New Oregon Law Guts Second Amendment Protections

ELDER PATRIOT – Oregon Governor Kate Brown is trying to re-write the Constitution… at least as far as protecting the rights of the citizens of her state are concerned.

Just last month she signed a radical abortion bill into law that placed the “rights” of women and illegal aliens to access free abortions ahead of the rights of taxpayers and other consumers of health insurance products that are being forced to pay for them.

One month later this radical Leftist is at it again.

On August 23rd, Brown signed a bill authorizing the confiscation of firearms from otherwise law-abiding citizens simply with the signature of a judge after the judge has become convinced the individual presents a risk of suicide, self-harm- or violence to others.

The governor would like you to buy the “safeguards” that she claims are built into the bill.  They’re not safeguards to anyone who understand how courts work.

The bill stipulates that in reaching their decision, a judge will consider the following kinds of evidence:

  • A written affidavit or oral statement made under oath by the person making the request – Ask the Duke lacrosse players how that worked out for them.  They would be in prison today if their parents didn’t have the means to hire the best attorneys in Durham.

The rest of the stipulations are a backdoor to violating the Second Amendment that clearly states, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

  • A history of suicide attempts or threats, or violence against others.
  • A history of attempted, threatened, or actual use of physical force against others
  • Any previous convictions for: misdemeanor violence, stalking, domestic violence, driving under the influence, animal cruelty
  • Evidence of recent illicit drug abuse
  • Previous reckless or illegal use, brandishing or display of a deadly weapon
  • Evidence of having acquired or attempted to acquire a deadly weapon within the past six months

These may sound like common sense regulations until you understand how courts actually work.  To paraphrase Stalin, it’s not who writes the laws that matter it’s who adjudicates them.  And, unfriendly judges can make someone’s life a living hell – an expensive one at that – for many years, sometimes forever.

Consider the dustup earlier this year over President Trump’s Executive Order that sought to ban immigration from seven nations that do not assist the U.S. in providing background checks and other vetting of immigrant applicants.

The order will eventually be upheld by the Supreme Court but not until a long and expensive legal battle has taken place in front of liberal lower court judges that seem content to simply deny the justice as long as they can. 

Ordinary people cannot afford the costs of this type of lengthy court process. 

In the case of liberal judges they are likely to ignore the fact that Oregon’s gun confiscation law violates due process and the right to a fair trial because the entire process is held ex parte (the accused does not have a right to be present at the hearing.)

It would appear that this provision of the bill not only runs afoul of the Second Amendment but the Sixth Amendment as well.  The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused “…to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

After the judge’s order is issued the accused will have 24 hours to turn their firearms and firearm license into authorities and then cannot legally buy, possess, or attempt to buy or possess any firearm for a period of one year. 

The accused can appeal but courts are loath to reverse the findings of lower court judges unless a procedural mistake has been made.

We have embarked on a slippery slope when an explicit constitutional protection can be abrogated on say so in an ex parte hearing.  What does this mean for any person who is accused of hate speech?  Will they be silenced by a complaint by an unnamed “speech protector” in ex parte hearings, as well?  Will the First Amendment be similarly gutted solely on the word of accusers with an axe to grind appearing before a sympathetic judge?

Think that can’t happen?  This is happening already.  Certain social media platforms are censoring websites like this one based on “fake news” accusations from our political adversaries.  And, we aren’t given a hearing either.