Oregon legislature passes new gun control bill

kate brown

Oregon Governor Kate Brown, who lobbied for this bill

While I could agree with convicted domestic abusers not having firearms, I have a problem with denying someone their Constitutional right because of a restraining order (which is no cost to file in Oregon).

Here’s some of the requirements to obtain a restraining order in Oregon, according to the Family Abuse Protection Act (FAPA):

  • The test is whether a reasonable person faced with such behavior would be placed in fear of imminent bodily injury. Fielder v. Fielder, 211 Or App 668 (2007). The “placed in fear” element is established by consideration of the totality of the circumstances, and neither overt threats nor physical violence is required.
  • Abuse may be claimed solely or partially on the basis of verbal threats placing one in fear of imminent bodily injury.
  • Showing Required: Respondent represents a credible threat to the physical safety of Petitioner or Petitioner’s child/ren.
  • Credible Threat: This element of a FAPA claim is very similar to the “imminent danger” prong. Evidence for one often satisfies the other. See, e.g., Hubbell v. Sanders, 245 Or App 321, 327 (2011). The “credible threat” language was added to FAPA to harmonize Oregon law with federal law imposing criminal liability on a Respondent who possesses or uses firearms or ammunition while subject to qualifying protective order.

Divorces, child custody battles and breakups can get very, very ugly. Spiteful people can make up any story they want for a judge when trying to “get back” at someone. I’m not a fan of removing a Constitutional right of an innocent person without due process.

Nationally syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum at Reason blog wrote an article on February 20 entitled, “Are Gun Violence Restraining Orders Consistent With Due Process? He writes:

“But the whole point of these laws is to make disarming people easier than forcing them into psychiatric treatment, which already makes them ineligible to own a gun under federal law. The stronger the civil liberties protections, the less likely such laws are to stop any particular mass shooting.”

Read his full article about Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVRO) here.

Note: The Multnomah County instructions for obtaining a restraining order clearly state: “A restraining order is an important step for safety, but it will not necessarily stop the respondent from hurting or attempting to hurt you. It is important that you plan how to protect yourself in the event that the respondent disobeys the restraining order.”

From Mercury News: Fueled by anguished voices in the aftermath of the Florida high school shooting, Oregon’s Legislature on Thursday banned people convicted of stalking and domestic violence or under restraining orders from buying or owning firearms and ammunition.

The passage of the bill (HB 4145; read the whole bill here) by the state Senate on a 16-13 vote appears to mark the first time a state legislature has passed a gun-control measure since the Feb. 14 shooting in Parkland, Florida, said Anne S. Teigen, a criminal justice expert with the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown had lobbied for the bill, telling a Senate committee this week to hear the anguished voices rising in the aftermath of the Florida attack in which 17 people were killed. The Democratic governor said she intends to sign into law the measure that the House earlier approved to protect victims of domestic violence.

Passage of the bill comes as the nation heatedly debates gun control in the wake of the Florida shooting.

A group led by former Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who survived a 2011 shooting that left her with a brain injury, applauded the Legislature’s passing of the so-called boyfriend loophole bill. “Oregon is taking the lead to protect communities from gun violence,” said Robin Lloyd, government affairs director for Giffords’ nonprofit organization that seeks to save lives from gun violence.

Brown praised lawmakers after the bill passed both chambers, observing that “it took the voices and outrage of youth devastated by gun violence to hold decision makers’ feet to the fire.”

The House had approved the bill in a 37-23 vote on Feb. 15, with two Republicans including gubernatorial candidate Knute Buehler joining Democrats in voting “aye.”

“I think survivors of domestic violence shouldn’t have to live in fear that their abusers can obtain a firearm,” Buehler had said.

Before Thursday’s vote, Sen. Floyd Prozanski, a Democrat from the university town of Eugene, stood and urged his colleagues to support the bill. His voice cracking, he recalled that his sister was shot dead by her boyfriend in 1973 after she said she was leaving him. He cited statistics saying a woman is five times more likely to die if a gun present in domestic violence situation and 54 percent of mass shootings involve domestic violence.

Opponents said the law would violate Second Amendment protections on the right to bear arms. Unlawful possession of guns and ammunition is punishable by a maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, a $6,250 fine, or both.

One Democrat split from the rest of her caucus and joined the Republican senators in voting against the measure. Republicans said the bill could have been better crafted and that it was too complicated an issue to consider in the short 2018 legislative session.

The bill expands those who could be banned from owning guns and ammunition after a conviction, adding stalking as a qualifying crime, and adding those who are under a restraining order. Supporters said the bill closed a loophole in a 2015 law that excluded some abusers, such as boyfriends who abuse partners they don’t live with.

An amendment proposed by Sen. Herman Baertschiger, a Republican from Grants Pass, to appropriate $20 million to the state police for implementing and enforcing firearms laws was voted down on Thursday by the Senate. “Senate Democrats rejected additional funding to the state police,” said Senator Republican Leader Jackie Winters. “With additional funding, the state police would be freed up to enforce drug laws, gun laws, and increase public safety.”


23 responses to “Oregon legislature passes new gun control bill

  1. “The passage of the bill … by the state Senate on a 16-13 vote appears to mark the first time a state legislature has passed a gun-control measure since the Feb. 14 shooting in Parkland, Florida”

    And so it begins.


    Liked by 3 people

  2. so a person’s 2A right can be abrogated based upon someone’s
    fee-ee-ee-eelings? that’s outrageous!
    someone simply feeling uncomfortable around another person can result in 2A loss…
    a “reasonable person” would pursue a restraining order because someone committed assault and/or battery against them, but since “neither overt threats nor physical violence is required” to file:
    a warped and evil gun control advocate could claim to be in “fear” because they are aware a neighbor has guns and seek a restraining order against that neighbor solely based upon their “fear” and that neighbor would lose his/her 2A right if a gun control judge agrees

    Liked by 3 people

  3. I hope for her sake that Kate Brown is as stark raving mad as she looks, or otherwise this proponent of live-birth abortions is evil walking. In the photo above she looks like an escapee from the nut house, but there are a few other photos where she does a pretty frightening “Here’s Johnny!” from The Shining.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dan . . . . You just passed the test! Since you can pick out Kate Brown as being a start raving loon, I would say you are definitely on tract. Ms Brown is a bi-sexual woman, who originally got the Governor’s job due to default; the previous Governor was removed from office due to malfeasance, he was allocating big state jobs to his live-in girlfriend. I just hope that all the dillweeds in the Oregon Legislature are happy because they did something F-A-B-U-L-O-U-S in thwarting school shootings.{Sarc}

      I suppose that the 39 visits the Broward Police Dept made to Cruzs’ home between 2010 and 2015 with nothing being done about anything; the fact that two complaint calls to the FBI, which virtually lead to the complaints being filed in the round file; when the parents in the home where he was living at the very end before the shooting–where the police told these two adults that they could not act on their complaint regarding Cruz, unless they were willing to “sign the actual complaint” (which they refused to do) —- I suppose none of these events were pertinent to the fact that Cruz was able to obtain a gun, went to the school, and shot everyone in sight!

      But, when all states cobble together gun control laws–we will all be better off, because we have had laws made which govern an inanimate object! An object that does not have the innate ability to kill anyone–unless their is a human who can pull the trigger!

      Putting all that aside . . . . I am so proud of the as*holes in our Oregon Legislature that I can hardly contain myself, I am sure that their efforts will prove, over time, to save thousands of people. {Sarc}

      I am also proud as punch that the Bundy family is sewing Kate Brown, and her band of willing murders for the cold blooded murder of LaVoy Finicum, a Constitution loving man, who was unarmed, who was shot in the back by an officer of the Oregon State Police. Who later lied about the shooting. My understanding is that Kate Brown authorized them to use any degree of force against these peaceful people that they deemed necessary. It is altogether mystifying that in two separate trials, one in Oregon, the other in Nevada–that neither trial ended in a conviction of any of the Bundys. The trial in Oregon was a “Not Guilty” verdict, the trial in Nevada, resulted in the charges being dropped with prejudice (as in can never be tried again) due to the fact that the DOJ failed to turn over a goodly portion of evidence that was supportive to the claims that the Bundy family had made . . . even though the trial Judge in Nevada started out as being horribly biased against the Bundy’s and anything they wished to do, including denying them the use of a particular lawyer to defend themselves. This ended up with the Bundy’s themselves in presenting, and representing themselves.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Is SHE any relation to that “other” Brown-the one who’s doing his best to demolish California?

      Liked by 1 person

  4. I could make several arguments against this but the basic one, in my view, is that it isn’t the State’s job to monitor us and control our behavior. If a person commits a crime, that is now between the person and the state. What a person is thinking, might do, might have a dream about one night, etc., is none of the state’s business.

    This is also why “mental health checks” are frightening. Not only do the “professionals” not have any scientific basis for their beliefs, they are regarded as “experts”. With most people it goes without saying that the state can do anything it likes. Some even “welcome” the State’s intervention.

    No, I don’t go running to The State with any and all problems. “Shall not be infringed” is exactly what it means. There is no qualifier that says “unless you disagree or you’re nervous, whatever”.

    There are bad people in this world. There always will be. You are MUCH safer with them knowing that you have the means to defend yourself than that you’ve “farmed that out”.

    Liked by 3 people

    • lophatt . . . . I wish I could give you a beautiful engraved award for the above submission. Both the wording and the content was right on target. This very one page addition to this discussion should be required reading in each of the four grades of high school. Bravo! This is the kind of thinking that qualified you as a real American.

      Liked by 4 people

    • So true about liberal do-good prescriptions for a better world. Dietrich Doerner, in his book Logic of Failure, writes, “It is far from clear whether ‘good intentions plus stupidity’ or ‘evil intentions plus intelligence’ have wrought more harm in the world. People with good intentions usually have few qualms about pursuing their goals. As a result, incompetence that would otherwise have remained harmless often becomes dangerous.”

      That’s way too kind, however, since there’s nothing liberals touch that doesn’t turn to sh*t. But it’s never their fault that our cities, black families, schools, and other institutions are left in ruins once they take charge. As the epitome of liberal thinking that it is, psychoanalysis takes the cake as the mental illness that sets itself up as the cure. Got a morally sick society in Portland? No problem. Just elect a mentally ill lesbian as the freakin’ governor of the entire state.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Dan . . . . Bravo! How true, we here in Portland surely are “a morally sick society.” Also, we just fall all over ourselves in voting in every mis-fit, communist dupe that comes along and pays his/her money to register to run for office! I have little reason to believe that until this place runs into a full fledged Gulag–no one will ever be satisfied.

        Liked by 4 people

  5. Did anyone even bother to ask how many times someone with a restraining order against them used a gun to threaten or injure the person who requested that order?

    Liked by 3 people

  6. I truly believe that there are a goodly number of women who get back at the significant men in their lives . . . by taking out “restraining orders against them.” All too often it has little to do with the behavior on the part of the man, and it has everything to do with an action taken to wound or punish the man involved . . . . even if he has non nothing.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I’ve mentioned before that my daughter and her husband own a gun shop in California. They have one of these laws (of course!). Their shop is packed with guns “on hold” because they’ve been confiscated. After a certain amount of time they’re able to sell them, but not to return them to their owners.

      This is a legalized form of theft. You can report anybody you don’t like. If your neighbor is a gun-grabber and doesn’t like the fact that you’re not, they can report you and you lose your guns. Don’t let them get away with this.

      Liked by 4 people

      • lophatt . . . . that really is a travesty. People of reason need to be very quiet, and closed mouthed about gun ownership. It really is a shame that these “gungrabbers” can wreck havoc on innocent, law abiding people.

        Liked by 5 people

    • Yes, this is a very slippery slope we are heading toward!

      Liked by 3 people

  7. Remember, too, that Restraining Orders and Orders of Protection must be approved by a JUDGE, yes, biased, ACTIVIST judges, not based on law or fact, but whose side they’re on. At one time, I was denied an Order of Protection against a nutjob in favor of his being allowed to keep his weapons and routinely stalk me. The biased judge and lawyers met in chambers seeking a way to bypass federal law. They failed, but ruled against me anyway. Judicial activism of any kind is dangerous. When it involves our Second Amendment, it shoves the camel’s nose a bit farther under the tent.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Goldbug . . . . I am truly sorry that you got such a raw deal. This business of having “Judicial activism” on the part of sitting judges is just not acceptable. I wish that President Trump had the power to root out all these creepy activist judges and send them down the road–starting with Ol’ Lady Ginsburg!

      Liked by 4 people

  8. What other Constitutional right can be taken away so easily. This is what the Marxist/progressives/liberals will do if they had the power.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. I am totally against lumping all men into the category as abuser without the proper protocol of investigating. So many have been victim of revengeful wives. The same for abusers getting off. But, I truly believe those filing false reports should be prosecuted and fined and jail. I think a lot of this would slow down.
    Brown totally looks like a nut job that hates all men and any that might own guns. I think she is doing this for the agenda and not for the right reasons.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Brown kissing Storm Large (singer) at a Basic Rights dinner auction.
      Storm Large is a singer, songwriter, actress and author. Large is bisexual, though she dislikes the term and instead calls herself “sexually omnivorous.”
      While in San Francisco Storm formed the bands Flower SF, Storm and Her Dirty Mouth, and Storm, Inc.

      Liked by 2 people

      • So she wants the world to know? Are we supposed to applaud? She is….LARGE. Does she arm wrestle?

        Maybe its me but I find it hard to believe that people like this could get elected anywhere but in San Francisco. Why would someone vote for a pervert? It seems much more likely that they “install” perverts in order to point at them and claim that they’re making “progress”.

        Why would someone regard this as good? I don’t claim to know all there is to know about sexuality. I really don’t want to know about someone else’s preferences. Logically, I would have to regard same-sex attraction as “disordered”. It is something that a person should seek help for, not accolades.

        Liked by 4 people

  10. This is sickening. Anyone anywhere at anytime for any reason…esp. any woman, can ask for a “restraining order” against a man and recieve it without evidence of need. This has been forever a “kneejerk” reaction against the days when women asked for protection and could not “prove why” against estranged husbands, boyfriends, etc….and were assaulted or killed by these men as a result. So,in an abundance of caution, almost anywhere in the country, a woman can ask for a restraining order against a man (or, maybe now, a woman or a transgender LGBT whatever)….just by her OWN testimony, with NO record of transgression or no record of law-breaking/assualt/threat, no probably cause, and no trail….etc…against the named person….and now, at least in the state of Oregon…it will mean the confiscation of and automatic denial of gun ownership. Here in the state of Mexifornia, when such is filed, the guns are automatically confiscated pending court resolution of the case, if contested, anyway….As stated elsewhere on this blog…this situation has resulted in a crapload of “vengence” filings that ultimately prove erroneously/falsely filed in order to offer vengence and/or inconvenience/financial punishment/whatever against innocent individuals. These ALSO goober up the court systems AND cheapen the prosecutorial /truth value of legitimate filers.

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s