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

[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 .

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


.

Holy shit are you that clueless about of justice system . ?

It's really easy to prove you are not dangerous if you are not .

 

[miketx]

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.

The fascist judges will conclude that having a gun is "clear and convincing evidence".

 

[miketx]

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?


.

Holy shit are you that clueless about of justice system . ?

It's really easy to prove you are not dangerous if you are not .

Burden of proof is on the state.

 

[Borillar]

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

Um, since before it was a territory.

 

[g5000]

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

Did you think they took over the federal wildlife refuge with rubber bands?

 

[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.

The fascist judges will conclude that having a gun is "clear and convincing evidence".

Dude . It's says the high standard of proof . HIGH! As in "a lot" .

I'll dumb it Down for you . Someone has to show a lot of proof that Mr gun is a danger .

 

[miketx]

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.

The fascist judges will conclude that having a gun is "clear and convincing evidence".

Dude . It's says the high standard of proof . HIGH! As in "a lot" .

I'll dumb it Down for you . Someone has to show a lot of proof that Mr gun is a danger .

Fascist judges will accept any "proof", no matter how inappropriate.

 

[g5000]

People who commit suicide are generally isolated. That's why suicides are not generally discovered for days. This law is a crock.

Bullshit. Why do you pull lies out of your ass so often?

The vast majority of suicides give a warning to friends and family ahead of time.

 

[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 .

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


.

Holy shit are you that clueless about of justice system . ?

It's really easy to prove you are not dangerous if you are not .

Burden of proof is on the state.

it's not a criminal thing ! It's worried family members or the police .

 

[g5000]

I notice no one has linked to the actual law, and only to a very biased site.

Here's the law: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB719

Now show me where the state can confiscate your gun just because you bought a gun or took a firearm class.

 

[miketx]

People who commit suicide are generally isolated. That's why suicides are not generally discovered for days. This law is a crock.

Bullshit. Why do you pull lies out of your ass so often?

The vast majority of suicides give a warning to friends and family ahead of time.

What on Earth does your remark have to do with his statement that suicides are not discovered immediately?

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Sorry occifer, lost them all in a tragic boating accident.

I saw the whole thing.

It was horrible.

I'm glad nobody got hurt.

 

[Doc1]

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.

...and yet you support the Law.

 

[Timmy]

I notice no one has linked to the actual law, and only to a very biased site.

Here's the law: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB719

Now show me where the state can confiscate your gun just because you bought a gun or took a firearm class.

GUN nuts are compulsive liars .

 

[RodISHI]

Perhaps the governor doesn't know the Oregon Constitution? It appears there is a right to bear arms in it??? 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power

Bills and Laws OrConst

 

[g5000]

Here are the requirements which must be met.

(4) In determining whether to issue an extreme risk protection order, the court shall consider the following:

(a) A history of suicide threats or attempts or acts of violence by the respondent directed against another person;

(b) A history of use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force by the respondent against another person;

(c) A previous conviction for:

(A) A misdemeanor involving violence as defined in ORS 166.470;
(B) A stalking offense under ORS 163.732 or 163.750, or a similar offense in another jurisdiction;
(C) An offense constituting domestic violence as defined in ORS 135.230;
(D) Driving under the influence of intoxicants under ORS 813.010 or 813.011; or (E) An offense involving cruelty or abuse of animals;​

(d) Evidence of recent unlawful use of controlled substances;
(e) Previous unlawful and reckless use, display or brandishing of a deadly weapon by the respondent;
(f) A previous violation by the respondent of a court order issued pursuant to ORS 107.716 or 107.718;
(g) Evidence of an acquisition or attempted acquisition within the previous 180 days by the respondent of a deadly weapon; and
(h) Any additional information the court finds to be reliable, including a statement by the respondent.

 

[Doc1]

I notice no one has linked to the actual law, and only to a very biased site.

Here's the law: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB719

Now show me where the state can confiscate your gun just because you bought a gun or took a firearm class.

GUN nuts are compulsive liars .

Libtardians are compulsive liars.

 

[Timmy]

Here are the requirements which must be met.

(4) In determining whether to issue an extreme risk protection order, the court shall consider the following:

(a) A history of suicide threats or attempts or acts of violence by the respondent directed against another person;

(b) A history of use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force by the respondent against another person;

(c) A previous conviction for:

(A) A misdemeanor involving violence as defined in ORS 166.470;
(B) A stalking offense under ORS 163.732 or 163.750, or a similar offense in another jurisdiction;
(C) An offense constituting domestic violence as defined in ORS 135.230;
(D) Driving under the influence of intoxicants under ORS 813.010 or 813.011; or (E) An offense involving cruelty or abuse of animals;​

(d) Evidence of recent unlawful use of controlled substances;
(e) Previous unlawful and reckless use, display or brandishing of a deadly weapon by the respondent;
(f) A previous violation by the respondent of a court order issued pursuant to ORS 107.716 or 107.718;
(g) Evidence of an acquisition or attempted acquisition within the previous 180 days by the respondent of a deadly weapon; and
(h) Any additional information the court finds to be reliable, including a statement by the respondent.

Translation : the guy needs to be a real psycho!

 

[Yousaidwhat]

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 .

Temporarily.

Never to be seen again.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

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

39% of them own guns.

Not anymore.