Oregon Gun Confiscation Law?

Strykervet

ain'T goT no how whaTchamacalliT
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Jun 5, 2011
    6,046
    4,937
    49
    Pierce County, WA
    Okay, how is this NOT illegal? You can lose your firearm if anyone, anyone at all, makes a complaint to the state. They come and take 'em, no questions asked, no answers given. You can fight it AFTER they take 'em, but it looks geared to make that very hard to do. The burden of proof is completely on the accused and they don't have to tell you anything that could help you fight the accusations.

     
    Okay, how is this NOT illegal? You can lose your firearm if anyone, anyone at all, makes a complaint to the state. They come and take 'em, no questions asked, no answers given. You can fight it AFTER they take 'em, but it looks geared to make that very hard to do. The burden of proof is completely on the accused and they don't have to tell you anything that could help you fight the accusations.

    LInk?

    I dont have a problem with this. I was crossing a lake last week and all my guns fell out when the boat capsized, but I feel your angst.
     
    SearchSearch [h=1]Oregon governor signs gun confiscation bill into law[/h] Brown, a Democrat, signed the measure into law this week after it squeaked through the legislature. (Photo: Gov. Brown’s office)

    Oregon Gov. Kate Brown on Wednesday approved Democrat-backed gun control legislation to establish Extreme Risk Protection Orders, forcing subjects to surrender their firearms.

    The law, SB 719A, allows police, or a member of a subject’s family or household, to file a petition with the court which could lead to an order prohibiting firearms possession if it is believed they pose an imminent risk to themselves or others. The bill passed the Senate 17-11in May and the House 31-28 last month, picking up only one Republican supporter along the way.

    Brown, a Democrat, signed the bill without comment this week but in remarks to lawmakers during the legislative process she called Extreme Risk Protection Orders the “best way to ensure that a person who is at risk of harming themselves or others is identified, while still ensuring their rights are protected by a court review.”

    The new law will establish a process for obtaining an order issued by a judge in a civil court prohibiting the subject from possessing or buying firearms or ammo for one year. It grants police enforcing such orders the power to search for and seize guns that were not surrendered or stored with a third party such as a gun dealer. The subject of the order has 30 days to request a hearing to keep their firearms, which must be held within 21 days.

    Those filing fake orders could be imprisoned for up to a year, or pay a fine of up to $6,250, or both.

    The law was modeled on one adopted after a ballot referendum last fall in neighboring Washington following a $3.5 million push by gun control groups, which in turn was based on a 2014 California law.

    Gun control advocates lauded the new tool to take guns out of some situations.

    “SB 719 is a common-sense bill that will empower families and law enforcement officers to take action to potentially prevent tragedies before they happen,” said Lisa Reynolds with Moms Demand Action in a statement. “That law will help save lives.”

    Second Amendment groups have blasted the ERPO process, arguing it provides no structure for those deemed at risk to receive help, or those dangerous to be taken into custody. Further, they point to due process concerns.

    “By allowing a law enforcement officer, family member, or household member to seek the ERPO, SB 719A would allow people who are not mental health professionals, who may be mistaken, and who may only have minimal contact with the respondent to file a petition with the court and testify on the respondent’s state of mind,” says a statement from the National Rifle Association’s legislative lobby arm.
     
    I was still in the military when they passed that bill in California, and from what I remember you had to have some pretty damning evidence in order to even get one of these pushed through.

     
    LInk?

    I dont have a problem with this. I was crossing a lake last week and all my guns fell out when the boat capsized, but I feel your angst.

    I don't get your post. I didn't want to publish a link because there is an issue with credibility. It was found via one source and my wife got it as an alert or some shit on her phone so it could be fake news. Real, no shit fake news. So I don't know, I figured if there was a law like this about to go through, there'd be more Oregonites on here bitching about it. Especially considering the language of this.

    They tried something similar to this in WA but it was heavily modified. They tried to push through several bullshit gun ban laws, each one different, here recently. This does look like some Bloomberg shit, I guess after he failed in WA he'd go on down to OR and push it there.
     
    I don't get your post. I didn't want to publish a link because there is an issue with credibility. It was found via one source and my wife got it as an alert or some shit on her phone so it could be fake news. Real, no shit fake news. So I don't know, I figured if there was a law like this about to go through, there'd be more Oregonites on here bitching about it. Especially considering the language of this.

    They tried something similar to this in WA but it was heavily modified. They tried to push through several bullshit gun ban laws, each one different, here recently. This does look like some Bloomberg shit, I guess after he failed in WA he'd go on down to OR and push it there.

    It was a joke. "Where are your guns?" "Fell in the lake."


    I looked it up and it appears valid.