Oregon Passes Bill Allowing GUN SEIZURES (Without Owners Knowledge)


Oregon lawmakers passed legislation co-sponsored by Sen. Brian Boquist (R-Dallas) that allows a judge to issue an ex parte ruling for the confiscation of an individual’s firearms.

The bill is SB 719, and it has now passed Oregon’s House and Senate. It creates an Extreme Risk Protection Order, which forces the subject of the order to hand over all firearms, as well as his concealed carry permit if he possesses one.

NRA-ILA reports:

Based on a California law enacted in 2014, SB 719A would create a so-called “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (ERPO) that could be obtained by a law enforcement officer, family member, or household member in an ex parte hearing to deprive someone of their Second Amendment rights without due process of the law.

The ex parte aspect of the law means the bill does not require the gun owner to be present for part of the hearing in which the judge decides whether guns should be taken from him.

On April 18, 2017, Breitbart News reported that Boquist was pushing this confiscation bill, and he emailed Breitbart News to suggest the bill simply puts forward a law that is popular in other gun-control states. For example, Boquist informed Breitbart News that a similar law “passed the voters in Washington by 70%.”

Boquist also told Breitbart News that SB 719 “is not confiscation.” However, the language of SB 719 is quite confiscatory. It says:

Requires court to order respondent to surrender deadly weapons and concealed handgun license within 24 hours of service of initial order, and immediately upon service of continued or renewed order. Provides for law enforcement officer serving order to request immediate surrender of deadly weapons and concealed handgun license and authorizes law enforcement officer to take possession of surrendered items.

If a requirement for “immediate surrender” of firearms and concealed carry license upon issue of an ex parte ruling is not confiscation, then what is?

The Times quoted Boquist’s defense of the confiscatory bill on the Senate floor, saying, “Everyone wants to promote this as a gun bill. It’s not.”


People convicted of domestic violence are not allowed to possess firearms. Let’s say that someone who has never been convicted of domestic violence decides one day to start beating his/her spouse/partner. Since the abuser purchased their firearms before they started beating anyone up until they committed an act of domestic violence they were legal gun owners. What happens after they commit an act of domestic violence? Should they be allowed to keep their guns until convicted? Or should the legal system step in and confiscate the weapons to be sure that they aren’t used in a domestic violence incident since those crimes tend to escalate rapidly. That’s one of the reasons this law was put into place. It protects the victims and takes weapons away from perpetrators.


Your entire line of thinking suggests that only the aggressor knows how to use a gun. Have you ever thought that not having a gun allows you to be victimized. If you are so worried about domestic violence then maybe you should stop trying to ban guns and start encouraging people to purchase them and get trained on how to use them.


Really? More guns is your answer? That is such a predictable argument and one that only a mental weakling makes. No. More guns is not a solution. I would like to see all guns banned because they aren’t necessary. If that can’t happen then there needs to be a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation of each person who wants to own a gun and the wait list should be a minimum of 5 years AND be very expensive and complicated.

Oh, and please don’t throw back the equally ridiculous tyrannical government argument. Right wing lunatics aren’t going to stop some out of control tyrannical government with their assault rifles because that is never going to happen here.


If you are uncomfortable with owning a weapon or knowing others who do I suggest we the people start implementing gun safety classes in public education.

This is a constitutional right.

Driving is not…yet we see that in high schools all across the country.


Hungry and lightly armed farmers have defeated global military superpowers throughout history. If you recall, that’s how we became a country.


Were the founders of our country mental weaklings? Don’t give me that whole song and dance about how the guns were different back then. These men used to settle differences by duel. They understood that a well armed population kept the country safe and prevented politicians from straying too far from their duties and obligations to the people. Wake up.


You hate guns, got it. The vast majority of gun ownership in the US is of hunting rifles, and shotguns.

Yes some collectors have more serious weapons, but by and large most of those who have Tec-9s, AK’s, etc. are criminal gang members- oh sorry, I mean ‘misunderstood undocumented persons’.

Guns are indeed necessary until they can all be eliminated. There are tens of millions of illegal guns out there- please enlighten us with the left’s plan for preventing years of the lawful populous living in terror of gangs who would be the only ones with guns.

I’ll wait.


@AngryBarista @Phasor @Citizen @Tyfoon @docgreen2010 care to try again?


Uhm, an emotional story about an unhinged medical director of the killing his wife, son and self. He could also have clubbed them, stabbed them, etc.

This is not an argument against guns-- try again.


The gun is not story. The asshole coward who murdered his girlfriend, their infant, and the family dog is. He used a gun to do the deed and then used it to end his worthless life. The gun didn’t do it on its own, the person using it did. Guns are tools. They don’t make independent decisions.