Oregonian "fact checking" gun control...

[Koda]

The Oregonian published an article today supposedly "fact checking" the claims of gun rights activists.
Fact check: Did Kate Brown really sign a gun confiscation bill?

Some sites, including 2ANews and Silence is Consent, have said no evidence is required to obtain an extreme risk protection order. That's not true. According to the statute, an order will only be issued if there is clear and convincing evidence that the subject "presents a risk in the near future, including an imminent risk, of suicide or of causing physical injury to another person."

...but does not show where in the text of the law any definition for "clear and convincing evidence" nor does the article, or law, address any due process requirement.

see for yourself here: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB719

Read More

 

[Misteramax]

Exactly. Just more poop spewing from these people. Read the bill. If someone still doesn't think it's lacking due process, go move to China.

 

[nammac]

The Oregonian isn't even worthy of being a fish wrapper... Just a liberal newspaper advancing a liberal agenda...

It's feeling like Germany 1939, just waiting for the "brown shirts"...

 

[etrain16]

Honestly, I'm surprised they're still in business. Seems the only folks that still get their paper are the older folks that don't have internet access - like my in-laws - they refuse to get a computer - my MIL can use them just fine, but she hates them. So, they get the Oregonian for part of their news - and complain about it all the time.

A few months ago, I was informed by the Oregonian that I would be receiving their rag for free for a year - aren't I so excited to receive this amazing benefit!? I had to waste my time calling them to stop sending me their paper - then I went out and ripped the newspaper box off the post to make sure they wouldn't try it again. Sheesh, they can't even get folks like me to take it for free!

 

[Stomper]

Has anyone actually seen a physical copy of the Oregonian "fish-wrapper" lately? I haven't looked for one or even seen one in YEARS, until I saw a small stack of them last Monday sitting on a lobby table in a Hotel by PDX. It's a shadow of its former self.

It was about the physical size and format of those tabloid "newspapers" you see at the checkout stands in the grocery stores. A two-fold format instead of the old 4-fold format where you unfolded the thing and went through all the ad inserts, then opened the pages.

I used to work at the Oregonian production/printing plant over by the soccer stadium (whatever they hell they're calling it now) many years ago which is closed down and for sale (if not already sold). They sub-contract and have some other smaller printing company print their tripe now.

I took a bit of pleasure out of seeing their fate.

 

[41mag]

I've read the bill a couple of times.

As far as I can tell (NOT a lawyer of course) the bill defines itself as being 'due process'. Maybe I'm wrong, it seems at considerable odds with any number of the basic 10 'Bill of Compromised Former Civil Rights'.....

 

[Cosmic Osmo]

"Clear and convincing evidence" is an established legal standard, which is why the bill doesn't define it. It's the second-highest level of burden of proof, behind "beyond a reasonable doubt." Do you expect every law that defines criminal acts to contain its own definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt?"

This entire thread is intellectually dishonest. If you want to effectively oppose the law, use GOOD arguments to do it, not bad ones. An example of a good argument would be that showing up unannounced at the door of an unstable person to take their stuff isn't actually going to produce good outcomes. The OP's argument, and the one the Oregonian rightfully debunks, arises only from ignorance of things well known by every sophomore pre-law student, everywhere.

I'm on your side here, which is why it's important to me not only that you fight this law, but that you do so in a way that is effective, factually correct, and morally unassailable.

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

"

I'm on your side here, which is why it's important to me not only that you fight this law, but that you do so in a way that is effective, factually correct, and morally unassailable.

yeah sure, conservatives must be factual the rest of the country can claim the russians did it and everyone gets on board ....this is a steam roller law like everything else going on in this country ...get on board or we will riot and crush you.......

to stop suicides! the liberals wanted and got assisted suicide in Oregon!!!

the American flag needs to be flown upside down

 

[Sgt Nambu]

Exactly. Just more poop spewing from these people. Read the bill. If someone still doesn't think it's lacking due process, go move to China.

China likely has better due process than Oregon these days!

Well, prolly not!

 

[Koda]

"Clear and convincing evidence" is an established legal standard, which is why the bill doesn't define it. It's the second-highest level of burden of proof, behind "beyond a reasonable doubt." Do you expect every law that defines criminal acts to contain its own definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt?"

This entire thread is intellectually dishonest. If you want to effectively oppose the law, use GOOD arguments to do it, not bad ones. An example of a good argument would be that showing up unannounced at the door of an unstable person to take their stuff isn't actually going to produce good outcomes. The OP's argument, and the one the Oregonian rightfully debunks, arises only from ignorance of things well known by every sophomore pre-law student, everywhere.

I'm on your side here, which is why it's important to me not only that you fight this law, but that you do so in a way that is effective, factually correct, and morally unassailable.

Ok, Im listening...

If "Clear and convincing evidence" is an established legal standard, can it legally apply without due process? Thus isnt just a restraining order this is about removing someones constitutional right ex-parte without due process... Which I brought up in my OP.

 

[GOG]

Another shining example of fearless fact finding and reporting.

Yeah, like that's gonna' happen.

 

[thorborg]

Soon as I read "Oregonian" I didn't bother to click on the link.
The last credible newspaper available in the Portland metro area was the Journal.
Long gone and lamented by me.

 

[bbbass]

"Clear and convincing evidence"... As determined by a liberal judge. And regardless likely err on the side of caution for safety. During which the accused is not allowed to be present at the hearing, not allowed to confront his accusers, not allowed to present evidence on his own behalf... until the taking of his firearms is already a fait acompli... what could go wrong?

Is it any wonder that there is a feeling of breach of trust for this law????????

 

[Sstrand]

bbbass
Of course THAT is the purpose of the way the law is designed to work.
The idea is that someone will violently object to the confiscation of his firearms with fatal results. NOW liberals (spelled democrats) have reason to put more and more restrictions on firearms ownership because, "It has been demonstrated the general population is not to be trusted with weapons!"

Sheldon

 

[mrblond]

The Oregonian isn't even worthy of being a fish wrapper... Just a liberal newspaper advancing a liberal agenda...

It's feeling like Germany 1939, just waiting for the "brown shirts"...

The brownshirts are here already bro, they are called Antifa.

 

[308]

Has anyone actually seen a physical copy of the Oregonian "fish-wrapper" lately?

I think they try to give them away to people nowadays. I could use a few copies since our 6-kittens are in the midst of their potty training...and have accidents.