Skip to main content
Safe Schools Central Oregon

Potential strategies Advocate

Explain the existing protective order law from both sides of the form

Proposed, for board reviewCounty baseline request in month one; guide, navigators and referral path in months 4 to 12

Explain the existing protective order law from both sides of the form

No petition targets, ever. A bilingual, plain-language guide to Oregon's extreme risk protection order (ERPO) law that links the court's own instructions and covers how to file, what rights the respondent (the person named in the order) has, how the hearing works and how firearms come back; an options-in-order sheet (talk, a relative hold, sheriff storage, a court order last) told in the voice of sheriffs and veterans; navigators housed with the county district attorney victim assistance programs; a care offer to every household on either side; and a rule that petition counts are never a success measure.

Oregon has an extreme risk protection order law, and Deschutes County has been reported as among the state’s most frequent users of it. A national advocacy group has been reported to cite the county as a case study, which is exactly why a rural gun owner reads a care network attached to a law enforcement record and a scorecard that counts petitions as a pipeline from a school flag to a court order that removes firearms. That fear is grounded, not paranoid, and the group’s response has to be structural rather than reassuring.

The state’s own auditors found that awareness and training could improve how the law works, and Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) interviews with family petitioners identified ways to make the process work better from the family’s side. The honest contribution would be two-sided education: how a family files if it chooses to, what a respondent’s rights are, how the hearing works, and how firearms are returned, all drawn from the court’s own instructions rather than a toolkit written by advocates. A sheriff and a veteran telling the options in order, with the court order last, is the version gun owners are most likely to read.

RAND, the nonpartisan research institute, rates the evidence that these orders reduce suicide as limited, and that rating would be printed beside any number the group publishes. The Care Network would not be a petitioner, would supply no information for petitions, and would offer care to both households: through the county for adults and the roster for young people. The group would adopt no petition targets and take no position on expanding who may file.

Why we think it works

What we would do

  1. Link the court's own protective order page and filing instructions, in English and Spanish, rather than writing a toolkit; if the group writes anything, it would include respondent rights, the hearing and the return process, and a defense attorney and a Lock It Up council member would review it before release.
  2. Write the options-in-order sheet with the three sheriffs and a veteran, if they are willing: talk; a relative or trusted holder under the state private transfer law (ORS 166.435); sheriff or police storage, which Bend Police has been reported to offer; and the court order last; ask the sheriffs and the district attorney victim assistance programs to distribute it, never at lock tables or through schools.
  3. Ask the three victim assistance programs to serve as navigators who can explain the process to a family on either side and connect them to care; offer navigators and roster clinicians any free Oregon training on the law; clinicians would use a consent-first, family-first script, and the guide would state, after legal review, what Oregon law does and does not require a clinician to disclose.
  4. Write a referral path for each county from a clinician or school to the officer who would petition when a family asks, and pair it with a care offer to the respondent's household and the petitioner's household alike: county behavioral health and BestCare Treatment Services (a nonprofit behavioral health provider) for adults, the roster for young people within its scope.
  5. Request county baseline data once (petitions, dismissals, firearms returned) from the Oregon Judicial Department's Public Records Center and OHSU; publish only in the Advocate report, as context, with RAND's rating printed beside it and never on Lock It Up or school-facing materials.
  6. Write into every agreement and the identity statement: the Care Network is not a petitioner and supplies no information for petitions; the group adopts no petition targets and takes no position on expanding who may file.
  7. If the legislature revisits documentation of firearm surrender, report what families and professionals told OHSU about the process, and leave any position to the published year-one agenda.

How we would know it is working

  • Guide published after review by a defense attorney and the Lock It Up council
  • Navigator training offered to the victim assistance programs in each of the three counties; number trained reported
  • Options-in-order sheets offered to the sheriffs and victim assistance programs in each county; distribution reported
  • Care offers made to households on both sides (counts only, no names)
  • Zero petition targets anywhere in the group's materials; baseline data requested in month one and its status reported by month six

What could get in the way

Education that teaches family members how to petition is expansion in effect, whatever the auditors asked for.
Two-sided education drawn from the court's own instructions, with respondent rights, the hearing and the return process given equal weight, and the court order last on the options sheet.
Deschutes County has been reported as among the state's most frequent users of the law, a national group has written it up as a case study, and a care network attached to a law enforcement record looks like a pipeline.
No petition counts as a success measure anywhere; the Care Network is not a petitioner and supplies no information for petitions, written into every agreement; RAND's rating printed beside any number.
Respondents and petitioner families are mostly adults, and 35 volunteer therapists cannot carry them without the kids losing out.
The written scope rule would route adults to county behavioral health and BestCare; the roster would serve young people only.
Clinicians trained to see the order as a clinical tool will reach for it first.
The clinician script is consent-first and family-first, the options sheet puts talking and a relative hold ahead of any order, and the care offer comes before the referral path.

Who we would work with: Deschutes, Crook and Jefferson county sheriffs, District attorney victim assistance programs in all three counties, Oregon Judicial Department (court instructions and forms), A defense attorney reviewer and the Lock It Up council, OHSU Gun Violence Prevention Research Center (data and interviews only), Deschutes County Behavioral Health and BestCare (adult care path)

All strategiesTell us what you think