Oregon Gov. Kate Brown Signs Confiscation Legislation

[Bang]

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?

[Qtrborecrazy]

The whole state of Oregon is mentally unstable, turn in all of your guns fruitcake.

[ATBackpackin]

Anyone who wants to own a gun obviously is mentally unstable. Problem solved!

[chp1911]

How do they know who has guns?

[Ecclectic Collector]

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?

Bang you nailed it. The details of the due process involved is important in having any kind of discussion of this sort.

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?

[john9001]

Aww come on guys, it's only reasonable common sense comprehensive gun banning.

[Gripsafety]

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...

Yes, it's raining Bloomberg money.

[Ecclectic Collector]

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?

[FJW]

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.

That's the way I see it too.
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.

[Ecclectic Collector]

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.