Well. What do you libs have to say now? I've always claimed that democrats want to confiscate our guns. And you idiots told me I was crazy. Well, here's the proof. It's happening now. Are you people OK with this? Can I get just one liberal on here to stand up and say this is a bad idea? http://2anews.us/due-process/2017/08/17/oregon-governor-signs-gun-confiscation-law/
Well if you followed normal due process you would need to issue an order to take the guns via a hearing and if the same person was mentally unstable they could still use them to harm themselves or their spouse or the community which is why they can be taken first seems like a sensible move as for evidence if your dealing with a doctor or psychologist or therapist and they consider you a danger to yourself or others they MUST report the risk its illegal for them not to.
Normally I am having to say this to our more liberal members, but bias source is biased. One of the first things that grabbed my attention is the line, "the law is based on Oregon bill..." Laws are not based upon bill, they are created when a bill is approved. Which makes me wonder if the article is directing people to a bill similar to the one passed, but with key points that are different. Since this is your assertion, then it is upon you to provide actual supporting evidence of it. This article fails to do that. Providing a link to something to requires others to jump through a series of other links is not providing evidence. You need to provide direct links and supporting quotes from said sources. That said, here is what I have found so far: Notice the bold parts. First off any such order will be based upon someone giving testimony under oath, not heresay. You can't go in and say, "Bob told me that Joe has a deadly weapon that he plans to use." Either you have to know that Joe has the weapon, or Bob has to be there as well. Then there is all those things in section 4 the court has to consider in issuing this order. That's a lot of evidence that must be presented, not leaving room for heresay. And note how the petitioner(s) have the burden of proof (much like you do) in this before an order can be issued. No one can just come in and make a claim off the cuff and get someone's weapons taken away. It must be clear and convincing evidence. And section 6 shows where the respondent can issue a statement, which means there must be some way, probably part of another section of law, that they find out that a hearing for such an order is happening. Finally, right there in the law required written order, it allows for the weapons to be turned over to a third party. So if I received one of these orders, I could turn my "deadly weapons" over to a family member who could legally possess them. So basically this seems to be much ado about nothing. Everything in this reads as a weapons equivalent to a restraining order, include the rapid turnaround required, and the burden of proof required. There is even the ability of the respondent to have the order overturned. In conclusion, you got nothing.
Depends on the gun. Until Trump, I didn't think gun confiscation was ever, EVER necessary. But since Trump put out a EO that allows mentally unstable to have guns, it calls for extreme measures to ensure public safety these unstable individuals do not keep their weaponry, period. I once was never okay with gun confiscation, but now out of good conscience, some gun confiscation is necessary. Hopefully Colorado, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, they will all follow in this direction of this Governor. One has to ask themselves, "Am I for the safety of the public, or simply for myself and my guns." No one will argue that is a unreasonable question.
