Oregon opens door to confiscation...

Status
Not open for further replies.

SilentStalker

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
1,588
Location
Somewhere in the U.S., London, or Australia
The measure doesn’t authorize ‘confiscation.’

A protection order is issued only after a hearing is conducted by the court, affording the respondent due process.

Due process is further recognized as the respondent also has the right to request a fair hearing to have the order terminated.

The measure is no different than any other law establishing as a prohibited person someone convicted of a crime or adjudicated mentally unfit.

The measure is not a ‘slippery slope.’

Below is a link to the actual law and its provision for a respondent to contest an order.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB719
 
Ok, fair enough. But, in the meantime it reads to me like property can be seized until it is contested and won. And I would imagine that would come at the expense of the accused? So, not only do they temporarily lose property they also have to pay legal fees up front until the case is heard. Call it what you want but it seems like a legal way of confiscation to me. And $6200 fine for those that wrongly accuse someone of such. Come on. I will look into this further but on the face it doesn't look like there is any winner here other than the courts making money. It also looks like a loss of rights to me, even if temporarily, while the the accused is proving his/her innocence. What happens if, the person is wrongly accused and something happens to said person while the right to protect themselves were temporarily taken?

I am not a lawyer but I do know that things like restraining orders are fairly easy to obtain in some places without any real cause other than a group of people asking for one. Think an upset group of teenagers mad at someone. So they tell their parents some lie and off they all go to the local PD to ask for a restraining order. Seems to me that this bill could temporarily suspend someone's legal rights for such an action by a group of mad teenagers. Doesn't have to be teenagers either. You see where I am going with this? It happens all the time. This offers very little protection for the accused imo.
 
Last edited:
But, in the meantime it reads to me like property can be seized until it is contested and won.

This letter from the NRA may be of interest. As well as this NRA-ILA statement.

And I would imagine that would come at the expense of the accused?

I think one can assume legal counsel would have to be paid for by the accused.

So, not only do they temporarily lose property they also have to pay legal fees up front until the case is heard. Call it what you want but it seems like a legal way of confiscation to me. And $6200 fine for those that wrongly accuse someone of such.

Filing a false petition is a Class A Misdemeanor.
 
I think the misdemeanor could easily be thrown out under certain circumstances. And you just proved my point about the expense one would have to go through to prove innocence. Why should the accused lose their savings over fighting something like this, especially if acted upon and found to be wrong? Sure they could countersue for their money back but in the meantime that would be a further expense imposed on them until the next suit was won and heard, not to mention loss of wages for missing work to fight such things in court. Doesn't seem right to me. And I only speak about this from watching something similar happen to a friend of mine. Let's just say in a nutshell a jealous ex wreaked havoc on his life while she walked around Scott free. Sure he got his rights back like 10 years and x amount of money later but still seems wrong imo. And it still shows up on his background check supposedly. So, yes to me this still opens too many doors for it to be too easy to temporarily suspend someone's rights. Glad I don't live in Oregon. I would be moving, but this backdoor mentality seems to be growing. You guys don't see it that way but I see it as ample opportunity for abuse.

In regard to this being about suicide, I think that is horse crap. Ok, so maybe this would make it somewhat harder for someone to do such a thing, but if someone was that inclined there is a myriad of other options one could use. This law does nothing in reality for those people. This reminds me of people that think making it harder for terrorist to obtain guns will somehow keep them from committing violent acts. They just find another tool.
 
Last edited:
SilentStalker wrote:
I think the misdemeanor could easily be thrown out under certain circumstances.

What do you base that "thought" upon?

So, yes to me this still opens too many doors for it to be too easy to temporarily suspend someone's rights.

Well, you've already admitted you're not an attorney, so since similar statutes exist in California and Washington, why don't you do a little bit of research and find out how often such orders have been requested, how often they are granted, how often they are renewed and when not granted whether there have been any prosecutions of people filing false requests. With that, you would have something other than your unsupported feelings to use as a gauge whether this is a "backdoor" to "confiscation" that is being abused by people for their own ends or something that is actually being administered by the courts for the purposes stated by the legislature.
 
The way this law is set up it would very difficult get the order from the court if the facts don't support the accusations.

(5)(a) The petitioner has the burden of proof at the ex parte hearing.

Failing that it seems that the petitioner gets a nice fine.

If I were serious about this as a petitioner I think I would get some legal advice first because the repercussions could be severe.

I'm in WA and I haven't seen anything in the news about our law being used to confiscate guns. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened though.

In WA the law reads
PENALTIES. (1) Any person who files a petition under this chapter knowing the information in such petition to be materially false, or with intent to harass the respondent, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. Up to 365 days in jail and up to $5000 fine.

Then the civil suit starts.
 
Last edited:
Could an "ex" abuse this by making a statement the individual was of unsound mind? Quite so. A liberal neighbor? Not so much.

I had an neighbor come to the point he no longer controlled his actions, and the first manifestation to be seen publicly was taking furniture out of the house and setting it around in the yard. Some larger pieces, too, along with knocking on doors all over the neighborhood but being unable to rationally explain what he wanted.

At that point his difficulty was obvious and he wasn't violent. Not the kind of person that we fear may need to be involved under these laws. It's the ones who go around mumbling under their breath, getting engaged in anger issues, having a divorce thrust on them, separation from their home, loss of job - those are the typical events and progression which we have seen lead up to violence, especially committed by firearms.

Got to ask, do we think the courts aren't aware of the profile and it's eventual result? In the past we've had no regulatory mechanism to intercede. Just stand back and wait for a call out to bring body bags.

Given that serious issue, just what do we do? People go rogue for whatever reason, and what do we read a week later in the news? There were signals and those in near proximity knew very well something was going wrong - yet there was nothing to do for it.

We've been agonizing over it since Columbine and for the most part the "don't touch my rights" isn't fixing the problem. Well, the less gun friendly states have obviously started to deal with it - like it or not - and the experiment in how we handle intervention for those slowly losing logical grip of their faculties is going to be in the public view.

In other states the neighbor will have to continue to break down the door and shoot the demented father trying to drown his children.

Which is the better solution? You tell me, I don't disagree that a legal process can be manipulated and abused. The courts see that happen with DNA turnovers, a criminal confessing two states away, whatever. Our system isn't perfect, BUT IT IS THE BEST THIS WORLD HAS TO OFFER.

Ask any Eastern European immigrant why they like to tear out their roots and come here.

I believe we are quite a ways from seeing this manipulated by false testimony, no recourse to appeal, and blatant incarceration because a secret court says so. Not withstanding the fact we actually are doing that under the Patriot Act, ostensibly against "terrorists." There is, however, one thing anyone of us can do - don't look and act crazy, just like you should avoid looking and acting terrorist. If it really is a concern, then maybe your own conscience need an attitude check. Back away from life, stop seeing things so black and white, take a vacation from the stress.

When things get so bad - state wide or even nationally - you'll know what to do then. Until - support your causes without making them an icon to be revered. We only have the rights we exercise, go have fun with your guns in an approved or at least channeled manner. When you hear of an actual local case, not the kind some news outlets slant a story about (both sides are equally guilty) then look into it and make your opinion known to those decision makers.

Lawyers being lawyers, don't for a minute think they are all about the government having absolute authority that cuts them out of an appeal process. No sirree, they will be more than helpful in explaining just exactly how you drag the issue thru the courts. It might cost the defendant his savings, yes, but it also costs the "persecutors" their share, too. Your best defense is a good offense, take them for every dime you can even if it goes in somebody else's pocket. In the extremely rare case where someone was too insensitive to see their behavior triggering a backlash and creating this problem, guess what? They were too dense to see it. They brought it on themselves, which is usually the case when it comes down to the final answer.

In the perspective of preventing gun violence, that might save a life, we will never know. What will will know are how many this could affect and how their story turns out. That is either going to be acceptable by and large, or not, but doing nothing at all hasn't worked as this issue isn't going away.

Stand back and let the libs screw this up and we get answers. If it's in your state weigh the risk, most of us will tell you that you are likely the frog in the pan, we saw the water getting too hot long ago.
 
I'm not sure if these laws are a good thing but they haven't been truly tested yet.

I think the OR and WA laws are well written. We just have to see if anyone abuses them and what the consequences are for those that do.

CA aggressively confiscates weapons from people in their APPS database. Some of those people don't even know they are in that database. It looks to me like there is some abuse by the CA DOJ here.

http://www.yourcentralvalley.com/ne...alifornias-gun-confiscation-program/358532978
 
....I am not a lawyer but I do know that things like restraining orders are fairly easy to obtain in some places without any real cause other than a group of people asking for one. .....
If you're not a lawyer, how would you know that? Have you done any research? Have you read court decisions? Did you rely on other sources for your information? Can you cite your sources?
 
I'm not sure if these laws are a good thing but they haven't been truly tested yet.

I think the OR and WA laws are well written. We just have to see if anyone abuses them and what the consequences are for those that do.

CA aggressively confiscates weapons from people in their APPS database. Some of those people don't even know they are in that database. It looks to me like there is some abuse by the CA DOJ here.

http://www.yourcentralvalley.com/ne...alifornias-gun-confiscation-program/358532978


How do you come to that conclusion from the article?

The article didn't talk about 'DOJ abuse'.

It talks about how there have been mistakes, mostly administrative type mistakes, that have lead to the confiscation of guns.

Incorrect past court records was cited.

A lady that checked herself in to a mental hospital claims she wasn't suicidal and told the hospital that but the hospital documented that she was. That lead to guns being taken from her home. Who's right? I don't know. But the article doesn't support a 'DOJ abuse' comment.
 
It talks about how there have been mistakes, mostly administrative type mistakes, that have lead to the confiscation of guns.

I disagree.

If the state put someone in the APPS database without informing them, that's abuse of authority. If I'm convicted of a felony I'll darn sure know it. You can't expect someone to not purchase a firearm if they don't know they aren't legally supposed to have one. That seems to be the case here as it was reported. If they had been informed of their status maybe they could have avoided the whole dog and pony show, including the legal fees.

At least with the OR and WA system a judge is looking at evidence and not some state adm assistant reviewing hospital documents and making some arbitrary decision about their status.

I've had experience with administrative screw ups at the state and federal level. I'll go with a court every time.
 
Last edited:
If they had been informed of their status maybe they could have avoided the whole dog and pony show, including the legal fees.



On the other hand, owning firearms comes with the responsibility to know the basic laws. Wouldn't you think that knowing that you're or have been a felon or were committed would trigger you further look into the matter if you hve guns?
 
On the other hand, owning firearms comes with the responsibility to know the basic laws. Wouldn't you think that knowing that you're or have been a felon or were committed would trigger you further look into the matter if you hve guns?

That's the problem with the CA law. Nothing is being determined by a judge. Everything is being determined by the state. My definition of being committed is that it isn't someone just seeking mental health care, it's an involuntary act.. At least that's how the instructions on the 4473 explain it. Obviously it's different in CA.

I haven't read the CA law and I don't care to. Maybe you could shed some light on what a gun owners responsibilities are in CA regarding the mental health care system. I don't live there.

You seem to be saying it's a good law.
 
This is General Gun Discussions, not Legal. A person can have an opinion without passing the bar in this forum.
It doesn't matter which subforum one is in. If someone is going to spout off about an important subject he needs to be able to back-up his opinion.

But thank you for all your efforts to promote ignorance and bad information on the Internet.
 
If only we had someone with a keen legal mind that would explain a good counterargument, rather than bully people.
A good counter argument to what? If someone makes an unsupported claim it's his burden to support it. Until he does there nothing to counter.

Ask demanding that one support a claim he makes is not bullying, since it's the burden of the person making the claim to support it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GAF
Ask demanding that one support a claim he makes is not bullying...
If you're not a lawyer, how would you know that? Have you done any research? Have you read court decisions? Did you rely on other sources for your information? Can you cite your sources?
You can ask someone to support their claim.

What you wrote was the legal equivalent of "$TFU".

...or "bless your heart", if you're from the South.
 
"The one saving grace of the law is that if such an order is issued, you can elect to turn your guns over to a licensed dealer or third party that may lawfully own the gun(s)"

Since this is Oregon, if you go the third party route remember that you must go to a dealer and pay for a transfer for each firearm, and if you win the appeal of course you must repeat that process when the third party gives them back.

The order says 'You must immediately...'. I don't know what you do if you're served outside of business hours and can't immediately find an open FFL. Perhaps 'next business day' is close enough to 'immediately'. Or not. I think the drafting could be improved.

Overall, I agree that time will tell whether these become a rubber stamp. The specified standard is 'clear and convincing', which ought to offer some protection against made up accusations, but we'll have to wait and see.
 
Two potential issues I see with the text of the bill:

1) The boilerplate notice says that the subject of the order can request one hearing during the 12 months the order is in effect... but the later provisions indicate that such right is lost if not requested in the first 30 days. Persons subject to these orders should be given a more accurate notice of their rights, and the fact that certain of those rights will essentially evaporate if they don't act promptly. Service notices accompanying things like civil suits typically inform the recipient about the consequences of not answering within the prescribed time. This seems basic, and fixed.

2) A harder issue is that the order is granted on the day sought (if at all), while any hearing contesting it. It appears that even the most wrongly-granted orders will be in effect for a minimum of 3 weeks. There may be no good way around this, and it's not uncommon for temporary restraining orders in other contexts to last for some period of time before a hearing can be held, but building in a mandatory 3-week "waiting period" to get one's rights back seems less than ideal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top