Oregon extreme risk protection order

[PiratePast40]

FWIW, you can still let the Governor know how displeased you are with this and ask her not to sign. It won't change anything but will at least put citizens on the record as being against this unconstitutional action. State of Oregon: Governor Kate Brown - Share Your Opinion

 

[PaulB47]

Waste of time. Begging bloody Kate to be nice to you? Sheesh.

Folks, it's not the end of the world. While this law certainly will be "abused" (abuse is the whole point of the law), they cannot go overboard with that, or there would be a general uprising. Every person they attack, comes with a risk of revenge. We are not talking about targeting the criminal element here; these are ordinary decent people who believe they have a right to bear arms. The older they get, the less they have to lose. Cops had better watch out, attempting to enforce something like this.

So, a given individual gun owner actually has very little chance of getting snagged by one of these orders. And even in the rare chance he is, if he is old enough or terminal for some reason, he probably won't put up with it (one of the few good things about getting old is that you don't have to put up with crap). How many dead cops and legiscritters will it take before the legiscritters figure out they made a mistake? Probably, not too many.

This is just another example of Bloomberg buying a law that won't be enforced.

In the states where this kind of law exists, how many times has it been enforced against decent people? I never hear of it.

Armed people cannot be disarmed, unless they agree to be.

 

[albin25]

How many dead cops and legiscritters will it take before the legiscritters figure out they made a mistake? Probably, not too many.

Self-fulfilling prophecy;
Somebody old or terminal, decides they'll shoot a cop that's under orders to confiscate his guns...

....media and politicians say, "See? His ex-mother-in-law said he was a crazy-dangerous-threat, and he was!! Good thing we passed the law....but, we really should make it even more stringent and pro-active. Maybe we can pass a law that says anyone that owns a gun is a crazy-dangerous-threat by definition, that way, we can take them all without charge or warrant!"


"Armed people cannot be disarmed, unless they agree to be."(or, want to live)
Has there ever been an armed stand-off that had a happy ending, or resulted in a positive change?

 

[Lightborne]

Part of the problem is who we have as role models, we are told what is acceptable and what is not an blindly follow the shiny pretty things. But what do I know................. back to your regular scheduled programing.

View attachment 375220

 

[Lightborne]

"Armed people cannot be disarmed, unless they agree to be."(or, want to live)
Has there ever been an armed stand-off that had a happy ending, or resulted in a positive change?

Battle of Athens (1946) - Wikipedia

 

[FordPrefect]

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.

Yes but the problem with it is that when it is presented to a judge it is done Ex Parte. Meaning if your ex-'insert whatever here' decides to get mad at you and get one of these, you will not be at the hearing. How good does that sound to you?

 

[Goosebrown]

Yes but the problem with it is that when it is presented to a judge it is done Ex Parte. Meaning if your ex-'insert whatever here' decides to get mad at you and get one of these, you will not be at the hearing. How good does that sound to you?

yes I realized that later. Ex parte makes it a deal killer. The accused should be able to present his case in person. Clearly if he's nutty that would show up.

 

[albin25]

Battle of Athens (1946) - Wikipedia

Not even remotely the same as an old guy with "nothing to lose" shooting at law enforcement because they are enforcing a judges order to "dis-arm him because he's dangerous according to a concerned family member". Perhaps if there was a politically backed and funded, large group with him, well organized in advance....but the "old guy" wouldn't even know it was coming until there was a SWAT team knocking on his door at 3:AM.
There won't be a "Battle of Walter Phinster's Bungelow (2018)" in Wikipedia...although there would be a, "Crazy Old Guy kills Cop", headline in the Portland papers.

 

[PaulB47]

....media and politici....media and politicians say, "See? His ex-mother-in-law said he was a crazy-dangerous-threat, and he was!! Good thing we passed the law....but, we really should make it even more stringent and pro-active.ans say, "See? His ex-mother-in-law said he was a crazy-dangerous-threat, and he was!! Good thing we passed the law....but, we really should make it even more stringent and pro-active.

Uh, they don't need any excuse for passing these laws. It's a mistake to base your actions on what tyrants and propagandists might think of you.

Is there any circumstance where you are prepared to say "No"? What kind of provocation does it take? Confiscating all your guns is not enough?

Once they get your guns, you no longer have any options left.

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -- Frederick Douglass

 

[Lightborne]

Not even remotely the same as an old guy with "nothing to lose" shooting at law enforcement because they are enforcing a judges order to "dis-arm him because he's dangerous according to a concerned family member". Perhaps if there was a politically backed and funded, large group with him, well organized in advance....but the "old guy" wouldn't even know it was coming until there was a SWAT team knocking on his door at 3:AM.
There won't be a "Battle of Walter Phinster's Bungelow (2018)" in Wikipedia...although there would be a, "Crazy Old Guy kills Cop", headline in the Portland papers.

Whoops, missed the first half of that post, just saw the 'armed standoff' piece. Still an interesting piece of history, but you're right, not relevant to the point you're making.

 

[PaulB47]

The start of the American Revolution, at Lexington and Concord.

Anyway, we are not just talking about armed standoffs and SWAT actions. Clearly, there are SOME people in this state who will not be disarmed, and they aren't all going to sit there waiting their turn for a visit from the neighborhood SWAT team. If people generally are being disarmed, they will act.

If that were not so, then the entire notion of RKBA is a fraud, and always was.

 

[Tully Mars]

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).




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

THIS is not the PNW of my youth
How did such a pretty state get so Fed up?

 

[Diamondback]

THIS is not the PNW of my youth
How did such a pretty state get so Fed up?

One word: "Californians."

 

[FordPrefect]

Here is a video of testimony against this steaming pile.

 

[PaulB47]

Common sense is not wanted or appreciated in the Oregon legislature. That whole den of vipers is completely illegitimate, as all tyrants are.

 

[duldej]

Apparently if the protective order is granted, then the Respondent has 30 days to petition to have the prohibition lifted, so there is some due process involved. IMO it is jumping through hoops, but not wholly unconstitutional. Not good in terms of the 2A, alone, but ok with the 14th.

 

[FordPrefect]

Apparently if the protective order is granted, then the Respondent has 30 days to petition to have the prohibition lifted, so there is some due process involved. IMO it is jumping through hoops, but not wholly unconstitutional. Not good in terms of the 2A, alone, but ok with the 14th.

Two major constitutional problems, the 4th Amendment - unreasonable search and seizure, and the 6th amendment - innocent until proven guilty.

This order is given ex parte, which per the 6th Amendment you have the right to face you accuser. I should never have to prove myself innocent from something from the state, no matter what the case. It is the state's job to prove me guilty. The way this is written is that I have to prove my innocence. That alone should be seen as unconstitutional.

 

[Howard1955]

Sure sounds like another 2A infringement. I wonder if the NRA would be willing to sue Gov. Katie in federal court? Maybe I'll ask them.

 

[Howard1955]

I talked with the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. They're watching this bill, and if it passes will consider fighting it in court.

Meantime, they're encouraging us to call the Governor and ask her to veto it. I just called, and was able to leave a (nice) message for her.

Senate Bill 719

Here's her number: 503-378-4582

 

[11Charlie]

I talked with the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. They're watching this bill, and if it passes will consider fighting it in court.

Meantime, they're encouraging us to call the Governor and ask her to veto it. I just called, and was able to leave a (nice) message for her.

Senate Bill 719

Here's her number: 503-378-4582

Good on you Howard. will they listen to a Washington resident, or did they even ask where you live?