The left coast, land of green peace and home of hippies have once again decided that it wants to selectively get on board with states rights and overrule the constitution. The people who would be the first to say that the individual rights can’t be extended to individuals who want to decide whether to support homosexual weddings, want to say that they can individually decide when someone should have a second amendment right to firearms.
Different states have differing laws about when police can confiscate firearms when called to a scene of violence, but the one thing that most have in common is that it’s always done by an outside party who has the chance to see the alleged attacker and can assess the immediate risk. Also, they confiscate all of the available firearms that can be used to cause immediate danger.
Oregon has now decided that they’d like to give the courts and whoever wants to bring an accusation against an individual the rights to not only confiscate the weapons of someone who’s not an imminent threat, but they want to take their ability to concealed carry as well. If that idea is at all concerning to you, read on.
Via Breitbart News:
“Oregon lawmakers passed legislation co-sponsored by Sen. Brian Boquist (R-Dallas) that allows a judge to issue an ex parte ruling for the confiscation of an individual’s firearms.
The bill is SB 719, and it has now passed Oregon’s House and Senate. It creates an Extreme Risk Protection Order, which forces the subject of the order to hand over all firearms, as well as his concealed carry permit if he possesses one.”
I’m not sure where Boquist gets off calling himself a Republican, sponsoring a bill like that, but apparently, he’s a man with a plan, and for some reason that includes deciding the Founding Father’s second amendment is outdated.
On the 6th of this month NRA-ILA reported on the issue:
“Senate Bill 719A has been scheduled for a House floor vote today. SB 719A was passed out of committee on Monday without a public hearing and with only one hour notice of the work session. It’s imperative that you contact your state Representative immediately and urge them to oppose SB 719A!
Based on a California law enacted in 2014, SB 719A would create a so-called ‘Extreme Risk Protection Order’ (ERPO) that could be obtained by a law enforcement officer, family member, or household member in an ex parte hearing to deprive someone of their Second Amendment rights without due process of the law.
By allowing a law enforcement officer, family member, or household member to seek the ERPO, SB 719A would allow people who are not mental health professionals, who may be mistaken, and who may only have minimal contact with the respondent to file a petition with the court and testify on the respondent’s state of mind. This ex parte order, which strips the accused of their Second Amendment rights, would be issued by a judge based on the brief statement of the petitioner. The accused would not be afforded the chance to appear in court to defend themselves against the allegations when the ERPO is issued. These orders may be issued without any allegations of criminal behavior.
In Oregon, people who pose a danger to themselves or others may be dealt with in a number of ways, depending on the circumstances. Under current law, every punitive measure which leads to a prohibition on firearm possession requires some type of judicial process, so people are not arbitrarily deprived of their liberty or their rights. SB 719A is unnecessary and goes far beyond existing law.
The ex parte aspect of the law means the bill does not require the gun owner to be present for part of the hearing in which the judge decides whether guns should be taken from him.
On April 18, 2017, Breitbart News reported that Boquist was pushing this confiscation bill, and he emailed Breitbart News to suggest the bill simply puts forward a law that is popular in other gun-control states. For example, Boquist informed Breitbart News that a similar law ‘passed the voters in Washington by 70%.’”
Apparently, even if this were constitutional, to begin with, we’re all just ok with the pre-prosecution of crimes now. Like, someone thinks that someone else might do something bad, so they get the courts to strip them of a second amendment right. I believe this would strongly infringe on that whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing. That’s why things like attempted suicide are considered illegal. A law has to be passed so that you can be guilty of that law and then law enforcement can protect you from yourself. You’d think a lawmaker of all people would understand and respect that.
(Breitbart) “Boquist also told Breitbart News that SB 719 ‘is not confiscation.’ However, the language of SB 719 is quite confiscatory. It says:
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.
If a requirement for ‘immediate surrender’ of firearms and concealed carry license upon issue of an ex parte ruling is not confiscation, then what is?
The Times quoted Boquist’s defense of the confiscatory bill on the Senate floor, saying, ‘Everyone wants to promote this as a gun bill. It’s not.’
True, it’s not a gun bill. It’s a no-gun bill.
Funny, isn’t it, how they’re not at all on board with state’s rights to decide things like transgender bathroom policies, but if you want to take away the constitutional rights of a citizen, you’ll be overwhelmingly supported by the lefties.
One last thought; if they were just interested in safety they wouldn’t have to take the license too. This is less about safety and more about seizing any opportunity to take firearms out of the hands of the everyday citizen.
Share if you think this is out of control abuse of power!
FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!