JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Im sure none of us have all the facts and Im not sure the fine details matter all that much to me. Rights appear to have been violated. From the news artical
"As of Friday, no criminal charges have been filed, and deputies said they have not uncovered any specific threats towards the school or students"
If what you are saying is true, do we know the parents didnt take proper steps to see that the boy didnt have access to the firearms after proving to be untrustworthy?
Also from the artical "Officials said the firearms seized were all stored in safes inside the home"
Do we know that the ammo had even belonged to the parents?
Im just going off the article. No matter how you slice it, these red flags are a very slippery slope and are being abused.
This is what I found out this morning.
So if they got the safe after the kid got the gun last time .
Ok good for them but even after that the kid still has access to ammo and is bringing it to school .
They will have problems.
I don't have all the facts myself but you can't just brush it off.
As kids doing stupid stuff .
The local police department said they were at this house after the kid fired the gun in the house.
But they didn't take the guns then.
Now the same kid is bringing ammo to school.
Something is not right in that house.
That's all I'm saying
 
It is curious what 5 teenagers were planning on doing with reportedly 200 rounds of ammunition.

I didn't read in the article what caliber it was. Was it 5 boxes of 40 pieces of .22lr? Was it 10 boxes of 20 pieces of .223, etc.

As a teen who had plenty of access, I never saw the purpose of taking ammunition anywhere unless it was accompanied with the gun it was going to be shot in.

I also vehemently oppose the idea of my property being taken without charges. Things might get interesting.
 
It is curious what 5 teenagers were planning on doing with reportedly 200 rounds of ammunition.

I didn't read in the article what caliber it was. Was it 5 boxes of 40 pieces of .22lr? Was it 10 boxes of 20 pieces of .223, etc.

As a teen who had plenty of access, I never saw the purpose of taking ammunition anywhere unless it was accompanied with the gun it was going to be shot in.

I also vehemently oppose the idea of my property being taken without charges. Things might get interesting.
They didn't say what kind of ammo.
They just say it was 200 rounds
 
Legal mumbojumbo. Documents say "all firearms possessed by xyz..."

XyZ holds no ownership of firearms, trust does. Trust documents are in safe, safe is not opened as trust is not mentioned by name.

bubblegumem
I wouldn't open bubblegum without our attorney present just like when I was accused of beating my child with a 2x4 by an estranged child's mother. All fabricated bullbubblegum. If attorney on retainer says "yup, this covers trust.." then I'd open if he says "you are clear" I'd give the middle finger.

Yes. Wife and I have attorney on retainer.

Are Trust documents ever recorded publicly?

Occasionally Divorce or Bankruptcy decrees are recorded publicly laying bare to the world the parties entire firearms collection. Friends of ours had to Chapter 7 after the 2008 bust and their BK Trustee made them sell or "Buy Back" all of their firearms except the one pistol and one long gun excluded by Oregon law.

Would a Firearms Trust have protected their guns in that instance?
 
Are Trust documents ever recorded publicly?

Occasionally Divorce or Bankruptcy decrees are recorded publicly laying bare to the world the parties entire firearms collection. Friends of ours had to Chapter 7 after the 2008 bust and their BK Trustee made them sell or "Buy Back" all of their firearms except the one pistol and one long gun excluded by Oregon law.

Would a Firearms Trust have protected their guns in that instance?
Sounds like they shouldn't have had that trustee in the trust.
 

Well there we go.....

If you have "Problem" children due to no fault of your own. And/or, you have been a lousy parent and your offspring are "Problem" children. I believe that you shouldn't have guns in your home. It would really suck for people who, through no fault of their own, had children like this to not have the right to keep and bear arms, but he responsibility is the parents.

It would appear that an ERPO worked the way it's supposed to in this case??
 
You all need to get the facts before you take these people side.
I don't like the red flag laws.
But this is not the first time with this family.
Last month the kid got one of his dad's guns .
Loaded it and shot it inside his house .
Just because he wanted to shoot the gun.
Before that the other kid a girl was in trouble for posting online and telling other kids at school that she was going to kill them .
This family has a history of problems with the kids.

These facts don't make the ERPO Constitutional, they just make the Constitutional violation more easily swallowed.
 
Sounds like they shouldn't have had that trustee in the trust.
He means the trustee who is appointed by the bankruptcy court to administer the bankruptcy estate (everything the person filing bankruptcy owns) There was apparently no trust established by the debtor.
If there was a trust and the person filing bankruptcy was not the only beneficiary then I would expect it would give the debtor's bankruptcy attorney decent grounds for avoiding the sell off of trust assets. I don't practice bankruptcy law and would find a bankruptcy lawyer if I ever found myself in that situation.
 
Even if that family had issues, it violates due process to go desire the parents' constitutionally-protected self defense article s without giving them a chance to argue their side of the story to the judge.
 
These facts don't make the ERPO Constitutional, they just make the Constitutional violation more easily swallowed.
Even if that family had issues, it violates due process to go desire the parents' constitutionally-protected self defense article s without giving them a chance to argue their side of the story to the judge.


When one of these children takes the gun to school and shoots your kids/grand kids/friends and neighbors kid and you find out there was a trail of behavior predicting this sort of thing was likely to happen, will you still stand up for the "Parents" right to keep and bear arms?

They way I see it those so-called parents should have done the responsible thing and get rid of the guns from their home. Maybe a gun safe is enough. Maybe it isn't.

Oh, their case will be heard by a judge. In one year. Here's hoping they don't have to refi their home to have a judge hear them, and they get the guns back. Provided, of course, that the kids don't keep doing wacked out crap.
 
If the police have reason to think one of the kids might conduct near term violence with a handgun they can conduct a Terry frisk when the kid enters school grounds. Not raid the parents' house and seize their firearms from locked safes without due process. There are ways to thwart potential violent crime without trampling constitutional rights. The constitution does make it more difficult to carry out good police work than in totalitarian countries, but not impossible. "You wouldn't like it if your family was shot to death" is the same emotionally-driven argument the antis use to argue that nobody should have any freedoms, to own guns, to live as they choose, etc. There are ways to address the risk short of raiding houses without due process.
 
When one of these children takes the gun to school and shoots your kids/grand kids/friends and neighbors kid and you find out there was a trail of behavior predicting this sort of thing was likely to happen, will you still stand up for the "Parents" right to keep and bear arms?

They way I see it those so-called parents should have done the responsible thing and get rid of the guns from their home. Maybe a gun safe is enough. Maybe it isn't.

Oh, their case will be heard by a judge. In one year. Here's hoping they don't have to refi their home to have a judge hear them, and they get the guns back. Provided, of course, that the kids don't keep doing wacked out crap.

If the parents are doing their job badly and causing a danger, the authorities should do the work required to do what is needed. The ERPO is a lazy cheat but the authorities love situations like this because instead of focusing on the Constitutional principles, we focus on the dirtbag. That's the way they get these things generally accepted -- even here -- before applying them willy-nilly against the squeaky clean.
 

Upcoming Events

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

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top