Oregon extreme risk protection order

[jp1985]

....

Read More

 

[Slobray]

Hello all. I was wondering if anyone could offer any advise about the "extreme risk protection order".


What do you do if falsely accused?

You get to have your guns taken away without due process. Then you have to prove that they accused you falsely and if you do, the accuser may get a little slap on the wrist (depending on the location in OR).

It sounds like you don't get any chance of debate. Almost like they just come in and take all your guns. And how do you go about getting them back?

I know this was in that bs bill but had it 100% gone into effect yet?

Jp

You can request a hearing to state your case, which takes an additional 21 days after your request has been approved.

If the order against you is denied, terminated or expires, you can get your guns back, but only after you request to get them back (God only know what fees they will charge and hoops they will make you jump through to get your own property back) and going through a BGC to prove your allowed to own your own guns that you were previously allowed to own.


This bill was written by anti's to harass gun owners, plain and simple. It was written so that any anti you're "related" or anyone you've had sex with can petition the court to have your guns and gun rights taken away because there is "Evidence of an acquisition or attempted acquisition within the previous 180 days by the respondent of a firearm, ammunition of another deadly weapon".

You folks down south will get saddled with the same BS that we up north have to deal with, good luck.


Ray

 

[Hang-Man]

I Just got off the Phone with my Brother the Detective from eugene/retired, he said there is NO way they can bring in sb719 since there is No Due Process , I asked him to take a look at it.
My Brother was on tv quite a bit as spokesman for eugene PD, The ONLY Leo I know that I can trust.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I Just got off the Phone with my Brother the Detective from eugene/retired, he said there is NO way they can bring in sb719 since there is No Due Process , I asked him to take a look at it.
My Brother was on tv quite a bit as spokesman for eugene PD, The ONLY Leo I know that I can trust.

I believe that California and Washington State already have a confiscation law similar to the proposed Oregon extreme risk protection order.

 

[spookshack]

Oregon: SB719 being debated in committee RIGHT NOW

 

[U8395279]

The full House voted, and the bill easily passed. It has been sent on to Governor Brown, for her to sign into law.

Lawmakers pass bill to take guns away from those deemed at risk of suicide, shooting sprees


Does anyone know if this bill used the infamous Emergency Clause, to block any potential referendum vote by the people??



.

 

[spookshack]

That question was asked in the above thread. Not sure if it was confirmed or not.

 

[Goosebrown]

California does have such a law

 

[Certaindeaf]

I wonder where they'll warehouse all those guns or will the complainant just take custody of them immediately for "safekeeping" and sale?
nuts

 

[Bushman]

So what happens if you just move out of state? I guess most states bar you from possession if you have a protective order against you? Or is that not accurate?

I suppose it would come up on any NICS check at a traffic stop anywhere in the country, that you have a protective order. There really should be a higher legal standard for these orders than someone just saying they're skeered, with no evidence of why....

 

[Goosebrown]

So what happens if you just move out of state? I guess most states bar you from possession if you have a protective order against you? Or is that not accurate?

I suppose it would come up on any NICS check at a traffic stop anywhere in the country, that you have a protective order. There really should be a higher legal standard for these orders than someone just saying they're skeered, with no evidence of why....

The law as written is temporary and to get it you need to show cause to a judge. Not supporting it but tgere do seem to be checks.

 

[U8395279]

So what happens if you just move out of state? I guess most states bar you from possession if you have a protective order against you? Or is that not accurate?

I suppose it would come up on any NICS check at a traffic stop anywhere in the country, that you have a protective order. There really should be a higher legal standard for these orders than someone just saying they're skeered, with no evidence of why....

If you could somehow manage to avoid service, and left the state before you could be served, then I think that you would be OK. But if you do get served, you are then most definitely screwed.

But honestly, how many people can just up and move to another state on a moment's notice? I think that this is thus a moot point.

We are just going to have to hope that the authorities don't allow this new law to be abused and misused. But since this is all being put into effect ex parte, without the gun owner's knowledge, much less a chance to defend himself, I don't see any real safeguards against abuse.

.

 

[bbbass]

The law as written is temporary and to get it you need to show cause to a judge. Not supporting it but tgere do seem to be checks.

The cause is that he must be mentally defective/unstable to have so many guns.

Do you really trust judges to be reasonable/logical/non-political and not accept just any ol reason to get those guns? Here in the wilds of E. OR maybe, but west of the Cascades... no chance. Ya'll are soooooo screwed!!!

 

[Certaindeaf]

So what happens if you just move out of state? I guess most states bar you from possession if you have a protective order against you? Or is that not accurate?

I suppose it would come up on any NICS check at a traffic stop anywhere in the country, that you have a protective order. There really should be a higher legal standard for these orders than someone just saying they're skeered, with no evidence of why....

Dubious internet postings will be all the proof they need.

 

[Goosebrown]

The cause is that he must be mentally defective/unstable to have so many guns.

Do you really trust judges to be reasonable/logical/non-political and not accept just any ol reason to get those guns? Here in the wilds of E. OR maybe, but west of the Cascades... no chance. Ya'll are soooooo screwed!!!

Of course not. But that leaves a paper trail and a way to appeal. It is the very minimal definition of due process.

I don't like it. But it could be a lot worse.

 

[bbbass]

Oh, ok. Everything is fine then as long as legal steps are taken since nobody ever gets screwed by the system.

No mental health evidence can be considered at the appeal. WTF? What a hassle all that would be. Aaaaaand expensive. But hey, it could be a lot worse. The order could be permanent.

 

[Bushman]

Dubious internet postings will be all the proof they need.

Dubious internet postings are rarely the cause of a restraining order. Usually they are domestic and based on a mere accusation. So no, you're wrong...they need even less than that....

 

[bbbass]

It's a Brave New World. All bets are off since the law makes no listing or guidance about what is to be considered by the judge. Only what CANNOT be considered, ie medical evidence.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Dubious internet postings are rarely the cause of a restraining order. Usually they are domestic and based on a mere accusation. So no, you're wrong...they need even less than that....

Right. Why don't you give it a try then and find out.
So yes, you are wrong.

 

[Bushman]

Right. Why don't you give it a try then and find out.
So yes, you are wrong.

That's such as well thought out and articulated argument. You sure showed me...

Ummmm...where did I say protective orders cannot be issued as a result of an internet post? You're the one that said that ALL they need is an internet post, which is actually not correct, they don't even need that silly child.

My point was that they need less than that, and most protective orders are a result of domestics, filed by a female against a male, with no evidence other than sworn testimony. Google the statistics before you spout off about something you can't even begin to comprehend. They don't need an internet post to get a protective order against you genius, so NO, YOU are wrong, but keep thinking you are sooo smart bud.

Tell you what, why don't you post your name and address and I will go tell the court I'm afraid of you and let's see if they really need an internet post to get a restraining order against you smart guy...