Oregon Republican Senator Brian Boquist’s Gun Violence Retraining Order Heads to the Governor

David Codrea writes [via ammoland.com]:

“Today the Oregon House approved one of the most dangerous, hateful and mean spirited pieces of legislation ever introduced,” Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF) alerted members Thursday. According to the official description, SB 719 A “creates process for obtaining extreme risk protection order prohibiting person from possessing deadly weapon when court finds that person presents risk in near future, including imminent risk, of suicide or causing injury to another person.”

The OFF is not happy about the bill. At all.

SB 719 A, the product of Republican Senator Brian Boquist’s collusion with the most militant anti-gunners in the legislature, will now allow the police to come to your home and confiscate your firearms and ‘deadly weapons’ with no accusation or conviction of a crime. There is NO question this bill will cost people’s lives.

Boquist’s turning away from gun owner rights advocates who previously supported him. It weakens gun rights advocates’ already politically precarious position in “progressive”-dominated Oregon.

A former U.S. Army Special Forces officer, Boquist previously enjoyed excellent ratings and support from gun owner rights groups. The catalyst for his conversion was the suicide by gunshot of his Navy veteran stepson.

With his background and his circumstances, all people of good conscience will naturally feel sympathy. But as with so many who lose relatives in incidents involving guns, that sympathy does not give sufferers leave to endanger the lives and the rights of others.

That’s especially true when proposed “solutions” rely on unsupported allegations, cast a broad net and ignore fundamentals of due process. Denying rights to citizens who have not been convicted of anything—that is, who are legally “innocent,” is unconstitutional and un-American.

Naturally, the gun-grabbers paint any objections as “gun nuts” (and there’s a reason why they call us that) being FOR “putting guns in dangerous hands.” The real objection is to any American having rights forcibly stripped without full due process.

Now a vindictive family or household member has the power to have your rights and property stolen from you simply because they chose to make an accusation against you. Dangerous’ people will not be taken into custody. Self destructive people will receive no help.

The unaddressed reality: anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can‘t be trusted without a custodian. If someone is a provable danger to himself and others, he will find a way to act on that.

“The bill now goes to the Governor for her certain signature,” OFF concludes. They’ve seen firsthand how Kate Brown piles on the in-your-face infringements.

What’s left is for gun owners to remember how Brian Boquist repaid their support the next time he runs for public office and do what they can to deny him power — even if it means a Democrat wins.

That’s may hurt in the short term, but it’s really the only long-term response with any deterrent effect. After all, what incentive would any politician have to stay true to his base if there is no cost for infidelity?

In Boquist’s case, what difference would it make?

 


About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

comments

  1. avatar Joe R. says:

    WTF&Crazy Hell?

    R

    I

    N

    O

    Waste of Vote, tear up his party card

    1. avatar Timothy says:

      I know how to save lives! When people are having trouble in life, aire their problems out in a courtroom and make it part of public record, then send cops to their house to take only their guns!

      That’ll open up lines of communication, make them feel like they’re in control and remove all means of suicide all at once!!

      Good job guys! Give yourselves a round of applause! You did it with such well thought out logic!! Who could possibly find fault with such a plan?!?

  2. avatar Rick Hess says:

    I think this will not survive. It may end up with the 9th and their upholding the whole damned thing, but this is one the Supreme’s need to take next session. This one is about as egregious as they come. I feel for the Senator, but he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. In his present state of mind, he isn’t upholding the Constitution and he must be slapped down, and severely.

  3. avatar Bob in Calif says:

    Oregon Republican Senator Brian Boquist’s Gun Violence Retraining Order.
    So now it’s called a retraining order?

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      A “Gun Violence Retraining Order” sounds like something the NYPD needs.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Sounds like the Borg, resistence is futile, you will be ass-imolated.

      2. avatar Luke 22 says:

        You can bet that the Damn-o-crats in NJ will be introducing this ASACCLO (As Soon As Crispy Cream Leaves Office)
        The next NJ Gov. (Damn-o-crat, Goldman-Sachs Crook, Phil Murphy) has pledged to sign every crack-pot anti-gun bill that comes to his desk….It is going to get UGLY.

  4. avatar John says:

    I don’t agree with this, but I understand why he proposed it. Hear me out. My wife’s best friend from college took her own life. She chose to overdose, not a gun, but it doesn’t matter. She’s gone. My wife spent months obsessing over every text message, every voicemail, every Facebook post trying to understand it. She felt she could have done something, anything to prevent it. One day she finally realized it wasn’t her fault. Her friend made her choice to take her own life. It doesn’t matter how in the end.

    The money on this bill would better spent on helping those who may be suicidal. The method chosen is irrelevant. If someone makes the choice to take thier own life they will find a way.

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Understanding the why does not excuse the what.

      1. avatar John says:

        Hence why I said I don’t agree with it.

    2. avatar Kendahl says:

      A corollary to the concept of free will is that the rest of the world is NOT responsible for your self destructive decisions. I’m glad your wife finally figured this out vis-a-vis her college friend.

    3. avatar Roymond says:

      “The money on this bill would better spent on helping those who may be suicidal.”

      +100

    4. avatar bastiches says:

      If tragedy voids civil rights, then we have none.

    5. avatar Timothy says:

      I don’t understand. The removal of guns only does not prevent suicide or Japan wouldn’t have 3X the rate of the US.

      All this does is shut down lines of communication (that’s bad for suicidal people) spread their problems around a court room (that’s bad for suicidal people), and send cops to confiscate property because the state has decided you don’t get control (a lack of control is really bad for suicidal people).

      This bill provides only one chance to get guns back within the year and has zero consequence for lying family members.

      Hmm, a bill that takes away guns, but actually increases suicide? Long as we call it safety right?

  5. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    “I suffered so everyone else has to suffer along side me so I am not alone”…..

  6. avatar aircooled says:

    We really should refer to these bills as “6th amendment suspension orders”.
    Control the narrative and all that.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I like it!

      Minor quibble: shouldn’t it be Fourth Amendment Suspension Orders?

      1. avatar aircooled says:

        6A “…be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

        One could argue that it is the violation of the 6A that invokes the “unreasonable” part of the 4A’s searches and seizures clause.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          We could call them “Due Process Suspension Orders.” That covers several amendments, including the 4th and 6th.

  7. avatar Mas Cool Arrow says:

    Sounds like someone needs to loose in the primary.

    What if his son had run his car into a bridge piling? Would he be banning cars or bridges?

    What’s next, mandate that people are wrapped in bubble wrap from the time that they are born and keep them in a padded room for the rest of their lives so that they don’t hurt themselves?

    1. avatar Kendahl says:

      In Kansas, a young woman died when the car in which she was a passenger ran into the end of a guard rail. Her parents sued the state department of roads not for money but to force them to bury the ends of guard rails so that no one else would die in that way. The DOR refused stating that it was their professional engineering opinion that the parents’ solution would lead to more deaths from roll over accidents. In the end, the parents lost. However, the case shows how grief can overrule sound judgement.

      Your reference to bubble wrap and padded cells is entirely appropriate. For safety advocates, no risk is justifiable regardless of the benefits.

  8. avatar John says:

    You forgot to mention the soon to be law allows the person 24 hours after the judge issues the order to turn in their firearms before the confiscation occurs. WTF so you’re going to give someone who is supposedly so dangerous to themselves or others 24 hours before removing their firearms. Here’s your sign.

  9. avatar Kyle says:

    Obviously a guy looking to hop parties as Oregon follows California down the liberalism death spiral.

    Maybe they’ll bankrupt their state to do a train from Bend to Klamath falls so they can have a high speed train to nowhere too.

  10. avatar Roymond says:

    This guy was a couple of grades behind me in high school. I can’t believe he turned like this. If he’s at the county fair again this summer I may just give him a piece of my mind.

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    POS. Dang when did Oregon become worse than Illinois?!?

    1. avatar J says:

      This is what happens when you get overflow from the land of fruits & nuts right next door…..

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        Boquist isn’t “overflow”; the family has been in Oregon for at least four generations.

  12. avatar Mark N. says:

    The State now has the power to throw your ass into the loony bin for a variable length of time (depending on your state of residence, the shortest being 72 hours, some states significantly longer) on no more than an officer’s or licensed medical personnel’s affidavit that there is probable cause to believe you are a serious risk of harm to yourself or others. There is no court hearing, no prior notice, no right to an attorney, and in fact no right to a hearing unless and until the mental health facility seeks to keep you involuntarily committed beyond the period of time specified by law. Thus, despite the complete loss of personal freedom for a specified period of time, there is no constitutional violation when the state acts in this manner.

    By contrast, a GVRO or FEPO cannot be issued without a hearing by a judicial officer based on evidence, whether via affidavit, testimony, documents, etc, establishing that there is far more than probable cause to believe that you are a danger to yourself or others. And there is no loss of personal freedom involved.

    1. avatar JK says:

      I just read the bill and I somewhat agree… Although the initial hearing is ex parte, the burden is “clear and convincing evidence”. That remains a very vague term, but it’s generally accepted as a tough one to overcome. Not much different than a TRO or preliminary guardianship hearing, except that in this case there are more substantial 4th amendment issues. The fact that the bill empowers the police/state to seize property, in what is essentially a civil case, prior to the opportunity to be heard, makes me uncomfortable. If the police really think you are a danger to society, they should have sufficient grounds to get a warrant and make an arrest for conspiracy to commit X. Otherwise, get a TPO or make use of the involuntary 72 hour commitment. And why just firearms?? Why not extend the bill to seizure of Tylenol, rope, knives, vehicles, gasoline, fertilizer, etc. etc. etc.? –All things that are just as potentially lethal to one’s self and others. Bunch of malarkey that doesn’t meet rational basis. Cops can’t enter your house without a warrant absent extenuating circumstances–and this sure isn’t one of the examples that has been previously established. Now that I’ve thought about it more, I don’t think I agree with you much at all. You’re comparing Apples and pancakes.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        On your clear and convincing point, all the burdens of proof except preponderance are pretty vague. What’s a reasonable doubt, and how far beyond it do you need to get?

    2. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

      That’s kind of funny…I thought you were talking about an Old Soviet Union Gulag in Siberia…Or a North Korean Labor/Death camp….Those reserved for ” Crazy people, Political subversives, citizens who wrong-Think, or those considered unsafe by the State Government, etc…It’s hard to believe were talking about America….The only problem is “What the Hell are we going to do about it !!!”

  13. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The only difference between west coast republicans and west coast democrats is the republicans are against public sex acts.

  14. avatar David Deplorable says:

    These laws are a great way for abusers to strip their victims of a means to defend themselves.

    Should be called “Disarm Your Domestic Abuse Victim Act.”

  15. avatar Joe R. says:

    The caption for the above picture could read “RELEASED: Pictures of Representative in the barn with farm animals”.

    What were they holding over this guy’s head, or was he an evil (D) running as a wet-ca-ca (R). Oregon is F’d up.

  16. avatar Scott K. says:

    Is it just me, or at first glance does that guy in the picture look like Uncle Adolf (Hitler) giving the Heil salute.

  17. avatar Docduracoat says:

    Oregon doesn’t have tall buildings ?
    Or cliffs? Train tracks, highways, car exhaust and hoses ( or garages), pills, knives, ropes, or bleach?

  18. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    If it’s bad enough for a summary gun grab, it’s also bad enough for some summary, emergency help, and an expedited case review. Whoever made the claim is in front of a review, making their case, the day after the seizure. (And the cops bear all costs – no “court fees” for the accuses — and maybe charge it back to the complainant.)

    /Rant
    I’m reminded of Lynch’s take on running his decades’ long over-performing mutual fund, Fidelity Magellan: “You do best when you place a small number of large bets … and you are right.” Risk spreading in portfolios makes sense if you think you might be wrong … meaning kind of dumb. Often a good assumption.

    What’s this have to do with this “Grab the guns!” law? What kind of bets are we placing when we allow weakly-based, or strongly-justified “confiscations.” The $64,000 question, like with stocks, is, what’s a weak vs. strong indicator of what’s gonna happen?

    All my electronic devices wear a sticker proclaiming “I do not consent to the search of this device.” (Available from the EFF for a nominal fee, which supports their work.) Why?

    Before a case made it to the Supremes a few years back, various jurisdictions decided they could pull every bit off of any electronics they got close to when interacting with you for any reason. Depending on the jurisdiction, the data-vacuuming was “permitted” with less than Terry threshold. Of course, in our 100-mile deep rights-free zone, meaning “borders”, “border control” still has authorities for such stuff beyond those of the internal enforcers. Various special mission internal authorities — the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on godless communists; wait, that’s not such a thing these days — have similar extended authorization, for lowered “cause.”

    “I do not consent…” won’t stop them, necessarily, but can create a record. There’s that marvelous confusion, are you answering “voluntarily” or are you compelled. Well, the sticker reminds me. And reminds them. And creates a record. then, we appeal later. You won’t get your data or privacy back, but you’ll maybe create some look at what they’re doing. Sometimes they back off when they know what they do will be reviewed.

    Essentially, “I do not consent…” pushes the emergency searches toward bigger bets, more likely to be right. I’m not a fan of drag nets, which is at root the concern about this “confiscate on warning” law. It’s a drag net — anybody, somebody “suspects”, and open for abuse. For / against this law is a drag net argument. “Hey, how about we get it right when we do this?”, vs. “Just grab them all … if it stops even one, and BTW you have no legit use for personal guns anyway.” (Finance analogies are a great way to approach any kind of risk trade-off, because they are less emotionally hot, and you can’t hide that every transaction has a cost to execute.)

    It turns out there are “exigent circumstances” exceptions to requiring consent, or a warrant, for searches, detention, and so on. In principle, you solve the emergency, then go back and get the warrant after. (Surveillance, and “national security” practice honors this more in the breach, but that’s a different issue.) “I do not consent” creates the record, and invokes a review process, in principle, much like “Am I under arrest?” and “Am I being detained?” (Answer “Yes.” and do what you gotta do.)

    Oregon, and especially the law’s opponents ought to frame the argument in these terms: circumstances so exigent, we intervene first, *then* tag* up on the analysis, including assessment for other interventions, like custodial treatment. If we’re gonna impinge someone’s rights, want to make a small number of bets, that pay off well, because each bet has a cost. If we’re gonna do this, we want to be right. And if we can’t be right most of the time, the solution is to learn to make smarter bets.

    Sadly, many people we’re dealing with who create laws and implement governance … intervening on other people is a benefit; they like meddling. And they love having a vast, loose apparatus they can appropriate from within to address their issue of the moment. Because they are right — just ask them — we are dumb — just ask them — and the notion of personal, individual autonomy as a good they can’t even grasp enough to object to.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Rant response: Always make it clear that you acquiesce and not consent.

      1. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

        You mean, like in Eastern Bloc states…”Have I committed crime. I Do not consent to searches, or seizures…I will NOT resist YOU, but I will NOT Co-operate with YOU…I HAVE NO WANTS, NO WARRANTS, AND NO CRIMINAL RECORD OF ANY KIND !!! And , oh yes…I have a body camera too…It uploads to a remote network, thank you….

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          When a cop asks for permission, don’t give it. When a cop tells you to open the trunk, do something like saying I do not consent to a search of my trunk before opening the trunk. Remember that these are guys with guns that juries routinely believe.

          The reason this advice is needed is that cops try to trick you into waiving your rights. “Do you know why I pulled you over?” is a trick question. “No” is always the correct answer (unless you can read minds).

    2. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

      @ You mean like during the French revolution… Later, with Politicians, etc…Going to the Guillotine!!! Maybe should be the “lose of the bet” for wrongful infringements AGAINST the citizenry of Oregon…Make a mistake through “exigent circumstance” and the police, the politicians pay a heavy price for getting it really wrong…..For what price, Freedom…

  19. avatar Mike Betts says:

    I’m not a psychiatrist nor have I ever played one on TV but this appears to me to be Senator Brian Boquist’s sense of guilt over being unable to prevent his stepson’s suicide manifesting itself in some very, very bad legislation.

  20. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    “The unaddressed reality: anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can‘t be trusted without a custodian.” Agree 100%.

    Guardianship law is one of my areas of practice. Basically, it involves taking away someone’s rights and giving them to someone else. The most common context is dementia with no pre-planning. There isn’t really much I can do for crazies. Most crazy people can get on their meds and be sane. Once they’re sane, the court no longer has any authority to impose a guardianship. My point is that we do have a problem in how we deal with the seriously mentally ill, and taking their guns away won’t solve anything.

    We also have a serious problem in how we talk about mental illness. Whether it’s mild depression to full blown psychosis, we just say mental illness. That’s not helpful.

  21. avatar J says:

    Portland + californians ruined oregon.

  22. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    A little something for The Oregon citizenry from the New England area…The American Revolutionary war era……Seeing we might be heading there again…..
    ———————————————————————
    Concord Hymn
    BY RALPH WALDO EMERSON
    Sung at the Completion of the Battle Monument, July 4, 1837
    By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
    Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
    Here once the embattled farmers stood
    And fired the shot heard round the world.

    The foe long since in silence slept;
    Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
    And Time the ruined bridge has swept
    Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.

    On this green bank, by this soft stream,
    We set today a votive stone;
    That memory may their deed redeem,
    When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

    Spirit, that made those heroes dare
    To die, and leave their children free,
    Bid Time and Nature gently spare
    The shaft we raise to them and thee.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email