , privileges can.

  • George

    I see the anti-Christ is working in Oregon with support of the Governor and State Attorney General. I wish I had the money to take this to a higher court out of Oregon, it will probably be reversed under the 2nd amendment of our constitution.

    • Terry Butts

      IF it ever gets before a judge that obeys the constitution they will have no choice but to revoke it as unconstitutional since it reverses the very core of our innocent until proven guilty justice system doing away with due process actually making the ACCUSED have to go to court and prove they are innocent of the accusation in order to RESTORE their constitutional right that is revoked by accusation.

      To my knowledge the ACCUSED is not even notified or allowed to present a defense in the process until AFTER their right has been revoked by the “protective” order.

      In fact the supreme court ruled years ago that it is unconstitutional to hold a court hearing with less than SEVEN DAYS notice prior to the court date given to the defendant so a ONE HOUR or even TWENTY FOUR hour notice would not be a legal hearing according to that ruling. When was the last time a lawyer could even get to a court house in an hour much less prepare an entire defense against someones PERSONAL OPINION about them.

  • Ronald Hagler

    For all who believe we are safer when the government tells us what (and what not) to do and how we are to do it, let me remind you that no citizen of any country who operates in this manner has kept their freedom. This law is far more dangerous than one would perceive, as it allows anyone who dislikes you, or firearms, or both, to simply file a complaint stating you are a threat and they feel unsafe with you owning firearms. The law states that the authorities MUST act on any such claim. If you fail to see the danger in such action, you are truly blinded by ignorance and driven by hate.

    Should an animal lover live near (or know of) a zealous firearms owner who fires his/her firearm regularly (at an approved range) and hunts animals file a claim that this person is a dangerous threat to those living nearby, what rights does this law give the firearms owner/hunter in defense of said charges? It clearly states that the state can remove all firearms from said individual’s possession and the accused has to wait at least a year before buying any more firearms. What the HELL? Where is the justice in this law? Where did the Constitutional Rights of the person being accused go? What part of this law does not defy the Constitution; figuratively and literally? What about the rights of citizens to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures as is guaranteed in Amendment 4? What about the right to a “speedy trial” as guaranteed in Amendment 6? (remember the clause that the accused can neither have nor purchase a firearm for at least 1 year: guilty or not) What about the right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed, as is written in Amendment 2?

    This law is in violation of several Constitutional Rights and I hope the Supreme Court (especially Justice Ginsburg) still has the faculties to recognize the discrepancies and strike this law down as being in violation of Federal law.

    • scooter

      also, don’t forget, I believe Florida adopted this law to.

    • Dr. Bill

      There is also the right to full compensation for the value of any seized firearms under the 5th Amendment.

  • Dan

    Looks like it’s time to file the erpo on the judge, governor, mayor and every other politician that is insane enough to take away the second amendment rights.

  • nvrat

    Stupid law. All it would take is one idiot Liberal to accuse someone for scaring them by owning a gun and freaking out to the courts. With all the liberal activist setting judges the gun owner does not stand a chance.

    • Terry Butts

      Not to mention empowering criminals with the ability to disarm their intended victims because they FEAR they will be harmed during the crime they plan if the person is armed.

      I recall a case in Oklahoma a few years back they actually charged a man with “IMPROPER USE OF A GUN” for nothing more than having it holstered on his hip when he went outside at night to see what the noise was it turned out to be a man attacking a woman the man saw he had the still holstered gun and fled.

      The POLICE charged him with a crime because his possession of the gun SCARED THE CRIMINAL thus preventing him from completing his ILLEGAL attack on the woman.

      I do not know how it ended in court but personally if I was the judge it came before I would have charged the officers with unlawful arrest to my knowledge STOPPING an attack by just possessing a gun that was never even drawn from its holster is NOT A CRIME no matter how SCARED a CRIMINAL committing a VIOLENT ACT against a woman might be of an ARMED home owner checking his own yard to see what the noise was.

      In fact the media never even mentioned if the CRIMINAL was charged with anything for attacking the woman all they did was WHINE about the one LEGALLY owning and LEGALLY possessing a gun on his own property and how it SCARED the criminal just to see a gun.

      The media bias was even more clear when a few years back a child was forced to protect himself and his sibling from home invaders while the police and people in the state where it happened hailed him as a hero who stopped the invaders who it turned out were already wanted by the police for previous home invasions including one where they killed the victim liberal states were spouting about it being the states FIRST MURDER OF THE YEAR and throwing a fit the CHILD was not charged with a crime when all he did was PROTECT his family and himself from criminals that most likely would have murdered them as they did others.

  • Terry Butts

    Alright Oregonians here is your chance to disarm all these anti gun politicians just fill out the form showing how threatened you feel by their actions.

    Remember in every instance of history when the GOVERNMENT disarmed any portion of citizens they followed it by mass “executions”. Just show these historical facts on the form alongside the near identical quotes from these past horrors they make and it should be enough under this new law to prove they are a threat to people.