Bentley v. Multnomah County Sheriff's Office

“If the petitioner seeks relief from the bar on possessing or purchasing a firearm, relief shall be granted when the petitioner demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner does not pose a threat to the safety of the public or the petitioner.” ORS 166.274(7).

Petitioner appealed the trial court’s judgment denying him relief from a firearm restriction under ORS 166.274. On appeal, Petitioner argued that he sufficiently established that he did not pose a threat to the safety of the public or to himself following a robbery conviction. Petitioner asserted that he successfully completed all conditions of his supervised release, paid the restitution sum in full, and has remained a law-abiding citizen since the 1997 conviction. Although Respondent had not opposed the Petitioner’s evidence, did not submit any evidence, and did not offer any witness testimony, Respondent argued that Petitioner failed to carry his burden that he did not pose a threat to the safety of the public or himself. “If the petitioner seeks relief from the bar on possessing or purchasing a firearm, relief shall be granted when the petitioner demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner does not pose a threat to the safety of the public or the petitioner.” ORS 166.274(7). The Court found that Petitioner met his burden of proof and did not pose a threat to the safety of the public or himself. Thus, the Court held that the trial court erred when it denied Petitioner relief from the firearm restriction. Reversed and remanded.