And so it begins. Oregon Governor Signs Gun Confiscation Law.

[Marion Morrison]

4th amendment for the win,baby!


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fourth Amendment

 

[Marion Morrison]

I had a cop ask me if he could search my truck once. I said: "No, the last time I gave a cop permission to search my vehicle, he stuck a knife in my passenger seat and rendered it in two, so no."

And that was that. I was ready to fight.

 

[NYcarbineer]

“(6)(a) The court shall issue an extreme risk protection order if the court finds by clear

and convincing evidence, based on the petition and supporting documentation and after considering

a statement by the respondent, if provided, that the respondent presents a risk in

the near future, including an imminent risk, of suicide or of causing physical injury to another

person. The court may not include in the findings any mental health diagnosis or any

connection between the risk presented by the respondent and mental illness."

I'm not sure why you wouldn't want that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well. What do you libs have to say now? I've always claimed that democrats want to confiscate our guns. And you idiots told me I was crazy. Well, here's the proof. It's happening now. Are you people OK with this? Can I get just one liberal on here to stand up and say this is a bad idea?

Oregon Governor Signs Gun Confiscation Law | 2ANews.us

Wrong.

Obviously you didn’t bother to read the actual law.

The measure doesn’t authorized ‘gun confiscation’ – that’s a ridiculous rightwing lie.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

4th amendment for the win,baby!


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fourth Amendment

Also wrong.

Yet another moronic rightist.

This isn’t a 4th Amendment issue.

The measure is perfectly Constitutional, affording citizens comprehensive due process in accordance with 5th Amendment jurisprudence.

At least conservatives are consistent at being liars and wrong.

 

[Marion Morrison]

4th amendment for the win,baby!


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fourth Amendment

Also wrong.

Yet another moronic rightist.

This isn’t a 4th Amendment issue.

The measure is perfectly Constitutional, affording citizens comprehensive due process in accordance with 5th Amendment jurisprudence.

At least conservatives are consistent at being liars and wrong.

Bet your integrity on it.

 

[OKTexas]

I notice no one has linked to the actual law, and only to a very biased site.

Here's the law: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB719

Now show me where the state can confiscate your gun just because you bought a gun or took a firearm class.

Maybe you should take a remedial reading class, the article said that was a sitting judges public statements, he will likely be ruling on these cases.


.

Show me where a sitting judge said this law could take your gun just for taking a firearm training class.

It's so obviously a lie that even a tard like you should see it!

In the article is said judges can consider this:

Under this law, Oregon judges will be permitted to issue a “extreme risk protection order” based on any number of unrelated events or even hearsay allegations, such as a drunk driving arrest, the beginning of a divorce, allegations of drug use, or even engaging in a constitutionally-protected activity such as recently purchasing a gun or receiving firearm instruction.

They say that because of the ambiguous way the law is crafted.


.

They say it because they know you tards will buy this blazingly obvious lie.

There is nothing ambiguous in the law, which is why none of you can support the bogus claim.

Let's quote the law shall we?

(4) In determining whether to issue an extreme risk protection order, the court shall consider the following:

(D) Driving under the influence of intoxicants under ORS 813.010 or 813.011; or

(g) Evidence of an acquisition or attempted acquisition within the previous 180 days by the respondent of a deadly weapon;

(h) Any additional information the court finds to be reliable, including a statement by the respondent.

I find (h) particularly funny since the respondent isn't given notice of the hearing. In fact all hearings are ex parte meaning the respondent isn't represented at all. But the portion I put in bold creates ambiguity, that allows the judge to consider pretty much any thing they chose. That would include the dip shit judge that doesn't think anyone should have a gun.


.

 

[sartre play]

Again, read the law, OREGON GUN LAWS, NO PERMIT TO PURCHASE riffle, shot gun, NO REGISTRATION, NO LICENSING. APPLICATION TO CONCEAL HAND GUN AMONG EASIEST IN NATION. ONLY PERMIT REQUIRED IS FOR HAND GUN. new law is to protect vets & the people living with them. don't no if it will work or not. think its ok trying to help any vet.

 

[Crixus]

Well. What do you libs have to say now? I've always claimed that democrats want to confiscate our guns. And you idiots told me I was crazy. Well, here's the proof. It's happening now. Are you people OK with this? Can I get just one liberal on here to stand up and say this is a bad idea?

Oregon Governor Signs Gun Confiscation Law | 2ANews.us

Hmm. Wonder if cops will enforce it.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Another "The sky is falling OP".

Guns and light bulbs. It's easy to see that conservatives care as much about the incandescent light bulb as they do about guns because the arm flailing on both reaches the same level. Jesus H relax derps, go watch footage of whackjob gunning people down because Republicans voted to allow the mentally ill to keep their guns. That should make you feel good again.

first leftist post, first leftist to declare he hates the Constitution.

predictable.

Why do you hate the Constitution? It's worked well until now for the most part. Relax Spunky.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Democrats are communists who are trying to start a commie revolution, but they cannot do so without taking your guns.

This.

Is.

WAR!!!

 

[task0778]

Well. What do you libs have to say now? I've always claimed that democrats want to confiscate our guns. And you idiots told me I was crazy. Well, here's the proof. It's happening now. Are you people OK with this? Can I get just one liberal on here to stand up and say this is a bad idea?

Oregon Governor Signs Gun Confiscation Law | 2ANews.us

This is pure politics, playing to the dem base. There's no way this will be ruled as constitutional when it gets to the SCOTUS, no state law can ever trump an amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

new law is to protect vets & the people living with them. don't no if it will work or not. think its ok trying to help any vet.

Oh, of course. No way in hell anyone would EVER abuse that.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is pure politics, playing to the dem base. There's no way this will be ruled as constitutional when it gets to the SCOTUS, no state law can ever trump an amendment to the US Constitution.

But, they will keep going. They will keep trying. Eventually, they hope something will stick.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Another "The sky is falling OP".

Guns and light bulbs. It's easy to see that conservatives care as much about the incandescent light bulb as they do about guns because the arm flailing on both reaches the same level. Jesus H relax derps, go watch footage of whackjob gunning people down because Republicans voted to allow the mentally ill to keep their guns. That should make you feel good again.

There is no Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to bear light bulbs.

Oregon's ridiculous law will be struck down

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

“(6)(a) The court shall issue an extreme risk protection order if the court finds by clear

and convincing evidence, based on the petition and supporting documentation and after considering

a statement by the respondent, if provided, that the respondent presents a risk in

the near future, including an imminent risk, of suicide or of causing physical injury to another

person. The court may not include in the findings any mental health diagnosis or any

connection between the risk presented by the respondent and mental illness."

I'm not sure why you wouldn't want that.

a court can always enter a protective order taking measures to ensure that people are not a threat to themselves or others, including taking possession of dangerous weapons.

Ask yourself...why this separate law?

 

[Kondor3]

Dumbass phukking LibTards... it will be challenged in the courts and struck down in the blink of an eye.

 

[Rustic]

Another "The sky is falling OP".

Guns and light bulbs. It's easy to see that conservatives care as much about the incandescent light bulb as they do about guns because the arm flailing on both reaches the same level. Jesus H relax derps, go watch footage of whackjob gunning people down because Republicans voted to allow the mentally ill to keep their guns. That should make you feel good again.

More frivolous gun laws = More violence and death. Your fucked up frivolous gun laws will not save a single life. Fact

 

[RWNJ]

“(6)(a) The court shall issue an extreme risk protection order if the court finds by clear

and convincing evidence, based on the petition and supporting documentation and after considering

a statement by the respondent, if provided, that the respondent presents a risk in

the near future, including an imminent risk, of suicide or of causing physical injury to another

person. The court may not include in the findings any mental health diagnosis or any

connection between the risk presented by the respondent and mental illness."

I'm not sure why you wouldn't want that.

a court can always enter a protective order taking measures to ensure that people are not a threat to themselves or others, including taking possession of dangerous weapons.

Ask yourself...why this separate law?

Because it's really vague, and there are a bunch of liberal (Communist) judges who will abuse the Hell out of it. It's that simple. The left can deny it all they want. People like this want our guns and they will do anything to get them. Also, remember how Veterans returning from the Middle East had their right to bear arms unilaterally revoked for no good reason? These assholes are out to destroy us. As long as there is breath in my body, I will fight them.

 

[Rustic]

People who commit suicide are generally isolated. That's why suicides are not generally discovered for days. This law is a crock.

Bullshit. Why do you pull lies out of your ass so often?

The vast majority of suicides give a warning to friends and family ahead of time.

And more frivolous gun laws will not save a single life. shit for brains