Oregon Governor signs bill effectively confiscating guns

[RPBrown]

http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2017/SB719/

They say it is not a confiscation law but
"Requires court to order respondent to surrender deadly weapons and concealed handgun license within 24 hours of service of initial order, and immediately upon service of continued or renewed order. Provides for law enforcement officer serving order to request immediate surrender of deadly weapons and concealed handgun license and authorizes law enforcement officer to take possession of surrendered items."

Comyfornia all over again. This is patterned after their law enacted in 2014.

So glad I live in Texas

[mojo84]

Not saying I think it is a good thing, however, at least it takes a court order to do it. Now, what all is involved in getting the court order? Is it just a judge hearing one side of the story and then making the determination?

[bmwrdr]

I'd guess it is a trade for legalizing marijuana. If somebody with health problems takes marijuana for medicinal use he/she will be registered and may be a candidate to have his license to carry revoked and guns confiscated if there are any.

[ninjabread]

[C-dub]

Not saying I think it is a good thing, however, at least it takes a court order to do it. Now, what all is involved in getting the court order? Is it just a judge hearing one side of the story and then making the determination?

This is pretty much where I am also falling on this issue and the same concern. I don't like it when only one side is heard for a protective or restraining order.

[Excaliber]

Perhaps they should also pass a similar bill to seize cars from people who are known to drink too much and then drive.

That would be just as unconstitutional, but it would make many politicians walk to work and quite likely save as many or more lives in the long run.

[bblhd672]

Perhaps they should also pass a similar bill to seize cars from people who are known to drink too much and then drive.

That would be just as unconstitutional, but it would make many politicians walk to work and quite likely save as many or more lives in the long run.

[bblhd672]

Reading this law chilled me to the core.
We are fast becoming a nation of no due process for an accused person.
This law says the judge must examine and rule on the petition within one day, with nothing said about the accused having been notified of a hearing to take away his Constitutional right.

[mojo84]

Seems like this law creates a process similar to that of obtaining a search or arrest warrant for seizing guns.

[Beiruty]

This can be fought up to the supreme court. The judge cannot issue an order for seizure of legally obtained and lawful property based on hearsay or no probable cause of crime being committed or was committed using said property.
There is due process to be followed. Now, if person was found guilty of felony, he should surrender or dispose (sell, or gift) his firearms.
If the same person has sword, a dagger or even a hammer. Would those be counted as dangerous weapons?

[philbo]

After reading the law there seems to be plenty of due process... whether there is justice or not is a question that will turn on how the courts put this into practice. Washington has had a similar law since 2016 without confiscation issues arising yet... yet.

- The Order can only be requested by law enforcement, family members or housemates. Not the general public
- While the initial hearing is exparte, the law stipulates that the following evidence must be submitted:

A written affidavit or oral statement made under oath by the person making the request
A history of suicide attempts or threats, or violence against others
A history of attempted, threatened, or actual use of physical force against others
Any previous convictions for: misdemeanor violence, stalking, domestic violence, driving under the influence, animal cruelty
Evidence of recent illicit drug abuse
Previous reckless or illegal use, brandishing or display of a deadly weapon
Evidence of having acquired or attempted to acquire a deadly weapon within the past six months

The burden of proof is on the movant making the request at all times. If the person making the request is found to have knowingly provided false information or intended to harass the subject of the request, they can be convicted of a Class A misdemeanor, which carries a prison sentence of up to twelve months in Oregon. (this part I like)

An appeal can be filed within 30 days, and has to be heard within 21 days of such a request. A maximum of 51 days before a full hearing has to be held.If issued the order is only good for 12 months and punishable as a class a misdemeanor if violated. Renewal is possible but the same requesting process would have to take place once more. Property must be returned immediately once the order is lifted either by appeal or expiration.

Such an exparte order can be obtained in Texas for 60 days under similar grounds in family violence cases which would also criminalize the possession of a firearm while the order is in effect. The impounding of weapons may be erring on the side of caution until a full hearing can be had, but if a person had demonstrated behavior as described above, perhaps a forfeiture for a maximum of 51 days doesn't seem as onerous as the headline might imply.

[cirus]

Confiscation only works if the owner gives them up. What if he doesn't?

[Deltaboy]

My Goodness!

[E.Marquez]

- The Order can only be requested by law enforcement, family members or housemates. Not the general public
- While the initial hearing is exparte, the law stipulates that the following evidence must be submitted:

A written affidavit or oral statement made under oath by the person making the request.

The very first line is where this "law" is flawed.

So any family member or house mate may make such a sworn affidavit, and with no other "proof" just that persons word a judge may issue such and order of confiscation.
Now tell me, what judge is going to say no? the answer.. NONE. Not a single one will say no if they CAN say yes to the request.
Because the likely hood of that judge being taken to task for a "wrong" YES is slim and the chances of being censored over it even less.
Vice the chances of that Judges life and career being ruined if he says NO and the person in question so much as trips with the gun in hand and shoots the neighbors dog by accident.

[cedarparkdad987]

Confiscation only works if the owner gives them up. What if he doesn't?

Then they die. Are you arguing shooting the police? They have a lawful order. You have the ability to use the legal system to appeal. You do not have the option of resisting the police.