OR SB719 Extreme Risk Protection Order

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by Rugerer, Jul 7, 2017.

  1. Rugerer

    Rugerer GeePeeDoHolic

    6,193
    28
    48
  2. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    9,913
    158
    63
    Oregon is a weird state anyway.
     

  3. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    5,287
    341
    83
    Now laws get proposed and passed based on popularity? No regards as to whether it's moral, ethical or (horrors) constitutional?
     
  4. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    5,467
    27
    48
    Yes, Republican Sponsored -

    Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2017/07/re...ed-to-anti-gun-oregon-governor/#ixzz4mFnMCoCs
    Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
    Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

     
  5. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,007
    239
    63
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2018
  6. rle737ng

    rle737ng Member

    667
    5
    18
    Lose basic rights based on LE statement or anonymous complainer. What could possibly go wrong?
     
  7. UtiPossidetis

    UtiPossidetis American

    2,653
    150
    63
    Headed to the Federal Courts in a heartbeat IMHO:

    Both the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit governmental deprivations of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment serves three distinct functions in modern constitutional doctrine: "First, it incorporates against the various States specific protections defined in the Bill of Rights. Second, it contains a substantive component, sometimes referred to as ‘substantive due process.' Third, it is a guarantee of fair procedure, sometimes referred to as ‘procedural due process.'..." Daniels v. Williams (1986).
     
  8. phaed

    phaed New Member

    9,356
    0
    0
    ROFL :rotfl:
     
  9. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    7,678
    152
    63


    Only those that disarm and/or help control the population.

    Nemo
     
  10. bryanb

    bryanb New Member

    1
    0
    1
    The NRA is on board with Risk protection orders.
     
  11. jmorriss

    jmorriss Active Member

    1,796
    7
    38
    As am I when due process is followed. The Oregon one essentially the same thing as Trump said, take the guns first ask questions later, which is garbage.
     
  12. rle737ng

    rle737ng Member

    667
    5
    18
    How much due process can you afford?
     
    RedDawnTheMusical likes this.
  13. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,335
    118
    63
    The devil is in the details.
    As a general principle, people who are antisocial, irrational, angry, paranoid, etc. should have their guns seized and made to answer their accusers and explain-away, if they can, what evidence there is that prompted the government to invoke that "extreme risk protection" law.

    The Second Amendment ain't for everybody. I think more people should lose their 2A rights over mental issues, even while I support restoring 2A rights for many convicted criminals, even felons (non violent felons in particular, whose crimes were long ago).
     
  14. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    1,552
    109
    63
    BUT they should not be seized and then go through due process. Due process should come first.
     
  15. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,007
    239
    63
    Authoritarian overdose.
     
  16. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    5,287
    341
    83
    Sounds like Democrats! :lol:
     
  17. Clark

    Clark Member

    601
    14
    18
    Oh so you're now against innocent until proven guilty?
     
  18. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    1,552
    109
    63
    If they have reasonable suspicion based on actual evidence to believe a person is a danger to themselves or others then get a warrant to seize their firearms. If you have 4 or 5 people informing and some social media evidence then take it to a judge. That is due process. If you have one person who makes the claim and no other evidence except their word then maybe go talk to them but otherwise leave them and their firearms alone. The person complaining may just be anti gun making trouble for some legitimate gun owner.