How Oregon Democrats Rammed Through GUN CONFISCATION BILL. And How A Republican Helped.

Saturday, July 8, 2017
By Paul Martin

Brock Simmons
Jul 8th, 2017

Jennifer Williamson, Floyd Prozanski, Ginny Burdick, and Tina Kotek seem to be completely void of any ethics or morals.

With the help of one turncoat republican, Oregon democrats pulled every shady trick in the book to ram through what is being tabbed as an “extreme risk protection order”, which would allow a family member or household member to arbitrarily decide that someone is a risk to themselves or others, and grants police the authority storm one’s home and confiscate “deadly weapons“. This confiscation would take place with no substantive proof that the person in question ever did anything wrong, and the accuser need not have any mental health qualifications. The accused would then have to spend thousands of dollars of their own money on attorney and court fees to prove they are worthy of their 2nd Amendment rights.

Early statements from Oregon Firearms Federation included “Senate Bill 868 allows police or family members to request that a court force you to relinquish all firearms based on the accusers perception that you are dangerous to yourself or others. It does not require that you have committed a crime, it does not require that you have been convicted of a crime, and one of the indicators that you are “dangerous” is that you have purchased or attempted to purchase a firearm or ammunition in the last 180 days. Of course, this bill contains nothing that would allow for a person who really was a danger to himself to access any kind of help.”

Senate Bill 719 started off with summary of “Directs State Court Administrator to study methods for improving efficiency of courts and to report to appropriate committee or interim committee of Legislative Assembly no later than September 1, 2018.” But it turned into a gut-and-stuff by Senate Judiciary Committee chair Floyd Prozanski, after he made a procedural whoopsie and failed to “carry over” what was then SB868. Ya see, he waited until the second-to-last day before the deadline to pass bills out of committee before he scheduled this for a public hearing. The public hearing lasted the full 2 hours of committee time, so they couldn’t hold their work session, which is when bills get voted on in the committee. The proper thing to do in such case would be to announce that the bill is “carried over” to the next day, which was the deadline.

The Rest…HERE

One Response to “How Oregon Democrats Rammed Through GUN CONFISCATION BILL. And How A Republican Helped.”

  1. H.T.

    Gun Control is a NWO move for Total Control and these “enemies within” MUST be Arrested and Held Accountable (by the American People/Peoples Grand Jury) for High Treason Against their Oath of Office/Public Contract and Plotting Against the American People and Our Constitutional Republic Form of Govt.

    “All ‘laws’ which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison

    “No one is bound to obey an un-Constitutional ‘law’ and no courts are bound to enforce it.” 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d. Sec 256

    “An un-Constitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton vs. Shelby County

    “Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
    Miranda v Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491 (1966).

    “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    Miller v U.S. 230 F 486, at 489

    “If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the Right with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court. 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional Rights.” Snerer v Cullen 481 F. 946.

    “The maintenance of the Right to bear Arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.” Tiche v Osborne, 131 A. 60. See:

    “When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and NO ONE is bound to obey it.” State v Sutton

    UN-Constitutional means Unlawful. Public servants Attempting to ‘change’ Our Form of Government are committing Treason = The Death Penalty – 18 USC, Part 1, Chapter 115, Sec.2381

    And UCMJ Sec. 906, Art. 106


    History of what happens when governments disarm their citizens




Leave a Reply

Join the revolution in 2018. Revolution Radio is 100% volunteer ran. Any contributions are greatly appreciated. God bless!

Follow us on Twitter