Re: Guns Confiscated in Oregon...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HateCA</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I reserve judgment since most news stories are full of holes and I'm not going to debate whether it's right for LEO to take his guns since just like everywhere else this is probably covered under Organ law and is allowed and if that’s the case blame the law makers not the LEO.
Under most laws if one is taken for metal health eval LEO can take his guns.
To be taken for a metal health eval the "subject" must have said something or done something to send up a red flag that made it appear he was a danger to himself or others, and in most states that's enough to hold someone for up to 72 hours for the eval. Simply buying guns isn’t going to cut it. If simply buying guns was the red flag LEO is using they’re going to have issues with this one.
LEO as well as medical will not be able to comment on what was said or what his mental state actually is so the story looks slanted.
</div></div>
But isn't it kind of beside the point because caging him up guarantees he has to give up his guns and can't buy more for some time? I mean what are you supposed to do when SWAT shows up saying they think you're scary? Refuse to go to the doc and supposedly clear yourself of thought crime? Hell no, you walk right out and give up all your previous 2A rights. That's not appropriate in the USA. It's like entrapment. To our Miranda rights, we need to add "Anyplace a SWAT team can convince you to go can and will be used against you. Refusal to go willingly will result in SWAT team use of force. No, this isn't a catch 22, we just own you, so get used to it."
The guy owned a shotgun and a handgun before these purchases. So he buys two more pistols and an AK. OK, I can see the uneasiness since maybe he felt the need for the higher capacity AK. Hell, I'd be very concerned, because people don't usually spend over 1K right after they become unemplyed. However, why three pistols in the collection? If he bought a bunch of ammo and mags for the one he already had and just bought the AK I'd be more worried. But then again if he's nuts he ain't thinking clearly is he.
Regardless, they should've waited until they were certain. Why do they let a couple of guys prepare to bomb temples for 6 months, and buy guns, right up to the last moment but a guy who probably told his boss to f-off after getting canned gets preemptive action? This essentially sets the precedant that any anti-gun employer can call the cops after firing you and say how they feel threatened, or that you said something threatening, and then you get your guns taken and have an involuntary mental hospitalization to account for. That's not cool. They, LE, had the obligation to wait until the guy packed up his guns and drove somewhere other than a range and exited the vehicle with a gun.
Even if the guy was fruitloops, and had every intent to kill everyone at the old office, the police action is to be admonished. They could have prevented the crime, if there was one, differently. In fact, at least at the federal level, the big public display is the wet dream outcome, so why make it premature?
