You should read the actual law. It is far different that what is portrayed here. It only applies to those considered a risk to themselves or others. Only law enforcement officials, not all government officials, and family members can ask for the removal of the firearms. Only after a court hearing does the individual have to give up his guns. Read the law before making knee jerk reactions.
"By allowing a law enforcement officer, family member, or household member to seek the ERPO, SB 719A would allow people who are not mental health professionals, who may be mistaken, and who may only have minimal contact with the respondent to file a petition with the court and testify on the respondent’s state of mind. This ex parte order, which strips the accused of their Second Amendment rights, would be issued by a judge based on the brief statement of the petitioner. The accused would not be afforded the chance to appear in court to defend themselves against the allegations when the ERPO is issued. These orders may be issued without any allegations of criminal behavior."
In Oregon, people who pose a danger to themselves or others may be dealt with in a number of ways, depending on the circumstances. Under current law, every punitive measure which leads to a prohibition on firearm possession requires some type of judicial process, so people are not arbitrarily deprived of their liberty or their rights. SB 719A is unnecessary and goes far beyond existing law.
Nevertheless, the potential for partisan abuse of this law is tremendous.
For the record, I have zero faith in LE or the courts to act in my best interests. IMO they have in many, many places become little more than partisan political organizations.
Odds that I’d find a non activist court in Oregon are probably rather poor.
What kabar said in post #21...