My neighbor recently got drunk (at home, alone) and said the wrong thing on the phone to his now-ex-wife (they had just split up and he was staying at the house, which was sold and was to be vacated the next week). Don't know what exactly he said, but he had his guns out and cleaning them (found out later). Anyway...I was away from home that evening and I got a call from the Sheriff's office that they wanted me to turn off my outside lights, as they were performing a "welfare check" on one of my neighbors. Well, that neighbor lived across the street and a Deputy was crouched in my driveway for a half hour until he came outside (replayed the whole incident on my cctv). They took him into custody, went in the house and seized his guns (3 or 4 handguns). He told me about all this a few days later, horribly embarrassed by it all.
I pointed out one thing: That he should petition the Sheriff's office on the exact wording in the Action Report by the Deputies, as regardless exactly what he said to start the whole thing, it's what's in that report that matters that could be used to take away his CHL and perhaps prevent him from owning a gun again.
Pertinent language at issue currently in Oregon Law (ORS 166.293):
(2) Notwithstanding ORS 166.291 (1), and subject to review as provided in subsection (5) of this section, a sheriff may deny a concealed handgun license if the sheriff has reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant has been or is reasonably likely to be a danger to self or others, or to the community at large, as a result of the applicant's mental or psychological state or as demonstrated by the applicant's past pattern of behavior involving unlawful violence or threats of unlawful violence.
(3)(a) Any act or condition that would prevent the issuance of a concealed handgun license is cause for revoking a concealed handgun license.
Exactly what his wife answered when asked about his character, his average mental state and whether there were any weapons in the house is language in the report to be concerned about in this case, particularly of any psychological review/questionnaire performed by the Sheriff's Dept. after-action. At the time he didn't care, but I think I made my point to both him at the time and here to you all...particularly related to moves to expand denial of weapons to veterans to the general public at large. IMHO, the language applied to veterans currently for denial of weapons-ownership/licensing would prevent some (if not many) former/retired LEO from owning a weapon at all. Technically wording in DHS documents could be applied to most Freepers on the basis of their language in posts and ideology for denial of 2A rights...if we stick our heads in the sand...
If we just sit still and hope all of this blows over, it becomes irreversible.