From Breitbart: 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.
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.”