Printable View
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed a bill into law that allows police to confiscate privately-owned guns. The bill, SB 719 A, was introduced by Republican Sen. Brian Boquist and passed largely by Democratic legislators.
The bill gives the state the authority to confiscate guns belonging to law-abiding citizens if they are deemed a threat to themselves or others. . . .
https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/ore...n-bill-signed/
Wow, the turncoat Republicans are starting to come out of the woodwork.
Something strange is going on here folks.
I believe the Globalists are pulling out all the stops and consolidating their forces on both sides of the isle.
It's coming.
Cover your butts.
http://i.imgur.com/xolbXs9.png
This Boquist clown seemed to start out ok. Must be something in the air up there in the Pacific Northwest that turns everyone into raging progressive big government assholes...
Quote:
Senator Brian Boquist was born and raised on a dairy farm in Tillamook and has been an Oregonian his entire life. He and his wife, Peggy, now live on a small farm in Dallas where their six children were raised. The family farm and forest operations spread multiple counties and several states.
At 17, Senator Boquist enlisted in the U.S. Army receiving education benefits that would later aid in his receipt of a college education. Brian retired after thirty-four years of military service as a Special Forces Officer in July 2011 from the U.S. Army Special Operations Command.
After receiving a B.S. in Social Science and Business Administration at Western Oregon University, he earned an MBA from Oregon State University in Corvallis. With the life experience gained in the military, and the education he received, today Brian serves as an executive of an international small business. Formerly, he worked with a group of companiescolor state seal.jpg and government entities preparing Marines, Army and Navy soldiers for service in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, in the defense of the nation by supplying hyper-realistic simulated training using role players, pyrotechnics and blank firing weapons to create the feeling of real-life situation soldiers might encounter in country.
Brian Boquist has served two terms as State Representative in House District 23 and is now in his third term as State Senator in District 12, which is comprised of House Districts 23 and 24.
Radiation from the Fukushima power plant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman106
B.S. in Social Science
"deemed a threat to themselves or others"
deemed by who?
The same people who now have the authority to confiscate their firearms. Duh...Quote:
Originally Posted by john9001
But don't worry. I'm sure there are tons of requirements that the local police and judges must get through before the pale skinned former Marine flying a Gadsden flag on his front porch is deemed a threat.
Until "deemed" reads "determined by due process" I don't wanna hear it...Quote:
Originally Posted by john9001
Plenty of members here who support it..because it's the law and stuff.
If I have it correct, LE encounter presents possibility a person with or having access to gun(s) is not of sufficient mental capacity to do so.
LE takes gun(s) and places into storage, followed up by report to a court (judge) of the circumstances with request for psych exam. Pass/fail exam, gun(s) returned/retained.
Once having failed via a (presume a 302-type evaluation), return of gun(s) becomes forever nearly impossible. Once having passed but a 302-type evaluation was the conduit, return of gun(s) becomes forever nearly impossible.
Questions might be, what level of judge is minimum level? Once gun is taken, does the owner have to be involuntarily evaluated in order to achieve a disposition of the gun and police case? Or does s/he throw self on the spike trying to get gun back? What elements will be necessary for sufficient probable cause? As various cases bounce through the system and get warped by decisions and appeals, will confiscation become easier or more difficult? Will the NRA step in for the good of all?
The whole state of Oregon is mentally unstable, turn in all of your guns fruitcake.
Anyone who wants to own a gun obviously is mentally unstable. Problem solved!
How do they know who has guns?
Bang you nailed it. The details of the due process involved is important in having any kind of discussion of this sort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang
For instance, if a person is suffering from depression due to temporary life circumstances: a major health issue, divorce/death in family, financial circumstances, etc... does this constitute grounds for temporary or lifetime ban of firearm possession/ownership?
Aww come on guys, it's only reasonable common sense comprehensive gun banning.
Yes, it's raining Bloomberg money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman106
No it isn't. Not to sound testy about the snarky responses but its a serious question and needs to be addressed as such.
The law of the land already has provisions for restricting the right to arms ownership. That is a reality I'm coming from regardless of what I think of politicians and the gun banning elitists.
The question is what is involved in the due process if a person is accused of something that would warrant the removal of arms in his/her possession? Also is there differentiation between a temporary loss of the right vs a permanent one, and what is the threshold for either?
That's the way I see it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricochet
I think it's not likely that we'll see the law being enforced much though. I think it was signed more to get a pat on the head from above than to actually suppress those below, even though it's not what we want to hear. It's a political move to draw favor from globalist benefactors. The states are beginning to react to the media-fueled civil divide among the states and they are making moves to express their loyalties.
It's not really about disarming people. It's about what type of sociopolitical environment makes people with money invest in a given region. q
For example, the real competition of the Cold War was not really about who had more missiles, it was about who provided the "greatest society". That's why the U. S. has always gone over the top to make Russia look bad, because they don't want Russia to have appeal to those with money. Now youre going to see U. S. states doing that to each other. California is already proving to be a player in how they slander employees who travel to anti-gay states. That is only to assure loyalty from California's sizable gay population. The new Oregon law is to do the same for Oregon's sizable pacifist/sheeple population. They may even demonstrate it at some point, but only to remain credible with the people they are trying to impress, not to get evryeryone's guns.That would cost them money that they'd rather have in their pockets. These people see government as business rather than as a tool for oppression. It's your average common liberal who wants to oppress you and use the government to do it.. And when most taxpayers in a state are that way the state will simply do the minimum required to keep their vote. So what we are seeing here is something which speaks more to the liberal taxpayer than to those with guns.
FJW,
That is a different way of looking at it, but I suspect there is more than a small amount of truth to your view of things.
Any typical modern "corporate" government wants to make money off the people, plain and simple. Corporations have the ultimate agenda of creating win/win situations for themselves. In this case the win/win status comes from letting people have guns and collecting from their investment in the form of taxes and fees, and also contraposiitively by appeasing the antigun taxpayer with laws that make them feel safe. This is what we call a
Attachment 100308
The states with the highest GDP are either blue or red, not in between (purple). And the reason is because this simplifies the process governments follow to capitalize on the population's activity. And THIS IS WHY THE MEDIA DIVIDES PEOPLE AND PRESSURES THEM TO CHOOSE SIDES. It simplifies the state's business. In blue states or red states only one type of culture dominates and drives the economy. Purple states are in a kind of economic purgatory which is harder to master for governments;This special balance of collecting revenue from two very different if not oppositional social groups living under the same roof, so to speak. Threatening people with gun control makes liberals happy to pay taxes and support government. ..and it makes the right buy more guns and ammo out of fear of being oppressed. More taxes and fees again. This is how win/win is achieved in purple states for the ones who run things. At some point the leaders have to take inventory of who comprises their cash cow herd and implement a way of cashing in on them without ultimately alienating a whole subgroup. In a state which leans red or blue, the goal is to shift the whole population toward that pole to avoid having to cater to a complex mixed population.
Really? Don't mean to be snarky, but this "Republican" asshole got a lot of money from Democrat organizations known to get money from Bloomberg et al in 2012. I don't have numbers from 2016, and nobody knows what has been promised yet for 2020.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecclectic Collector
These people are businessmen who pick the softest (cheapest) targets for their agenda.
They will pursue the law as a bargaining chip with moderately moneyed and savvy people and as a sledgehammer with the poorer who don't know better. I'm betting they will never let a well funded challenge get to an appellate court.
The "law of the land" is whatever the government says it is.