Oregon Passes GOP Senator’s Bill Allowing Gun Seizure Order Without Gun Owner’s

[Robert]

Oregon lawmakers passed legislation co-sponsored by Sen. Brian Boquist (R-Dallas) that allows a judge to issue an ex parte ruling for the confiscation of an individual’s firearms.

The bill is SB 719, and it has now passed Oregon’s House and Senate. It creates an Extreme Risk Protection Order, which forces the subject of the order to hand over all firearms, as well as his concealed carry permit if he possesses one.

NRA-ILA reports:

    Based on a California law enacted in 2014, SB 719A would create a so-called “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (ERPO) that could be obtained by a law enforcement officer, family member, or household member in an ex parte hearing to deprive someone of their Second Amendment rights without due process of the law.

The ex parte aspect of the law means the bill does not require the gun owner to be present for part of the hearing in which the judge decides whether guns should be taken from him.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/07/oregon-passes-gop-senators-bill-allowing-gun-seizure-order-without-gun-owners-knowledge/

[bagelboy]

Damn! I thought all the liberals were toning down on gun control and blaming Trump and Russia for everything. I also thought they were waiting for their next big liberal President to start disarming us all again!

[Hooter]

Flame Suit On....In my opinion, if a person has been "proven" or adjudged to be a threat to society, (either through threats or actions) his /her weapons should be confiscated. Even if jailed or not jailed.

[Chrisj CMA]

If a person is deemed an extreme threat, the PERSON should be confiscated, evaluated made safe and then everyone is protected.

Guns are not the threat, people are.

Why not confiscated all knives, rocks, baseball bats, hammers, pipes, 2x4's, chains, ropes, ice picks, belts...get my point.  They just hate guns and this is a concocted ruse to remove guns from people

This is veiled gun control.  You cannot stop people from killing themselves unless you confine them in a "padded cell". I know, that used to be my job.

If this passes and someone is hell bent on shooting up someplace, they will still find a way.  Unless they themselves are confiscated.

[3fan4life]

Flame Suit On....In my opinion, if a person has been "proven" or adjudged to be a threat to society, (either through threats or actions) his /her weapons should be confiscated. Even if jailed or not jailed.

The main problem here is that NO PROOF of anything is required.

This is based on an accusation only.

No PROOF of anything is required.

[0leman]

I have not read the exact law yet, but intend to.

Keep in mind that Oregon is still an OPEN CARRY state.  IF you want to carry a AR15 down the street it is legal.

[Jess from VA]

Flame Suit On....In my opinion, if a person has been "proven" or adjudged to be a threat to society, (either through threats or actions) his /her weapons should be confiscated. Even if jailed or not jailed.

The main problem here is that NO PROOF of anything is required.

This is based on an accusation only.

No PROOF of anything is required.

I'm sure some level of proof is required.  Proof that someone is a clear and present danger to themselves or others (similar to a commitment order) or something like that is probably in the details of the law.  If the person is crazy, they should go after him, not his firearms (or both at the same time, but if he is later proved not crazy/dangerous at a subsequent hearing, then they must be returned). 

Now if a guy shoots a bunch of people (or similar crimes) and goes on the run, going and taking his firearms from his home may be reasonable, but what about his remaining family members at home?  Assuming they have access to the firearms, they should not be deprived of their right to defend themselves.

Barrment from firearms already exists for felons, insane people, drug and alcohol addicts. 

The ex parte (done in your absence) part is problematic.  You have a constitutional right to firearms (unless you've already lost it), you have constitutional rights to due process, and notice of a hearing, and a hearing, and to cross examine any witnesses against you, and to a lawyer.  They should not be able to proceed unless they can prove you were lawfully served with notice and then failed to appear at the hearing.  No law that removes or circumvents these constitutional protections is itself constitutional.

Any law like this should also have provisions making it a felony to bring false allegations against someone (which is already against the law everywhere, but should still be added to this law as a redundancy). 

[Gavin_Sons]

I have not read the exact law yet, but intend to.

Keep in mind that Oregon is still an OPEN CARRY state.  IF you want to carry a AR15 down the street it is legal.

I believe that is true in most states. A long gun is different than a handgun. Here in indiana we can carry long guns down the street all we want. We do not have an open carry law. Only people with a valid handgun permit are allowed to carry concealed or open. If you have a valid hunting license or fishing license you are also permitted to carry open while doing so.

[Rams]

NRA-ILA reports:

    Based on a California law enacted in 2014, SB 719A would create a so-called “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (ERPO) that could be obtained by a law enforcement officer, family member, or household member in an ex parte hearing to deprive someone of their Second Amendment rights without due process of the law.

The ex parte aspect of the law means the bill does not require the gun owner to be present for part of the hearing in which the judge decides whether guns should be taken from him.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/07/oregon-passes-gop-senators-bill-allowing-gun-seizure-order-without-gun-owners-knowledge/

Correct me if I'm wrong but, it appears to include a due process provision.   A judge must approve the request.   Now, don't get your panties in a wad over what I just said, I'm about as pro-2nd Amendment as one gets and I also have not read the legislation but.........................

Would have to read and digest this bill before making a judgement.  There are folks that (at times) should not have access to a weapon but, anyone with any common sense knows where and how to get one.   Additionally, a gun is not the only way to ruin another's day.   Terrorist have proven that time after time.   I'm all for restricting ownership of pressure cookers.   

[3fan4life]

Flame Suit On....In my opinion, if a person has been "proven" or adjudged to be a threat to society, (either through threats or actions) his /her weapons should be confiscated. Even if jailed or not jailed.

The main problem here is that NO PROOF of anything is required.

This is based on an accusation only.

No PROOF of anything is required.

I'm sure some level of proof is required.  Proof that someone is a clear and present danger to themselves or others (similar to a commitment order) or something like that is probably in the details of the law.  If the person is crazy, they should go after him, not his firearms (or both at the same time, but if he is later proved not crazy/dangerous at a subsequent hearing, then they must be returned). 

Now if a guy shoots a bunch of people (or similar crimes) and goes on the run, going and taking his firearms from his home may be reasonable, but what about his remaining family members at home?  Assuming they have access to the firearms, they should not be deprived of their right to defend themselves.

Barrment from firearms already exists for felons, insane people, drug and alcohol addicts. 

The ex parte (done in your absence) part is problematic.  You have a constitutional right to firearms (unless you've already lost it), you have constitutional rights to due process, and notice of a hearing, and a hearing, and to cross examine any witnesses against you, and to a lawyer.  They should not be able to proceed unless they can prove you were lawfully served with notice and then failed to appear at the hearing.  No law that removes or circumvents these constitutional protections is itself constitutional.

Any law like this should also have provisions making it a felony to bring false allegations against someone (which is already against the law everywhere, but should still be added to this law as a redundancy). 

Jess,

I'm reading this as it's a type of protection order.

I don't know what "proof" VA law actually requires before one may be issued.

What I do know is that in practice all someone has to do (especially a spouse) is to make an accusation of violence or the threat of violence.

No witness or actual proof is required.

If a protection order is granted in VA and the person that it is obtained against has a Concealed Carry permit they are required to surrender their permit.

It looks like the Oregon law goes the extra step of confiscating their firearms as well.

Personally, I think that this law really stinks and it stinks on many levels.

It's one thing to ban someone from owning a weapon because they have been convicted of a crime.

It's another thing to confiscate their firearms because they have been accused of a crime.

[Jess from VA]

Mark, I am in complete agreement with you, if the law only requires a naked, unproven accusation.

But I doubt that is all the law requires (as it would be patently unconstitutional).  

We have to read it to see what's in it.

Protective orders are different (though clearly they are related, and can be initiated the same way, by the same person).  I'm against people beating their wife and/or kids, but when a simple straight arm to the chest to avoid escalating physical conflict (and other minor non-injury inflicting contacts) can be turned into a high misdemeanor and a lifetime ban from firearms, it's simply overkill.  So is responding to a home and arresting someone because someone else who lives there says you touched them in a way they didn't like with no evidence or proof of injury or damage other than the allegation.  They will take you away, but you do get a quick hearing with all your rights at that hearing.... later.  Kids probably need protecting more than spouses.  It is what it is.  Another in a long line of reasons I like living alone.  

In a domestic, they take you away to protect others in the home, and have a hearing later.

In this scheme, the firearms needing no such protection, they must have the hearing first.  (and the devil is in the details/procedures/rights involved in that hearing).



  

[Moonshot_1]

This isn't a discussion about revoking privileges. This is about the revocation of a Constitutionally protected right.

If a person is so deviant as to require the state to revoke a Constitutionally protected right then the state should revoke them all.

Can the state revoke the right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment? Can someone be considered so bad that we can unmercifully beat them?

Can we jail someone for simply speaking out?

To suggest the revocation of any other right is abhorrent. Except for the 2nd amendment? We can trash that all we want?

The 2nd Amendment does not say that the Privilege to bear Arms shall be at the mercy of the State.
It says the Right to Bear Arms shall not be infringed.  It's supposed to be a pretty high hurdle for the State to overcome. 

[baldo]

Damn! I thought all the liberals were toning down on gun control and blaming Trump and Russia for everything. I also thought they were waiting for their next big liberal President to start disarming us all again!

Aren't you guys still waiting for Obama to show up......?

I think he's busy right now, it might be a while.

[Savago]

A *republican* senator is going after confiscating guns?

I see that stupidity is bi-partisan.
:-P

[Chrisj CMA]

Damn! I thought all the liberals were toning down on gun control and blaming Trump and Russia for everything. I also thought they were waiting for their next big liberal President to start disarming us all again!

Aren't you guys still waiting for Obama to show up......?

I think he's busy right now, it might be a while.

Obama is busy being an ass!  No we don't need him showing up ANYWHERE!

[Robert]

He’s Baaaa-ccck! Obama To Re-Enter Politics For Democratic Cause


Obama returns to political fray for a Democratic Party cause

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-returns-to-political-fray-for-a-democratic-party-cause/2017/07/09/86e76f9c-64a1-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html?utm_term=.a1d7680251ef

Former president Barack Obama will formally reenter the political fray this week less than six months after leaving office, headlining a fundraiser for a group that could prove critical to the Democratic Party’s rebuilding efforts.

[baldo]

He’s Baaaa-ccck! Obama To Re-Enter Politics For Democratic Cause


Obama returns to political fray for a Democratic Party cause

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-returns-to-political-fray-for-a-democratic-party-cause/2017/07/09/86e76f9c-64a1-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html?utm_term=.a1d7680251ef

Former president Barack Obama will formally reenter the political fray this week less than six months after leaving office, headlining a fundraiser for a group that could prove critical to the Democratic Party’s rebuilding efforts.

[Serk]

Damn! I thought all the liberals were toning down on gun control and blaming Trump and Russia for everything. I also thought they were waiting for their next big liberal President to start disarming us all again!

Aren't you guys still waiting for Obama to show up......?

I think he's busy right now, it might be a while.

Obama is busy being an ass!  No we don't need him showing up ANYWHERE!

Topic drift but oh well, if Obama (pbuh) keeps this up, wonder how long until he's prosecuted for violations of the Logan Act...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

[Varmintmist]

Any law like this should also have provisions making it a felony to bring false allegations against someone (which is already against the law everywhere, but should still be added to this law as a redundancy). 

Not true. You can have CPS called on you and you have exactly zero recourse. You have no right to even know your accuser.

[Serk]

Any law like this should also have provisions making it a felony to bring false allegations against someone (which is already against the law everywhere, but should still be added to this law as a redundancy). 

Not true. You can have CPS called on you and you have exactly zero recourse. You have no right to even know your accuser.

Don't EVEN get me started on the extreme powers granted to CPS...

(Although admittedly they're in a catch-22.... If someone says something and they don't overreact and something happens, they get lambasted, so they have to go full Gestapo over any tiny allegation to protect themselves...)

[Varmintmist]

Ohh, I lived through it, nothing you can say will enlighten me.

It goes way beyond overeacting. If that was all, then such is life. They are above the law and a pack of self aggrandizing job justifying drones who like to ____ with people even when the KNOW that there is no support to anything that is accused.

If a van carrying CPS personnel crashed and caught on fire, I wouldnt pee on it to put it out.

[bagelboy]

Can't Obama just fade away like all other former Presidents?

[MP]

Can't Obama just fade away like all other former Presidents?

Not happening.  He knows he is so much smarter than anyone else in there, he will be around to "correct" all their mistakes.

Sad and pathetic, but it is what it is.

[98valk]

Can't Obama just fade away like all other former Presidents?

he is a member of the UN globlist marxist cabal intent of doing away with countries boarders on the way to one world govt. many congressmen and senators are on the same boat. they have been promised extreme power and wealth for themselves and family members after them. Trump is against this and delayed their plans, why they are going after him so hard, as has been done in other countries and certain leaders the last few decades.

[baldo]

Can't Obama just fade away like all other former Presidents?

Not happening.  He knows he is so much smarter than anyone else in there, he will be around to "correct" all their mistakes.

Looks like he's got his work cut out for him....

Man, things are getting a little sporty in Washington lately.....