Is this for real?! WT Freak?

[gardener4life]

Can someone confirm if this is real? Did this just happen? If it has then this is messed up.

http://conservativefighters.com/news/br ... igned-law/

I'd like a second opinion. I stumbled across it while looking at something else.

[captainfearnot]

Yes, it's real. You can read the bill here.

The article you linked to does not accurately represent the new law, though.

The bill, signed Wednesday by Gov. Kate Brown, would permit state authorities to seize the firearms of anyone who has been determined as a threat to themselves or others – without any judicial process at all.

As described in Section 2, the law allows the court to issue an "extreme risk protection order." In other words it outlines in great detail the judicial process by which firearms may be seized. Hearings, appeals processes, all that good judicial process is spelled out.

Read through it, there are some interesting details. For example, Section 6 states that the guns don't have to be surrendered to the police, they can be handed over to a gun dealer or any other third party who is legally allowed to possess firearms.

[gardener4life]

Well the problem is what's to stop them from systematically just specifying 'everyone in x Town' in the risk protection order? Then they could go to the next town, etc. This kind of stuff worries me. A lot; including people's reaction to this.

People in places like Brazil have rampant crime everywhere, partly because only criminals have guns.

[BeNotDeceived]

What the world needs is more gun-free zones. =))

[gardener4life]

Gun free zones have huge crime actually. Have you considered that? Criminals will always still have weapons. Only people that believe in law and goodness will think like 'Oh I can't have guns, so I'll accept it.'

[captainfearnot]

Well the problem is what's to stop them from systematically just specifying 'everyone in x Town' in the risk protection order? Then they could go to the next town, etc.

A judge.

[David13]

Well the problem is what's to stop them from systematically just specifying 'everyone in x Town' in the risk protection order? Then they could go to the next town, etc.

A judge.

What if it's a judge who thinks like them, that anyone with a gun is a threat to themselves, their neighbors, the community at large, and the police?
What then? You do realize that there are a lot of judges today in places like Oregon and California that think exactly that way, don't you?

Yes, California has this same law.
dc

[captainfearnot]

What if it's a judge who thinks like them, that anyone with a gun is a threat to themselves, their neighbors, the community at large, and the police?
What then? You do realize that there are a lot of judges today in places like Oregon and California that think exactly that way, don't you?

Sure, but you're questioning the validity of the entire justice system. That's a whole different question.

Gardener4life was implying that there was something wrong with the law that was passed because it seemed to him to open the possibility for police to obtain an extreme risk protection order for an entire town. A judge isn't likely to issue such an order for the same reason that they don't issue search warrants for entire towns.

[David13]

What if it's a judge who thinks like them, that anyone with a gun is a threat to themselves, their neighbors, the community at large, and the police?
What then? You do realize that there are a lot of judges today in places like Oregon and California that think exactly that way, don't you?

Sure, but you're questioning the validity of the entire justice system. That's a whole different question.

Gardener4life was implying that there was something wrong with the law that was passed because it seemed to him to open the possibility for police to obtain an extreme risk protection order for an entire town. A judge isn't likely to issue such an order for the same reason that they don't issue search warrants for entire towns.

The problem with the law is that anyone can request such an order. If you have a beef with a neighbor, he/she can easily go and have your guns confiscated. And you mentioned that the judge would be some overriding iota of sanity in some way. But the problem is, many of them are not, and in fact are in bed with the looney lefties.
This is why I left California, because it is so sickening.
You do know what was done in Louisiana subsequent to Hurricane Katrina, don't you? Yes, they went door to door to seize any law abiding citizens guns so that they could be vulnerable to the thugs and thieves out on the streets at night ... with guns.
dc

[eddie]

What the world needs is more gun-free zones. =))

Yeah, or gun control laws, it worked in Chicago.

[Alaris]

From my cold dead hands

[captainfearnot]

The problem with the law is that anyone can request such an order. If you have a beef with a neighbor, he/she can easily go and have your guns confiscated.

And anybody can sue anybody else for any reason, anyone can press charges for anything they want. Doesn't mean they are going to be successful in court. Yes, anyone can request one of these orders, but I don't know how "easily" it results in someone having their guns confiscated.

The petitioner has to sign an affidavit or make a statement under oath, so if they are lying about the circumstances requiring an extreme risk protection order, that will come back on them. Then the petitioner has the burden of proof in demonstrating that those circumstances exist, i.e. the respondent is suicidal or has been using his guns in an illegal or threatening way (there's a whole list).

Then if the order is granted, the respondent has 30 days to request a hearing to argue their side and try to get it overturned. In other words, there's a whole judicial process.

Yes, there are lefty judges. There are also righty judges. There is a whole system in place to keep judges impartial, however effective it may or may not be. The point is, that's up to the judicial branch. Lawmakers don't draft legislation with the partiality of judges in mind.

You said California has this law. Can you please refer us to the times when such orders have been issued against entire towns? Since that's what gardner4life was asking about?

[David13]

...


You said California has this law. Can you please refer us to the times when such orders have been issued against entire towns? Since that's what gardner4life was asking about?

I think gardener4life was unable to believe this law existed. He/she wanted to know if this was 'for real'.
It's another unfortunate encroachment on the natural or God given right to self defense and the 2nd Amendment. It's another attempt by the left to take all ability to defend ourselves away from us. It is for real and it's another abomination, a travesty. An unnecessary infringement on the rights of all of us.
It's also totally unnecessary as there are other provisions in law for accomplishing what the loonies say they want/need to accomplish with this law.
dc