Oregon First Anti Gun Bill Gets Hearing (HB 4145)

[Chee-to]

Oregon's Only No Compromise Gun Rights Organization
View attachment 426712
First Anti Gun Bill Gets Hearing
1.31.18
The House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for HB 4145 on Feb 7 at 1pm in Hearing Room 50. This is the bill Kate Brown requested to repay Michael Bloomberg for the $250,000.00 dollars he sent her.
The bill is intended to strip rights away from even more gun owners who have never been convicted of a crime. To read more and take action click here.




View attachment 426713
View attachment 426714
Oregon Firearms Federation, Box 556, Canby, OR 97013
SafeUnsubscribe™ [email protected]
Forward this email | Update Profile | About our service provider
Sent by [email protected] in collaboration with

Try it free today

Read More

 

[GOG]

Done.

 

[bbbass]

#metoo

 

[Aero Denezol]

#methree

 

[bbbass]

We're on a gov list now, boy Howdy!

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

Shist list or not, done!

 

[Mistman]

Were on a gov list now, boy Howdy!

Yeah, but if they wanna look you've been on it for a while!

I added this:

Due process is a guaranteed right!

An accusation w/out substance or merit, or w/intent to harm cannot be construed as justifiable and will cause the accused to be victimized by the courts. These accusations cannot be levied, with real actions that carry consequences, at individuals who are not allowed defense on their own behalf.

The burden MUST be on the accuser to show proof of intent not on the accused to defend himself against spurious challenges to his character.

Due process IS the LAW and must not be subverted!

The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Done.

 

[Legs]

#Done....

 

[Connor Murphy]

Yeah, but if they wanna look you've been on it for a while!

I added this:

Due process is a guaranteed right!

An accusation w/out substance or merit, or w/intent to harm cannot be construed as justifiable and will cause the accused to be victimized by the courts. These accusations cannot be levied, with real actions that carry consequences, at individuals who are not allowed defense on their own behalf.

The burden MUST be on the accuser to show proof of intent not on the accused to defend himself against spurious challenges to his character.

Due process IS the LAW and must not be subverted!

The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Well said.

 

[jp1985]

Done!

 

[Benzito]

This is bad, but (a) not nearly as bad as you may think and (b) somewhat of a distraction from the real laws and policies that impact gun ownership and possession. I know this because I am a family law attorney and restraining orders / protective orders unfortunately come up quite often.

Under current law:

1. If a restraining order is issued, there is a restriction on possession of guns and ammunition. That applies as long as the RO is effective - usually one year, but possibly longer if a renewal is granted. That applies even if the RO was not contested in the first place, when the defendant received notice, or when it came up for renewal. If the RO is withdrawn by the person who asked for it, is vacated after a hearing, or expires, the firearms restriction is also terminated.

2. If a non-criminal RO is issued and it is contested and it remains in effect after the hearing (because the defendant lost), then the restrictions may be much longer term. Even if the RO expires or is vacated later, there is a risk that a criminal complaint will follow if the RO is upheld. With criminal charges, a single conviction means you're done, regardless of the severity (a misdemeanor, which is the lowest charge, still carries permanent restrictions). This is true even if the incident was, in the grand scheme of things, relatively minor, or the defendant was rehabilitated or the "victim" recanted his or her story.

By the way, that is federal law and has nothing to do with Oregon and the trend towards more gun regulation. Because of this federal law, many defendants opt not to challenge a RO application - even one that they are confident could be vacated - because they worry that a "try and fail" means a permanent loss of their gun rights.

If the proposed new law gos into effect as written, it clarifies what already happens under the first scenario and doesn't change what happens in the second scenario.

What some counties are doing is requiring the defendant to either physically turn in their firearms to the Sheriff or find a third party non-household member to swear that the firearms will be held by that third party while the RO is effective. Law enforcement doesn't (and I don't think ever) go on "gun raids" to make sure that a defendant complied . . . but things certainly may change with more record keeping and registration and presumably an easier way to verify what is turned in matches what has been registered. Again, that isn't anything changed by this proposed new law.

What does change / expand:

1. By my read, the new law allows the same restrictions to roommates who commit some sort of domestic violence and defendants who commit an act of stalking (think of harassment or threats that do not rise to the level of "violence" or "abuse"). Currently, you have to be family member, a boyfriend / girlfriend, former partner (not just a roommate).

2. Consistent with what I described about record keeping and registration and current background check regulations, an attempt to acquire a firearm will be reported and could cause more problems for the defendant. Frankly, this is probably not a real issue because people with an active RO against them probably aren't dumb enough to try to buy a gun from a dealer (especially if they intend to harm the victim).

* These are just my observations and initial thoughts about this new legislation. None of this should be taken as legal advice pertaining to you, your family, or "I have this friend who . . ." hypotheticals.

If you want an official legal opinion if you find yourself in such a situation, you can reach out to me or call an attorney!

 

[Mistman]

Thanks very much for the clarification. It does take someone who actually knows the law as written to understand what's to be changed or clarified within existing laws if a bill were to pass. As a layman, I personally don't have that knowledge and appreciate the insight.

 

[GlockFan1990]

Done...

 

[DuneHopper]

As much as I oppose this legislation 100%, everyone needs to take a deep breath as knowledge wont help this not pass. And writing, or Rallies won't do anything. Not sure why everyone buys into the same ole same ole story every year. Lobbyist tell you here is the horrible law proposed and then zero bumpkiss is done to stop or slow down legislation. All these new laws do is fill the pockets of lobbyists who claim they are fighting, yet every year same ole same ole we wont comply the laws pass and everyone complies.
This has serious implications if passed and abuse will be so common place its ridiculous. But hey lets write those mean people in Salem I am sure after some hard core angry letters and everyone renewing their lobby dues the Liberals will turn coat and run in fear.... Not. Actually nothing will change at all , not as long as the same old lets rally and not comply BS is the way. Because after all no guns laws have passed in Oregon the last 20 years with all that lobby money we are throwing our cash at right? In fact near every gun law proposed the last 20 years has passed and stayed passed, and not one petition has passed. But hey lets all think we are not complying.... yea we are. The saying should not be we wont comply, its should say " We Won't Comply Much " Oregons only organization that complies every year all why saying they won't .
Now there are many lobbies so not going to name names here.

Compliance = a disposition or tendency to yield to the will of others
the act of submitting; surrendering power to another.
By standing by every year and stopping nothing this is compliance. The true means one will not bend no matter what and the last 20 years laws pass, everyone packs up their bags goes home and every person complies to the new laws. In fact Gun forums will insist you do not discuss way to circumvent these new laws and lobbys back that up by not encouraging others to not comply. When our fore-fathers were told to comply they did not and not just with words thank God with actions, 20 years of laws passing and doing nothing but talk is compliance.
This country is free because men stood and would not comply.
Far be it for me to suggest anyone not follow the law, but I am also not leading a charge for a cost, and then seeing it end the same each year.

Just take a look at any police show, or even daytime court shows people file false or fake RS's all the time, with these added addictions it will be way way worse.

My Two Cents.

 

[jp1985]

Anyone else get a reply today?

Thank you for sharing your concern about HB 4145 which relates to firearms. I will pass this information on to Representative Sprenger.

I am attaching a link to the HB 4145 so that you can watch its progress during Session. HB4145 2018 Regular Session - Oregon Legislative Information System

If you have any further comments or concerns, please contact us at: [email protected] or 503-986-1417.

Sincerely,
Taylor Dick
Representative Sherrie Sprenger

 

[nwslopoke]

Just received this reply,

Joseph:

Thank you for sharing you concern about HB 4145 which relates to firearms. I will pass this information on to Representative Sprenger.

I am attaching a link to the HB 4145 so that you can watch its progress during Session. HB4145 2018 Regular Session - Oregon Legislative Information System

If you have any further comments or concerns, please contact us at: [email protected] or 503-986-1417.

Sincerely,
Taylor Dick
Representative Sherrie Sprenger



Dear Representative,

HB 4145 punishes people for complying with restraining orders. As you know, these orders are often used as weapons in domestic disputes. Frequently the accused has done nothing wrong but the court issues an order based on the unproven testimony of an accuser. I urge you not to support any language that allows a person to lose their rights simply because they chose NOT to contest one of these orders.

We are American citizens. Our rights may be an inconvenience for the government however our rights are in place and must be respected.

Chipping away at individual protections because it is the flavor of the day is not the American way. Or is it? As a veteran I took an oath to protect constitutional rights and so did our lawmakers. Please continue to do so.

I am taking the day off to possibly attend because I realize Everytown/Blumberg will be their in force taking up every seat. But I also don't want to go and stand in the hall like I ended up doing last time. If you see a guy with a Raiders cap and a scowl, it's not Ice Cube. It's probably me. Say hello.

 

[teflon6string]

Done.

 

[greghaz]

Did my bit.

 

[LuckySG]

done