Republican Senator Abandons Roots, Introduces New Bill For Oregon Allowing Confiscation

christian dating news

.

RWC News Republican Senator Abandons Roots, Introduces New Bill For Oregon Allowing Confiscation

Oregon lawmakers consider gun control legislation (pictured about).

The Constitution protects our ability to bear arms, one of the most important rights we have. Without it, aggressive thugs would cause much more harm than they already do. Guns give people the opportunity to stand up to violent criminals and defend their lives. Thankfully, conservatives across the country are challenging the authoritarian left’s attempt to destroy the Second Amendment. Just recently, Republican lawmakers in Iowa passed a bill offering major protections to gun owners. Unfortunately, not all states are interested in defending the Constitution.

Despite the fact that states like Iowa have made incredible steps forward with regards to the Second Amendment, Oregon appears to be doing the opposite. Surprisingly, the effort in the state against gun owners is being led by Republicans who’ve abandoned their principles. They’re trying to make it easier for someone to be banned from buying a gun. What’s worse, they’re also trying to take people’s guns.

According to reports, State Senator Brian Boquist (R-Dallas) is leading the assault on the Second Amendment in Oregon. Boquist, whose stepson committed suicide, recently introduced Senate Bill 868. The legislation, co-sponsored by State Sen. Ginny Burdick (D-Portland) and supported by former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords’ (D-AZ) gun control group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, makes it more difficult to purchase a gun and gives immediate family members the power to confiscate all of an individual’s guns for an entire year.

.

RWC News Republican Senator Abandons Roots, Introduces New Bill For Oregon Allowing Confiscation

State Senator Brian Boquist (R-Dallas).

Specifically, “a peace officer or a family or household member of a person [to] file a petition requesting that the court issue an extreme risk protection order enjoining [a] person from having in the [their] custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition.” If passed and signed into law, certain individuals would be prohibited from possessing any guns for a year and forced to “hand over any guns in their possession,” despite not committing any crimes.

Proponents of the bill support it for severalreasons. For starters, it “creates [a] process for obtaining extreme risk protection order prohibiting [a]  person from possessing firearms when [the]  court finds that person presents [an]  imminent risk, or risk in foreseeable future, of suicide or causing injury to other persons.” It also “establishes procedures for [a]  peace officer or family or household member of person to apply for [an]  order.” Further, it “establishes procedures for [the]  respondent to request [a]  hearing, and for [the]  continuance of extreme risk protection order after [a] hearing or if [a] hearing is not requested.” Additionally, it “establishes procedures for termination and renewal of order.”

However, this legislation is extremely problematic. It gives family members an incredible amount of power over their gun-owning relatives. People have a right to own a gun, period. The reasoning used by the authoritarian left leads down a slippery slope. If someone can have their guns taken away, then they could also potentially have their Driver’s License suspended and their car taken. It would make just as much sense to do this as it does to take away their firearms.

.

Despite its obvious flaws, lawmakers attemptedto make the bill seem more reasonable by allowing for ex parte hearing for gun confiscations. This means that if someone is ordered to turn in their guns, they “[have] the right to request one hearing to terminate [the] order during the 12 months that [the] order is in effect starting from the date of [the] order.” Unfortunately, this does little to help. A person shouldn’t be forced to go through this process in the first place. Their guns should have never been taken away.

Unsurprisingly, many conservatives were outraged by this proposed legislation. Keely Hopkins, an employee of the National Rifle Association (NRA), claimed that this bill violates both the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, she said, “this bill allows for a protective order to remove your Second Amendment rights, not because of a criminal conviction, but based on third-party allegations using an evidentiary standard that falls far below what’s normally required for the removing of fundamental rights.”

RWC News Republican Senator Abandons Roots, Introduces New Bill For Oregon Allowing Confiscation

A selection of firearms at a gun store.

In response to claims that the bill violated the Constitution, Boquist argued that it didn’t. “It’s easy to wave your book around,” he said, adding, “[but] when the Supreme Court and other people say it’s constitutional, that’s the law of the land.”

.

Fortunately, Iowan legislators understand the importance of the Second Amendment. Just recently, they passed a bill offering greater protections to gun owners. The new law allows people to use deadly force against someone if they feel their life is in danger. On top of that, they’ll be able to sue local governments over gun-free zones. The bill, named House File 517, passed the state Senate 33 to 17 and the House, 57 to 36. If their Governor, Terry Branstad (R), signs the bill into law, which he’s expected to do, gun owners will be given extremely broad protections.

RWC News Republican Senator Abandons Roots, Introduces New Bill For Oregon Allowing Confiscation

Iowa State Senate.

Other state lawmakers should pass similar laws to the one in Iowa. Gun owners must not allow enemies of the Second Amendment to make it easier to disarm law abiding citizens. Without guns, innocent people will die at the hands of violent criminals.

For example, three masked intruders, armed with weapons, recently broke into a house in Oklahoma. One of the residents inside thankfully had an AR-15 and managed to shoot and kill the intruders before they could harm anyone. If he didn’t have a gun, the situation could’ve turned out much differently. The burglars might have killed both people inside and escaped with their property.

In Las Vegas, a similar situation occurred. Late at night, an armed burglar broke into a house and attempted to rob the person inside. Thanks to the Second Amendment, the homeowner also had a gun and managed to shoot the intruder dead. Owning a gun is the only reason he’s alive today. The authoritarian left does not appear to care about these stories. They support policies that would leave victims of a home invasion dead.

Opponents of the Second Amendment must not be allowed to take away our guns. Although liberals are still the main people against gun ownership, several Republicans have unfortunately defected. These alleged conservatives must not remain in office. By proposing greater restrictions on firearms, they’re literally putting people’s lives in danger.

You may share this post on Facebook and Twitter.
Let us know what you think in the comments section below:

Share This:

Emma Laftchu
I began reporting for RWC News on October 12th of 2016. Prior to that I was a reporter for WOKR Radio.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


nine − 3 =