Search found 2 matches

by E.Marquez
Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:09 am
Forum: Other States
Topic: Oregon Governor signs bill effectively confiscating guns
Replies: 22
Views: 10713

Re: Oregon Governor signs bill effectively confiscating guns

philbo wrote:
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.
We will have to agree to disagree...
I guess Im referring to the part that states
"- 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"
And such a sworn statement can be made by any family member, any house-mate

Your distraction to the issue being discussed of legal issues should it be proven the sworn statement was false is, well,, not relative.

A irate spouses, MIL, sisters, brother uncles, or house mates do not consider that a fact at the time, thus the action will still happen.
And second, good luck proving it was false..
At best it will be seen as unfounded .. You can hardly disprove what was said in a conversation between two.
You can not disprove a "feeling" of threat
You hardly can disprove a reported action that was made by the defendant

If there is video with audio, then sure maybe..
But likely what will happen is the Judge will decide, the feelings and claimed observations are not sufficient to warrant the order..
And all of that is AFTER some judge has granted it, for reason I have already stated.

Its my opinion, my experience, my observation of past cases I know of..
You can disagree, but it is what it is.

Thanks, no harm no bad feelings, we just disagree.
by E.Marquez
Wed Jan 03, 2018 8:49 am
Forum: Other States
Topic: Oregon Governor signs bill effectively confiscating guns
Replies: 22
Views: 10713

Re: Oregon Governor signs bill effectively confiscating guns

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.
Now tell me, what judge is going to say no? the answer.. NONE. Not a single one will say no if they CAN say yes to the request.
Because the likely hood of that judge being taken to task for a "wrong" YES is slim and the chances of being censored over it even less.
Vice the chances of that Judges life and career being ruined if he says NO and the person in question so much as trips with the gun in hand and shoots the neighbors dog by accident.

Return to “Oregon Governor signs bill effectively confiscating guns”