A new Oregon gun control law was recently passed by the governor in an attempt to establish Extreme Risk Protection orders. The governor, who signed the bill with no comment remarked previously that the new law was the, “best way to ensure that a person who is at risk of harming themselves or others is identified, while still ensuring their rights are protected by a court review.”
Unfortunately, the law is a far cry from being protective of individual gun owners’ rights as it allows police to confiscate a valid owner’s firearm without providing them with their day in court before the confiscation occurs. While those affected by the law would have a right to be heard in court, the owner would not be able to appeal their rights in court until after they have been revoked.
In essence, the law is multi-faceted allowing police officers to confiscate a gun owner’s weapon if the police, a family member, or close friend reports that they pose a risk to themselves or others. Once the order is established by the court, the individual will be prevented from buying firearms or ammunition for the duration of a year, and the police will have the right to seize the owner’s weapons or require them to be stored with a gun dealer for the duration of the order.
While this new law was created to reduce the risk of firearm related suicides that has been on the rise in recent years, it is doing it at the expense of law-abiding citizen’s rights and requires them to prove that they are not a danger to themselves or others. This situation could cause many well-meaning family members and friends to have their loved one’s rights stripped from them for something that may be no more than an unfounded concern or an attempt at revenge.
In the United States, a citizen has the right to due process, which requires that a person is informed of the crime they are being charged with as well as the rights they are entitled to during the criminal process. After they are informed, they may be temporarily detained until they are seen by a judge. The proceedings will then proceed to trial and a sentencing phase if convicted, but during this entire process, a citizen’s rights may not be limited until they are convicted and sentenced in a court of law.
The new Oregon law SB 719A will have citizens subject to the restriction of rights based on suspicion or presumption. It is then their responsibility if they want those rights back to schedule a hearing and prove they deserve them, in essence violating some of the most important laws that established the founding of this country.
In addition to the fact that the law will allow citizens to be stripped of their 2nd amendment right to bear arms before they are granted the right to due process, it will also put the determination of one’s mental state and intention in the hands of people that are not qualified in the mental health field or even have the tools to make a valid determination on one’s mental health. Quite simply we have mental health professional make these types of assessments because they are the ones who are properly trained to do so.
The new law also provides gun restriction requirements for those who have had a restraining order filed against them by a significant other as well as allowing the indefinite delay of gun sales to be completed. The previous law gave the state three days to determine whether or not a gun purchase could go through. With the new law, this period could be extended indefinitely, which in effect will inhibit a citizen’s right to obtain personal protection.
While the intentions of the new gun confiscation law in Oregon may have started with good intentions, to achieve the desired results, the state is allowing law-abiding citizens to be stripped of their rights without due process and proper assessment. The new law will end up having more citizen’s in court explaining why they deserve their rights instead of the court system fighting to protect the rights of their citizens.
Whatever happened to DUE PROCESS?
Of course, Oregon is rapidly becoming California North. And Washington isn’t far behind. Seems the pioneer spirit that brought folks westerly stopped at Idaho, Utah and Arizona.
This seems to be prevalent on both coasts.
Photographing and filming police officers in public is a constitutional right protected by the First Amendment. That’s what a federal appeals court unanimously affirmed this week in cases involving Philadelphia officers retaliating against citizens pointing cameras at them.
Slate reports that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling was for two cases. In one, a woman named Amanda Geraci was restrained across the neck by a police officer while trying to film the arrest of an anti-fracking protester. In the second, a Temple undergraduate named Richard Fields was handcuffed and prosecuted after trying to film officers breaking up a house party.
A District Court previously had ruled that both Geraci and Fields had engaged in “conduct” only and not “expressive conduct,” and that therefore their filming wasn’t a First Amendment “freedom of speech” issue. But in Friday’s ruling, the Federal Appeals Court disagreed.
“Every Circuit Court of Appeals to address this issue […] has held that there is a First Amendment right to record police activity in public,” the judges write in their opinion. “Today we join this growing consensus. Simply put, the First Amendment protects the act of photographing, filming, or otherwise recording police officers conducting their official duties in public.”
“The First Amendment protects actual photos, videos, and recordings, […] and for this protection to have meaning the Amendment must also protect the act of creating that material.”
“We ask much of our police,” the judges write in the closing statements. “They can be our shelter from the storm. Yet officers are public officials carrying out public functions, and the First Amendment requires them to bear bystanders recording their actions. This is vital to promote the access that fosters free discussion of governmental actions, especially when that discussion benefits not only citizens but the officers themselves.”
So there you have it: police officers don’t have the right to squash free speech by ordering you to stop shooting photos of them in public.
Image credits: Header illustration based on photo by Elvert Barnes and licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
h/t John Gwillam, Facebook
IT’S ABOUT TIME!
Don’t you always hate it when Rights you believed to be self-evident truths have to work their way up the judicial chain just to be affirmed as valid?
Of course, this hasn’t yet reached The Supreme Court(!)
(I’m generally a rule follower – unless, of course, they are silly, or put me in danger. I DO like order, and dislike those who endanger those close to me – whether or not it’s through self-centeredness or malice. – Guffaw)
We’re staying at an undisclosed location, while the powers-that-be are repairing the shower leak in the townhouse. Or at least beginning the process. (The ceiling beneath the leak has been excised, and is being dried. We await the plumbers and subsequent reconstruction. No contractors present today!)
All guests herein are required to sign a form that this is a non-smoking campus.
My roommate is extremely asthmatic, and is sensitive to tobacco smoke.
So, this is a positive development.
On Day One here, she smelled smoke in the hall directly outside our room. On Day Two, it happened again, more intensely. We notified the front desk.
The second day, it did negatively affect her breathing. It was definitely stronger.
And pissed us off. We contacted the front desk.
Subsequently, we heard a loud discussion outside our room. Upon opening the door, we observed the general manager in confrontation with the tenants directly across the hall.
They were ‘young people’ (under 40).
At length, the manager called us and advised they had been charged an additional $250. As both a penalty, and to clean the room.
And they were evicted from the hotel!
I understand the mechanism of addiction. And also understand one must make amends for one’s mistakes. This is a step in the right direction.
PS – I’m NOT against smoking. It’s a quasi-legal activity, using a legal substance. And, I don’t like smokers being treated as third-class citizens.
But, follow the rules to which you agreed, people!
(Last Minute Louis™ is the moniker I’ve given myself for procrastinating)
So, here it is again. Tax time.
The government giveth and the government taketh away.
INCOME TAX IS THEFT! Period.
Having said that, being on disability, I don’t generally get taxed. Of course, I don’t get paid much, either.
And, as most of it comes from the government, they could decide at any moment to take it back, or stop giving it to me.
Regardless, I must file stoopid paperwork under penalty of law this time of year, showing how poor I really am.
I may make up to $1000 a month over my stipends, and not lose benefits – like someone would hire a 64-year-old cripple with many health problems, including the need to recline every couple of hours!
I DID finish the requisite forms and efiled last night about 1915 hours.
Having no real property, assets or income, I pay nothing. And am receiving nothing in return.
The State of Arizona does see fit to give the lowly $25.00 in return. Of course, it cost me $10.00 to file!
And a couple hours of combing through meaningless paperwork.
Is it any wonder I’m a Last Minute Louis™?
(From Judicial Watch)
Weeks after the House Minority leader blasted President Donald Trump for pledging to investigate voter fraud, a federal appellate court has ruled that a Peruvian immigrant can be deported from the U.S. for illegally voting in a federal election. The decision comes on the heels of a spat between Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and the president. The California Democrat accused Trump of making false claims of election fraud and said that undermining the integrity of our voting system is “really strange.” Most Democrats in Congress agree with the former House Speaker and strongly oppose an investigation, asserting it will limit access to voting.
Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of the mainstream media coverage promotes the Democrats’ inaccurate version of the facts. One news network referred to Trump’s voter fraud claims as “baseless” and simply an excuse to enact restrictive voting laws. Another wrote that “Trump’s ‘iIlegals voting’ comments are false and divisive,” calling voter fraud by undocumented immigrants “patently false.” In an editorial titled “The Latest Voter Fraud Lie,” a mainstream newspaper writes that the “baseless claims continue to get converted into policy in the form of stricter voting laws like requiring prospective voters to show a photo ID…” A multitude of similar media reports have flooded the news wires in the week’s following Trump’s meeting with congressional leaders to address the issue.
This week’s appellate court ruling provides a jolt of reality that the media has chosen to ignore. Election fraud was a significant concern in 2008 and 2010, which is why Judicial Watch launched an election integrity project in 2012. The project is a legal campaign to force cleanup of voter registration rolls as well as monitor elections. As an example of the pervasive fraud, Judicial Watch uncovered that 1,046 aliens, or residents who are not U.S. citizens, were on the voter rolls in eight Virginia counites leading up to the 2016 presidential election. If that rate of non-citizen registration held in the rest of Virginia’s counties, that would mean that about 6,500 non-citizens are registered to vote in the state. Additionally, Judicial Watch’s investigation found that 57,923 Virginians were registered to vote in at least one other state as well as 19 deceased individuals. Similar issues have been uncovered in several other states as part of Judicial Watch’s ongoing probe into election fraud.
The Latin American woman in the recent court ruling who voted illegally is hardly an isolated case. Her name is Margarita Del Pilar Fitzpatrick and she lied about being an American citizen on an Illinois Department of Motor Vehicle form. It was that easy. Fitzpatrick, a legal U.S. resident with three kids, voted in two federal elections in 2006 and claims that she had official approval to cast a ballot after presenting her Peruvian passport and green card. An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, the government’s highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws, determined that Fitzpatrick should be deported because non-U.S. citizens cannot vote in federal elections and can be removed from the country for doing so.
The Peruvian woman did not back down, appealing the decisions in federal court. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the two previous rulings in favor of deportation, though it acknowledged that Fitzpatrick “led a productive and otherwise-unblemished life in this country.” In its decision, the court states that the motor vehicle form sternly warns aliens not to check the U.S. citizen box and that Fitzpatrick is “literate in English and has no excuse for making that misrepresentation.” Aliens are forbidden to vote in federal elections, the ruling says, adding that “another statute provides for the removal of aliens who vote in violation of either state or federal law.” During oral argument, the appellate judges inquired whether Fitzpatrick is the kind of person the Attorney General and Department of Homeland Security want removed from the United States. “The answer was yes,” the ruling states.
Guess not all Circuit Courts of Appeal are created equal?
Of course, there will be whining from certain groups about ‘breaking up the family’, etc.
Don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time. Elsewhere.
(from the NRA/ILA, in part)
Grandma Got Run Over by Obama: SSA Finalizes New Gun Prohibition Rule
On Monday, Barack Obama’s Social Security Administration (SSA) issued
The final version of a rule that will doom tens of thousands of law-abiding
(and vulnerable)disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
recipients to a loss of Second Amendment rights under the guise of recharacterizing
them as “mental defectives.” The SSA, for the first time in it’s history
will be coopted into the federal government’s gun control apparatus,
effectively requiring Social Security applicants to weigh their need for benefits
against their fundamental rights when applying for assistance based on mental health
Yeah, elderly folks don’t need to defend themselves, right?
In a pig’s eye!
This really torques my jaw!
Most of the ‘older’ folks I know have been gun owners and shooting their entire lives. To have the bureaucracy remove their rights with no due process is obscene.
Yes. That’s exactly what it is.
MURDER as a political act.
Murder is illegal. Murder toward a political end is illegal. Assault with intent to commit murder is illegal. Use of firearms by criminals is illegal. Evading the police after the act is illegal. Hiding perpetrators and evidence is illegal. Hindering prosecution is illegal.
Some folks will focus on the motivation of the perpetrators. Is it a ‘hate crime’? WHY would the bad guys do such a thing?
As far as I’m concerned, when it comes to motivation, I DON’T CARE! Hate crime is code for ‘you are not thinking correctly – report to the reeducation camps‘. I’ll be a truant, thank you. What I think Is MY business! An assault remains an assault. A murder a murder.
Like them or not, The Police are the thin blue line between most communities and anarchy. Sure most homogenous communities would have some crime with or without the police. My white-bread college town doesn’t have too much crime. Under-age drinking; drug use and related offenses. But what about minority communities with a fractured social structure? South Chicago, for example? Where the crime is largely Black-on-Black?
So, where does such criminality to attack police come from? Certainly from police abuse against minorities, real and imagined, as propagandized by certain political movements (communists, anarchists, Black power advocates) – politicians and community organizers meeting with their leaders, and making anti-law enforcement statements(!)
And there we have it. If these ‘reverends’, ‘community organizers*’ and politicians actually stood up for non-violence, peace, and brotherhood. And facts. Perhaps acts such as occurred in Dallas would not have happened.
Facts. That recent shooting where the Black man had a gun. And a violent criminal record. Not unlike that Missouri guy. The tall, athletic guy, with a history of strong-arm-robbery, going for the security guy’s gun.
Do we not think that certain powers won’t utilize Dallas as yet another stepping stone toward abridging the rights of the law-abiding?
Double-secret probation, if you will? Making it MORE illegal?
Our focus should first be on the good thoughts and prayers for the deceased, injured and their families. Second, on bringing the perpetrators to justice.
And third, on stopping crime in fractured neighborhoods. Instead of just letting them fester.
A tall order, I know.
*didn’t we used to call them outside agitators?
From Alan Korwin’s email this morning, in part…
The Infamous No-Fly No-Buy Gun Bill HR 2578:
“Blatant Rape of the Constitution.”
— Legislators who proposed this should be removed from office —
Has anyone even read the bill that had democrats
staging a sit-in on the floor of Congress?
“No district court of the United States
or court of appeals of the United States
shall have jurisdiction to consider the
lawfulness or constitutionality of this section…”
It gets worse.
Under the excuse of fighting terrorism, these democrats, with republican allies, wanted to deny Americans their individual rights to travel by air — or obtain arms — without probable cause, without due process, and get this — without being able to view the evidence against them or face their accusers. Their accusers and the evidence remains a secret. Your rights would be denied solely by a secret-police list.
You can’t challenge the proposed law’s legality… because it hasn’t got any. It would not pass even the slightest scrutiny, and they know that, hence that clause above in bold. My republican senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake, supports this, smiling when he announced it on TV.
The people proposing this 17-page tyrannical travesty should be removed from office.
And THIS STATIST CLOWN is the more ‘conservative’ of Arizona’a two Senators! (The other being McCain!) Barry Goldwater must be spinning in his grave!
Even if you are not from Arizona, please contact this guy’s office in protest! (link below)
Senator Jeff Flake
(I have – THREE TIMES!)
(And, now for something completely different – as promised)
22 VETERANS COMMIT SUICIDE DAILY
Even ONE of these heroes making this choice is unacceptable! (Day #22 of 22)
This Administration is (in)famous for the promotion of firearms sales, through it’s attempts to strip rights from the law-abiding. (Better than Clinton through HIS attempts!)
And that’s saying something.
One of the more recent efforts is to deny The Right To Keep And Bear Arms from those relegated to the No-Fly List.
The brilliant, beautiful (and snarky) Tamara says it better:
(And, now for something completely different – as promised)
22 VETERANS COMMIT SUICIDE DAILY
Even ONE of these heroes making this choice is unacceptable! (Day #15 of 22)
Back in the 70’s there was a book about political conspiracies released call The Yankee and Cowboy War.
Authored by a leftist, anti-war guy, he postulated that (then) modern politics in the U.S. was derived from the ‘battles’ between Eastern (U.S.) influences and Western influences. Kennedy versus Reagan, if you will.
Of course, his thesis was destroyed by Bushes from Kennebunkport being the same as those from Texas!
But much of the country still thinks in these generic terms. Yankee (Wall Street) bad versus Texas (big oil) bad.
And Southerners/Westerners being more freedom-loving than New Yorkers remains a meme.
In my sense of bigotry.
But, now comes THIS…
You may have heard of civil asset forfeiture.
That’s where police can seize your property and cash without first proving you committed a crime; without a warrant and without arresting you, as long as they suspect that your property is somehow tied to a crime.
Now, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol has a device that also allows them to seize money in your bank account or on prepaid cards.
It’s called an ERAD, or Electronic Recovery and Access to Data machine, and state police began using 16 of them last month.
Here’s how it works. If a trooper suspects you may have money tied to some type of crime, the highway patrol can scan any cards you have and seize the money.
“We’re gonna look for different factors in the way that you’re acting,” Oklahoma Highway Patrol Lt. John Vincent said. “We’re gonna look for if there’s a difference in your story. If there’s someway that we can prove that you’re falsifying information to us about your business.”
Troopers insist this isn’t just about seizing cash.
-Jeffery in Alabama
OKLAHOMA! The West! Where people are alleged to be more free(?)
Soon (I’m certain) to be coming to a State near you! “…without a warrant and without arresting you, as long as they suspect that your property is somehow tied to a crime.”
SOMEHOW. Yeah, there’s your probable cause and due process.
“We may have all come on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
(And, now for something completely different – as promised)
22 VETERANS COMMIT SUICIDE DAILY
Even ONE of these heroes making this choice is unacceptable! (Day #12 of 22)