It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Has the 2nd ammendment been taken away in Oregon?

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I post this in the mudpit, cause frankly, I dont know where else these days. And I think this is a fuzzy topic,so I want everyone to be able to speak freely about what is going on here. But this has been in debate for some time, and it was just signed into law in the last 24 hours.


The title of this article is
OREGON GOVERNOR JUST SIGNED A GUN CONFISCATION LAW – THIS NEEDS TO GO VIRAL

The story reads...


In an unprecedented move of ruthless tyranny, Oregon Governor Kate Brown has just signed into law a Democrat-backed document which allows the government to confiscate guns without any prior notice.

The law, based off of Oregon Senate Bill 719, has faced massive resistance from Republicans and Oregon citizens alike. Despite this, the local governments managed to sign it into law—Oregon is no longer a free state. This new anti-second amendment law permits government officials to order the confiscation of guns, simply based off of hearsay evidence. There is no actual evidence required to order this confiscation, and before the gun owner is even given a hearing.

Worse yet, the only way for the gun owner to get his gun back is to file a case and prove his innocence. This is Orwellian, and it must be overturned by the Supreme Court; if this law begins being enforced, step by step, inch by inch, civilians will lose their second amendment rights. It’s also a direct violation of the 14th amendment, which gives United States citizens the right to a formal hearing before their property is seized:

link

I dont like the source... So I decided to google just the bill name to see what popped up...
link
Oregon lawmakers set out to repeal gun control bill pushed by fellow Republican

Republican House members Bill Post, left, and Mike Nearman want voters to repeal a new law that allows officials to take away guns from Oregon residents found to be a danger to themselves or other members of their household.


I like this source better. Seems to verify there was in fact a gun control law that republicans fought against. I do not think the rhetoric from source 1 matches what is said in source 2. So I need to look again...How about the law itself?

link

A law enforcement officer or a family or household member of a person may file a petition requesting that the court issue an extreme risk protection order enjoining the person from having in the person’s custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a deadly weapon. (2) An extreme risk protection order petition shall be heard by the court and issued or denied on the same day the petition is submitted to the court or on the judicial business day immediately following the day the petition is filed


A cop can get called on an out of control domestic disturbance.. say a shouting match at home. Cop comes over, lets pretend youre a big guy over 6'2''. Maybe hes a little prejudice against big men, because he's seen a thing or two in his day? But it might not matter cause... -

Cop says "well in the state of xx we are required to take someone in on domestic calls. Sir youre coming with us. Oh and because youre being arrested, you are now a risk, and we are filing protection orders against you from owning a firearm."


ETA: Looking deeper into the law. Its disturbing folks....

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; Enrolled Senate Bill 719 (SB 719-A) Page 1
(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


Yep. The 2nd amendment is being trampled on. The left is going too far.
edit on 24-8-2017 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2017 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: bknapple32

For some reason I can remember people saying," Sure, they will come for your guns.", sarcastically of course. Well, I guess that is what the people of Oregon wanted because that is who they voted in. I may be wrong, but I think the Democratic Party is near the end of their time in Office.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: bknapple32

"They" work fast. This is the fruits that division sow. The feds are jealous now, afterall, they still file forfeitures. Just a matter of time for that too I suppose.

Nice find.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   
People in Oregon should find out the names of every law enforcement officer in the state and file a petition to have their guns confiscated. That should gum up the courts for a while.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Why stop there? Go to after those who passed this garbage. Use the new law against them. I bet they change their tune. Hearsay can be a double edge sword.

Seeing crap like this makes me glad I live in Texas.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
When it comes to guns, I'd say err on the side of caution. If there's reason enough for law enforcement to believe that someone is an extreme risk, this seems reasonable. The order has to go before a court first before approved. And there is an appeal process. So this might affect 0.1% of gun owners - and maybe 0.00001% of law-abiding, responsible gun owners - maybe 0%. And it may just save lives. So yeah, it seems reasonable to me.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: 3daysgone

Oops. [/sarc]

Oregon live.com




Proponents say extreme risk protection orders are meant to prevent mass shootings and suicides. Critics have said judges and members of law enforcement may abuse the power to confiscate firearms.


Yep. Because our ever-beloved govt officials and the judiciary are always beyond reproach... May abuse?? Will abuse, guaranteed.


Post, a second-term lawmaker, said he strongly opposes the law because it "calls for the forced confiscation of property by the police with no due process, no accusation of a crime let alone conviction of a crime. It allows people with no mental health credentials to make assessments of other's states of mind and it allows people with no mental health credentials (judges) to punish people they have never met or spoken to.


That quote really does speak for itself, doesn't it?

But that's alright, because Washington state did the same...in a landslide. Stupid voters. Stupid.

Washington state gun confiscation law...



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: redtic

Who gets to decide that? An estranged ex? A disgruntled ex-employee? At this point, anyone can file a complaint that could lead to confiscation of ones firearms, with little chance of getting them back.

Care to bet the odds on a successful appeal?



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: redtic
When it comes to guns, I'd say err on the side of caution. If there's reason enough for law enforcement to believe that someone is an extreme risk, this seems reasonable. The order has to go before a court first before approved. And there is an appeal process. So this might affect 0.1% of gun owners - and maybe 0.00001% of law-abiding, responsible gun owners - maybe 0%. And it may just save lives. So yeah, it seems reasonable to me.


Chances a cop mislabels someone or abuses this privilege 100%



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
They are going after free speech, they are going after freedom of the press, and they are coming for the guns.

It is not just the left, its bigger than that IMO.

The constitution means nothing these days.
edit on 24-8-2017 by notsure1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: redtic

Paranoia is a disease unto itself; and may I add the person standing next to you may not be who they appear to be.. so take precaution.

Well said, I might add! Paranoia indeed.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: notsure1
They are going after free speech, they are going after freedom of the press, and they are coming for the guns.

It is not just the left, its bigger than that IMO.

The constitution means nothing these days.


I agree.. something else is going on And they have been laughing while we fight left or right....

I would implore those on the left to see the chain of events that leads to this, and what follows. Its never a train that just stops at one station. There is always something next. And cheering for your side, only backfires in your face when its the train from the other guy



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: bknapple32

Before everybody blames the left for this, keep in mind this was a Republican who wrote the bill.



edit on 24-8-2017 by Abysha because: NOT from Texas, Abby, NOT from Texas. STUPID ABBY GO SIT IN A CORNER!!



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: bknapple32

originally posted by: redtic
When it comes to guns, I'd say err on the side of caution. If there's reason enough for law enforcement to believe that someone is an extreme risk, this seems reasonable. The order has to go before a court first before approved. And there is an appeal process. So this might affect 0.1% of gun owners - and maybe 0.00001% of law-abiding, responsible gun owners - maybe 0%. And it may just save lives. So yeah, it seems reasonable to me.


Chances a cop mislabels someone or abuses this privilege 100%



That's my issue with all this.

It was written to prevent suicides from at-risk people yet it doesn't seem to be psychologists who are making the call.
edit on 24-8-2017 by Abysha because: spellinz



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

Plot thickens...Goes to the "something is going on" point.

This isnt left or right.. Something feels like its brewing. Maybe this is a test to see how far they can go given the state of affairs of a place like Oregon?



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

Oregon Republican. The Dalles, I believe, not Dallas
.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: bknapple32

Republican Democrat, there's little to nothing separating the two anymore. Save the spelling.

Nor, truth to tell is there much separating the fringes of the two parties...both are all for totalitarian nonsense, so long as it's them doin' the totalitarian nonsense.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Abysha

Oregon Republican. The Dalles, I believe, not Dallas
.


Hah, no, I know he's an Oregonian. But he's from Texas. I should have been more clear.


ps, to be fair, I read "ruthless tyranny, Oregon" as "ruthless tranny in Oregon" and thought the article was about me. Long day, lol.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

Is he? Didn't see that part...


I know about those long days...



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: bknapple32

Or a wife who just left her abusive relationship and has a restraining order out on her soon-to-be-ex husband knows he has several guns and already threatened to kill her...she can call.

Or the parent that overheard her college age son talking about killing his ex-gf's new bf with his legally purchased firearm.

Or the brother of bi-polar person, who legally owns an arsenal but recently quit taking his/her meds.


I see where you guys are coming from, I hope you can put the shoe on the other foot. How many times AFTER a gun tragedy occurs have you thought..."well there was a ton of warning signs?" So, do you honestly think that preventing another mass murder is not worth an infringement of gun ownership for someone that would (in the wording of the bill)

pose a danger to themselves or family members.




top topics



 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join