Boquist Gun Confiscation Bill Passes
07.06.17
Today the Oregon House approved one of the most dangerous, hateful and mean spirited pieces of legislation ever introduced.
SB 719 A, the product of Republican Senator Brian Boquist's collusion with the most militant anti-gunners in the legislature, will now allow the police to come to your home and confiscate your firearms and "deadly weapons" with no accusation or conviction of a crime.

There is NO question this bill will cost people's lives.
Now a vindictive family or household member has the power to have your rights and property stolen from you simply because they chose to make an accusation against you.
"Dangerous" people will not be taken into custody. Self destructive people will receive no help.
The people who passed SB 719A know this. They don't care about people's well being. They only care about seizing as many firearms as possible.

and our governor got 200,000 from bloomberg last fall.
She has said she will sign this bill.

This is a real sad day o for us in oregon.A mad ex wife,or anyone can make a lie up and the police will take all your guns.

Oregon, the largest county in California, took another step down the road to being lost.

Any action requires a petition, then an ex parte order issued by a judge, if I read it right. Nonetheless a blow to gun rights. Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF) worked hard on this one.

Im very sorry for you guys. I cant believe this. I nope this ass pony senator gets booted out as fast as possible.

Sounds like this one will need to be challenged in the courts if it actually does make it into law. Something tells me it won't survive that challenge at some point.

Gov brown has stated many times she wants the gun laws to mirror california and washington.

I really think they will try hard to get it done.

Scary how leftist and detached from our constitutional beginning the west coast has become.

So sad,

HK Ag

quote:

Originally posted by tuumunz:
... will now allow the police to come to your home and confiscate your firearms and "deadly weapons" with no accusation or conviction of a crime.

If that's true, how is this not unconstitutional?

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Sounds like this one will need to be challenged in the courts if it actually does make it into law. Something tells me it won't survive that challenge at some point.

All the way to the SC.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Sounds like this one will need to be challenged in the courts if it actually does make it into law. Something tells me it won't survive that challenge at some point.

All the way to the SC.

Absolutely! It is blatantly unconstitutional.

flashguy

The people who wrote and passed, signed this bill should be removed from office. They are acting in ways unbecoming of an elected official and not adhering to their oath of office. We need a process to do this other than elections. A majority does not make this right.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Sounds like this one will need to be challenged in the courts if it actually does make it into law. Something tells me it won't survive that challenge at some point.

All the way to the SC.

Absolutely! It is blatantly unconstitutional.

flashguy

Thank heavens the 2016 election went the way it did. Had the never Trump people had their way -Glenn Back- this case could have set a precedent that would eventually disarm us all.

I am curious as to whether migration from California is part of the problem with Oregon. Any thoughts? I previously viewed Oregon as somewhat more progressive state admittedly with a few quirks.

I am curious as to whether migration from California is part of the problem with Oregon. Any thoughts? I previously viewed Oregon as somewhat more progressive state admittedly with a few quirks.

That's exactly what this is. We have the same type of law in California. Now all the ex-Californians who migrated to Oregon are bringing their antigun bias with them.

quote:

If that's true, how is this not unconstitutional?

decent question; from observations by a long term resident here, the growth of such legislative attempts at ignoring 'due process' etc , and the enactment of 'emergency legislation' somehow has shorted out the normal process of Citizen and Legislative review & debate.

The trend since 1987 has been steadily Leftward, and last fall the DNC got the majority needed to take another step toward their notion of domestic tranquillity.

Now that the DCN.gov has actually been voted in by 50.70% to 43.53%R margin, with 3 other balloted parties totaling the remain 6% we've had a series of non-local influence by Big Pockets on matters sounding ever more like Wa & Cali.

In NC a boyfriend/girlfriend, wife/husband, person you have a child in common with, any person you have ever lived with, etc., can swear out a Domestic Violence Protection Order, in which the judge can order that all your guns are turned over to the sheriff. No charges are necessary, just a sworn affidavit saying you are dangerous because _________.

Is this the same thing? Or something different?

this seems pretty clear to me...and this did not change.....

Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution states: “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.”

If I can find them, I could post some of what one of the support groups has been running the last few weeks. No response over at least the last couple years, had been congruent with 'We the People'.

According the the 'new law' the troupers can come in & demand knives & firearms without any real facts, just a statement from a 'concerned individual'.

So far there seems to be no way to recover confiscated firearms.
The leading Big Leftist Pushers actually are all in the bag for the little Billionare Bloomberg notion of gun laws.

Last couple year we got the 'no private sales' laws so every body has to march in front of FFL.

Washington State passed much the same law last November.
Swear out that someone is dangerous or something, a judge signs the order, then the police go collect the guns. First notice the gun owner gets is when the police arrive.
As the owner is already judged to be dangerous, police will no doubt bring SWAT.
What the law doesn't provide for is any accountability for a false claim. Getting divorced? Claim he's dangerous and get back at him.
This is one of the laws that was written to prevent a very rare occurrence. It's written for the victim and ignores the Constitution.
https://know1491.org/

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Don't state governors swear this oath?

If they do so, and knowingly undertake actions contrary to the wording of the oath and all it amendments, then how can they continue to hold office?

tac

I can see the soon to be EX spouse using this to full effect, not that they can't/don't use similar already.

Oregon has a stark contrast in politics once away from the larger cities and the I-5 corridor. Like other States, one ends up beholden to the majority voters.

Portland has NO shortage of urban outdoors people camping under bridges & looking for handouts. There was a massive line downtown when I was there last, lead up to free food at some outlet. Many seem to be able bodied persons 20-40 years old.