JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
It's an easy test, really. Are any other constitutionally protected rights affected in this manner? If no, then the law is unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment is not a second class right.
 
It's an easy test, really. Are any other constitutionally protected rights affected in this manner? If no, then the law is unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment is not a second class right.
I'm no constitutional lawyer, but from my lay perspective, it seems that there is some, uh, creative flexibility in the 1st, 4th and 8th amendments. Just as we see states putting limitations on the 2nd.
 
I'm no constitutional lawyer, but from my lay perspective, it seems that there is some, uh, creative flexibility in the 1st, 4th and 8th amendments. Just as we see states putting limitations on the 2nd.
Like what? There are laws that forbid you to speak if you have a misdemeanor or even a restraining order on your record? Is there a law that says the government can search and seize your stuff without a warrant? Is there a law that says bail is contingent upon any domestic allegations? Really?
 
Like what? There are laws that forbid you to speak if you have a misdemeanor or even a restraining order on your record? Is there a law that says the government can search and seize your stuff without a warrant? Is there a law that says bail is contingent upon any domestic allegations? Really?
1A: Hate speech can be criminalized if it targets a specific person or group. And, you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.
4A: Tell me that police don't blur this line occasionally.
8A: Some states have outlawed the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment, but others still allow it.
 
1A: Hate speech can be criminalized if it targets a specific person or group. And, you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.
4A: Tell me that police don't blur this line occasionally.
8A: Some states have outlawed the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment, but others still allow it.
Those are not the same.
 
Me too, and here it is:
Having been falsely red flagged it was extremely disappointing that the ex who accused me only faced the repercussions of paying the attorney fees, in $$ installments. I missed Christmas with my kid and ~13 days of time but restraining order court is not family court, so there is nothing to be done about lost time there. Separate courts, separate lawyer fees too, $$$$ needed to be taken unexpectedly from savings for retainer. Hours will depend on your case and how strong your ability to prove your own innocence is. Vindictive ex's will use this loophole and they have as I can attest to. It just takes a few choice framed words (with a topping of complete lies) to get it granted. In response when I got my chance after over a week of waiting it took 3 minutes of recording (out of ~8 minutes total) to disprove the hours of false witness and testimony in court. Would I want something potentially horrible happening if I was in the judges position? Of course not and I may have made the same decision as the judge did. The problem is that your are judged in absentia. The process itself is absolutely broken, unconstitutional, and worse completely fails to achieve its stated goals. Give 24 hours to stand in front of a judge and plead your case. How does giving a 48 hour window to notify the court you have transferred your firearms keep anyone safe? If I wasn't as blessed and with as strong support network as I have, I would have lost significantly more than my 2A and Christmas. I'll hope that no one else has to suffer such madness.

P.S. Record every encounter with an ex. Cell phone in pocket. Bring a friend if you want to be extra entirely compliant to the law on the recording you are making of picking up your child during a scheduled exchange.
Also record every phone call and save every text. In Oregon only one party has to know a phone conversation is being recorded for it to be admissible in court. There are cell phone apps that do work.

With an Ex that has no problem lying and is very good at it I know the incredible frustration and the courts do seem to favor women. But take heart, treachery has a way of catching up with a person. My daughter turned 18 on Nov 7th of last year. Today was the first time she saw her mom since her birthday and it was to retrieve her stuff from her mothers house with 6 of her friends and her half sister who will no longer talk to her mom either. I stayed outside and hauled stuff to the truck and coordinated. It took an hour and fifteen minutes with a planned strategic retreat at the end making sure to leave no bodies behind... the operation would have made seal team 6 proud! During the move my Ex was doing her best to start a fight with me and I just agreed with every nasty comment she said about me which completely took her off guard. My daughter and her half sister where smiling as they watched their mom dumbfounded when I agreed with everything she said leaving her speechless. My self appointed job was to take the grief and make sure she wasn't able to corner either daughter to unload on them.

I have been divorced for 14 years and the best revenge is being a great dad and letting the children figure out what is what themselves. That and a good counselor for the children to help them sort things out with a uninfluenced third party. My daughter and I have a great relationship and I get along very well with my step daughter too. Neither want to have anything to do with their mother. My daughter has great support from a good counselor, her friends and teachers / counselors at school who all encouraged her to cut off ties with her mom... especially her older half sister who cut off all contact a couple years ago. I didn't leave it to my daughters support network to developing on its own, I had a very active hand in making it happen, especially at school and with the counselor.

I know it is a very frustrating road but don't loose heart! Concentrate on being the best parent YOU can be!
 
Last Edited:
I believe that the result of the USSC refusing to take up the appeal means that this ruling applies only to that particular Circuit. The 9th Circuit is certain not to follow, so for us it is an interesting development that does not affect us directly.

If more circuits follow this ruling in making their own decisions, the issue may become a nation-wide one. For the time being, it isn't.

It is too bad that a majority of Circuits agreeing on an issue doesn't make mandatory that all Circuits follow that opinion. As long as the USSC can take up the issue and overturn it, that would allow strict interpretation of the Constitution to spread rapidly.

I, for one, would love to see the 9th Circuit dragged, kicking and screaming, out of their liberal/progressive totalitarian bubble by the more objective Circuits.
 
I would support a red flag law if it was an actual psychiatrist making the decision and it should have to be at least two coming to the same conclusion. Otherwise it's too rife with people who will abuse it. You don't want your rights taken away by someone who has a vendetta against you and just makes a report and then they take it without any fair trial.
I don't trust medical doctors to make decisions affecting my legal rights. Wrong kind of authority. Besides, who's going to hear you out once you've been labeled a danger to yourself and or others, or are otherwise red-flagged? You'd be asking to have your right to due process trampled upon.
 
I have been divorced for 14 years and the best revenge is being a great dad and letting the children figure out what is what themselves. That and a good counselor for the children to help them sort things out with a uninfluenced third party. My daughter and I have a great relationship and I get along very well with my step daughter too. Neither want to have anything to do with their mother. My daughter has great support from a good counselor, her friends and teachers / counselors at school who all encouraged her to cut off ties with her mom... especially her older half sister who cut off all contact a couple years ago. I didn't leave it to my daughters support network to developing on its own, I had a very active hand in making it happen, especially at school and with the counselor.
Ditto - except I have been divorced for over 30 years and have not had contact with ex for 10+ years. Neither has my daughter who is even more strongly opposed to any contact with her mother. I feel sorry for my ex, but she brought this upon herself.

She is exactly the kind of person who would, if she could, and if she thought enough about it, try to red flag me - extremely vindictive and she blames everybody else for her lot in life - especially me.

Which is one reason why I want no contact with her - she has more than once tried to contact other family members and rant about me. Fortunately it is very easy to see thru her rants, and when no one believes her or will engage with her, she turns toxic against them (it is like a light switch, one moment fawning, the next virulently toxic).
 
It's an easy test, really. Are any other constitutionally protected rights affected in this manner? If no, then the law is unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment is not a second class right.
A pile of states don't let ex-felons vote. I'd start there In arguing about restoring rights.

That test doesn't have an easy answer if we recognize that no fundamental right is absolute.
 
A pile of states don't let ex-felons vote. I'd start there In arguing about restoring rights.
I would have no issue with that, but since this is a gun rights forum...

That test doesn't have an easy answer if we recognize that no fundamental right is absolute.
But they are absolute. The only time there is an issue is when those rights are in conflict with each other.
 
I would have no issue with that, but since this is a gun rights forum...


But they are absolute. The only time there is an issue is when those rights are in conflict with each other.
Not to be disagreeable or disrespectful, but a fair bit of Supreme Court effort has gone into defining and explaining just how the Constitutional rights set forth in the Amendments are not absolute. People lose sight of the fact that even if framers did more than any government in history to protect individual rights those rights still do not exceed the rights of the state to limit those rights in some circumstances.

From the Wikipedia, as the easiest source for a quick definition of "strict scrutiny":

In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutinystandard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that compelling purpose, and that it uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve that purpose….
 
Last Edited:
Not to be disagreeable or disrespectful, but a fair bit of Supreme Court effort has gone into defining and explaining just how the Constitutional rights set forth in the Amendments are not absolute. People lose sight of the fact that even if framers did more than any government in history to protect individual rights those rights still do not exceed the rights of the state to limit those rights in some circumstances.

From the Wikipedia, as the easiest source for a quick definition of "strict scrutiny":

In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutinystandard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that compelling purpose, and that it uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve that purpose….
Yes, exactly. The highest possible scrutiny. The law is patently invalid otherwise. At least you didn't bring up the "you can't yell fire in a theater" myth.
 
I would support a red flag law if it was an actual psychiatrist making the decision and it should have to be at least two coming to the same conclusion. Otherwise it's too rife with people who will abuse it. You don't want your rights taken away by someone who has a vendetta against you and just makes a report and then they take it without any fair trial.
If you support red flag laws, you are for guilty until proven innocent.

I know dozens of psychiatrists. as their coworker.and there is no way in hell I would support a red flag law that does this. Psychiatrists have no super powers. Also violence prediction is almost impossible unless the person has a history of violence. You are supporting an unelected priesthood to determine people's rights. Psychiatrists are normal people and studies have shown, not particularly good at predicting violence.

Psychiatrists play the CYA game to avoid being sued, which means they in general would rubber stamp these things to avoid potential lawsuits. That is how the game is played.
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

Back Top