USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Welcome back to The Legal Brief, the show where we make it easy for you to understand gun laws here in the US. I’m your host Adam Kraut and today we are talking about the newly minted law in Oregon that might allow the police to confiscate your guns.
Look guys, I need your help. So often I read comments from people exclaiming their negative feelings about the NRA… but the only way to change that is to get someone on the board of directors that can help your voice be heard. If you are a NRA life member, an annual member for the past five years, or know someone who is, head on over to adamkraut.com to get a petition to place me on the ballot for the NRA Board of Directors in 2018. It’s not very difficult, all I’m asking for is a minute of your time. If you guys would help me out that would be massive.
Did he say confiscation, yea he said confiscation. Earlier in August, Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed Senate Bill 719 into law. The new law allows police, or a member of a subject’s family or household, to file an extreme risk protection order petition with the court which could lead to an order prohibiting firearms possession if it is believed they pose an imminent risk to themselves or others. And I’m sure none of you would be shocked but the bill was only supported by one Republican in the Senate and none in the house.
So what exactly does the new law do? As I said a moment ago, it allows for a police officer or a member of the subject’s family or household to file a petition with the court when they believe a person will pose an imminent risk to themselves or others. After a petition is filed, the court must hear the petition the same day or the next judicial business day. Those seeking a petition must write a sworn statement or give a sworn oral statement from themselves or any witness.
The Court will look to seven factors when considering a petition before it. These include: 1) history of suicide threats, attempts of suicide, or acts of violence by the person the petition is being sought against towards other people, 2) history of use, attempted use or threatened force, 3) previous convictions for a litany of things including driving under the influence, 4) evidence of recent use of a controlled substance, 5) violation of a previous restraining order, 6) this is the most troubling to me, evidence of an acquisition or attempted acquisition of a deadly weapon, and 7) any additional evidence the court considers reliable, including a statement by the person against whom the petition is sought.
Let’s talk about why number 6 is so troubling. The new law defines the term deadly weapon as any instrument, article or substance specifically designed for and presently capable of causing death or serious physical injury OR a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded. Essentially, it would appear that if a person filed a petition and stated that you recently acquired a firearm, you’d be at risk of having one of these petitions granted against you and losing your guns.
Worse yet, the initial hearing is held ex parte, meaning that the accused isn’t present and has no opportunity to present a defense against the accuser. Now the law does state that the court shall only issue an order if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person presents a risk of suicide or causing physical injury to another in the near future. For those that don’t know, the clear and convincing evidence standard is a medium burden, less than beyond a reasonable doubt but more than a preponderance of the evidence. Those that have an order issued against them can request a hearing to challenge that finding. I believe the saying is guilty until proven innocent. Right?
However, the law also states that an order issued shall prohibit the individual who it was issued against from having in their custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive a deadly weapon. An individual has 24 hours to surrender all deadly weapons in their custody or control to law enforcement, a third party or a gun dealer. Which begs the question, where do kitchen knives fall in all of this nonsense? Additionally, if they have a concealed carry permit, that must be surrendered within 24 hours as well.
After the order is served on a person, they have 30 days to appeal it. A hearing must be held within 21 days of an appeal. Which means that a person might very well have to surrender their firearms prior to a hearing. If a person fails to appeal the order within that time frame, the order is confirmed by operation of law for a period of one year, unless it is terminated earlier. Again, this raises due process concerns as you now have a person who is being denied a constitutional right due to an ex parte hearing with no guarantee of a hearing for a period of up to 21 days after they appeal the decision. This means that if a person does not appeal the order until the last minute and a hearing isn’t granted until day 21, they could potentially go up to nearly two months without possession of their firearms having had no hearing.
At the hearing itself, the petitioner or the person seeking the order, has to again prove by clear and convincing evidence that the other person poses a threat. If they are successful, the order remains in effect for that one year period. If they are not, the court must immediately terminate the order. The law also allows for a person to request that the order terminate early and enables the requester of an order to renew it 90 days prior to the expiration of the previous one (requiring a hearing again).
Once an order has been terminated, if the deadly weapon is a firearm, they are returned to the individual after a background check has been conducted. As always, laws like this cause grave concern for the due process rights of those accused. In essence, a person could be accused of being a threat and be denied their Second Amendment rights while the courts sort it out. The only small sliver of silver lining is that a person who knowingly files a false petition against someone is guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor. Time will tell if they actually get prosecuted or not.
If you’re concerned about the rights of your fellow gun owners in Oregon, you need to share this video and let people know about this new law. Don’t forget to hit that like button and if you aren’t subscribed already, you better make that happen. Be sure to ring that bell so you don’t miss an episode. Check out my website adamkraut.com.
And as always thanks for watching!
Links for this episode:
Senate Bill 719 : https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Measures/Overview/SB719
About The Gun Collective
The Gun Collective is dedicated to bringing you the highest quality, fast paced gun content possible. Started in June 2015 by Jon Patton, TGC has rapidly taken off to become a go-to source for the things you need to know without a bunch of BS. Please check out TheGunCollective.com to learn more and see what the hype is all about!
If it’s Brown…flush it!!
Obvious intent is to corral firearms, but given if you take most folks guns and knives, they still will have a hundred or so things within reach that could be used as a deadly weapon. Maybe time for conservative folks to move into several states, build a consensus and a wall, that will effectively keep all Libs and other anti2nd typeset at bay.
hell , they did that here in Washington state last year !
Boarder Wall !
Running the full length of the west coast ,
from Boarder to Boarder . Canada to Mexico !
Lest not forget to hang a left on the southern end
to include Mexico !
San Andreas will hopefully take care of a good portion of this problem. Wait! How high will the sea levels rise, if all three liberally dominated territories slip into the Pacific; hard to tell because “S**T” floats!!
Justtryit …..that was so well put. Thanks….just a reader here.
Well I got to say all of the Liberals Democrats should be ship to a Thrid world country and see how it is to live there. I work with people who come from a third world country and they say they will not go back. That is what the Democrats want to do and have open borders to make one country out of America so they will have power over south, central, and north America be leave are not . They are trying to ruin the United States Of America. Obama the Muslim we had for a President who would… Read more »
How would you rewrite the law ? Other than the misuse of #6, the rest of the law has merit.
My adult brother-in-law made a threat against me while living in my mother-in-law’s house. We collected his guns without his knowledge and sought a No Contact order. He was livid. The cops would do nothing to help us.
The rest of the law has no merit. Without due process, and ex parte hearings bypass due process, the so called law removes an inherent right. Just my opinion.
The thing with the nra only working on a national level is so lame! If they had helped on an state level they might not have to fight so hard on nat. Level . I guess I’ll start spending my money on local gun lobbyists until the nra starts thinking ahead not behind when it’s to late and many times harder to remove alaw!
@David clark, The NRA gives lots of help and financial help to local affiliates.
And a special shout out to “dick” with his own special style of Constitutional scholarship: dick is most appropriate.
that phucking for the garbage, that the second amendment to the constitution of the United States can be wiped off the acc ?????????
Huh???
Living in an a**hole state “Kalifornia” and visiting an a**hole state “Oregon”, WOW!, thats more than a system can take.
In the 70’s and 80’s when I lived in Oregon, many of us had bumper stickers: “DON’T CALIFORNICATE OREGON”. Obviously they have done it!
Glad I now live in AZ. One of the few states with legal Open and Concealed carry.
Oregon, Portland and the coastal region, along with Seattle and the Washington coastal region might as well BE California. You can write the entire region off as far as having any kind of common sense, especially regarding firearms. The entire area should be designated a new state and a wall built around it. Obviously, Constitutional law, common sense and logic do not live there, only political correctness is their “law of the land”.
outside of the Puget’s Sound area, the entire State of Washington is quite conservative, live and let live. The trouble is that Seattle alone outnumbers the rest of the state when it comes to votes, and Everett (Snohomish COunty) and Tacoma (most of Pierce County, to the south of Seattle) finish the job.
In Oregon its all Wierd Portland, and they get far too much help from Eugene.
Actually, Spokane is liberal along with Vancouver. And the rest of the state is moderately conservative.
Middle Washington state may have some conservatives but west of the Cascades is as liberal as Calif. Maybe some military are conservatives.
Let’s skip the niceties of using the term liberal and call the I-5 corridor what it is – socialist.
Don’t know what we could do about the “Left Coast” of Oregon and Washington, but most of Kalifornia needs to be ceded back to Mexico.
America Loving Citizens would move into the United States, then all the Constitution Hating Liberals would be illegal aliens (undocumented immigrants) in Mexico.
What sweet justice!
Some things about the SB719. 1. It was written, I believe, by a Senator who had lost his son to suicide. 2. The Bill was held in committee until the last minute then rushed through a vote. It was so rushed it is unlikely many legislators had the chance to read it before they voted (all Dems, plus the one Rep. who wrote it, voted for it.) 3. While lethal weapon obviously means guns it can, as Adam, points out, mean knifes, including all kitchen knives. BUT, since this Bill is in part about protecting an individual from suicide, it… Read more »
Tell this Californian about checks and balances. If the powers that be can get away with passing such crap, they can get away with over-coming the checks and balances. And if they pass a law, they don’t have to follow it. They can make an arbitrary decision to handle it as they please; changing dates, by-passing public reviews, even threatening people collecting signatures to put something on the ballot.
The penalty for knowingly filing a false petition should be classified as a felony. That would help to reduce false petitions. But I agree that the lack of due process is alarming, to say the least. Much like in CA where being accused of a “hate crime” is a crime in and of itself. Hasn’t a court already declared such laws unconstitutional?