Background
A Deschutes County Circuit Court judgment committed D. W. H. to the Oregon Health Authority for up to 180 days. The trial court also entered an order prohibiting him from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition and directing the sheriff to seize and dispose of any firearms that he owned or possessed.
On appeal, D. W. H. challenged the portions of the firearm order that prohibited purchasing or possessing ammunition and directed the sheriff to seize and dispose of firearms. The state conceded that the trial court lacked authority to impose those provisions and that preservation was excused because they first appeared in the post-hearing order.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals accepted the state’s concession and held that the trial court lacked authority to prohibit D. W. H. from possessing ammunition or to direct the sheriff to seize and dispose of firearms in his ownership or possession. The court therefore struck those provisions from the order.
The court remanded for the trial court to enter a modified order and deliver it to the county sheriff. It otherwise affirmed, leaving intact the commitment judgment and the unchallenged portions of the firearm order.
Key Takeaways
- A civil-commitment court may not include firearm-related remedies that exceed its statutory authority.
- The ammunition restriction and the direction to seize and dispose of firearms were stricken immediately.
- Because the challenged provisions first appeared in the post-hearing order, the appellant’s failure to object earlier did not prevent appellate review.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that firearm restrictions accompanying Oregon civil-commitment orders must stay within the authority granted by statute. Courts cannot expand those orders to cover ammunition or compel seizure and disposal of weapons without legal authorization.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.