OFF ALERT Bad Idea Becomes A Bad Bill

Discussion in 'Oregon Firearms Federation' started by Northwest Firearms, Feb 28, 2017.

  1. Northwest Firearms

    Northwest Firearms
    Pacific Northwest
    Site Maintenance Staff Member

    Likes Received:

    Yesterday we told you about LC 1767 , a draft for a bill that would allow a “household member” or law enforcement agent to request that a person’s guns and rights be taken away if they convinced a court that the person was an “extreme risk.”

    Today we can report that the draft has been introduced as SB 868.

    It’s no surprise that Ginny Burdick is one of the bill’s sponsors. The other sponsor however, is Senator Brian Boquist who has long been a supporter of gun rights.

    While the Boquist’s sponsorship is no doubt well intentioned, we still believe the bill is both misguided and counter productive. Many of the factors a court could take into account for revoking a person’s Second Amendment rights would already disqualify them from having a firearm, but the court is also allowed to consider whether the accused acquired or attempted to acquire a firearm or ammunition in the last 180 days!

    That could be many of us and is a pretty scary reason to take someone’s rights and property away.

    Given the anti-gun bias prevalent in Oregon courts, especially in Multnomah County, this bill has the potential to be very dangerous.

    Please contact Senate President Peter Courtney and tell him that SB 868 is a bad idea. Point out that while the bill claims to be, in part, an effort to prevent suicide, there is nothing in it that restricts the accused’s rights to have prescription drugs, knives or car keys. Instead of seeking real solutions, this bill is just another attempt to demonize gun owners.

    Courtney’s contact info is:

    Phone: 503-986-1600


    Oregon Firearms Federation
  2. bolus

    Far from Prozanski
    Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Likes Received:
    You know what is funny (not really) but if someone is suicidal and the police come to your house they TAKE YOU TO THE HOSPITAL. They dont go to the court to get a stupid emergency protection order to take your guns away. Why? because you could still drive to a bridge and jump off of it.

    "Senator Burdick, how do you plan to address the mental health crisis and lack of adequate mental health coverage and severely limited access that some Obamacare patients (medicaid) have to mental health clinics?"

    Senator Burdick: "duh, take their guns away, dur, dur dur"

    "Senator Hayward, you are a physician and you have told the press about your own mental health problems, how are you going to address this mental health issue in Oregon?"

    Senator Hayward: " I introduced a bill that would require gun dealers to talk to customers about suicide, dur, dur, dur"

    spookshack, orygun, Ura-Ki and 4 others like this.
  3. AndyinEverson

    Everson, Wa.
    Moderator Staff Member Bronze Supporter

    Likes Received:
    Well as someone much wiser than me once said:
    "All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures."
    ( In regards to the bill in the OP )
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2017
    Ura-Ki, etrain16 and nammac like this.
  4. nammac

    I-5 Corridor - West of Portland
    Constitutionalist Silver Supporter

    Likes Received:
    Pestering Peter Courtney to kill this before it get to the floor and do something about mental health instead...

    It's going to be a long legislative session... Day after day, being attacked, demonized and having our Civil Rights violated...

    We really need to be a protected class!!!
    Ura-Ki and etrain16 like this.
  5. Wombat of Doom

    Wombat of Doom
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    As someone who works in mental health...

    Usually if someone is suicidal, SOP is to get family or friends to secure guns before discharge. We do the same for pill stashes, machetes at times and other things. But really if we wanted to stop suicides in Oregon, it seems to me securing the bridges (or even just a certain one) so people couldn't jump might save more lives and not impede anyone's constitutional rights.

    It seems to me this bill is a solution in search of a non-existent problem. I say non-existent, because if this scenario were to exist, there are already safeguards in place, at least at my last two jobs.
    nammac and etrain16 like this.

Share This Page