GOVERNOR KATE BROWN DISREPECTS U. S. CONSTITUTION
Knowing full well that it is a violation of the U. S. Constitution, in July Oregon’s governor, Kate Brown (a licensed attorney) signed into law new gun confiscation legislation. The “extreme risk protection orders” Bill was narrowly passed by the Oregon Legislature WITHOUT BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT.
Oregonians have been oppressed by the Far Left since the 1980s. And they have long been trying to destroy our Second Amendment right to protect ourselves. It is no surprise that only Democrats and the one RINO who sponsored Senate Bill 719 voted for it.
The billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an EXTREME hater of the Second Amendment, contributed $250,000 to Brown’s election last year.
Oregon’s SB719 was based on a California law enacted in 2014, and is similar to the one approved (??) by Washington voters in 2016. The Washington statute was modeled on statutes that attempt to protect victims of domestic violence.
EXTREME RISK PROTECTIVE ORDERS
The bill just signed establishes a system of confiscation based upon JUST ONE PERSON declaring that a gun owner presents an “extreme risk.”
Under this new Oregon statute, if a family or household member petitions the court, stating that so & so is acting strangely AND owns a gun the judge will sign an “extreme risk protective order.”
Such order requires law enforcement to confiscate so & so’s firearms if he/she does not turn them it within 24 hours. Unless so & so files for a REAL hearing the order remains and police have so & so’s guns for a year. AND THE ORDER CAN BE RENEWED YEAR AFTER YEAR FOREVER.
And there is no time limit. If so & so did something stupid 10 years ago, a person can come into court today to declare so & so an “extreme risk” TODAY.
BUT THE LEFT IS MERELY PREVENTING DEMENTED
GRANDPA FROM SHOOTING HIS NEIGHBOR, RIGHT?
Sounds like a good idea to prevent demented Grandpa from shooting the neighbor. Or does it? Let me tell you how 99.99% of such cases will play out. They will play out very much like Family Abuse Prevention Act’s Restraining Orders have been playing out FOR DECADES.
Designed in the 1970s to prevent husband & boyfriends from beating women, abuse restraining orders have become a tool for non-abused women (& men) who have ulterior motives.
Early on during my family law practice (which began in 1986) it became painfully obvious that the majority of abuse restraining orders had NOTHING to do with the petitioner being afraid of respondent, nor about respondent abusing petitioner.
A WAKE-UP CALL FOR THIS ATTORNEY
Unfortunately, way too many abuse restraining orders are filed because the petitioner, usually a woman, wants to get the man out of the house and/or wants revenge against the man and/or wants a leg up in a child custody dispute. Below are just four examples I have personally observed in my law practice.
1) I represented a wife who had filed an abuse restraining order against her husband on the eve of filing for divorce. She had bruises all over her back so, FOR THE FIRST TIME, I thought I had a REAL abuse situation.
Nope! The husband filed for a hearing and brought a neighbor to testify. This neighbor testified that she saw the wife throwing herself backwards, again & again, onto the gravel driveway, which produced the bruises on her back. Thus, the bruises had NOT been caused by her husband. The judge cancelled the abuse restraining order.
Will wives file petitions to get Extreme Risk Protection Orders for purposes OTHER THAN preventing harm by the respondent/husband? You bet ya!
2) A 28-year-old healthy, muscular man claimed to be afraid of his girlfriend’s 76-year-old, osteoporosis-ridden grandmother with whom he resided rent-free. After granny had told him to leave her apartment, he got a restraining order so he and his girlfriend could live there a few more months until the landlord evicted them. At the hearing the judge left the restraining order in place. Say what?
Will someone file false accusations under this new law to get a roommate kicked out? You can count on it.
3) Five months after moving out of the house, a policewoman obtained a restraining order against her husband by claiming she was afraid of him, even though she admitted that he had never touched her. She wanted her husband evicted from their house so she could move back in. The husband filed for a hearing BUT the second judge kept the restraining order in place.
Will both men & women use the “extreme risk protection order” process to torment another and/or get an advantage over another? Yep! The abuse restraining order system has taught people to manipulate the law.
4) Tara’s marriage deteriorated after she met Kathy who became her lesbian lover. Tara and her husband, Rick “separated” with Rick moving into their basement. They discussed divorce and agreed that they both loved their two sons. They agreed to sell the house, share custody and live near each other to make it easier to raise the boys.
Tara & Rick put the house on the market but it appeared that it was going to take some months to sell. At that point, Kathy and Tara had been lovers for five months.
Tara & Kathy became increasingly impatient to start living together, so they decided that Tara would petition for a restraining order to get Rick out of the house. The judge signed the restraining order even though Rick had never abused Tara, which evicted Rick from his own house.
I can foresee manipulative spouses filing petitions for BOTH “extreme risk” and “family abuse” restraining orders.
EXTREME RISK PROCESS WILL PLAY OUT LIKE ABUSE RESTRAINING ORDER PROCESS
Unlike most legal actions, subjective “evidence” is allowed in issuing abuse restraining orders. Judges accept virtually whatever the petitioner says, with little OBJECTIVE evidence.
Moreover, both the Courts and District Attorneys do NOT pursue charges against petitioners who LIE (commit perjury) to obtain abuse restraining orders.
We can expect judges to do the same with “extreme risk” petitions.
Most judges don’t seem to recognize the absurdity of a “victim” living with the “abuser” for weeks or months while she is “in fear of imminent bodily injury.” Many restraining orders are issued for “abuse” that occurred months earlier, yet the “victim” made no attempt to avoid the “abuser.” A restraining order is signed by a judge without hearing from the “abuser” and based only upon the “victim’s” word.
If the “abuser” files for a hearing and the petitioner shows up, regardless of the testimony and evidence, restraining orders are rarely dismissed.
EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS WILL BE ABUSED
We can expect this new law to be implemented & enforced much the same way that abuse restraining orders are handled. The great majority of them will be filed by petitioners who have NO interest in preventing harm by someone with a gun.
Their motivation will be revenge, harassment and/or getting an advantage over the gun owner. They will lie on the petition claiming respondent poses an “extreme risk” of harm to others, without any downside for themselves. Oregon does not prosecute perjury.
Long ago Oregon weeded out judges with common sense who followed the letter of the law AND required objective evidence before signing an abuse restraining order. These judges were replaced with judges who follow Liberal ideology and accept subjective feelings as “evidence.” We are assured that Oregon judges will be excited to confiscate firearms from law-abiding Oregonians.
When a respondent takes the time and expense to appeal the confiscation of his firearms all the way up to the U. S. Supreme Court, this law WILL BE SHOT DOWN. That will take about 4-5 years. In the meantime, how many Oregonians will be deprived of their Second Amendment rights?