Republican-Sponsored Citizen Disarmament Bill Headed to Anti-Gun Oregon Governor

By David Codrea

With his past service, Sen. Boquist should not need reminding that the document he swore an oath to has a mandate that includes the words “shall not be infringed.” (Brian Boquist Facebook photos)
David Codrea in his natural habitat.

USA – -( “Today the Oregon House approved one of the most dangerous, hateful and mean spirited pieces of legislation ever introduced,” Oregon Firearms Federation alerted members Thursday. “SB 719 A, the product of Republican Senator Brian Boquist’s collusion with the most militant anti-gunners in the legislature, will now allow the police to come to your home and confiscate your firearms and ‘deadly weapons’ with no accusation or conviction of a crime. There is NO question this bill will cost people’s lives.”

Boquist’s turning away from gun owner rights advocates who previously supported him weakens their already politically precarious position in “progressive”-dominated Oregon. A former U.S. Army Special Forces officer, he previously enjoyed excellent ratings and support from gun owner rights groups. The catalyst for his conversion was the suicide by gunshot of his Navy veteran stepson.

With his background and his circumstances, all people of good conscience will naturally feel sympathy. But as with so many who lose relatives in incidents involving guns, that sympathy does not give sufferers leave to endanger the lives and the rights of others. That’s especially true when proposed “solutions” rely on unsupported allegations, cast a broad net and ignore fundamentals of due process. Denying rights to citizens who have not been convicted of anything—that is, who are legally “innocent,” is unconstitutional and un-American.

OFF warns against disenfranchisement of rights based on allegations.

“Now a vindictive family or household member has the power to have your rights and property stolen from you simply because they chose to make an accusation against you,” OFF elaborates. “’Dangerous’ people will not be taken into custody. Self destructive people will receive no help.”

Naturally, the gun-grabbers paint any objections as “gun nuts” (and there’s a reason why they call us that) being FOR “putting guns in dangerous hands.” The real objection is to any American having rights forcibly stripped without full due process.

The unaddressed reality is, anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can‘t be trusted without a custodian. If someone is a provable danger to himself and others, he will find a way to act on that.

“The bill now goes to the Governor for her certain signature,” OFF concludes. They’ve seen firsthand how Kate Brown piles on the in-your-face infringements.

What's left is for gun owners to remember how Brian Boquist repaid their support the next time he runs for public office and do what they can to deny him power — even if it means a Democrat wins. That's may hurt in the short term, but it's really the only long-term response with any deterrent effect. After all, what incentive would any politician have to stay true to his base if there is no cost for infidelity? And in Boquist's case, what difference would it make?

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 50 thoughts on “Republican-Sponsored Citizen Disarmament Bill Headed to Anti-Gun Oregon Governor

      1. As I read down thru the comments, it occurred to me, because of the tone of to many comments, what a bunch of losers. No damn wonder a politician feels brave enough to even introduce such a bill. Why don`t all of us stand together and tell these wannabe tyrants NO WAY , will we give up our guns. Some here say they`l just move,some say they already did. Sounds like running away, to me. Cowards. Why don`t Oregon gun owners sit in visitors gallery when those elected to represent them, don`t. Every freedom lover should flood the state house with calls of protest. Stand firm, or surrender.

      1. @ CJ pickup, none. Not a one but Boquist. All of us are very disappointed in him, including his fellow legislators. Unfortunately, It really didn’t matter. The dems hold large majorities in both houses. In fact, no house Republicans voted for the bill and 4 house dems votes against it. In the senate Boquist voted for it and one dem voted against it. We are truly screwed in the long run in Oregon. It is just a matter of time until we look just like Kalifornia.

    1. Isn’t the governor of Oregon the one that wants to provide FREE ABORTIONS for everyone?
      Sounds like a large pile of liberal tripe to me.
      Now as to this RINO turncoat; I bet he voted right along with all the dimocraps on everything else.

    2. i guess i have no need to move too , visit or spend any money with any business in this state .

    3. I think Nutter is right that this is an attempt to create a “mental health” bill, but I also think Bill and Wild Bill are right that it will certainly be abused.
      The problem is that it DOES provide “due process of law” before depriving anyone of their rights. It is exactly what happens right now when a mental health professional goes before a judge and says, “In my professional opinion, John Doe here is a danger to himself or others and shouldn’t be free to roam around – he needs to be evaluated.” The JUDGE, that is, the COURT, then orders John Doe to be committed for evaluation for up to 72 hours. After that time, another hearing is held, and the evidence from the evaluation is presented before a judge, often the same one, to determine if John should be kept in a psychiatric facility against his will, or turned loose in public. Is this system subject to abuse? You bet! It can be, and probably IS, abused by both judges and the evaluating “mental health professional,” who, like everyone else hates to be found wrong or forced to change his opinion. The difference between the existing system and the new OR law is mostly that other “stakeholders,” folks who are not “mental health professionals,” will now be allowed to take someone THEY think (or at least claim) is dangerous, before a judge to deprive him of his rights. Given that the mental health profession is unable to predict, with any degree of accuracy, who will become violent or commit suicide, there is a reasonable argument to be made that family members may be at least as accurate, in making such predictions. The argument that he is being deprived of his rights without “due process” probably will not hold water legally because the deprivation will be done by a judge, hence, “by order of the court,” which is legally “due process.” Most of the judges I know personally, tend to be rather arrogant, and most are also rather liberal. I suspect that most of the time, most of the judges, would “err on the side of caution,” since there is no downside for them in doing so, and take away a person’s gun rights unless it was very, very clear that the person claiming he was dangerous, was an angry (as opposed to scared) spouse or family member. I say “no downside” because a judge who takes this course can only be overturned by another judge ruling against his decision, and judges face this situation fairly often through appeals, etc. However, if the judge refuses to take away someone’s gun rights, and that person then goes on to murder or commit suicide, the publicity backlash will be very detrimental to the judge’s re-election efforts. Consequently, I suspect that any request to a judge would normally result in his immediately depriving the allegedly dangerous person of his rights. That is what we get with bad judges, risk averse judges, and liberal, anti-gun judges, but while wrong, I think their decisions are probably going to be upheld as legal.

      1. OOOOPS – my error in writing this up. It doesn’t usually require a judge to commit someone for up to 72 hours for evaluation. That can generally be done by the police who may be called to arrest someone, or at the request of some types of “mental health professionals.” The judge’s orders will always be necessary to have a person involuntarily committed for longer than that.

      2. oldshooter,

        Good Lord man ! Is this how you live ? Promoting your hypothetics ? More of your sh*thouse legalese.

        You live in Texas. This introduced legislation is in Oregon. Once again you apply your scattergun remarks of generalized legalese, without knowing Oregon law.

        Get a life !

        “….law is often but the tyrant’s will.” – Thomas Jefferson, 3rd POTUS

        Get a life

    4. He took an OATH to uphold the Constitution and all it’s inclusions,clearly he is in violation of that oath, and should be removed from office, as should all others of same violation.

    5. Just another feel-good BS Bill that protects no one.
      The Bill says:
      “(a) Any instrument, article or substance specifically designed for and presently capable
      of causing death or serious physical injury; or
      (b) A firearm, whether loaded or unloaded”.
      Will this require the confiscation of all knives, hammers, axes, screwdrivers, baseball bats, etc?
      What about the third most common murder weapons in the US (after guns and edged weapons)- fists and feet?

    6. I lived in Oregon for 5 years–that was 20 years ago–and regretted leaving. Until now. It’s a beautiful state, but sadly, it’s becoming just another liberal/progressive s#!thole and there is no way I would ever move back now. The local people told me, in 1995, that all the Kalifornicators were invading and destroying the state. I now believe what they said.

    7. Its sounds like BS to me. Nothing goes according to plan with gun control. The objective has no merit according to what Ive read. It aint happening so smoothly Im sure. I understand temporary/depending holds of vets in need of help but I say only help from other vets. People who actually understand instead of some pencil pusher that just wants to disarm for politically foreign illegal gain. I can see disarming those who openly stand against the Constitution, the bill of rights, like to burn U.S. flags, wear pants on the ground and have no safety training. That would make perfect sense.

    8. At first I saw what was written in the law and was appalled (I am a life NRA member) that it would be written by a Republican. I then started thinking, the article does not state (intentionally) why seizures would be allowed. I am guessing the actual truth is, this is a mental health bill. We all want gun safety. If a person were deemed to be an imminent threat to themselves or others, there should be a method of seizing their weapons and doing so in short order. As a retired mental health evaluator, I have placed thousands of people on psych holds and would not want them to have access to firearms. A due process hearing could restore the weapons to the owners. I have had the police bum rush people with a 9 mm pistol to their head and save their life. The person was then brought in to me for evaluation and placed on a psych hold. I would not want that person to have their weapons back in three days.

      1. Do you actually think that they will restore anyones GUN RIGHTS after they have been wrested from them, legally or not? You make these examples about people with 9s to their heads and being saved by the police and not wanting them to have their guns back. Well, ok, but what about, and being a “mental health pro” Im sure you will agree, the childish, vindictive, arrested developmental state of our society where many people are so damned hateful that they will, and you know just as sure as hell they will, do this out of sheer spite and revenge. You f^%[email protected]$g know they will. So you are saying that if just one person is saved, from themselves, temporarily probably, its ok the have placed ALL of our rights jeapordized? People like you make me sick.

        1. and that guy bum-rushed when he had that nine up to his head, once he is out of YOUR control, will go find a bridge, rooftop, railroad track, razor blade, closed garage and a car with a tenk full of gasoline, a bottle of lawfully prescibed medications….. the gun is only the means. Remove that from the scenario and if the will remains, a different means and new opportunity will be sought and found.

          Ever hear of the term “SWATting”? The mergency 911 lines can, and are, abused. As will be this sick law.

      2. Since gun safety is actually gun control, not all of us want gun safety…
        Let’s stop allowing Doctors from prescribing drugs that help put thoughts of killing yourself in people’s minds.
        A sort of drug safety if you will…

      3. I agree this will not be due process….this will be an abuse of power for those that are anti-gun.

      4. @Larry Nutter, I’m not buying that liberal tripe. You say, “If a person were deemed to be an imminent threat to themselves or others, there should be a method of seizing their weapons and doing so in short order. As a retired mental health evaluator, I have placed thousands of people on psych holds and would not want them to have access to firearms.”
        I say you enjoyed being the “deemer”. Government thugs enjoyed doing the seizing. There should have been a hearing that the accused could defend himself, first before any other thing, and no property should have been seized. The property, at most, should be placed in a government paid for trust, with a responsible trustee. There should never be a one person decision maker when it comes to seizing someone’s property. Abuse comes to easy.

      5. @LN, You write,”…I have placed thousands of people on psych holds and would not want them to have access to firearms.” So one man’s opinion was all it took to deprive someone of their Second Amendment Civil Rights and their property. Well, how many did you refuse to place “psych holds on? One or two?

      6. Mr. Nutter,

        “….appalled that it would be written by a Republican.” Really ?

        Democrat….Republican, Left Wing….Right Wing, same bird.

        Awaken !

    9. Mr. Starrett do you have any indication where LEO’s stand on this? I’m looking myself. Railroaded again.

    10. I said once and I’ll say it again. California gun control is like a cancer that will spread.

      1. New Jersey is worse than California with Anti gun Dem O Craps in control , its the same ole story every year they are introducing new and more Legislation. Many people moving out .

    11. I should point out that the “VoteSmart” ratings listed mean nothing. They have us giving candidates a percentage rating, something we have never done. Looks like they make this stuff up.

      That being said in the past Boquist would have gotten good ratings from us. Never again.

      Kevin Starrett
      Oregon Firearms Federation

    12. So, I believe the mayor of Portland OR is a danger to himself or others. Will the police do anything about this? Inquiring minds want to know.

      1. He’s proven it by refusing to allow law enforcement to deal with the rioters in the Pearl earlier this year. A couple billioin in damage, folks hurt, businesses destroyed.. and he tells his coppers to stand down, just watch the show? A sick man. Needs a custodian, or a quiet room with controlled exits.

    13. You’re not going to have any recourse against Boquist since he’re retiring. And voting for a Democrat instead of a Republican in Oregon is the same as lying down for them to trample on you. Everyone is frustrated and angry that he would allow his dead son to be used by the likes of Ginny Burdick and Floyd Prozanski, but voting for another Democrat isn’t the answer.

      1. Why do we “have to” vote for Republicans in Oregon or anywhere just because they are not Democrats? Boquist is no better than Burdick or Prozanski or that woman in Mahonia Hall, Kate Brown. In fact for about a decade we had a solid Republican majority in both Oregon houses and as a body they proved they could tax and spend and legislate expanded government with the best authoritarian left statists that could be mustered anywhere and that is precisely why they are not in the majority now. So Republicans like Boquist don’t deserve our vote, period. That doesn’t mean voting for Democrats is the alternative and at least for me that hasn’t ever happened in the lifetime of this Oregonian and I will never vote for a Democrat as long as I live (after I’m dead, maybe). But I don’t have to vote for anybody that sucks, period.

      2. I said: “What’s left is for gun owners to remember how Brian Boquist repaid their support the next time he runs for public office and do what they can to deny him power — even if it means a Democrat wins.”

        If and when he does and whatever that office is.

        To support him and those like him regardless of what they do is to reward betrayal.

    14. This will never withstand challenge in the SCOTUS. Only question is long will it take to get there.

      1. Conventional wisdom is SCOTUS would not stand for it, but what is your evidence that SCOTUS is in possession of any such wisdom?

    15. Amazing – this is something expected out of a third world communist dictatorship, but not a US state. I agree, vote him out at any cost. Vote for the dem against him because this cannot be allowed to continue. The only real weapon the citizens have against politicians is fear of losing power, so a message has to be sent.

      This is also more proof that america is going to eventually break up into different nations because we are just way too different. The only question is if it will be a peaceful transition or will it be like Bosnia/Croation/Serbia in the 90s.

      1. Oregon has a third world communist dictator, and has had for the last 4 decades or so. Even some of the last Republican governors were not very republican in policy decisions. We need to take Oregon back from Portlandia and Eugene.

        1. The only way to take Oregon back might be the State of Jefferson.
          Rise up Jefferson, Rise up!

      2. This bill would not be so far along if there was enough public outrage against it…unfortunately it seems the majority of the people in OR are complacent or approve much like what happened in KommieMexiFornia win gunmagetton…

        1. You might be right, if this poor excuse for a governor cared about what we Oregonians want. The old bag of guts could care less, and has never listened to the people, as proven by her doing what her largest donor wants her to do. She is just a willing puppet for Michael Bloomberg.

      3. Why wait. Get a petition and gather enough signatures to oust him now!
        It’s not a matter of letting him finish his term.
        You will send a much more powerful message to any of these Jackboots, that betrayal will not go unpunished and with swift action! A petition with signatures can even get a governor booted out of office.
        But I find too offer that conservative people are more about complaining and less about action! The left does not seem to have the same problem.
        I do not live in Oregon, nor would I ever choose to live in a state that so violates the U.S. Constitution and the rights of it’s citizens. We are not subjects to some authoritarian regime. The power is in the hands of the people, not some Elitist politician or bureaucrat.
        We need to let these people know that they serve US, not the other way around!
        Conservatives will eventually lose it all, if they don’t start being more proactive as the left does.

    Comments are closed.