Whipping Law-abiding Citizens Into Submission

guns, confiscation, Oregon, unconstitutional, disarm
Oregon governor signed a new statute to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens.


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.

gun, confiscation, Oregon, unconstitutional, disarm
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.

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.


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.



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.


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.


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.


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?gun ownership, law-abiding, 911

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Diane L. Gruber

Oregon Attorney At Law

About Diane L. Gruber 209 Articles
I am a proud American who is tired of biting my tongue for fear of making a Liberal mad; for fear of being called racist because I believe in the Rule of Law; for fear of damaging my license to practice law. NO MORE!!!! Conservative minded citizens have stayed silent for decades while Liberals have caused significant damage to American culture and to our nation. I lived in a Third-World Dictatorship. Generation after generation had been trained to kow tow to the government. They were afraid to discuss ANYTHING about the government even in the privacy of their own homes. My "Time" magazine arrived with articles cut out, after the censors got through checking it for heresy. With Political Correctness and "hate speech" rules, we are already halfway to officially losing our precious Freedom of Speech. If we want anything of value to remain for future generations we need to act now, rally in the streets now, speak out now. Don't be cowed.


  1. Diane, I agree with your assessment of this irresponsible law that was passed in Oregon. Although I agree that “Deadly Weapons” need to stay out of the hands of dangerous criminals, this is a law that can and will be abused and it’s just the start of something more sinister down the road when firearms in the hands of “Law Abiding Citizen” will be removed permanently. We must fight this “deconstitutionalizing” at all cost. (I know that’s not word…I just made it up.)

  2. In California, I have had to face several times the limitations to restraining orders. They no longer require the defendant to leave the home. They simply require him to stay several feet away from the petitioner. There was a time when restraining orders meant having to leave home. At that time, a judge tried to impose one on me when I was arrested in a self-defense situation. He told me I had to leave my own home, when I had hit my 6 foot male roommate (who was no longer paying his rent) in response to forcing me to move out of his way and hurting me as he broke my cell phone over me. My attorney reasoned with him that I was the homeowner and the man was squatting there, so the judge backed down and told me to stay away from him in the house.

  3. It’s a violation of not only the second amendment, also unreasonable search and seizure, and assumes guilt until proven innocent. It also likely ignores due process among other legal rights.

  4. Mike: Thank you for reading my article. When it gets to the US Supreme Court it WILL be repealed AND Kate Brown knows that. But that will take 1) someone with the $$$, who has been abused by this law to file suit in Oregon, 2) then take it to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (all Leftist Loonies) and then onto the U.S.S.C. Could be TEN years! In the meantime, think of the number of people who will be harmed by this unconstitutional statute!! I have LONG been concerned about the lack of due process in issuing a restraining order where the “abuser” is not present & cannot confront his accuser. First restraining orders, then stalking orders and now extreme risk orders. WHERE WILL IT END? I have started a series of articles about the BENEFITS of gun ownership. Check out my first:

3 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  2. second amendment, concealed carry license, CCL, armed citizenry
  3. Washington State's Democratic Gun Grab - a FELON's dream

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.