If Marxist Democrats are anything, they are persistent – persistent in their hatred of the limitations imposed on them by the U.S. Constitution.
That helps explain why wherever they are in power, they concentrate most of their efforts on denying Americans all of their constitutional rights, especially when it comes to pet causes like political speech they don’t like or gun rights.
As to the latter, lawmakers in Deep Blue Oregon have introduced legislation that would give state judges the authority to confiscate firearms by denying citizens their Second Amendment rights, their right not to be subject to unreasonable seizures of property under the Fourth Amendment, and their right to due process under the law, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
Not only is the legislation expected to pass the Democrat-controlled legislature, but Democrat Gov. Kate Brown is expected to sign it – most likely setting state taxpayers up for expensive court challenges.
As reported by Off The Grid News, on July 6, the House narrowly approved Senate Bill 719, which grants judges the authority to issue “extreme risk protection orders,” or ERPOs, if a police officer, member of a family or other household member convinces the court that a gun owner is a risk to him- or herself.
No risk of abuse there, right (enter sarcasm here)?
As expected, every House Republican opposed the bill; they were joined by just three Democrats. In addition, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action also lobbied against it.
“This ex parte order, which strips the accused of their Second Amendment rights, would be issued by a judge based on the brief statement of the petitioner,” the NRA organization noted. “The accused would not be afforded the chance to appear in court to defend themselves against the allegations when the ERPO is issued.”
Should a judge issue the order, the police would have the authority to order the person targeted by the petitioner to turn over all firearms – no questions asked, and again, no way to refute the accusations. If weapons are not turned over to police within 24 hours, authorities would be given the power to seize the guns. “No examination or even a statement from a doctor or mental health professional would be required,” Off the Grid News reported, adding that even persons with no prior criminal record will be subject to such court orders.
“These orders may be issued without any allegations of criminal behavior,” the NRA-ILA noted.
It would take a court appeal by the gun owner to get his or her weapons back; otherwise he/she would have to wait until the order expires.
Paul Phillips, head of the group, Oregon Gun Owners, noted that confiscations of weapons could be based strictly on hearsay alone.
“The firearm owner is not privy to a fair trial,” he told Reason magazine, as quoted by Off the Grid News.
Several other states have similar laws, including California (no shocker there). [RELATED: Many legal ammo manufacturers now deemed “criminals” under new Obama regulations.]
It’s hard to imagine how a law like this could survive any court challenge, but when you have courts today manned by activists instead of judges relying on laws as written and the Constitution, these kinds of abuses are what we get.
Not everyone is taking this lying down. In February, the Republican-led Congress voted to roll back Obama-era anti-gun regulations that were aimed at blocking some recipients of disability benefits from purchasing guns. As The Hill reported, the rule required “the Social Security Administration to report people who receive disability benefits and have a mental health condition to the FBI’s background check system. The database is used to determine eligibility for buying a firearm.”
The House voted 235–180 to overturn it; the Senate followed suit, and President Donald J. Trump signed the measure in February.
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.