S. P. Z. v. Kirkwood

“Intimate partner is defined as a person to be ‘the person’s spouse, the person’s former spouse, a parent of the person’s child or another person who has cohabitated or is cohabitations with the person in a relationship akin to a spouse.’” ORS 166.255(3)(d).

Respondent appealed the trial court’s determination that the relationship between him and Petitioner was the type that allowed for the trial court’s entry of a firearms certification. On appeal, Respondent argued that the trial court erred in ordering a firearm disability pursuant to the grant of a permanent stalking order (“SPO”) where Petitioner and Respondent did not cohabitate because, in Respondent’s view, Petitioner does not satisfy the definition of “intimate partner” in ORS 166.255(3)(d). “Intimate partner is defined as a person to be ‘the person’s spouse, the person’s former spouse, a parent of the person’s child or another person who has cohabitated or is cohabitations with the person in a relationship akin to a spouse.’” ORS 166.255(3)(d). The Court held that the SPO did not contain findings as to whether Petitioner and Respondent have the type of relationship as described in ORS 166.255(3)(d). However, the Court held that, by its terms, the firearms certification contained in the SPO addressed only federal law, specifying that it meets “the requirements of federal law,” including the relationship requirement, “and subjects Respondent to federal prosecution for possession, receipt, shipping, transportation, or purchase of firearms or ammunition while it is in effect.” (Emphasis added). Affirmed.