Oregon Passes GOP Senator’s Bill Allowing Gun Seizure Order Without Gun Owner’s Knowledge

brian boquist

RINO Brian Boquist


Outrageous.
From Breitbart: Oregon lawmakers passed legislation co-sponsored by Sen. Brian Boquist (R-Dallas) that allows a judge to issue an ex parte ruling for the confiscation of an individual’s firearms.
The bill is SB 719, and it has now passed Oregon’s House and Senate. It creates an Extreme Risk Protection Order, which forces the subject of the order to hand over all firearms, as well as his concealed carry permit if he possesses one.
NRA-ILA reports:
Based on a California law enacted in 2014, SB 719A would create a so-called “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (ERPO) that could be obtained by a law enforcement officer, family member, or household member in an ex parte hearing to deprive someone of their Second Amendment rights without due process of the law.
The ex parte aspect of the law means the bill does not require the gun owner to be present for part of the hearing in which the judge decides whether guns should be taken from him.
On April 18, 2017, Breitbart News reported that Boquist was pushing this confiscation bill, and he emailed Breitbart News to suggest the bill simply puts forward a law that is popular in other gun-control states. For example, Boquist informed Breitbart News that a similar law “passed the voters in Washington by 70%.”
Boquist also told Breitbart News that SB 719 “is not confiscation.” However, the language of SB 719 is quite confiscatory. It says:
Requires court to order respondent to surrender deadly weapons and concealed handgun license within 24 hours of service of initial order, and immediately upon service of continued or renewed order. Provides for law enforcement officer serving order to request immediate surrender of deadly weapons and concealed handgun license and authorizes law enforcement officer to take possession of surrendered items.
If a requirement for “immediate surrender” of firearms and concealed carry license upon issue of an ex parte ruling is not confiscation, then what is?
The Times quoted Boquist’s defense of the confiscatory bill on the Senate floor, saying, “Everyone wants to promote this as a gun bill. It’s not.”
DCG

Rate this post

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
William Brandon Shanley
Guest
William Brandon Shanley

“This will not stand!”

Pat Riot
Guest
Pat Riot

If it is unconstitutional, it’s null and should not even be submitted, let alone accepted, discussed, voted on or passed! I am sure that other than the usual meaning, RINO also means what we all think when it comes to inanity like this:
Retarded Idiots? No, Obviosuly!

Josh
Guest
Josh

Well he does kinda look like Hitler so…

Kevin Lankford
Member
Kevin Lankford

Seems they want to force law enforcement and citizens into deadly confrontation.

MomOfIV
Guest
MomOfIV

seems this bill presumes guilt over innocence without a trial…unconstitutional on so many levels.
caliFOEnia is always the harbinger of bad legislation…I pray a recall effort is underway for boquist

TrailDust
Admin
TrailDust

How do these idiots get elected!!!?

truckjunkie
Guest
truckjunkie

“Everyone wants to promote this as a gun bill. It’s not.”
How does he figure THAT? It confiscates a person’s LEGALLY OWNED weapons without due process of the law. If THAT isn’t a gun bill,WHAT IS?
I want to see his proof that “other States have su8pported similar laws.”
I think he needs to READ the Second Amendment and try to find where it authorizes anyone to do that.
ANY FORM OF GUN CONTROL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

trackback

[…] Source: Fellowship Of The Minds […]

Chuck Fasst
Guest

Yet another law of thousands more to come that leaves the door wide open for misuse and abuse by crooked Big Brother. 😐😐

Dave
Editor
Dave

They should make this idiot Boquist be the one that knocks on the gun owner’s front door.

josephbc69
Guest

Nearly unbelievable & moronic. How can the public stand for this immense waste of tax funds and its Constitutional travesties?

Lophatt
Member
Lophatt

They have their marching orders. They will take the guns. The only questions are, how and how long. The recent Bilderberg meeting stressed states and localities refusing to adhere to federal law. A “soft coup”.
None of these globalists care one whit about the Constitution. Remember Obongo? It hasn’t been that long. He simply banned ammunition under the table. While we should certainly make them follow the law, we should realize that they prefer not to. They don’t work for us.

truckjunkie
Guest
truckjunkie

So far Trump has done a good job of sticking to what We the People are calling for and what’s Constitutional. Let’s hope and pray he finally drags America’s gun ownership klugefest BACK to Constitutional Standards.
ANY FORM OF GUN CONTROL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Patrick
Guest
Patrick

Senator Brian Boquist is a Constitution trashing freedom hater! He belongs in Iran! On top of that, he sucks bilge water!

stlonginus
Guest

Who paid this dirtbag to put forth this “legislation”?
I doubt he pulled this out of his rear end on his own.
Yeah, it’s not “confiscation” because you’re ordered to “surrender” and you comply. So you’ve “surrendered” your arms.
Very double-minded, slick, sneaky, lawyer-think. Hm, lawyers. What did Shakespeare say about lawyers?

stlonginus
Guest
alan
Guest
alan

“Molon Labe” Wikipedia – Molon labe (Greek: μολὼν λαβέ molṑn labé), meaning “come and take [them]”, is a classical expression of defiance. According to Plutarch, Xerxes, king of Persia, demanded that the Spartans surrender their weapons and King Leonidas I responded with this phrase. It is an exemplary use of a laconic phrase. Or “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or… Read more »

Lophatt
Member
Lophatt

Just a couple of questions for those who admire political parties. Not being one of those I have a hard time understanding why someone like this, who clearly doesn’t share “his party’s” stated beliefs is allowed to remain in the part? Secondy, when someone takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, why aren’t people like this charged with a crime?
Besides all that, just looking at his picture lets me know that I would dislike him. He looks like a smarmy little weasel.