Search found 2 matches

by philbo
Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:14 am
Forum: Other States
Topic: Oregon Governor signs bill effectively confiscating guns
Replies: 22
Views: 2745

Re: Oregon Governor signs bill effectively confiscating guns

E.Marquez wrote:
philbo wrote:- The Order can only be requested by law enforcement, family members or housemates. Not the general public
- While the initial hearing is exparte, the law stipulates that the following evidence must be submitted:

A written affidavit or oral statement made under oath by the person making the request.
The very first line is where this "law" is flawed.

So any family member or house mate may make such a sworn affidavit, and with no other "proof" just that persons word a judge may issue such and order of confiscation.
And your very first sentence is where you make a mistake. A persons sworn statement must be supported by other evidence or the person making such a false statement would face an A level misdemeanor, the same punishment the accused would face if he violated the order. The law requires other evidence in support of the person making the statement.
by philbo
Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:39 am
Forum: Other States
Topic: Oregon Governor signs bill effectively confiscating guns
Replies: 22
Views: 2745

Re: Oregon Governor signs bill effectively confiscating guns

After reading the law there seems to be plenty of due process... whether there is justice or not is a question that will turn on how the courts put this into practice. Washington has had a similar law since 2016 without confiscation issues arising yet... yet.

- The Order can only be requested by law enforcement, family members or housemates. Not the general public
- While the initial hearing is exparte, the law stipulates that the following evidence must be submitted:

A written affidavit or oral statement made under oath by the person making the request
A history of suicide attempts or threats, or violence against others
A history of attempted, threatened, or actual use of physical force against others
Any previous convictions for: misdemeanor violence, stalking, domestic violence, driving under the influence, animal cruelty
Evidence of recent illicit drug abuse
Previous reckless or illegal use, brandishing or display of a deadly weapon
Evidence of having acquired or attempted to acquire a deadly weapon within the past six months


The burden of proof is on the movant making the request at all times. If the person making the request is found to have knowingly provided false information or intended to harass the subject of the request, they can be convicted of a Class A misdemeanor, which carries a prison sentence of up to twelve months in Oregon. (this part I like)

An appeal can be filed within 30 days, and has to be heard within 21 days of such a request. A maximum of 51 days before a full hearing has to be held.If issued the order is only good for 12 months and punishable as a class a misdemeanor if violated. Renewal is possible but the same requesting process would have to take place once more. Property must be returned immediately once the order is lifted either by appeal or expiration.

Such an exparte order can be obtained in Texas for 60 days under similar grounds in family violence cases which would also criminalize the possession of a firearm while the order is in effect. The impounding of weapons may be erring on the side of caution until a full hearing can be had, but if a person had demonstrated behavior as described above, perhaps a forfeiture for a maximum of 51 days doesn't seem as onerous as the headline might imply.

Return to “Oregon Governor signs bill effectively confiscating guns”