# Oregon Senate Bill 719-Taking guns from those who could harm themselves and others **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 4, 2017, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856 "2017-05-04T14:35:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856/21 "2017-05-04T17:15:11Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > In Pennsylvania, one might try for an [involuntary commitment](http://www.pitt.edu/~kconover/ftp/302-text.pdf). The link is to a pdf, for those who care. Taking away their weapons _and_ institutionalizing them against their will seems to be even more drastic a measure than just taking away their weapons, wouldn’t you say? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856/22 "2017-05-04T17:41:15Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Just curious: What is the current procedure if you think a loved one who owns a gun is either suicidal or a danger to the immediate family, and how long does this procedure take? Fifty states, fifty answers. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856/23 "2017-05-04T17:43:08Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Taking away their weapons _and_ institutionalizing them against their will seems to be even more drastic a measure than just taking away their weapons, wouldn’t you say? If you are convinced they are indeed suicidal, then they can still grab a third rail or jump off a building or drive into opposing traffic. So doesn’t confining them seem to make sense? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856/24 "2017-05-04T17:57:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If you are convinced they are indeed suicidal, then they can still grab a third rail or jump off a building or drive into opposing traffic. So doesn’t confining them seem to make sense? But that doesn’t cover the other half-danger to immediate family/household members. What’s he going to do-throw them off a building, into traffic or onto a third rail? No, taking a way the weapon in light of an immediate danger doesn’t solve _everything_, but again, very few laws on the books offer perfect solutions. The perfect is the enemy of the good. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856/25 "2017-05-04T17:58:21Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Taking away their weapons _and_ institutionalizing them against their will seems to be even more drastic a measure than just taking away their weapons, wouldn’t you say? But institutionalizing them requires due process and is subject to all kinds of constitutional limits. That’s the point. I don’t have any problem with taking someone’s guns away if you satisfy the requirements for institutionalizing them. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856/26 "2017-05-04T18:00:22Z")
😕 > [@Czarcasm](#): > > I’ve got no problems with this bill myself. It isn’t perfect…but no law is, and to object to it on those grounds is to object to almost all lawmaking, if you are consistent in your beliefs. Not sure if its okay, but I’d like to provide a quote from your other thread about abortion providers being closed [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=825274](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=825274) > [@Is "The right to Choose" real without reasonable access?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/88): > > Yeah…but _this_ thread is about direct interference/prevention of a constitutional right by the State. I’m not the deepest thinker, but it seems to me you are somewhat inconsistent in the importance of guaranteeing rights. If Kentucky shuts down abortion providers, rights are denied. If a Judge says your nuts, takes your gun, well, that’s okay. In only one of these cases is someone definitely going to do some killin’. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856/27 "2017-05-04T18:02:06Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > But institutionalizing them requires due process and is subject to all kinds of constitutional limits. That’s the point. > > I don’t have any problem with taking someone’s guns away if you satisfy the requirements for institutionalizing them. We are talking _immediate_ danger to self and or others. How long does this “institutional” method take, and how often is it successful? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856/28 "2017-05-04T18:04:54Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > But that doesn’t cover the other half-danger to immediate family/household members. What’s he going to do-throw them off a building, into traffic or onto a third rail? No, taking a way the weapon in light of an immediate danger doesn’t solve _everything_, but again, very few laws on the books offer perfect solutions. > The perfect is the enemy of the good. Sure, although I’d point out that the cleavers, axes, and ice picks remain in the home after the handgun is taken. But the main point is one of due process. Keep the hearing but allow it to be adversarial instead of ex parte. Then I’m on board. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856/29 "2017-05-04T18:04:56Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Taking away their weapons _and_ institutionalizing them against their will seems to be even more drastic a measure than just taking away their weapons, wouldn’t you say? Yes, I would agree that it is. That is why I wouldn’t go for a 302 unless it was for real-real. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856/30 "2017-05-04T18:08:20Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Yes, I would agree that it is. That is why I wouldn’t go for a 302 unless it was for real-real. How often has it been successfully used for that reason? ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856/31 "2017-05-04T18:18:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > How often has it been successfully used for that reason? Due to confidentiality laws, I’m not sure that information is even available. However, this [site](http://smartgunlaws.org/mental-health-reporting-in-pennsylvania/) notes that PA is a leader in NICS disqualifications due to mental illness. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856/32 "2017-05-04T18:24:31Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > We are talking _immediate_ danger to self and or others. How long does this “institutional” method take, and how often is it successful? In most states, what happens is that the police come arrest you. They take you to a hospital for a psych evaluation within a short period (24 hours, say). If the psychologist says you’re a danger to yourself or others, you’re put in a health center of some kind until you get a court date. Within a few days, you’re seen by a judge and have a right to counsel. So it’s either equal to or faster than an _ex parte_ PFA process in terms of time from filing to safety. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856/33 "2017-05-04T18:32:35Z")
Sorry I didn’t realize it was an ex parte hearing, I withdraw my support. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856/34 "2017-05-04T18:32:41Z")
The objections: [ol] [li]No due process[/li][li]Time criteria can include things that are not immediate, but merely the near future however undefined that is[/li][li]Danger criteria is incredibly vague and includes anything that can cause injury to anyone else[/li][li]Specifically excludes mental health as rationale[/li][li]The notice period is short, and violation after the notice results in a 5 year disqualification from firearm possession[/li][/ol] ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856/35 "2017-05-04T18:35:38Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > We are talking _immediate_ danger to self and or others. How long does this “institutional” method take, and how often is it successful? I believe the police can intervene on their own authority … as you said the law isn’t perfect protection … but it’s a step in the right direction … > [@Bricker](#): > > I object to the bill, but my objection isn’t upon a general ground that it isn’t perfect. I believe it’s flawed in specific ways. > > The proceeding is an _ex parte_ hearing, meaning Dale files such an order against Pat, and appears in front of the court, but Pat is not notified or given the right to appear and counter the accusations being made at that initial hearing. > > Once the order is issued, Pat has 30 days to request a hearing, but even at that hearing, the judge is permitted to rely upon Dale’s sworn affidavit, which cannot be cross-examined, as opposed to Dale’s live witness testimony. > > Moreover, Pat is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if Pat possesses a firearm while subject to the order, even if Pat was never served with the order. > > Those are my objections. I agree with everything here except the very last part … Pat will have been served, although that doesn’t mean he received service … there’s a cost to living the hunter/gatherer lifestyle … My understanding that even in _ex parte_ court, the legal standard of “clear and convincing” evidence is applied for these types of proceedings … Not as high a bar as criminal, but more than civil … so Dale may have had a psychiatric report in hand or something … ===== Some background … a couple of years ago the Oregon legislature wrote a law requiring background checks on almost _all_ gun transactions … guns shows, neighbor ladies, strangers in some dark alleyway … the gun advocates went ballistic and fought this law with everything they had … … and lost in a big way … I’m not hearing anything from these same people with this law … perhaps they know they’ll lose again … ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856/36 "2017-05-04T18:50:33Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > … so Dale may have had a psychiatric report in hand or something … Sec 3(3)(d): > [@](#): > > (d) The court may not include in findings made under this subsection any mental health diagnosis or any connection between the risk presented by the respondent and mental illness. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856/37 "2017-05-04T20:29:58Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Taking away their weapons _and_ institutionalizing them against their will seems to be even more drastic a measure than just taking away their weapons, wouldn’t you say? If you can’t be trusted around guns, you can’t be trusted around knives or cars or hammers or pharmaceuticals, either, in my opinion. It _should_ be a drastic measure. Taking basic civil rights (not to mention personal property) away from a person should not be a casual procedure. It is a big freaking deal. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856/38 "2017-05-04T20:33:55Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > If you can’t be trusted around guns, you can’t be trusted around knives or cars or hammers or pharmaceuticals, either, in my opinion. It _should_ be a drastic measure. Taking basic civil rights (not to mention personal property) away from a person should not be a casual procedure. It is a big freaking deal. So was my nephew’s death by self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head last year. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856/39 "2017-05-04T20:39:29Z")
Would this law have stopped him? Or are you just playing up the emotional side of this because logic isn’t working? I have depression, I have considered suicide, so I am sympathetic to your position. However, I am also the victim of an Illinois law that says I can’t own a firearm because I voluntarily checked into a psych ward in the past five years. I was not adjudicated mentally ill, I can not appeal, and there was no due process at all. My rights were taken because I sought help for my condition. A mistake I will _not_ make again. If you care about depressed people, you might want to rethink the idea that they should have their rights forcibly taken from them. It will end with all depression driven underground, and no one seeking or receiving any help at all. And in my opinion, that will result in _far more_ suicides than simply treating people with respect and as equals, and in no way inferior based on their illnesses. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856/40 "2017-05-04T20:52:25Z")
I would like to think that if we could have stopped him in that manner it might have impressed upon him how much we feared for his life-it might have been the tipping point. There’s no way to know for sure, is there? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-senate-bill-719-taking-guns-from-those-who-could-harm-themselves-and-others/785856.md?page=3)