Posted on 07/14/2017 11:43:21 AM PDT by davikkm
A new Bill, SB719, has been passed by both the House and the Senate in Oregon that allows police to take your legally owned weapons AND permit without your permission, even if you have never appeared in a court or been charged with a crime.
It is based on the 2014, Californian Bill SB 719A, that enacts what is known as an “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (ERPO). The “reasoning” behind this Bill has been explained as a way of preventing at-risk people of committing suicide. But the reality is that this is just a way of allowing the State to seize legally owned weapons without any Due Process.
It allows that if a family member, a person in the household, or a Police Officer deems you to be “at-risk”, they can applt to the court for all firearms and permits to be removed from the “at risk” person. This is then either granted or denied by the judge. The “at risk” person does not even have to be either aware of the order or appear before the court for this to be granted.
(Excerpt) Read more at investmentwatchblog.com ...
Oregon is worse than California, both followed by Washington State. Odd thing is its only liberal insanity next to the ocean. The more east you get the more conservative you get.
Must be something in the water.
Must be something in the water.
Yepper, the latest inflow from U NO WHERE....F-—A Shema
Have we already forgotten the Boston debacle, where search without due process was rampant? The almighty state ignores simple things like Constitutions. The peons must be controlled dontchaknow!
Seems this runs afoul the constitution and first time in court would be thrown out. Where is ACLU on this?
Yes, you can only commit suicide via a licensed care provider. No self-service.
We need a State of Jefferson (conservative areas of Oregon and conservative areas of California), to stop these left wing brownshirts.
Meanwhile, most if not all Sheriff’s in the gun owning conservative counties in Oregon will not enforce this anti 2 amendment bs!
Morons....making law.
Whew. Dodged another bullet. Almost moved to Oregon. Glad I didn’t now.
Use an automatic for divorce proceedings?
Thought those were illegal.
Okay, I’ll give it a try
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html Marbury v. Madison 1803, vol 5, pg 137
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank. Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/425/
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) While acts of a de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law and existing are often held to be binding from reasons of public policy, the acts of a person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office which does not exist de jure can have no validity whatever in law.
An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.