Jump to content

Shocking Oregon Gun Law Allegedly signed into law


JDW

Recommended Posts

Sorry if someone already covered this, but I felt obliged to post it. This is insanity at its best, and unconstitutional, to boot, IMHO. I don't know how good the source is, but it looks pretty "official"

 

http://silenceisconsent.net/oregon-governor-just-signed-gun-confiscation-law-needs-go-viral/?utm_source=TSUSA

 

Edit to add this from Snopes.com

 

 

http://www.snopes.com/oregon-gun-confiscation/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've seen this pop up a couple times. It's a shame that any media source embellishes the facts to the extent that people who would normally care about an anti gun law don't because of the idiotic presentation.

 

Personally, I'm not totally opposed to such laws.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with lockman -- the guns, or ANY other item that can be a deadly weapon (as in a sharp #2 pencil) -- are merely the instruments...

 

The correct action is to confine the operator. People kill. Inanimate objects only provide the means, not the will....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is definitely going to be challenged as a violation of civil rights. I wonder if it can be done so before someone is deprived of their 14th Amendment rights, or if "harm" has to occur before they can file a challenge, and if so, will the Oregon simply be able to moot the issue by giving the harmed individual their firearms back?

 

If the latter, then it is rather bullsh!t, because they can just do this with impunity and then when someone spends a bunch of money to begin challenging it in court, Oregon can just bail out and avoid the law being challenged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've seen this pop up a couple times. It's a shame that any media source embellishes the facts to the extent that people who would normally care about an anti gun law don't because of the idiotic presentation.

 

Personally, I'm not totally opposed to such laws.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then you are also "not totally opposed" to infringements on the U.S. Constitution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

they've tried to do the same/similar in Illinois.

I thought we did have something similar in IL. Law enforcement or even school admins can report you as a danger to self or others,which can result in a revocation of your FOID,without even being seen by a judge.They might not confiscate your guns, but the end result is the same as you can no longer possess them.IIRC they even notify federal agencies on their decisions .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similar, but they tried to expand our existing orders of protection that can include no firearms when warranted, to include ex parte orders that would remove all firearms form the home of even the potential victim. It would have also allowed sheriffs and states attorneys to file on behalf of others who had no desire for such an order.

 

Even abuse victims advocacy groups opposed the Illinois bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've seen this pop up a couple times. It's a shame that any media source embellishes the facts to the extent that people who would normally care about an anti gun law don't because of the idiotic presentation.Personally, I'm not totally opposed to such laws.Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThen you are also "not totally opposed" to infringements on the U.S. Constitution.

I've got almost 8,000 posts on this forum. If you've read any of them, you should know 2 things. One, I believe that "arms" means anything short of a crew-served weapon and "shall not be infringed" means I don't need to show anything but cash when I want to drag another one home. Two, you should know that I'm not going to let you get away with taking a jab at me like I'm some kind of fudd.

 

There are more components to a law like this than "they gonna take guns away." Already in this short thread, lockman had a better idea; if they're dangerous enough to take their guns away, they're dangerous enough to lock up. What a wonderful, and effective, idea.

 

Just try this on- A complaint is made (a party goes to the police station or the cops show up,) police investigate and find sufficient evidence for the victim to seek an EOP, and the perpetrator is arrested and held without bond. The very next business day, the parties go before a judge, and the judge rules that the complaint has merit (<this is due process.) Now that both parties have had a day in court, I'm absolutely fine with the accused surrendering their firearms (and their ability to own them) until such time they are acquitted or the charges are dropped. Add in a "shall return property if" clause at the end, and I'd be satisfied that the rights of the accused were respected within reason. You can also add in another clause that says "this ain't a way to screw with people while you're getting divorced." That ought to about make everybody happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, I've seen this pop up a couple times. It's a shame that any media source embellishes the facts to the extent that people who would normally care about an anti gun law don't because of the idiotic presentation.Personally, I'm not totally opposed to such laws.Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThen you are also "not totally opposed" to infringements on the U.S. Constitution.

I've got almost 8,000 posts on this forum. If you've read any of them, you should know 2 things. One, I believe that "arms" means anything short of a crew-served weapon and "shall not be infringed" means I don't need to show anything but cash when I want to drag another one home. Two, you should know that I'm not going to let you get away with taking a jab at me like I'm some kind of fudd.

 

There are more components to a law like this than "they gonna take guns away." Already in this short thread, lockman had a better idea; if they're dangerous enough to take their guns away, they're dangerous enough to lock up. What a wonderful, and effective, idea.

 

Just try this on- A complaint is made (a party goes to the police station or the cops show up,) police investigate and find sufficient evidence for the victim to seek an EOP, and the perpetrator is arrested and held without bond. The very next business day, the parties go before a judge, and the judge rules that the complaint has merit (<this is due process.) Now that both parties have had a day in court, I'm absolutely fine with the accused surrendering their firearms (and their ability to own them) until such time they are acquitted or the charges are dropped. Add in a "shall return property if" clause at the end, and I'd be satisfied that the rights of the accused were respected within reason. You can also add in another clause that says "this ain't a way to screw with people while you're getting divorced." That ought to about make everybody happy.

 

Attachment 1 from the OP is about the Oregon law in question. It said:

 

"This new anti-second amendment law permits government officials to order the confiscation of guns, simply based off of hearsay evidence. There is no actual evidence required to order this confiscation, and before the gun owner is even given a hearing."

 

"Worse yet, the only way for the gun owner to get his gun back is to file a case and prove his innocence. This is Orwellian, and it must be overturned by the Supreme Court; if this law begins being enforced, step by step, inch by inch, civilians will lose their second amendment rights."

 

The infringement against the U.S. Constitution is the accused's guns are confiscated without due process. Then you said "Personally, I'm not totally opposed to such laws."

 

So do you agree with that Oregon law or not? Based on your statement I thought you agreed with the Oregon law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've seen this pop up a couple times. It's a shame that any media source embellishes the facts to the extent that people who would normally care about an anti gun law don't because of the idiotic presentation.Personally, I'm not totally opposed to such laws.Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThen you are also "not totally opposed" to infringements on the U.S. Constitution.I've got almost 8,000 posts on this forum. If you've read any of them, you should know 2 things. One, I believe that "arms" means anything short of a crew-served weapon and "shall not be infringed" means I don't need to show anything but cash when I want to drag another one home. Two, you should know that I'm not going to let you get away with taking a jab at me like I'm some kind of fudd.There are more components to a law like this than "they gonna take guns away." Already in this short thread, lockman had a better idea; if they're dangerous enough to take their guns away, they're dangerous enough to lock up. What a wonderful, and effective, idea.Just try this on- A complaint is made (a party goes to the police station or the cops show up,) police investigate and find sufficient evidence for the victim to seek an EOP, and the perpetrator is arrested and held without bond. The very next business day, the parties go before a judge, and the judge rules that the complaint has merit (<this is due process.) Now that both parties have had a day in court, I'm absolutely fine with the accused surrendering their firearms (and their ability to own them) until such time they are acquitted or the charges are dropped. Add in a "shall return property if" clause at the end, and I'd be satisfied that the rights of the accused were respected within reason. You can also add in another clause that says "this ain't a way to screw with people while you're getting divorced." That ought to about make everybody happy.Attachment 1 from the OP is about the Oregon law in question. It said:"This new anti-second amendment law permits government officials to order the confiscation of guns, simply based off of hearsay evidence. There is no actual evidence required to order this confiscation, and before the gun owner is even given a hearing.""Worse yet, the only way for the gun owner to get his gun back is to file a case and prove his innocence. This is Orwellian, and it must be overturned by the Supreme Court; if this law begins being enforced, step by step, inch by inch, civilians will lose their second amendment rights."The infringement against the U.S. Constitutional is the accused's guns are confiscated without due process. Then you said "Personally, I'm not totally opposed to such laws."So do you agree with that Oregon law or not? Based on your statement I thought you agreed with the Oregon law.

You've taken my remark out of context. Don't forget the first part where I pointed out that the article completely misrepresents the actual law. Here it is.

 

http://oregonvotes.org/irr/2018/302text.pdf

 

You read that, and get back with me on whether or not you think there is no due process. I'm not saying it's perfect, or that I would support that same bill in Illinois, just that it's not a hearsay only bill aimed at gun confiscation.

 

Let me repeat: the linked article in the OP is an outright lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Already in this short thread, lockman had a better idea; if they're dangerous enough to take their guns away, they're dangerous enough to lock up. What a wonderful, and effective, idea.
Heard a couple calls for service for despondent subjects last weekend (yes, I'm one of "those guys" who listens to a police scanner on the weekends heh). One woman had a piece of broken glass to her throat. Another had attacked his dad with a pitchfork, stole his dad's car. Well, I guess he's not despondent just dangerous as heck. Guess what's missing here? Guns. Gonna take away garden tools, maybe take the windows from the house too? If not, then just lock em up. I agree. If they're too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, they're too dangerous to be a part of society. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you consider the right to confront one's accusers part of due process then an ex parte proceeding would, for many of us, be lacking in that regard.

 

It's true, though, that the respondent might be present in some cases.

If you were a 19 yr old mother of a 6 month old that had the tar whooped out of you two nights ago, do you reckon you'd wanna stare down the animal that did it?

 

There is somewhere between full on jury trial proceedings and a hearsay EOP that presents a reasonable level of due process/judicial review prior to this "extreme risk" type of order being issued. It seems in the subject bill, these are fairly well scrutinized, requiring previous convictions and the like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems we had with the Illinois bill was not a lack of jury. It was the ex parte provision, much as it seems to be a concern for the Oregon group.

 

I don't read the bill to require previous convictions. Those can be considered but they are not a necessary predicate to issuance of the protection order.

 

"Evidence of an acquisition or attempted acquisition within the previous 180 days by the respondent of a deadly weapon" can also be considered, the same as the bill we fought here, as if purchasing a firearm itself defines a person as a threat. Even purchasing a kitchen knife could potentially be enough to remove a person's gun rights under this language.

 

The reality about this bill is that it's part of the national push by gun control groups to create larger groups of people ineligible to possess a firearm. I haven't done a line by line comparison but my guess is that, except for changes conforming it to Oregon law, it's the same language we've worked against for the last couple sessions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems we had with the Illinois bill was not a lack of jury. It was the ex parte provision, much as it seems to be a concern for the Oregon group.

 

I don't read the bill to require previous convictions. Those can be considered but they are not a necessary predicate to issuance of the protection order.

 

"Evidence of an acquisition or attempted acquisition within the previous 180 days by the respondent of a deadly weapon" can also be considered, the same as the bill we fought here, as if purchasing a firearm itself defines a person as a threat. Even purchasing a kitchen knife could potentially be enough to remove a person's gun rights under this language.

 

The reality about this bill is that it's part of the national push by gun control groups to create larger groups of people ineligible to possess a firearm. I haven't done a line by line comparison but my guess is that, except for changes conforming it to Oregon law, it's the same language we've worked against for the last couple sessions.

You do understand that I'm not *promoting* this law, but rather pointing out that it's grossly misrepresented in the article, and requires much more than a hearsay complaint without any courtroom review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, I understand.

 

In regard to hearsay evidence Oregon makes the following exceptions:

 

2015 ORS 40.460¹

 

Rule 803. Hearsay exceptions

 

*availability of declarant immaterial

 

The following are not excluded by ORS 40.455 (Rule 802. Hearsay rule), even though the declarant is available as a witness:

 

(1) (Reserved.)

 

(2) A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.

 

(3) A statement of the declarants then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation or physical condition, such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain or bodily health, but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of the declarants will.

 

(4) Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.

...

 

So statements made by others to law enforcement, for example, could be admissible as evidence on behalf of the person who made them. That would be hearsay in states that don't have this exception but I suppose Snopes accurately questioned characterizing it that way since Oregon defines it in an uncommon way.

 

 

 

ETA that Illinois has much the same exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Already in this short thread, lockman had a better idea; if they're dangerous enough to take their guns away, they're dangerous enough to lock up. What a wonderful, and effective, idea.
Heard a couple calls for service for despondent subjects last weekend (yes, I'm one of "those guys" who listens to a police scanner on the weekends heh). One woman had a piece of broken glass to her throat. Another had attacked his dad with a pitchfork, stole his dad's car. Well, I guess he's not despondent just dangerous as heck. Guess what's missing here? Guns. Gonna take away garden tools, maybe take the windows from the house too? If not, then just lock em up. I agree. If they're too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, they're too dangerous to be a part of society. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

Agree with you and lockman. If the PERSON is dangerous, lock him up, and judge can determine bail based on information available before his "day in court." People that keep going to a gun confiscation remedy have another agenda (chip, chip, chip ...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reality about this bill is that it's part of the national push by gun control groups to create larger groups of people ineligible to possess a firearm. I haven't done a line by line comparison but my guess is that, except for changes conforming it to Oregon law, it's the same language we've worked against for the last couple sessions.

As bad as this is, it's also a telling sign of how they recognize they're losing. For decades they've attempted to outlaw guns and not only have they failed, but they've lost a lot of territory in the fight. This push could be interpreted as the final, desperate actions of a defeated army in retreat.

 

When Pol Pot's forces were forced out of power by the (I think) Thai military, they laid land mines everywhere to try and inflict as much damage as they could as they retreated. There's a parallel here with the gun control movement as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a whole host of reasons, Americans as a whole seem quite willing to forego Constitutional freedoms in return for the appearance of safety. Poll after poll show a substantial percentage of people, if not an actual majority, who believe "hate speech" does not deserve the protection of the 1st Amendment. Use the word "terrorism" and a good percentage of Americans will allow the government to do most anything regardless of our individual rights. So while we are seeing the general advancement of gun rights throughout this country, there are clearly pockets of population that see little or no problem with stretching or ignoring individual rights to deprive individuals of the right to own or carry a firearm. Politicians in Oregon would not have passed this law, good or bad that it might be, if they thought that Constitution loving citizens would rise up against them and throw them out of office at the first opportunity. Similarly look at places like New York City where for decades it has been almost impossible to get a handgun permit even to own a handgun let alone carry one unless you are a big name entertainer or someone favored by the powers that be, and recently even that limited granting of licenses was totally halted, all of which has the support of the majority of the citizens of that city. To me, the key with the Oregon law is not the nuances of "due process" and whether the law requires such or not, but the willingness of the people of Oregon to allow such a draconian law in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a whole host of reasons, Americans as a whole seem quite willing to forego Constitutional freedoms in return for the appearance of safety. Poll after poll show a substantial percentage of people, if not an actual majority, who believe "hate speech" does not deserve the protection of the 1st Amendment. Use the word "terrorism" and a good percentage of Americans will allow the government to do most anything regardless of our individual rights. So while we are seeing the general advancement of gun rights throughout this country, there are clearly pockets of population that see little or no problem with stretching or ignoring individual rights to deprive individuals of the right to own or carry a firearm. Politicians in Oregon would not have passed this law, good or bad that it might be, if they thought that Constitution loving citizens would rise up against them and throw them out of office at the first opportunity. Similarly look at places like New York City where for decades it has been almost impossible to get a handgun permit even to own a handgun let alone carry one unless you are a big name entertainer or someone favored by the powers that be, and recently even that limited granting of licenses was totally halted, all of which has the support of the majority of the citizens of that city. To me, the key with the Oregon law is not the nuances of "due process" and whether the law requires such or not, but the willingness of the people of Oregon to allow such a draconian law in the first place.

 

I disagree with a lot of this. We now know that polls cannot be trusted and that polling organizations regularly falsify data to push an agenda. I highly doubt that a majority of Americans ever really supported gun control.

 

Realistically speaking, the gun control movement has always been smaller than the gun rights movement, and I'm personally of the belief that they've always been a fringe group. But like many fringe groups on the left, they serve as unofficial extensions of the Democratic Party and therefore have their voices amplified far beyond what they are actually capable of. If it wasn't for that, they'd be no more powerful than the crazy guy on the street corner yelling about the end times. They truly are that pathetic and insane.

 

The only reason why the gun laws are as horrible as they are in places like New York City or California is because of leftists and Democrats. If they didn't have the stranglehold that they do over those places, they wouldn't have the gun control laws that they do.

 

And we really need to stop giving them so much moral power over us. Recognize that they are still dangerous, like a small, venomous snake, but also recognize that they can be easily crushed under foot like the aforementioned snake. They really aren't that big, and if it wasn't for big money they'd be nothing. We've won a lot of terrirory at the state level in this country; let's continue that but let's keep the pressure on to destroy them at the federal level and in the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMV, did you read the actual bill yet?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm trying. It's a silly document and I keep stopping. So the text below sounds like the notice I'd would get.

"You must, within 24 hours, surrender all deadly weapons in your custody, control or possession to (insert name of local law enforcement agency), a gun dealer or a third party who may lawfully possess the deadly weapons."

So I'm being ordered to "surrender my firearms" within 24 hours without due process. Not Constitutional. Maybe you are taking the word "surrender" lightly since based on the notice I could surrender my firearms to my wife since she has a FOID.

 

The definition of deadly weapon makes this document even sillier:

 

(1) “Deadly weapon” means:

(a) Any instrument, article or substance specifically designed for and presently capable

of causing death or serious physical injury; or

( :cool: A firearm, whether loaded or unloaded.

 

Would I need to surrender most of the silverware drawer? Lots of people actually get killed by contents from the silverware drawer. The killers must not know how those things were designed. How about my car? How about an axe? How about my hunting rifle or a my skinning knife? What were they designed for? I guess they guessed my hunting rifle was designed to kill/injure since they want that "surrendered" under ( :cool:. Did they mean death to anything? Then how about my mousetrap? flyswatter?

 

Like many Illinois anti-gun bills, the anti-gun authors (Willis!) don't know anything about what they are proposing. Just their agenda and goals.

 

========================================

"To the subject of this protection order: An extreme risk protection order has been issued

by the court and is now in effect. You are required to surrender all deadly weapons in your

custody, control or possession. You may not have in your custody or control, purchase,

possess, receive, or attempt to purchase or receive, deadly weapons while this order is in

effect. You must, within 24 hours, surrender all deadly weapons in your custody, control or

possession to (insert name of local law enforcement agency), a gun dealer or a third party

who may lawfully possess the deadly weapons. You must, within 24 hours, surrender to (insert

name of local law enforcement agency) any concealed handgun license issued to you.

You may request a hearing to contest this order. If you do not request a hearing, the extreme

risk protection order against you will be in effect for one year unless terminated by the court. You have the right to request one hearing to terminate this order during the 12 months that this order is in effect starting from the date of this order. You may seek the advice of an attorney as to any matter connected with this order.

(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...