Oregon Governor Just Signed A GUN CONFISCATION Law

[JTHunter2]

And it violates Section 1 of the 14th Amendment's "due process" provision.

In an unprecedented move of ruthless tyranny, Oregon Governor Kate Brown has just signed into law a Democrat-backed document which allows the government to confiscate guns without any prior notice.

The law, based off of Oregon Senate Bill 719, has faced massive resistance from Republicans and Oregon citizens alike. Despite this, the local governments managed to sign it into law—Oregon is no longer a free state.

This new anti-second amendment law permits government officials to order the confiscation of guns, simply based off of hearsay evidence. There is no actual evidence required to order this confiscation, and before the gun owner is even given a hearing.

http://silenceisconsent.net/oregon-...iscation-law-needs-go-viral/?utm_source=TSUSA

 

[solus]

J T want help getting the fish hook out?
quote
The bill passed is intended to introduce a judicial process whereby concerned individuals can ask a judge to quickly sign an order allowing for the confiscation of firearms from a particular individual deemed to present a risk of suicide, self-harm, or violence to others.

The bill authorizes law enforcement agents to confiscate guns from individuals deemed to be a danger to themselves or others, under specific, limited circumstances, in what is called an “extreme risk protection order.” It can only be requested by law enforcement officials, family members and housemates, thus largely minimizing the risk of vexatious or malicious requests.

The order can only be granted by a judge, but must be either granted or denied within 24 hours of the request. Further, the bill stipulates that in reaching their decision, a judge will consider the following kinds of evidence:

• A written affidavit or oral statement made under oath by the person making the request
• A history of suicide attempts or threats, or violence against others
• A history of attempted, threatened, or actual use of physical force against others
• Any previous convictions for: misdemeanor violence, stalking, domestic violence, driving under the influence, animal cruelty
• Evidence of recent illicit drug abuse
• Previous reckless or illegal use, brandishing or display of a deadly weapon
• Evidence of having acquired or attempted to acquire a deadly weapon within the past six months

If the request is successful, the judge issues the order, which applies for one year. The subject of the order has 24 hours to hand in any firearms or gun license they may possess, either to a law enforcement agent or licensed gun dealer. Law enforcement officials are also authorized to confiscate such firearms. For the next twelve months, the subject of the order cannot legally buy, possess, or attempt to buy or possess any firearm. They have 30 days in which to apply for a hearing to overturn the order, and such a hearing must take place within 21 days of their request.

If they don’t succeed in overturning the order, the order remains in place. If they do succeed, the order is lifted, and any property handed over or taken from them is returned to them, providing they are otherwise legally authorized to possess that property. The order is not automatically renewed after a year, but whomever requested it in the first place can request a renewal. The same process applies to the renewal request as it did to the original request.

finally, if the person making the request is found to have knowingly provided false information or intended to harass the subject of the request, they can be convicted of a Class A misdemeanor, which carries a prison sentence of up to twelve months . This is the same charge and same penalty that applies to the subject of an extreme risk protection order if they violate its terms by, for example, buying or possessing a firearm after the order is in place.
unquote

additionally snopes didn't think much on the truthfulness of your cited reference which left out key provisions of the OR statute and added the hyperbole of 'hearsay evidence' for their own shock and awe reasons.

btw, WA state has a similar law on its books passed last November which was discussed quite extensively on the very forum!

 

[JTHunter2]

Comments Oregoneans?

In an unprecedented move of ruthless tyranny, Oregon Governor Kate Brown has just signed into law a Democrat-backed document which allows the government to confiscate guns without any prior notice.

The law, based off of Oregon Senate Bill 719, has faced massive resistance from Republicans and Oregon citizens alike. Despite this, the local governments managed to sign it into law—Oregon is no longer a free state.

This new anti-second amendment law permits government officials to order the confiscation of guns, simply based off of hearsay evidence. There is no actual evidence required to order this confiscation, and before the gun owner is even given a hearing.

http://silenceisconsent.net/oregon-...iscation-law-needs-go-viral/?utm_source=TSUSA

 

[Grapeshot]

Comments Oregoneans?

Read post #2 above.

Your conclusion would appear to be erronious.

BTW - posting the same information in two or more threads is considered spamming. I have combined/merged the two threads into one here.

 

[OC for ME]

J T want help getting the fish hook out?
quote
The bill passed is intended to introduce a judicial process whereby concerned individuals can ask a judge to quickly sign an order allowing for the confiscation of firearms from a particular individual deemed to present a risk of suicide, self-harm, or violence to others.

The bill authorizes law enforcement agents to confiscate guns from individuals deemed to be a danger to themselves or others, under specific, limited circumstances, in what is called an “extreme risk protection order.” It can only be requested by law enforcement officials, family members and housemates, thus largely minimizing the risk of vexatious or malicious requests.

The order can only be granted by a judge, but must be either granted or denied within 24 hours of the request. Further, the bill stipulates that in reaching their decision, a judge will consider the following kinds of evidence:

• A written affidavit or oral statement made under oath by the person making the request
• A history of suicide attempts or threats, or violence against others
• A history of attempted, threatened, or actual use of physical force against others
• Any previous convictions for: misdemeanor violence, stalking, domestic violence, driving under the influence, animal cruelty
• Evidence of recent illicit drug abuse
• Previous reckless or illegal use, brandishing or display of a deadly weapon
• Evidence of having acquired or attempted to acquire a deadly weapon within the past six months

If the request is successful, the judge issues the order, which applies for one year. The subject of the order has 24 hours to hand in any firearms or gun license they may possess, either to a law enforcement agent or licensed gun dealer. Law enforcement officials are also authorized to confiscate such firearms. For the next twelve months, the subject of the order cannot legally buy, possess, or attempt to buy or possess any firearm. They have 30 days in which to apply for a hearing to overturn the order, and such a hearing must take place within 21 days of their request.

If they don’t succeed in overturning the order, the order remains in place. If they do succeed, the order is lifted, and any property handed over or taken from them is returned to them, providing they are otherwise legally authorized to possess that property. The order is not automatically renewed after a year, but whomever requested it in the first place can request a renewal. The same process applies to the renewal request as it did to the original request.

finally, if the person making the request is found to have knowingly provided false information or intended to harass the subject of the request, they can be convicted of a Class A misdemeanor, which carries a prison sentence of up to twelve months . This is the same charge and same penalty that applies to the subject of an extreme risk protection order if they violate its terms by, for example, buying or possessing a firearm after the order is in place.
unquote

additionally snopes didn't think much on the truthfulness of your cited reference which left out key provisions of the OR statute and added the hyperbole of 'hearsay evidence' for their own shock and awe reasons.

btw, WA state has a similar law on its books passed last November which was discussed quite extensively on the very forum!

Link to the SNOPES "review." http://www.snopes.com/oregon-gun-confiscation/

One of the primary concerns of critics of the bill, who argue that it suspends due process and the right to a fair trial, is that the extreme risk protection order hearing is held ex parte, meaning that the subject of the request does not have a right to be present at the hearing and a judge need not hear or receive evidence from them.

This is true. SB 719 does call for ex parte hearings, and the subject of an order cannot block it in the courts in advance, they can only apply to have it overturned afterwards. However, the legislation does also stipulate that the burden of proof is on the person making the request, not the subject of it.

The burden is not on the subject of the order?!?! What kind of logic is this!!! Anyone who would even consider this to be anywhere near reasonable is anti-liberty of the first order!

Silence is Consent also falsely describes the bill as “unprecedented.” However, SB 719 was consciously modeled after similar legislation overwhelmingly passed into law by Washington voters as a ballot measure in November 2016.

It is unprecedented for Oregon. SNOPES is carrying the water of the democrats on this one. And, the sponsor of the bill lost his kid to suicide, though to be sure. But why take it out your failings on your fellow citizen.

 

[solus]

here oc for me, et al., it was too late for my tired arse to seek out the reference re WA's discussion of their bill last year...

http://vb.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?133343-I-1491-Gun-confiscation-without-being-convicted

 

[OC for ME]

Washington's law is in the rear view mirror. If the good citizens of Washington desire to have sanity returned to their state judicial system they will demand it, or make it so. Oregon is now looking forward to the next right that must be infringed w/o due process.

 

[solus]

Washington's law is in the rear view mirror. If the good citizens of Washington desire to have sanity returned to their state judicial system they will demand it, or make it so. Oregon is now looking forward to the next right that must be infringed w/o due process.

well to be fair, those on the far western megalopolis side of the state pushed the INITIATIVE in the first place so the state has to endure it's effect for years till it can be overturned by the legislature.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Washington's law is in the rear view mirror. If the good citizens of Washington desire to have sanity returned to their state judicial system they will demand it, or make it so. Oregon is now looking forward to the next right that must be infringed w/o due process.

Following in the footsteps of Asset Forfeiture..

I just ordered ten thousand copies of the United States Constitution from my printer. Much cheaper than toilet paper.. The great document that so many patriots died in support thereof is slowly become TP.. sad, sad..

My .02
CCJ

 

[Grapeshot]

Following in the footsteps of Asset Forfeiture..

I just ordered ten thousand copies of the United States Constitution from my printer. Much cheaper than toilet paper.. The great document that so many patriots died in support thereof is slowly become TP.. sad, sad..

My .02
CCJ

You have been told ten thousand times before - Don't exaggerate....


.

 

[countryclubjoe]

You have been told ten thousand times before - Don't exaggerate....


.

I must admit I am a bit of a dramatist!..

CCJ

 

[Grapeshot]

I must admit I am a bit of a dramatist!..

CCJ

And hyperbolizing for the dramatic effect.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I must admit I am a bit of a dramatist!..

Well, since Joe's back to his passive-aggressive posting style after his 1-day vacation I guess it won't matter if I play catch up.

If I may ask Joe, just how many plays have you had published?
I've done a bit of playwriting myself but I've never described myself as a dramatist (which means 'one who writes plays, e.g. a playwright, writer, scriptwriter, screenwriter, scenarist, or dramaturge.)
It's distinguished from dramaticist; someone who is overly dramatic, someone who causes unnecessary drama.

 

[CJ4wd]

Solus - it appears that you either failed to read the 3rd paragraph in the OP's quote or failed to comprehend it.

This new anti-second amendment law permits government officials to order the confiscation of guns, simply based off of hearsay evidence. There is no actual evidence required to order this confiscation, and before the gun owner is even given a hearing.

Now, you may be correct in that it still goes before a judge, but the article does not make that very clear, if correct.
The fact remains that the person victimized by this law is denied due process PRIOR to the confiscation, hence the violation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

With "no evidence" required for this confiscation to occur, can you imagine the turmoil this could cause by a false accusation by a vengeful spouse/lover?
This is likely more of Bloomie's work, like what he did in Washington state with a similar law, the one you referenced. He and his nutbag groupies were crowing how they were going to be working at the state level and these two laws may just be the "first strikes".

As has been said multiple times, they can pass these laws faster than we can fight them off.

 

[solus]

Solus - it appears that you either failed to read the 3rd paragraph in the OP's quote or failed to comprehend it.

Now, you may be correct in that it still goes before a judge, but the article does not make that very clear, if correct.
The fact remains that the person victimized by this law is denied due process PRIOR to the confiscation, hence the violation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

With "no evidence" required for this confiscation to occur, can you imagine the turmoil this could cause by a false accusation by a vengeful spouse/lover?
This is likely more of Bloomie's work, like what he did in Washington state with a similar law, the one you referenced. He and his nutbag groupies were crowing how they were going to be working at the state level and these two laws may just be the "first strikes".

As has been said multiple times, they can pass these laws faster than we can fight them off.

alas, seems mate, you missed my commentary in post 2, repeated in post 5, that the OP's posting from his source was filled with incorrect and misleading shock and awe hyperbole!

previously posted: additionally snopes didn't think much on the truthfulness of your cited reference which left out key provisions of the OR statute and added the hyperbole of 'hearsay evidence' for their own shock and awe reasons.

there is very strict due process w/adjudication escapes as stated by the statute:

previously posted: The order can only be granted by a judge, but must be either granted or denied within 24 hours of the request. Further, the bill stipulates that in reaching their decision, a judge will consider the following kinds of evidence: go read post 2 or 5!

further, the firearms can go to an FFL not the nice LE's to be held!

gotta love your paranoid concept of the jiltted lover concept (might wish to pick better lovers or treat them better), but unfortunately as stated in my post 2 & 5, the statute states:

previously posted: finally, if the person making the request is found to have knowingly provided false information or intended to harass the subject of the request, they can be convicted of a Class A misdemeanor, which carries a prison sentence of up to twelve months . This is the same charge and same penalty that applies to the subject of an extreme risk protection order if they violate its terms by, for example, buying or possessing a firearm after the order is in place.

CJ, please, please read snopes' discussion for yourself as provided in post 5: http://www.snopes.com/oregon-gun-confiscation/ before jumping up and down getting yourself into a horrible snit about my reading capabilities or comprehension!

to address your other comments regarding WA passing it as mentioned, their law was passed by their stupid 'initiative' process and those facets were, as i mentioned, discussed last year on this very forum ~ http://vb.opencarry.org/forums/showt...eing-convicted

finally CJ, just who are 'they' that can pass laws. in WA it was the people who passed the initiative 1491 not the state's legislation!! so again who are 'they' you refer to?

as stated...might wish to check your ability to pick lovers and partners, also assuring you stay out of CA, WA, and now OR cuz you might be the target for 'hearsay' evidence at a RISK evaluation! :uhoh:

definitely watch out for any DV issues!!

 

[countryclubjoe]

Well, since Joe's back to his passive-aggressive posting style after his 1-day vacation I guess it won't matter if I play catch up.

If I may ask Joe, just how many plays have you had published?
I've done a bit of playwriting myself but I've never described myself as a dramatist (which means 'one who writes plays, e.g. a playwright, writer, scriptwriter, screenwriter, scenarist, or dramaturge.)
It's distinguished from dramaticist; someone who is overly dramatic, someone who causes unnecessary drama.

GN- thank you for pointing out the obvious.. Be advised I am a jack of all trades and a master of none.

In my humble opinion you will find my next project most interesting.. It is the story of a " linguistically challenged" grammar nazi who falls in love with a fellow student while both are studying for their GED test.. A fabulous little love story... Stay tuned for the poignant conclusion.

My .02
CCJ

 

[OC for ME]

Getting a judge involved is, technically, "due process." But we all know, or should know, what is really meant by due process. Try this crap in a criminal proceeding and see what a judge says.

The Oregon law, and the Washington law, is nothing but a "minority report" law. The term ex parte is used for a reason and that, this, is the point. Do a lesser harm and we'll figure it out later. Just like many cops, they are not in the "right or wrong" business, they are in the "legal or illegal" business, right or wrong be danged.

But the singular point is that grave harm can be done based only on the unsubstantiated word of a single citizen, monetarily and legally. Making the "crime" a class A misdemeanor is a joke...a poor one at that.

As to the jilted lover thing. Do not dismiss the concept out of hand, it has happened in the past and continues to happen...all the time. A judge will defer to a shrink or a cop, or a crying significant other...just in case.

Judges enjoy absolute immunity and they will do as they will...our rights be danged.

Shrinks of all stripes are more insulated from their misdeeds than cops.

This law, like Washington's, is a terrible law. This law will remain on the books and the state will inflict grave harm to innocent citizens.

 

[OC for ME]

... further, the firearms can go to an FFL not the nice LE's to be held! ...

FFL...pfft! Or else.

Your property, if you reside in Oregon, is forfeit (base only on the unsubstantiated word of a single citizen) until a judge says otherwise. Whether a cop shop, or a gun shop, the end result is the same. Tell the judge no and see what happens. Confiscation is exactly the correct term.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...ation-australia-announces-new-amnesty-program

Even when you "voluntarily" turn over your guns.

 

[solus]

FFL...pfft! Or else.

Your property, if you reside in Oregon, is forfeit (base only on the unsubstantiated word of a single citizen) until a judge says otherwise. Whether a cop shop, or a gun shop, the end result is the same. Tell the judge no and see what happens. Confiscation is exactly the correct term.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...ation-australia-announces-new-amnesty-program

Even when you "voluntarily" turn over your guns.

sorry, A F T E R a judicial hearing presided over by a judge who examines the evidence presented.

further, this is nickel & dime stuff...get involved with a domestic where one party seeks and is granted an emergency RO. then do something the RO party feels violated the provisions of the RO and notified the nice LE...see what gets confiscated WITHOUT further judicial ado, then try and get your property returned from the LE property room.

additionally everyone mentions loss of rights...consider that a DV conviction removes the ability to purchase firearms, at the federal level, yet nobody is outraged over those laws on the federal books.

finally, many states prohibit their citizens from obtaining a concealed permit if you received a DWI xyz years before applying. in NC, the CHP is one of two central documents needed to purchase handguns but citizens who got caught in a random LE checkpoint and cited is now prohibited.

 

[OC for ME]

sorry, A F T E R a judicial hearing presided over by a judge who examines the evidence presented.

further, this is nickel & dime stuff...get involved with a domestic where one party seeks and is granted an emergency RO. then do something the RO party feels violated the provisions of the RO and notified the nice LE...see what gets confiscated WITHOUT further judicial ado, then try and get your property returned from the LE property room.

additionally everyone mentions loss of rights...consider that a DV conviction removes the ability to purchase firearms, at the federal level, yet nobody is outraged over those laws on the federal books.

finally, many states prohibit their citizens from obtaining a concealed permit if you received a DWI xyz years before applying. in NC, the CHP is one of two central documents needed to purchase handguns but citizens who got caught in a random LE checkpoint and cited is now prohibited.

If I understand the current OR law, a RO is not required. Of course I am outraged over the federal law, as should any citizen seeking the restoration of individual liberty. For Missouri: http://codes.findlaw.com/mo/title-xxx-domestic-relations/mo-rev-st-452-315.html

Far too easy and far too much reliance on the benevolence of a judge. Facts are secondary to the absolute immunity a judge enjoys in his courtroom.