Oregon opens door to confiscation...

Status
Not open for further replies.
What I wrote was a number of simple, direct questions.
You'd think a lawyer would understand tone and presentation.

A simple, "you're not citing your claims, so your argument is just unsupported opinion" would be a less rude way to get your point across.

And no, most of us are not lawyers, but we don't need to be to partake of this forum. This is not court, counselor. So leading with that is just knocking down a straw-man of your own making.

I think (opinion) I've made my point, so I'm done derailing this thread.
 
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 can tell you from personal experience and from witnessing others experiences at a young age that this is possible in certain states, or used to be. I have personally been through a bad break-up in the past and had my ex-best friend and ex-fiancee both file restraining orders on me for some bogus BS they concocted together to make something seem a lot worse than it was. They filed an order together, against me, on some made up BS that never happened. The saving grace for me was that I had witnesses that countered their argument. I was never informed of this order either until much later in time when I just happened to come across one of these people by happenstance, in public, in which case they freaked and claimed I was violating an order. Thats when it all came to a head. Trust me, it can happen. I won't go into the details but it was quite an experience and lucky for me didn't cause any lifelong deal to be on my record. That was not the case with a friend of mine that had a similar experience. It took him years of court appearances and quite some financial burden to get his rights back and get some nonsense expunged from his record. So, while this may be a feel good law it could certainly be open for abuse. I am not saying that it will be but it certainly opens a door that was not present beforehand. Thats my point. I agree with the NRA on this one.
 
I can tell you from personal experience and from witnessing others experiences at a young age that this is possible in certain states, or used to be. I have personally been through a bad break-up in the past and had my ex-best friend and ex-fiancee both file restraining orders on me for some bogus BS they concocted together to make something seem a lot worse than it was......
Yes, that was your personal experience. It was an experience you were emotionally involved in and which has a profound, unpleasant affect on you.

As such you can't possibly offer an objective assessment of the law involved, and your personal experience tells us nothing of value about the law.
 
Last edited:
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.


The 1st 3 sentences are wrong and the 4th sentence I already addressed. She says she wasn't suicidal and told them. They say she was sucidal.

I don't knows who's right but thats hardly abuse by DOJ. The issue there is the difference of opinion of the patient and health provider; not DOJ.
 
There is one of these protection orders bills starting it's way through the Michigan govt. And here in MI Protection orders are granted as a matter of routine without even notifying the person they apply to until he gets arrested for violating it. He gets no appeal, no ability to protest the order.
 
I rarely post comments on this forum due to getting in trouble with the Moderators but as a strong advocate of the rights of people with mental illness this is a grievous infringement on their rights guarantee by the Bill of Rights.

"The measure, SB 719A, will allow 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..".

Backers argue it could help address the number of suicides in the state, with the bill’s author, Sen. Brian Boquist, R-Dallas, crafting it
after the loss of his stepson in 2016..."

This is a attempt to blame the tool not the cause. Firearms is only a tool that used to accomplish the act. It further stigmatizes having firearms in the home because it might cause someone to commit suicide.

The measure, now headed to Gov. Kate Brown, would establish a process for obtaining an extreme risk protection order issued by a judge in a civil court that would prohibit the subject of such an order from possessing or purchasing firearms or ammunition..." .

An adjudication hearing in Court is required by Federal law to be barred form owning firearms. It requires professional testimony of Psychiatrists, medical examination of the defendant, evidence such as medical records, examination and cross-examination of witnesses and, most importantly, the right of the defendant to be presented with the evidence before them and have enough time to prepare a defense.

"It would grant law enforcement enforcing such orders the power to search for and seize guns that were not surrendered."

4th Amendment? What 4th Amendment? We don't need no stinking 4th Amendment!

Exactly how is this to be accomplished?

Does the Civil Court Judge issue a search warrant? (Can a Civil Court Judge even issue search warrants?)

Or is this a automatic procedure written into the law when the Judge issues the protection order?

Will Officers have the full force of law behind them including kicking in doors, going through all of belongings in the house, moving furniture, dumping personal items on the floor, taking beds apart, breaking open locked cabinets and safes, etc.? If the homeowner resists then are they allowed to use deadly force against him/her and any other occupants?

If this bill passes it will be another significant victory in the anti-2A to ban ownership of firearms without a criminal conviction or adjudication process.
 
Last edited:
How about prohibiting hammers? Knives? Cars? Ropes? Tall buildings? Medication? Booze? Helium? Razor blades? Scissors? This law is a naked effort to gradually take gun ownership away from an ever increasing number of people.
 
Here is the take away from the article that most bothers me:
Gun rights advocates with the Oregon Firearms Federation called the measure, “one of the most dangerous, hateful and mean-spirited pieces of legislation ever introduced,” noting that it provides no structure for those deemed at risk to receive help, or those dangerous to be taken into custody.
One would think that if the legislation was truly intended to prevent suicide and people immediately a danger to others to acting out, there should also be a mechanism to get those that are suicidal professional help, and those that are indeed a threat, at least temporarily off the street. No???
 
Last edited:
It would be fair to say that many of us have watched how the government, police, and politicians have "used and abused" the laws to suit their own ends for decades. Any law on the books can be "mis"used (abused) by those that want to twist things around. Anything that fails to follow proper due process, such as this bill, would allow the law it creates to become a fiasco.
 
As a practicing psychologist (now retired) in a community mental health center, I attended dozens of court proceedings to determine "danger to self and others". Prior to that I worked at a state hospital where such patients were committed. Re-commitment hearings were conducted at the hospital monthly and a patient could end up being there for months, in some cases years. That old state hospital system is long since gone. What propelled that system was the belief that doctors know best and the state joined them in this belief. Individual freedom took a back seat. Eventually the pendulum swung completely the other way. It is now extremely difficult to commit someone or to keep them there. Commitment hearings can be complex and lengthy. The outcome can be undone easily if a hospital doctor doesn't agree and the patient is discharged back to the community. What often happens is that during the hearing the patient denies being suicidal or willing to harm others and the judge imposes his/her judgement and releases the patient. Now the target of our authorities is gun ownership. The sentiment around this issue is not that much different from the old days of lengthy involuntary commitments; those in charge know best. Beware the well-meaning bureaucrat!!
 
The 1st 3 sentences are wrong and the 4th sentence I already addressed. She says she wasn't suicidal and told them. They say she was sucidal.

I don't knows who's right but thats hardly abuse by DOJ. The issue there is the difference of opinion of the patient and health provider; not DOJ.

The DOJ is in violation of the 14th amendment. If they weren't those folks would have never got their property back. Actually it shouldn't have been taken to begin with without a hearing, they committed no crime. Health care professionals aren't judges. My wife worked as a health care professional and she agrees 100% with me. The state should not have access to those records unless a crime is being investigated. If the state takes action based on that false authority then they are abusing 14A. The DOJ has attorneys that should know better. Kamala Harris was the AG for CA. She's a flaming anti gun liberal so it comes as no surprise that they would be violating peoples 14A rights with gusto. She ran for the US senate on an anti gun platform. She's rabid just like Pelosi and Boxer.

And by the way, just because a state passes an AG law doesn't mean the SC would approve. There is still the constitution to consider here.
 
Last edited:
Any door that opens a means to abuse, means that the abuse will be capitalized on. That is the way I see it. And no matter where how you feel on the law, it still seems pretty cut and dry to me that there is certainly a possibility that someone could wrongfully have their rights taken away, as many have pointed out here, with very little recourse under certain circumstances. The law needs to define some things as many have mentioned. As also mentioned, this seems very little to do with those attempting suicide as there really isn't much help for those individuals written into the law. You can call it what you want, but in its most simplistic form, it seems like a backdoor way for gun control.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top