-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Oregeon Gov. Signs Order setting up Gun Confiscation Law.
- Thread starter fluffydelusions
- Start date
whitemex88
Member
"they gonna take our guns!!!!"
I wouldn't even call it a fight. This thing stands no chance
perfectchaos007
Member
Yeah this is basically what the gun right activists have feared all along. And this law would essentially prove their fears correct.
Even Obama assured gun owners "The government isn't going to come in your house and take your guns"
Even Obama assured gun owners "The government isn't going to come in your house and take your guns"
NintendoGal
Member
I just don't understand how people would be willingly giving this power over to the police, who have shown they hire corrupt and abusive individuals. If you think they're above falsely confiscating firearms of someone simply because of a lack of *shared opinion, then you haven't been paying attention to the news clearly.
Edit - Forgot a word.
Edit - Forgot a word.
Rights can be stripped away by due process. Voting is a right but "felons can't vote" passes muster, because they were found guilty after a trial (or had the option to go to trial before they plead out, more likely).
Yep, something like this ultimately hurts gun control efforts, because it'll never actually pass, but the pro gun folks can and will use this as an example.
Greigor The Fellhand
Member
I need to read the wording but I might be agaisnt this, firstly remove the police option to remove firearms***, cause right now, people need to be armed cause or police are fucking crazy.
*** if family agree with the police reason, and the state doctors agree.
police can start a petition, but must get it signed off by family members of said individual
*** if family agree with the police reason, and the state doctors agree.
police can start a petition, but must get it signed off by family members of said individual
The noble intention here is, of course, great. The problem I have with it- and the reason I voted against Washington's, even though I don't own guns- is that the language associated with (at least Washington's) was very loosely defined and it appeared very easy and not rigorous enough to confiscate almost anyone's guns given suspect enough reason, and it didn't seem like enough thorough investigation would be done to take someone's away.
Great intentions, good idea, but the execution is likely going to be impossible to get 100% right, and if the law goes into action and it misses one way or another (e.g. someone reports, they don't confiscate, and they do something horrible- or vice versa, where someone completely innocent is stripped of their guns) then it's going to blow up into a giant mess.
Great intentions, good idea, but the execution is likely going to be impossible to get 100% right, and if the law goes into action and it misses one way or another (e.g. someone reports, they don't confiscate, and they do something horrible- or vice versa, where someone completely innocent is stripped of their guns) then it's going to blow up into a giant mess.
I seriously doubt this process will pass muster for SCOTUS.
Also felons should be allowed to vote.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Also unconstitutional
Raven117
Gold Member
SCOTUS for sure, but Im curious what the Ninth Circuit will do with this.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
It really wasn't until the more modern NRA pushed it's narrative decades ago. Most people seem to forget the part where it says well regulated militia also. It's literally an interpretation of within several decades. Why do you think it suddenly became a problem with black groups used the same rights to arms like the Black Panthers? Oh no regulation!
hydrophilic attack
Member
good
...to file a petition with the court that could lead to an order stripping an individuals Second Amendment rights if it is believed that they pose an imminent risk to themselves or others.
Sounds sensible. This is a law that will allow the government to file a petition with a court saying this person is an imminent risk to themselves or others. So that maybe some dumb fuck Bundy hick can't takeover a building and hold it hostage, some wife beater can't potentially kill his wife if she divorces etc.
It is so funny how Americans judge and criticize others for laws yet they are so steadfast in their god given right to bear arms. As if they cannot imagine a society where gun ownership isn't widespread and yet the majority of the civilized world from Asia to the Americas, many nations allow gun ownership, many don'tand het have a fraction of the gun worship.
Won't be long till there memes of 'from my cold dead hands you cucks' for this bill. NRA especially will laser focus onto defeating this. And with Gorsuch being a likely conservative majority supreme court, no chance it sticks.
Sounds sensible. This is a law that will allow the government to file a petition with a court saying this person is an imminent risk to themselves or others. So that maybe some dumb fuck Bundy hick can't takeover a building and hold it hostage, some wife beater can't potentially kill his wife if she divorces etc.
It is so funny how Americans judge and criticize others for laws yet they are so steadfast in their god given right to bear arms. As if they cannot imagine a society where gun ownership isn't widespread and yet the majority of the civilized world from Asia to the Americas, many nations allow gun ownership, many don'tand het have a fraction of the gun worship.
Won't be long till there memes of 'from my cold dead hands you cucks' for this bill. NRA especially will laser focus onto defeating this. And with Gorsuch being a likely conservative majority supreme court, no chance it sticks.
Hickbilly Deluxe
Banned
Some states already have laws like this in place, but it can only come from a doctor or psychologist, not family. And even then the system has been problematic at best with the wrong people having their firearms taken, or petitioning to get them back and finding put the police already destroyed them or refuse to give them back. Honeslty, it's something that should exist but with the problems that have already been seen it certainly needs some work.
Also, that 'stored elsewhere' provision will bite them in the ass hard when they accidently violate the wrong persons 2nd amendment rights.
Many, many, many states prevent people with violent felonies from owning firearms.
Also, that 'stored elsewhere' provision will bite them in the ass hard when they accidently violate the wrong persons 2nd amendment rights.
Many, many, many states prevent people with violent felonies from owning firearms.
Vestal
Gold Member
If this is upheld it would be because of this right here.
Good on Gov. Brown for enacting the will of her constituents. It has no chance of sticking and will likely cost the state a good deal of money to defend but it is a good gesture.
The constitution allows for disenfranchisement for ""for participation in rebellion, or other crime" which is why some states don't let fellons vote.
The constitution allows for disenfranchisement for ""for participation in rebellion, or other crime" which is why some states don't let fellons vote.
ShironRedshift
Member
Yeah. Fully expect the courts to strike this down. Which is just kinda insane and a damning indictment of the way the 2nd is written/currently interpreted. The right to bear arms is absolute... but meanwhile, your right to participate in democracy itself can be stripped permanently for being a felon even after you've served your time. Apparently ex-felons can do more harm by voting than by keeping access to firearms; don't know how that's supposed to make sense or be alright at all but that's how it's set up in a number of staes. =/
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
I'm all for better gun regulation, but isn't this getting ahead of ourselves?
If someone is battling depression, or going through a traumatic time in their life, it would be a good idea to get them away from firearms until they get the help they need.
But uh, you kinda need healthcare for them to get mental help don't you? Otherwise, they are still going to be looking for a way to commit suicide.
And if this law allows guns to be confiscated from people deemed as a threat to others it should apply to police as well.
If someone is battling depression, or going through a traumatic time in their life, it would be a good idea to get them away from firearms until they get the help they need.
But uh, you kinda need healthcare for them to get mental help don't you? Otherwise, they are still going to be looking for a way to commit suicide.
And if this law allows guns to be confiscated from people deemed as a threat to others it should apply to police as well.
hydrophilic attack
Member
Maybe this happening again is the only thing that could lead to some regulation
Anyone who tried it though would be at such a huge risk of getting shot by cops. Probably not worth it
HellforLeather
Member
Yeah this is going to the Supreme Court and it will lose. Not saying its a bad idea, but it will get struck down.
In most cases convicted felons can't own firearms either. There are a bunch of hoops they can jump through in some states, or if they get their records expunged, but most places you can't get a gun either.
Nerdkiller
Membeur
When this is inevitably shot down, do you think the state should set up a type of government buy back programme on firearms? Actually, thinking about it now, how often does such a thing occur (if at all) in the US?
yanipheonu
Member
It's as good a time as any to remind people how poorly written the Second Amendment actually is.
Wait, so is it the militia or the right to bear arms that should not be infringed?
Is it the militia or the right to bear arms "necessary for the security of a free state"?
A badly written sentence, being filled with too many commas, seemingly randomly placed additional idea, makes for a confusing amendment.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Yeah I thought the same in both counts. All them "gun rights" don't play well if you are a minority. Look at all the open carry nonsense people get away with not being black.
We take away people's rights for breaking the law or threatening violence all the time.
We should just fucking admit we already pick and choose how we honor the constitution in order to maintain the status quo.
If laws aren't working, if people are dying or being mistreated, stop defending the Goddamn laws.
We should just fucking admit we already pick and choose how we honor the constitution in order to maintain the status quo.
If laws aren't working, if people are dying or being mistreated, stop defending the Goddamn laws.
JoeyJungle
Banned
This seems more like a confiscation in case of mental health issues? CA has a similar law, if you're placed in involuntary psychiatric hold there for 14 days I believe you are not allowed to even be near a gun.
uncelestial
Member
Funny, the second amendment already says otherwise.
It works great everywhere, all the time. Violence just goes down, that's all. America's a joke.
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
Yeah, this would be abused so bad. They would end up basing it on skin tone. Good news would be less skin cancer for white people though.