Gun Confiscation Law Passed in Oregon

CraigAPS · Aug 31, 2017

I tried to find anything about this, but I couldn't. If it's a duplicate, I apologize. Apparently, the state of Oregon recently (08/23/17) passed an "Extreme Risk Protection Order" law which is tantamount to gun confiscation. This law allows for a citizen's acquaintance, friend, family member, or LEO to petition the court to issue one of these orders if the citizen poses a risk to him/herself or others. Once issued, the order is valid for one year, and the citizen must give up any firearms to local law enforcement, a gun dealer, or other "qualified" third party (idk what "qualifies" the third pary--maybe legally able to possess a firearm?) within 24 hours of it being issued. According to one YouTube video, Indiana is one of 20 states looking to enact a similar law. An article states that Indiana has had a similar law "on the books for years." Has anyone heard of Indiana having a gun confiscation law like this or having one in the works??

One Oregon newspaper's explanation of the law:

Fact check: Did Kate Brown really sign a gun confiscation bill? | OregonLive.com

A good explanation via YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u3j_6ci7ZY

The YouTube video that claims we're next:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4_XbElCe8w

The article that claims we already have this (the best way to find the little about IN is to do a search of the page for the word "Indiana"):

'Extreme Risk Protection Orders' Spreading Across U.S.: Say Goodbye to Your Gun Rights - The Truth About Guns

Fargo · Aug 31, 2017

Yes, it's called "Lairds law" and describes the process for warrantless seizure of firearms in Indiana. It was passed in response to the murder of IMPD officer Jake Laird.

ETA: https://banksbrower.com/2016/06/07/forfeiture-of-guns-in-indiana/

CraigAPS · Aug 31, 2017

Thanks, Fargo. I hadn't heard of that before. Maybe it's because it's been so long, but I found it odd that I've not seen mention of it on here before.

Isn't this law superfluous, as mentally ill individuals aren't allowed to possess firearms anyway??

Trigger Time · Aug 31, 2017

Therres a discussion on it here already but I don't remember the title.

Trigger Time · Aug 31, 2017

CraigAPS said:
Thanks, Fargo. I hadn't heard of that before. Maybe it's because it's been so long, but I found it odd that I've not seen mention of it on here before.

Isn't this law superfluous, as mentally ill individuals aren't allowed to possess firearms anyway??

The problem is the new law doesn't allow for someone to have due process

CraigAPS · Aug 31, 2017

Trigger Time said:
Therres a discussion on it here already but I don't remember the title.

I may not have found as I wasn't looking for Laird's Law. I was looking for a more recent discussion about the Oregon law because I didn't even know we had one.

MCgrease08 · Aug 31, 2017

This came up a few years ago with a mentally ill guy police found lurking around Bloomington claiming he was investigating the Lauren Spierer disappearance.

I don't recall the specifics, but he had many, many guns confiscated. It moved through the courts and I believe the confiscation was upheld. I want to say Guy Relford may have even represented the man.

ETA - Found some background.

http://www.wthr.com/article/man-wants-guns-back-that-bloomington-police-seized

http://www.theindianalawyer.com/art...ld-for-dangerous-man-who-stalked-spierer-site

There was a thread on the Oregon law a few weeks ago, before the governor had signed it.

sheepdog697 · Aug 31, 2017

Good luck taking their guns.... probably going to need it.

Fargo · Aug 31, 2017

Here is an old thread on it back when Kirk was uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh less tightly wound....
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general-firearms-discussion/61224-jake-laird-law-cited.html

CraigAPS · Aug 31, 2017

MCgrease08 said:
This came up a few years ago with a mentally ill guy police found lurking around Bloomington claiming he was investigating the Lauren Spierer disappearance.

I don't recall the specifics, but he had many, many guns confiscated. It moved through the courts and I believe the confiscation was upheld. I want to say Guy Relford may have even represented the man.

ETA - Found some background.

Man wants guns back that Bloomington police seized - Local News - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

Seizure of guns upheld for ?dangerous? man who stalked Spierer site | The Indiana Lawyer

There was a thread on the Oregon law a few weeks ago, before the governor had signed it.

Thanks for the info! Wow. Redington's a "special" kind of guy...

Sorry for the dupe thread, then. My fault.

CraigAPS · Aug 31, 2017

Fargo said:
Here is an old thread on it back when Kirk was uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh less tightly wound....
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general-firearms-discussion/61224-jake-laird-law-cited.html

Interesting that the law is used so infrequently (or it appears so from that thread. of course, INGO is sadly not omniscient. There could be other uses unbeknownst to INGOers but knownst to others). What worried me most about Indiana passing a law like this echoes others' fears in that thread about it being abused. Apparently, it isn't at this point.

Are you implying that Kirk may be a little bit uptight?? I've never met him, but that doesn't come across in any of his posts... The Laird thread also taught me about the different homophones for "cited"... :whistle:

BehindBlueI's · Aug 31, 2017

CraigAPS said:
Thanks, Fargo. I hadn't heard of that before. Maybe it's because it's been so long, but I found it odd that I've not seen mention of it on here before.

Isn't this law superfluous, as mentally ill individuals aren't allowed to possess firearms anyway??

Think of this as the ambulance and adjudication add mentally ill & dangerous as ongoing care. Speaking solely of the Indiana law, it's for the "right now " emergency. Adjudication is for long term.

CraigAPS · Aug 31, 2017

BehindBlueI's said:
Think of this as the ambulance and adjudication add mentally ill & dangerous as ongoing care. Speaking solely of the Indiana law, it's for the "right now " emergency. Adjudication is for long term.

Just to be sure I understand what you're saying (Darn! I feel like I need to go to law school to participate in some of these topics!), Laird's Law is to negate an immediate possible threat (the ambulance) whereas one must be found "mentally ill" in a court of law to be denied their right to bear arms (adjudication)?

Fargo · Aug 31, 2017

CraigAPS said:
Just to be sure I understand what you're saying (Darn! I feel like I need to go to law school to participate in some of these topics!), Laird's Law is to negate an immediate possible threat (the ambulance) whereas one must be found "mentally ill" in a court of law to be denied their right to bear arms (adjudication)?

Pretty much. I've seen a good number of these work their way through the local courts. IME most of them are in pretty bad mental shape and either no-show or appear and consent to the 180 day hold.

BehindBlueI's · Aug 31, 2017

CraigAPS said:
Just to be sure I understand what you're saying (Darn! I feel like I need to go to law school to participate in some of these topics!), Laird's Law is to negate an immediate possible threat (the ambulance) whereas one must be found "mentally ill" in a court of law to be denied their right to bear arms (adjudication)?

Right.

I'm a cop, not a shrink. I can't diagnose you as a paranoid schizophrenic or whatever. I can, however, notice that you've threatened to kill the mailman because you believe he's a Soviet spy, you think you're a deep cover FBI agent, have heads of lettuce in pie pans around your apartment and explain it's to absorb the poison the landlord pumps in to try and kill you, and that you answered the door with a pistol in your hand in case I was the mailman.

So at this point you've actually committed no crime. The call was about the odd odor in your apartment (moth balls and rotting lettuce, as it turns out). Telling the mailman you'll kill him is Intimidation, but telling a third party is not. There's been no substantial step toward the crime of Murder, etc. It would, however, invite disaster to leave you at home with your guns. So, we have things like Immediate Detention (like an arrest, but for mental health reasons and taken to a mental health evaluation at a hospital instead of jail) and the statue that allows us to remove your guns until the adjudication process has time to work.

It is very similar to an arrest, with similar checks and balances by the court system, to include the need for probable cause. I need articulable facts as to why there is probable cause that the individual is a "dangerous person" and has access to weapons. If done without a warrant, a court must find there was PC, again like an arrest.

actaeon277 · Aug 31, 2017

CraigAPS said:
Thanks for the info! Wow. Redington's a "special" kind of guy...

Sorry for the dupe thread, then. My fault.

Not really a dupe. That thread is about another state.
And, it was 2009, so you might have had a hard time finding it.
Also, everyone that starts threads have accidently made a dupe. Happened to me a few times.
You do your best to look, then you make a thread. No biggie.

Kutnupe14 · Aug 31, 2017

BehindBlueI's said:
Right.

I'm a cop, not a shrink. I can't diagnose you as a paranoid schizophrenic or whatever. I can, however, notice that you've threatened to kill the mailman because you believe he's a Soviet spy, you think you're a deep cover FBI agent, have heads of lettuce in pie pans around your apartment and explain it's to absorb the poison the landlord pumps in to try and kill you, and that you answered the door with a pistol in your hand in case I was the mailman.

So at this point you've actually committed no crime. The call was about the odd odor in your apartment (moth balls and rotting lettuce, as it turns out). Telling the mailman you'll kill him is Intimidation, but telling a third party is not. There's been no substantial step toward the crime of Murder, etc. It would, however, invite disaster to leave you at home with your guns. So, we have things like Immediate Detention (like an arrest, but for mental health reasons and taken to a mental health evaluation at a hospital instead of jail) and the statue that allows us to remove your guns until the adjudication process has time to work.

It is very similar to an arrest, with similar checks and balances by the court system, to include the need for probable cause. I need articulable facts as to why there is probable cause that the individual is a "dangerous person" and has access to weapons. If done without a warrant, a court must find there was PC, again like an arrest.

+1
It's not unknown to occur, especially with older people. I remember helping to remove an arsenal out of a guys home, at the request of his wife and son, because due to his dementia, he no longer recognized them, and had the nasty habit of pointing guns at them until they could convince him of who they were.

Gun Confiscation Law Passed in Oregon

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

Expert

Grandmaster

Expert

Air guitar master

Air guitar master

Expert

Grandmaster

Expert

Grandmaster

Expert

Expert

Grandmaster

Expert

Grandmaster

Grandmaster

Grandmaster

Troll Emeritus

Log in

Site Supporter

Forum statistics