Oregon Governor Preparing to Sign Gun Confiscation Law

Isn't there something called...

The 4th Amendment??

bwceng11 said:

The 4th Amendment??

Click to expand...

That was repealed when the War on Drugs started in the '80s.

KrisAnne Hall https://www.facebook.com/krisanne.hall/?fref=mentions

The Right to be secure in our property is essential to Liberty. The 4th, 5th, 7th, & 8th Amendments are not window dressing. The federal government is prohibited from taking our property without proper due process. Time for the people to stand up and say, Hey Government, Stay Out Of My Stuff!

No matter how this goes, it is not going to end well. A lot of it will depend on where the local, county,tribal, and state police stand. This might have the potential to start some kind of war as well with both sides getting hurt bad. A government that the state police will not comply with its orders is no government...

motorcoachdoug said:

No matter how this goes, it is not going to end well. A lot of it will depend on where the local, county,tribal, and state police stand. This might have the potential to start some kind of war as well with both sides getting hurt bad. A government that the state police will not comply with its orders is no government...

Click to expand...

Exactly. Not only 'will not comply' from "The People" but when MSP and majority of Sheriff's will not comply it is real that not following illegal or immoral orders comes into play. Are MSP or a sheriff going into homes of many family and friends to confiscate? Think not!!

Remember when the government of CT passed a law that was against the constitution the state police refused to enforce the law? Basically the CT SP told the gov and ag go fly a kite or go do it yourself.... If it that happens in Oregon you can almost bet it will move to that liberal hell hole of Cali....

motorcoachdoug said:

Remember when the government of CT passed a law that was against the constitution the state police refused to enforce the law? Basically the CT SP told the gov and ag go fly a kite or go do it yourself.... If it that happens in Oregon you can almost bet it will move to that liberal hell hole of Cali....

Click to expand...

CT has a somewhat high nember of assault weapons registered by owners intimidated by the law.

Meanwhile in NY, the State Police estimate that fewer than 5% of the "assault weapons" in the state are actually registered by their owners.

However, if the owner of a registered firearm dies, it is confiscated by the sheriff if not legally disposed of in a short period after the demise - I think two weeks? Don't expect to be compensated for the unconstitutional taking, either. I'm uncertain regarding the number of these occurrences, but they have taken place.

I will gladly hand over the receivers of all my "assault weapons", then I will be in compliance with the law, having no assault weapons registered to my name.

teratos said:

I will gladly hand over the receivers of all my "assault weapons", then I will be in compliance with the law, having no assault weapons registered to my name.

Click to expand...

Well, it depends on definitions:

It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the ?if he ?
if "is" means is and never has been, that is not--- that is one thing.
If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. - William Jefferson Clinton

Click to expand...

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ... "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

Click to expand...

5cary said:

Laws that allow asset forfeiture are built of possession of contraband or otherwise illegal activity. In this case, the guns would be legally owned and the only an "i gotta bad feelz" will be needed.

I see where there are parallels, but I don't think it's the same.

Click to expand...

Except civil forfeiture is OFTEN used for "we feel like there was a crime". No jury, no judge, they just take your shit on an allegation of a criminal act and that your stuff was somehow involved. Under civil forfeiture cops can seize your car and all your possessions on you if they pull you over for a DD. Don't even have to prove it in court.

Cops have many times used civil forfeiture as a shake down.

Yes, sometimes, maybe even mostly, civil forfeiture is used legitimately, but the government should not be depriving anyone of life, liberty or their property without due process. If a crime was committed and your stuff was involved with the crime in some way, prove in court that a crime was committed and prove your guilt.

lazarus said:

Except civil forfeiture is OFTEN used for "we feel like there was a crime". No jury, no judge, they just take your shit on an allegation of a criminal act and that your stuff was somehow involved. Under civil forfeiture cops can seize your car and all your possessions on you if they pull you over for a DD. Don't even have to prove it in court.



Cops have many times used civil forfeiture as a shake down.



Yes, sometimes, maybe even mostly, civil forfeiture is used legitimately, but the government should not be depriving anyone of life, liberty or their property without due process. If a crime was committed and your stuff was involved with the crime in some way, prove in court that a crime was committed and prove your guilt.

Click to expand...

Yup

Good documentary on the subject. Worth 15 minutes of your time:
https://www.circa.com/video/2017/04/21/seized

DC-W said:

Yup

Good documentary on the subject. Worth 15 minutes of your time:
https://www.circa.com/video/2017/04/21/seized

Click to expand...

Civil forfeiture is a good example of how our country has allowed unconstitutional laws to stay on the books. Due process, free speech, the right to bear arms are all so clearly stated in our Constituion and yet lawmakers, lawyers working for states and against against people, and judges have made it convaluted and a mess. The forefathers knew what they were doing and in over 225 years we have made it an absolute mess that isn't protecting the people anymore. Scrap all the laws and go back to the constitution the way it was, simple reset when there are too many laws contradicting themselves and hurting the people they should be protecting.

Not_an_outlaw said:

Isn't this the current law in Maryland with protective orders?

Click to expand...

5cary said:

I believe so, but in MD (IIRC) the burden of proof for violence (photos, eye witness testimony) is on the person seeking the order. So at least there is a minimum of due process (arguable, I know).

Reading the OP article, I did not get the impression that will be the case in Oregon.

(I'm not a lawyer and have no experience in protective orders, so my observations might be way off...)

Click to expand...

I'm not an attorney but can attest first hand how a restraining order can be granted.

Couple years ago an old girlfriend accused me of all sorts of nastiness and got a temporary restraining order against me. I consulted an attorney who told me what to do/say in court and that I should be fine without him. After the hearing, in which a 6 month order was granted against me I called my lawyer. The conversation was filled with him saying things like "How do you go to court and not have your witnesses testify ?" and me saying "I was screwed from the get go, the judge refused to hear testimony from ANY of the witnesses in ANY of the cases and granted ALL restraining orders". After listening to the audio of the hearing he calls me and says "Okay, now I understand, you were screwed from the get go".

Made no difference that I had 3 witnesses there to provide an alibi. Made no difference she lied about what the officer that took her report said, and could be proven. Made no difference that she lied, again provable, to the county commissioner in order to get the temporary. Made difference that there was ZIP, ZERO, NADA evidence against me (didn't exist because it couldn't).

Attorney told me that the judges grant restraining orders without regard to evidence basically to cover their asses in case anything happens.

She didn't expect me to contest the order and when I appealed, with my attorney representing me, she looked pretty damn stupid. She actually lied, again, under oath, on the stand, about what the officer said to her on the night in question, WITH THE OFFICER SITTING IN THE COURTROOM (and there were only 2 other people there)


I could go on and on with many more examples of how outlandish the whole thing was, but bottom line is the judges simply don't care, see restraining as no big deal, and side with the plaintiffs to cover their own sorry backsides.

Not_an_outlaw said:

In temporary orders, proof is minimal. The aggrieved party might not even be there. Can a practicing lawyer offer input?

Click to expand...

The petitioner has to be there. In my initial hearing I was like 3rd on the docket and when called my accuser was nowhere to be found. The judge actually asked ME if I knew where SHE was (something my attorney couldn't believe until he actually heard the audio). When I told the judge I had no idea where she was he pushed the case aside and I had to sit there for the next two hours waiting for him to recall the case, which by then she had decided to grace the court with her presence. WHAT A JOKE !

She signed it
https://www.worldnewspolitics.com/2...onfiscation-law-violates-2nd-14th-amendments/

This will not end well.

BigDuphis said:

She signed it
https://www.worldnewspolitics.com/2...onfiscation-law-violates-2nd-14th-amendments/

Click to expand...

and democrats across America are now orgasaming in their britches as we speak

False reports submitted against gun owners in 3...2...1...

So part of the contrived justification for this abomination is to prevent suicides by gun owners, right? Suppose a gun owner doesn't want to peaceably release his/her firearms after a bogus claim has been filed in which he/she hasn't been provided due process. Will the state use deadly force against the citizen clinging to their guns in order to supposedly prevent a suicide?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Oregon...home to assisted suicide.


Molon Labe


Moron Partay

fidelity said:

So part of the contrived justification for this abomination is to prevent suicides by gun owners, right? Suppose a gun owner doesn't want to peaceably release his/her firearms after a bogus claim has been filed in which he/she hasn't been provided due process. Will the state use deadly force against the citizen clinging to their guns in order to supposedly prevent a suicide?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Something Oregon has always been for: Assisted Suicide!