And so it begins. Oregon Governor Signs Gun Confiscation Law.

[JGalt]

There are gun-owners in Oregon? When did that happen?

 

[Bassman007]

Well. What do you libs have to say now? I've always claimed that democrats want to confiscate our guns. And you idiots told me I was crazy. Well, here's the proof. It's happening now. Are you people OK with this? Can I get just one liberal on here to stand up and say this is a bad idea?

Oregon Governor Signs Gun Confiscation Law | 2ANews.us

Oregon has no power to confiscate legal guns under this law unless a judge says so, this law will allow 5 to 10 guns to be picked up, then it's over as there are no more guns for judges to evaluate

 

[OKTexas]

will be struck down soon enough

Will it, how is this any different than what the VA and SSA are doing? They submit names to NICS to disqualify gun owners with no due process. This is just the next step in the regressive control agenda.


.

 

[TNHarley]

will be struck down soon enough

Will it, how is this any different than what the VA and SSA are doing? They submit names to NICS to disqualify gun owners with no due process. This is just the next step in the regressive control agenda.


.

Good point! :/

 

[Timmy]

Well. What do you libs have to say now? I've always claimed that democrats want to confiscate our guns. And you idiots told me I was crazy. Well, here's the proof. It's happening now. Are you people OK with this? Can I get just one liberal on here to stand up and say this is a bad idea?

Oregon Governor Signs Gun Confiscation Law | 2ANews.us

I'm good with it .

Of course you misrepresent the whole thing . The law would temporarily take guns away from someone a judge finds to be f'n crazy and or dangerous until the person gets a hearing on the merits .

 

[RWNJ]

There are gun-owners in Oregon? When did that happen?

39% of them own guns.

 

[SavannahMann]

However, that will not stop the jack boots from trying to enforce it.

one trip to the courts is all it will take. not constitutional

That depends upon which court it goes to first. California's Kangaroo Court would let it stand.

then appeals then supreme and bam dead.

Don't bank on that.

The Supreme Court upheld Civil Forfeiture, where the cop can take your money, cars, house, or anything else if he believes it might have been used in a crime, or gotten through the proceedes of criminal activity. You have to prove that you got it legally, and the money is yours legally.

I'd argue that both that, and this, are a violation of the Fifth Amendment, but the Supreme Court has disagreed with me on Civil Forfeiture. I wouldn't bet that they'll side with the gun owner just because Second Amendment.

it's unconstitutional, a state law cannot overight a federal amendment. just can't. watch.

Great. Glad to hear it. But out of curiousity, how do they get away with Civil Forfeiture again? Oh that's right. They claim there is a process, and you are able to sue and get your property back.

So far the Supreme Court hasn't agreed with me, and apparently thee as to what is actually right, but hey, hope springs eternal.

 

[bripat9643]

Another "The sky is falling OP".

Guns and light bulbs. It's easy to see that conservatives care as much about the incandescent light bulb as they do about guns because the arm flailing on both reaches the same level. Jesus H relax derps, go watch footage of whackjob gunning people down because Republicans voted to allow the mentally ill to keep their guns. That should make you feel good again.

So what's your argument in favor of this bill now?

 

[RWNJ]

Well. What do you libs have to say now? I've always claimed that democrats want to confiscate our guns. And you idiots told me I was crazy. Well, here's the proof. It's happening now. Are you people OK with this? Can I get just one liberal on here to stand up and say this is a bad idea?

Oregon Governor Signs Gun Confiscation Law | 2ANews.us

I'm good with it .

Of course you misrepresent the whole thing . The law would temporarily take guns away from someone a judge finds to be f'n crazy and or dangerous until the person gets a hearing on the merits .

As mentioned earlier, that person would have to prove that they were not a danger to themselves or others. Do you really believe that many would win such a case? Are you really that stupid? There is also the fact that it violates the 14th Amendment.

 

[Timmy]

Well. What do you libs have to say now? I've always claimed that democrats want to confiscate our guns. And you idiots told me I was crazy. Well, here's the proof. It's happening now. Are you people OK with this? Can I get just one liberal on here to stand up and say this is a bad idea?

Oregon Governor Signs Gun Confiscation Law | 2ANews.us

I'm good with it .

Of course you misrepresent the whole thing . The law would temporarily take guns away from someone a judge finds to be f'n crazy and or dangerous until the person gets a hearing on the merits .

As mentioned earlier, that person would have to prove that they were not a danger to themselves or others. Do you really believe that many would win such a case? Are you really that stupid? There is also the fact that it violates the 14th Amendment.

If you are not a danger , it'd be pretty easy to
Prove . Lots of states have laws like this.

Using your logic , you couldn't arrest someone until AFTER they are found guilty of the crime .

 

[Mousterian]

From the link:
'Under the law, any person would be allowed to file a petition with the court for an “extreme risk protection order” against anyone else they happen to be related to, or living with.'
If one of my relatives was a risk to himself, or anyone else, I'd be filing a petition quick-smart.
There's so many fucked-up vets and other nut-jobs in the community, we should all be helping the authorities to intercept possible tragedies.

 

[RWNJ]

Well. What do you libs have to say now? I've always claimed that democrats want to confiscate our guns. And you idiots told me I was crazy. Well, here's the proof. It's happening now. Are you people OK with this? Can I get just one liberal on here to stand up and say this is a bad idea?

Oregon Governor Signs Gun Confiscation Law | 2ANews.us

I'm good with it .

Of course you misrepresent the whole thing . The law would temporarily take guns away from someone a judge finds to be f'n crazy and or dangerous until the person gets a hearing on the merits .

As mentioned earlier, that person would have to prove that they were not a danger to themselves or others. Do you really believe that many would win such a case? Are you really that stupid? There is also the fact that it violates the 14th Amendment.

If you are not a danger , it'd be pretty easy to
Prove . Lots of states have laws like this.

Using your logic , you couldn't arrest someone until AFTER they are found guilty of the crime .

Did you miss the part where it said that no evidence is required to take these guns? Do you know what due process is? Any clue at all?

 

[Timmy]

Well. What do you libs have to say now? I've always claimed that democrats want to confiscate our guns. And you idiots told me I was crazy. Well, here's the proof. It's happening now. Are you people OK with this? Can I get just one liberal on here to stand up and say this is a bad idea?

Oregon Governor Signs Gun Confiscation Law | 2ANews.us

I'm good with it .

Of course you misrepresent the whole thing . The law would temporarily take guns away from someone a judge finds to be f'n crazy and or dangerous until the person gets a hearing on the merits .

As mentioned earlier, that person would have to prove that they were not a danger to themselves or others. Do you really believe that many would win such a case? Are you really that stupid? There is also the fact that it violates the 14th Amendment.

If you are not a danger , it'd be pretty easy to
Prove . Lots of states have laws like this.

Using your logic , you couldn't arrest someone until AFTER they are found guilty of the crime .

Did you miss the part where it said that no evidence is required to take these guns? Do you know what due process is? Any clue at all?

Witness Testimony is evidence.

 

[bripat9643]

Well. What do you libs have to say now? I've always claimed that democrats want to confiscate our guns. And you idiots told me I was crazy. Well, here's the proof. It's happening now. Are you people OK with this? Can I get just one liberal on here to stand up and say this is a bad idea?

Oregon Governor Signs Gun Confiscation Law | 2ANews.us

I'm good with it .

Of course you misrepresent the whole thing . The law would temporarily take guns away from someone a judge finds to be f'n crazy and or dangerous until the person gets a hearing on the merits .

As mentioned earlier, that person would have to prove that they were not a danger to themselves or others. Do you really believe that many would win such a case? Are you really that stupid? There is also the fact that it violates the 14th Amendment.

If you are not a danger , it'd be pretty easy to
Prove . Lots of states have laws like this.

Using your logic , you couldn't arrest someone until AFTER they are found guilty of the crime .

Your logic says that they can put you in prison unless you can prove you are innocent. Funny how you snowflake douchbags are always trying to destroy the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

Well. What do you libs have to say now? I've always claimed that democrats want to confiscate our guns. And you idiots told me I was crazy. Well, here's the proof. It's happening now. Are you people OK with this? Can I get just one liberal on here to stand up and say this is a bad idea?

Oregon Governor Signs Gun Confiscation Law | 2ANews.us

I'm good with it .

Of course you misrepresent the whole thing . The law would temporarily take guns away from someone a judge finds to be f'n crazy and or dangerous until the person gets a hearing on the merits .

As mentioned earlier, that person would have to prove that they were not a danger to themselves or others. Do you really believe that many would win such a case? Are you really that stupid? There is also the fact that it violates the 14th Amendment.

If you are not a danger , it'd be pretty easy to
Prove . Lots of states have laws like this.

Using your logic , you couldn't arrest someone until AFTER they are found guilty of the crime .

Did you miss the part where it said that no evidence is required to take these guns? Do you know what due process is? Any clue at all?

Witness Testimony is evidence.

What part of "no evidence is required" didn't you understand?

 

[Montrovant]

Speaking for myself, I'd agree it is unconstitutional. Not just under the 2nd Amendment however. The Fifth provides that you can not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Since we have found an exception to that under the asinine Civil Forfeiture laws, where the state takes your money and property and leaves you to sue to get it back, this law may be found constitutional by the Supreme Court.

You have to prove that you did not get the money, or property through illegal means, or use it in the commission of a crime to get the property back under Civil Forfeiture. In this case, you'll have ot prove that you did not intend hurting yourself, or anyone else, to get your guns back.

Personally, I think both are unconstitutional, but I'm a Georgia Liberal, and everyone hates me.

It certainly can be argued that there is due process in the case of this law, and maybe also that taking a person's weapons away when they are deemed dangerous to themselves or others is acceptable. What makes me think the law may be struck down is the seemingly vague nature of the criteria and the length of the confiscation, combined with the question of if a person deemed so dangerous is already covered by existing law, such as the Baker Act in Florida that I mentioned earlier.

I did not read the entire SB719, and the article says that the signed bill was only based on SB719, so I remain uncertain. My belief that it will be struck down in time is really just a first reaction.

I thought about civil forfeiture as well when I read this. That is a valid fear, that this law might stand on the same shaky legal ground as civil forfeiture laws.

 

[Timmy]

I'm good with it .

Of course you misrepresent the whole thing . The law would temporarily take guns away from someone a judge finds to be f'n crazy and or dangerous until the person gets a hearing on the merits .

As mentioned earlier, that person would have to prove that they were not a danger to themselves or others. Do you really believe that many would win such a case? Are you really that stupid? There is also the fact that it violates the 14th Amendment.

If you are not a danger , it'd be pretty easy to
Prove . Lots of states have laws like this.

Using your logic , you couldn't arrest someone until AFTER they are found guilty of the crime .

Did you miss the part where it said that no evidence is required to take these guns? Do you know what due process is? Any clue at all?

Witness Testimony is evidence.

What part of "no evidence is required" didn't you understand?

That's a lie . Where does it say "no evidence ". That doesn't even make sense . Stupid hack article.

 

[g5000]

Well. What do you libs have to say now? I've always claimed that democrats want to confiscate our guns. And you idiots told me I was crazy. Well, here's the proof. It's happening now. Are you people OK with this? Can I get just one liberal on here to stand up and say this is a bad idea?

Oregon Governor Signs Gun Confiscation Law | 2ANews.us

Gee, I wonder if that web site is biased.

Let's take a look at one of their claims, shall we?

Under this law, Oregon judges will be permitted to issue a “extreme risk protection order” based on any number of unrelated events or even hearsay allegations, such as a drunk driving arrest, the beginning of a divorce, allegations of drug use, or even engaging in a constitutionally-protected activity such as recently purchasing a gun or receiving firearm instruction.

Okay. Cite me the paragraph/provision in the Oregon law which says the state can confiscate someone's gun because they bought a gun or took a gun class.

Thanks ahead of time.

 

[OKTexas]

Well. What do you libs have to say now? I've always claimed that democrats want to confiscate our guns. And you idiots told me I was crazy. Well, here's the proof. It's happening now. Are you people OK with this? Can I get just one liberal on here to stand up and say this is a bad idea?

Oregon Governor Signs Gun Confiscation Law | 2ANews.us

I'm good with it .

Of course you misrepresent the whole thing . The law would temporarily take guns away from someone a judge finds to be f'n crazy and or dangerous until the person gets a hearing on the merits .

As mentioned earlier, that person would have to prove that they were not a danger to themselves or others. Do you really believe that many would win such a case? Are you really that stupid? There is also the fact that it violates the 14th Amendment.

If you are not a danger , it'd be pretty easy to
Prove . Lots of states have laws like this.

Using your logic , you couldn't arrest someone until AFTER they are found guilty of the crime .

Really, how do you prove a negative, tell us child, when did you stop beating your wife?


.

 

[Timmy]

Here's a non hack article .


Oregon passes ‘extreme risk’ law a non hack article .

Here's what you have to show .

Members of an individual’s family, household or law enforcement officers can petition the court for the order, which if approved, can prohibit a person from possessing deadly weapons for up to a year. Renewals require another hearing with the petitioner responsible for showing the risk persists.

SB 719 requires that the petitioner provide “clear and convincing evidence,” a legal standard that indicates that risk is highly probable.