Oregon SB719A Time to Write State Senators

[Hang-Man]

What I see happening for the most part with the average guy in Oregon when it comes to "New Laws" is they figure, "I'll just be still and quiet about this new law I Hate and Maybe it will never come to affect me" Yep, the Fly Under the Radar guys, THAT attitude Helps NO ONE refute these kind of attacks on Our Rights.

 

[PiratePast40]

As an FYI, SB719A is now in the House Rules committee. Here is the link to the committee members contact information: Oregon Legislative Information System

 

[RicInOR]

Legislator Lookup



Current amendment
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/ProposedAmendment/11157

To the subject of this protection order: An extreme risk protection order has been issued by the court and is now in effect. You are required to surrender all deadly weapons in your custody, control or possession. You may not have in your custody or control, purchase, possess, receive, or attempt to purchase or receive, deadly weapons while this order is in effect. You must, within 24 hours, surrender all deadly weapons in your custody, control or possession to (insert name of local law enforcement agency), a gun dealer or a third party who may lawfully possess the deadly weapons. You must, within 24 hours, surrender to (insert name of local law enforcement agency) any concealed handgun license issued to you. You may request a hearing to contest this order. If you do not request a hearing, the extreme risk protection order against you will be in effect for one year unless terminated by the court. You have the right to request one hearing to terminate this order during the 12 months that this order is in effect starting from the date of this order. You may seek the advice of an attorney as to any matter connected with this order.

I read this as
The Court rules against you,
Then notifies you of that - takes your weapons
Then you can request a hearing.

Is that wrong?



Since the hearing happens the day it is presented, or the next court day,
how would the respondent know and be able to present a defense?

"(6)(a) The court shall issue an extreme risk protection order if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based on the petition and supporting documentation and after considering a statement by the respondent, if provided, that the respondent presents a risk in the near future, including an imminent risk, of suicide or of causing physical injury to another person. The court may not include in the findings any mental health diagnosis or any connection between the risk presented by the respondent and mental illness. "

 

[ZigZagZeke]

What I see happening for the most part with the average guy in Oregon when it comes to "New Laws" is they figure, "I'll just be still and quiet about this new law I Hate and Maybe it will never come to affect me" Yep, the Fly Under the Radar guys, THAT attitude Helps NO ONE refute these kind of attacks on Our Rights.

I applaud your enthusiasm, but not your tactics. Typically, threats and tough talk don't do much to persuade legislators to change their minds. Demonstrating that gun people are reasonable, normal people and explaining why a piece of legislation is a bad idea does a lot more good than threats and bluster. Why? Because, quite frankly, the legislators in the Oregon legislature DO NOT answer to you. They answer to the people that elect them, the Democrats, and the money that the Democratic Party provides them. They are not afraid of you, nor are they concerned about what you think of them.

Here's a demonstration of what we here on NWFA have done (since you seem to think we haven't done anything). When a Democratic seat in the Oregon state legislature was vacated the Lane County Democratic Party was tasked with assembling a list of 3 Democratic candidates to fill the vacancy. The anti-gunner Val Hoyle was on that list. The Lane County Commissioners were tasked with picking a replacement from that list. We here on NWFA mobilized a phone and email campaign to keep Val Hoyle from being selected. We were successful in keeping Hoyle out of the state legislature. We did it by logically and politely explaining why Hoyle was unacceptable, not by threats and name calling. We sent a message to Hoyle and her friends, and we ended up with a Democrat in the seat who thinks we have "enough gun laws".

 

[Hang-Man]

Golly, I did not realize all you had Everything under control and since you know just what to say to the Fine people in salem, I'll just butt out. Good luck with your perfection.

 

[nammac]

Some posts are worthy of a "Dislike" button...

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Golly, I did not realize all you had Everything under control and since you know just what to say to the Fine people in salem, I'll just butt out. Good luck with your perfection.

Straw man arguments don't work very well either.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Golly, I did not realize all you had Everything under control and since you know just what to say to the Fine people in salem, I'll just butt out. Good luck with your perfection.

Just pointing out that your assumption that we don't do anything here was wrong.

 

[U8395279]

Some posts are worthy of a "Dislike" button...

Disliking this post here will accomplish nothing.

.

 

[U8395279]

Time to write our State Senators again:

Boquist/Burdick Gun Grab Scheduled For Vote

SB719A is a thinly veiled attempt at establishing laws allowing confiscation of firearms using the "American Veteran" as motivational fodder. You could be subject to lose our firearms if you've bought one in the last 180 days. All that would need to happen is for some person to complain they are in fear of of you, essentially.

Oregon SB719 | 2017 | Regular Session

Wow, this bill has become even worse since the initial draft. Not only must all weapons be surrendered in 24 hours, but you will have to give up your Oregon Concealed Handgun License too, if you have one. I do not recall that provision being in the original bill. So I believe that this bill has been expanded upon further by the gun control lobby since it was first introduced, and made worse.

The most ominous part of the bill that I found inside it is this provision:


(3)(a) The person filing the termination request has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent no longer presents a risk in the near future, including an imminent risk, of suicide or of causing physical injury to another person.


So folks, under this proposed law, YOU ARE CONSIDERED TO BE GUILTY, UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE THAT YOU ARE INNOCENT !!!

So if you appeal the order and request that it be terminated, all burden is then placed on you, to prove to the court that you pose no threat. Just how topsy turvy is that??? The law will consider you to be guilty, based upon a mere allegation, without any proof ever being required. And it will then be up to you, to convince the court that you are innocent of the allegations, and pose no danger.

This bill is totally crazy, and goes against the very fundamental concepts of justice that our nation was founded on.

This bill would usurp the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution, in my opinion. For you are initially found guilty without any trial, or ability to confront witnesses or evidence in court. And if you should appeal, all burden is then placed on you, to prove to the court that you are innocent.

If this bill becomes law, I can see the gun rights of many men being easily abused. All you will need to have is a relative that is angry at you, or a vindictive ex-spouse. And with the power of this law, they will be able to easily initiate a witch hunt against you.

.

 

[Urgaburga]

1st Item-- writing letters with an extreme reverence toward the so called law makers, Has to STOP, Lay it out to the anuses the way You want them to Hear it and Know it, that means Stiff, rough language, threats, NO, but make them Fear for their livelyhood first, Let them KNOW they are about to start a war with their Treatment of US as Subjects which we are NOT as that is what the Britts became when they took their Guns Guts And Manhood. Remind those in the Capital, THEY WORK FOR US and they had better start, the ELITE BS is Not going to keep working for them.

Let them KNOW if they take from US, that WE WILL Take from them.

Maybe in the original 13 colonies. Oregon was British until 1849 and was given away when the 39th parallel was drawn up, and through democratic process not force. h
Hell the Brits won most of the battles in the Revolutionary war too!

We stole rest from Mexico and the natives.

I don't believe American's will ever take up arms against government ever again. Politicians aren't afraid of the people until election time and they win us over with promises everytime. So as wonderful as it sounded as you typed that statement it's really no more truthful than anything that comes out of Trump's or Clinton's mouth.

Trump and Clinton will always have their immovable base supporters in whose eyes neither can do no wrong and will always support their leader!

The best we can do it be nice to each other (it costs nothing) and welcome people into our sport and hobby with open and welcoming arms.

 

[N Monty]

This bill is totally crazy, and goes against the very fundamental concepts of justice that our nation was founded on.

This bill would usurp the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution, in my opinion. For you are initially found guilty without any trial, or ability to confront witnesses or evidence in court. And if you should appeal, all burden is then placed on you, to prove to the court that you are innocent.

It's flagrantly, unabashedly against one of our country's core principles: innocent until proven guilty.

If passed, one can hope that it will be struck down as unconstitutional, because it clearly is, but any politician who is willing to throw our Constitution in the trash to push their agenda does not belong in the legislature.

Be it the right to bear arms, the right to be free from domestic surveillance, the right to speak and believe what you want without fear of government oppression- if a politician wants to act against the Bill of Rights, they deserve no place in our government.

 

[Urgaburga]

It's flagrantly, unabashedly against one of our country's core principles: innocent until proven guilty.

If passed, one can hope that it will be struck down as unconstitutional, because it clearly is, but any politician who is willing to throw our Constitution in the trash to push their agenda does not belong in the legislature.

Be it the right to bear arms, the right to be free from domestic surveillance, the right to speak and believe what you want without fear of government oppression- if a politician wants to act against the Bill of Rights, they deserve no place in our government.

This is too funny.

On one forum, yesterday, I was having a discussion with people who were talking all kinds of trash about Trump supporters. I tried to explain to these leftists that if they didn't like the way the Right had treated them for the last eight years, the solution would not be to point fingers and call names about Trump. They were spewing all kinds of drivel about "Trump supporters being fascists" and all this stuff. And I was the "fascist, anti-government, pro-corporate Republican shill" in that thread.

Now, on this forum, I'm arguing against advocating direct violence to politicians on the left side of the aisle, and now, I am the "Statist LIBERAL democRAT that can NOT be trusted."

Goodness gracious. No wonder this country has problems. We need to work on bringing people together. Having discussions.

Two "teams" with highly polarized opinions, who both believe their view is 100% the truth, locked in an vitriolic battle to the death isn't going to fix anything. And boy oh boy, do we have problems. We have people going hungry, crumbling infrastructure, outsourced jobs, stagnant wages, unlimited money in politics- and the wealthiest among us are making away with 99% of the cake.

But don't take my word for it. You can't trust me. I am a "Anti-Government-Pro-Corporate-Statist-Liberal-Fascist-Republican-Democrat-Shill," after all.

There's little difference between the extremes on either side. The only difference is that the bubblegum they sling is moving in the opposite direction.

Their candidate of choice could burn a baby at the stake and still their support would not waver, such people are not worth arguing with.

To be on point this bill can and will be abused by disgruntled family and co workers be they Republican or Democrat and is wrong in every sense of the word.

 

[Hang-Man]

This Bill 719 Easily has the potential to START A CIVIL WAR.

 

[Partsproduction]

I see no alternative other than to buy property in Idaho and take all my second amendment protected weapons there. My wife and I have been trying to move to the closest state to her relatives which also venerates the Constitution for years now as oregon becomes more and more antithetical to the enjoyment of freedom.

You are all correct, liberals treat their Subjects as criminals before any crime. oregon is very liberal.

I learned at an early age (Reading cast off American Rifleman magazines my neighbor threw out) that I love the framers of this country, their collective ambition was to form a state with built in protections against tyranny, and their ideas gathered together in one document are beautiful.

democrats don't see the Constitution the same way we do, they never will. The framers believed in putting faith in God, instead of a phony god called government. liberals (so called) do not believe anything or anyone is greater than whatever they call government at any given moment. They think they are god!

Staying in oregon almost adds up to the acceptance of the worship of an ugly idol.

They are heating up the water that the frog is swimming in. Not being a frog, I'm getting out, they can have their demon god socialist government.

Wow, I could have my guns stolen away for talking like that!

Fear God or fear man. Our rights came from God, not man. America was formed so people could worship the God of the bible instead of the one the English made up, nothing has really changed in 240 years. Mankind is still corrupt.

 

[N Monty]

The framers believed in putting faith in God.

I dislike this legislation as much as anyone, but I also dislike misinformation. The framers did not believe in putting faith in God. Our constitution has a Separation Clause for a reason.

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
—John Adams

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
—Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
–James Madison, letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774

"...this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."
– John Adams
​

I've got no problem with people believing what they want to believe, but don't mingle that up with my government, and don't mess with my firearms. Thanks!

​

 

[Partsproduction]

There is a lot of mis information out there for people who don't want to accept the truth. The majority of the founders were believers. The bill of rights reflects that, and the Constitution starts with Endowed by their Creator".
So, believe what you want, it doesn't change the facts, only one or two were "iffy" about this, but even Jefferson was more believer than atheist. The so called "Wall of separation" was concerned with government not telling the churches what to say, not the other way around.
A quote from your John Adams;
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.1

Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.2

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.3

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!"
And;
"I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world."

But maybe you meant John Quincy Adams?
"My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God."

Or was it Samuel Adams?
"The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made "bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God" [Isaiah 52:10].7

In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"

Please believe me, I could do this literally all day. The pilgrims left the old world so they could worship according to their understanding of the bible. That's a fact. But in the nation framed by these believers you have the right to believe whatever you wish, these Christian brothers believed in Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

 

[Partsproduction]

To the moderator,
My lengthy defense of our founding fathers was only in response to an attack by another member. My original post was intended to show that oregon's so called liberals are erecting a new state religion, themselves. My post was only to show it up for what it is.

 

[N Monty]

My original post was intended to show that oregon's so called liberals are erecting a new state religion, themselves.

Sorry Partsproduction, but there is no state religion. I don't believe that pointing this out constitutes an attack.

The First Amendment guarantees both the free practice of religion and the non-establishment of religion by the federal government (later court decisions have extended that prohibition to the states).
​

If you're suggesting that there should be a state religion... Well, now I'm worried that I've got two groups trying to Tread On Me!

 

[Wombat of Doom]

I dislike this legislation as much as anyone, but I also dislike misinformation. The framers did not believe in putting faith in God. Our constitution has a Separation Clause for a reason.

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
—John Adams

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
—Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
–James Madison, letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774

"...this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."
– John Adams
​

I've got no problem with people believing what they want to believe, but don't mingle that up with my government, and don't mess with my firearms. Thanks!

​

Cherry picked, I could easily find as many references where they said the opposite.

Also, the constitution does NOT have a separation clause. It doesn't exist. It states that Congress can neither set up a state religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

But if you read the US constitution you will not find a separation clause at all. Also, I think it fair to state that atheism is in fact a fundamentalist religion these days.