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: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
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.




1.Or the wife who can simply make up a story and have her ex's guns illegally removed.

2.That parent should call 911

3.Should a bi polar person be owning a fire arm?


Youre arguing with a liberal on this. I know all the logical reasoning. There are too many what ifs that dont just come close.. but crosses a bill of rights red line. I will fight to the death to protect this one, even though I personally hardly ever agree with the right on this- if only to make sure they are there to protect me when another right is being infringed on that they dont agree with necessarily. Why? Because we're Americans. And if that doesnt happen, they win.
edit on 24-8-2017 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Abysha

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


I know about those long days...



And guess what? I can't find it again, either. I think the article that claimed he was from Texas was probably confused by the whole Dalles thing. He was born in Tillimook, actually.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: bknapple32

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




Correct. This is a power play by the government in the chaos of the times. A gross overreach of the state and for reasons that don't justify the bill.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Check the op again. Made edits. More details of the actual law

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



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Most states already have laws to address those situations. No one is arguing that the authorities shouldn't be able to act against someone who poses a danger to themselves or others. The problem is how high is the bar? Taking away someone's constitutionally protected right should be very, very difficult.

I'll give you a shoe on the other foot for your #1 example. Say the wife owns a gun for her protection and the abusive husband decides to make a false report against her to get her firearm confiscated with no due process and no hard evidence because that's what this law allows for now. What does she defend herself with now if he decides to violate that piece of paper?



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: bknapple32

It's a gross violation of the 2nd.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: bknapple32

They can only take away guns if they know you have them.




posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 07:26 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%


Sure - chances that 1 cop mislabels one person may be close to 100. But look at it another way - worst case scenario, the remote chance that someone wrongfully gets their gun taken away for a period, best case, a more likely scenario where a life is saved. I'd take the latter over the former any day.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: artnut
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.


LOL - tell that to Les Claypool.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: redtic

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%


Sure - chances that 1 cop mislabels one person may be close to 100. But look at it another way - worst case scenario, the remote chance that someone wrongfully gets their gun taken away for a period, best case, a more likely scenario where a life is saved. I'd take the latter over the former any day.


Actually the worst case scenario is one I outlined above, where person A wants to do person B harm but knows person B has a legally owned firearm. Person A can now file a false report against person B and person B loses their ability to defend him/herself.

By the way, which is your favorite Constitutional right? I'd like to know if you are ok with a 3rd party being able to induce the government to remove that right with no due process.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
STATES RIGHTS!!

Isn't that the Right's answer to everything? Now that states are doing it with marijuana and drugs now it's a bad idea?



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

States rights extend to areas that aren't enumerated in the Constitution. That doesn't apply to this issue.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
STATES RIGHTS!!

Isn't that the Right's answer to everything? Now that states are doing it with marijuana and drugs now it's a bad idea?


So states can repeal the civil Rights Act?




posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Careful what you say, T&C, or this too will disappear.
edit on 24-8-2017 by Plotus because: are you experianced...



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Wasn't the whole point of the second amendment to be able to shoot these anti-freedom idiots?

Pretty sure it was.

We've let them go too far already.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Conversely what will the checks and balances be?
My ex decided to sleep around while I was in Desert Storm,SHE could do it for fear of my skills alone and in fact to this day is afraid.
Can a wife in divorce disarm a spouse?
SOME jobs use guns,THERE'S a way to get back at the bastard.
Can ANYONE call up and lie to get anyone disarmed ?
I would QUIT after receiving the first order,THEN run for sheriff.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: bknapple32

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
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.




1.Or the wife who can simply make up a story and have her ex's guns illegally removed.

2.That parent should call 911

3.Should a bi polar person be owning a fire arm?


Youre arguing with a liberal on this. I know all the logical reasoning. There are too many what ifs that dont just come close.. but crosses a bill of rights red line. I will fight to the death to protect this one, even though I personally hardly ever agree with the right on this- if only to make sure they are there to protect me when another right is being infringed on that they dont agree with necessarily. Why? Because we're Americans. And if that doesnt happen, they win.
yep. just like when people call DEFACS(child protective services) on somebody and have their home raided and have investigators and police interrogate them for days with no evidence at all except an anonymous caller, who's pissed off at their neighbor for what ever reason, saying the neighbors are fighting and and kids are screaming. Happened to my brother and his wife. He had gotten in an argument with the guy across the street who didn't like my brothers dog barking at him thru their fence. 2 days later the cops show up with and investigator and and he had to miss work bcoz they searched thier house and interviewed them for hours. And they won't tell u who lied to them. People suck



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: bknapple32


1.Or the wife who can simply make up a story and have her ex's guns illegally removed.

2.That parent should call 911

3.Should a bi polar person be owning a fire arm?


Youre arguing with a liberal on this. I know all the logical reasoning. There are too many what ifs that dont just come close.. but crosses a bill of rights red line. I will fight to the death to protect this one, even though I personally hardly ever agree with the right on this- if only to make sure they are there to protect me when another right is being infringed on that they dont agree with necessarily. Why? Because we're Americans. And if that doesnt happen, they win.


Or the wife could be gunned down while waiting for the police to come.
And 911 would take away the guns from that child. Which is my point exactly.
It's their constitutional right. (No they shouldn't.....but that's again proving my point.)

I'm arguing a common sense approach to this law...seeing it from a different perspective. Even you agree with my points, though you think you don't. There are some people that shouldn't have access to firearms, BUT THEY DO, because it's their Constitutional right...and then they go and kill a bunch of people and we scratch our heads and say "guns don't kill." But a gun in the hands of someone unstable or sociopathic does kill. And if a family feels that they are in danger from firearms owned by a family member, or if that family member threatens him or herself...what then?


edit on 24-8-2017 by kelbtalfenek because: additional point.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: kelbtalfenek


I'll give you a shoe on the other foot for your #1 example. Say the wife owns a gun for her protection and the abusive husband decides to make a false report against her to get her firearm confiscated with no due process and no hard evidence because that's what this law allows for now. What does she defend herself with now if he decides to violate that piece of paper?


I agree...there's no easy way out of this issue. I wanted to provide some talking points and show an opposing view. I think there are means of compromise, but it's still a sticky wicket.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Conversely what will the checks and balances be?
My ex decided to sleep around while I was in Desert Storm,SHE could do it for fear of my skills alone and in fact to this day is afraid.
Can a wife in divorce disarm a spouse?
SOME jobs use guns,THERE'S a way to get back at the bastard.
Can ANYONE call up and lie to get anyone disarmed ?
I would QUIT after receiving the first order,THEN run for sheriff.


I agree...there has to be checks and balances...but this law might be a first step at finding those checks and balances.

(and thank you for your service, I was there in the gulf during Desert Shield/Storm.)




top topics



 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join