Obama's Newly Appointed US Attorney for Oregon Calls for Setting Dangerous Precedent

This is a discussion on Obama's Newly Appointed US Attorney for Oregon Calls for Setting Dangerous Precedent within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; This week President Obama's newly appointed US Attorney for the entire state of Oregon, Dwight Holton, organized a conference in Portland with local law enforcement ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 35

Thread: Obama's Newly Appointed US Attorney for Oregon Calls for Setting Dangerous Precedent

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array LanceORYGUN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ORYGUN
    Posts
    1,517

    Obama's Newly Appointed US Attorney for Oregon Calls for Setting Dangerous Precedent

    This week President Obama's newly appointed US Attorney for the entire state of Oregon, Dwight Holton, organized a conference in Portland with local law enforcement officials from around the state.

    Here is a news story about his appointment this week to supervise the over 100 Federal attorneys in Oregon:

    http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index...torney_na.html

    This meeting in Portland was an effort by the US Attorney's Office to get more referals from local law enforcement in Oregon regarding men who either have misdeamor domestic violence related convictions or who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders.

    Many do not realize that a conviction of even the most minor crimes of violence, such as 4th Degree Assault, will now cause a person to forfeit their right to own firearms for the rest of their life, under recently expanded federal domestic violence statutes.

    Holton wants these cases to not only be prosecuted, but also referred to the US Attorney's office, so they can then proceed under Federal law to remove the person's firearms.

    In addition, Holton wants Federal officials notified whenever a permanent protective order is issued in an Oregon court against a domestic partner. For this will also allow the Federal government to take away that person's firearms too.

    A discrepancy in state and federal law, however, is preventing Federal officials from proceeding in some of these protective order cases. Federal law requires that a defendant have a hearing in state court regarding the protective order, before their guns can be taken from them. In other words, the accused man is guaranteed due process, and given a chance to defend himself in court against the allegations in the complaint requesting a permanent protective order.

    Oregon state law, however, allows courts the option to convert a temporary protective order into a permanent one, without any hearing being held. In such cases, a person can then find themselves subject to a permanent protective order, without having any opportunity at all to confront and challenge the allegations against them, and give their side.

    What Obama's new US Attorney Holton has proposed is that US Attorneys pursue a test case, and remove firearms from individuals in these cases too, even though a hearing has not been held. And then see if the courts will rule in favor of supporting this.

    To me, though, this would be going down a most dangerous and slippery slope, in my opinion. While no one disagrees that domestic violence is a serious problem, creating a system where a person can lose their firearms without receiving any due process at all seems to me to be clear case of unconstitutional overkill.

    Do gun owners have to give up all of their constitutional rights, in the name of supporting the fight against domestic abuse?

    What about cases where angry and vindictive wives and live-in girlfriends simply lie, and make up false things in order to get a protective order, and have the man thrown out of the house? Don't you think that some protections are necessary, in order for such permanent protective orders to not be abused, and firearms unjustly taken away?

    Must the man not only be tossed out on the street, but give up his guns too?

    Keep in mind that this would all be done without the person ever being convicted of any crime, and never even being given a chance to challenge the allegations made against them in the request for the permanent protective order.

    Here is a link to one of the news reports about this LE conference held by US Attorney Holton in Portland:

    http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...ged_to_us.html


    The federal government seems to be going overboard on this issue, in my opinion.

    .

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,007
    Something is basically wrong when a federal prosecutor has nothing better to do than concentrate on misdemeanors at the state level. The Obama bunch wants to take away the guns of anyone accused of "domestic violence"; court hearing be damned.

    i wanna puke.

  4. #3
    Senior Member Array Jmac00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    894
    so what happens when a spouse has a Order of Protection and he/she moves 1000 miles away and is of ZERO threat. Then the state issues a Permanent Order of Protection? Does the spouse still have to surrender there firearms?
    HAPPY NEW YEAR
    INFIDELS

  5. #4
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    I don't know the ins and outs of stuff like this. What I do know is that real instances of domestic violence need to be treated very seriously. They indicate that the person doing the threat or committing the violence is not capable of controlling their temper, their actions, and that when the situation is "right" that they are willing to physically harm another. People like that should not be allowed to possess weapons, and society doesn't need to wait until a felony conviction has been obtained. These folks with anger management issues are as unstable upstairs as any one with a serious mental issue--and potentially dangerous.

    The issues of what constitutes adequate due process, what level of proof should be needed, state to federal cooperation on reporting, are all technically beyond my understanding, but I am not about to advocate for someone with an actual history of making threats of violence or engaging in gratuitous violence being allowed a CHL.

    Rather than hold the attempt to protect society in some level of contempt, per OP's view, I view it as a good thing to enforce strictly domestic violence laws.

    Let's be honest with ourselves. There are people who are not up to the responsibility of gun ownership, and when they are self-identified through their own poor acts and bad judgement, I see no reason to put anyone at risk by allowing them to obtain a CHL. (A life time ban seems overboard, as people do mellow with age and often after a divorce and re-marriage.)

    We can argue till the cows come home on whether or not the level of "proof" needs to rise to the level of a felony conviction, or a court ordered mental hold, but at some point it is perfectly OK to deem someone ineligible.

    The OP seems to me to be saying, well, there is this law,
    " conviction of even the most minor crimes of violence, such as 4th Degree Assault, will now cause a person to forfeit their right to own firearms for the rest of their life, under recently expanded federal domestic violence statutes,"

    but we'll complain about a prosecutor who tries to enforce it.

    Sure, there is plenty of injustice done every day to all sorts of people by our "justice" system, but that is all we have. So long as the prosecutor is not engaging in misconduct or overzealous prosecution and keeping it in perspective, I have no problem.

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member Array LanceORYGUN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ORYGUN
    Posts
    1,517
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    Something is basically wrong when a federal prosecutor has nothing better to do than concentrate on misdemeanors at the state level. The Obama bunch wants to take away the guns of anyone accused of "domestic violence"; court hearing be damned.

    i wanna puke.
    This is an aspect of this subject that I was struck by too. In one case, the person has only committed a misdemeanor. In the other case, the person has not necessarily even been convicted of any crime at all.

    Yet, these are the crimes that the Federal prosecutors want to focus on? They do give the government the ability to force people to give up their guns, though.

    You don't have to actually commit a crime to get a protective order against you. Temporary orders are given just on the word of the complainant, with no investigation at all. And even permanent orders can be given based on alledged threats, and not any crime actually having been committed.

    .

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array Jmac00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I don't know the ins and outs of stuff like this. What I do know is that real instances of domestic violence need to be treated very seriously. They indicate that the person doing the threat or committing the violence is not capable of controlling their temper, their actions, and that when the situation is "right" that they are willing to physically harm another. People like that should not be allowed to possess weapons, and society doesn't need to wait until a felony conviction has been obtained. These folks with anger management issues are as unstable upstairs as any one with a serious mental issue--and potentially dangerous.

    The issues of what constitutes adequate due process, what level of proof should be needed, state to federal cooperation on reporting, are all technically beyond my understanding, but I am not about to advocate for someone with an actual history of making threats of violence or engaging in gratuitous violence being allowed a CHL.

    Rather than hold the attempt to protect society in some level of contempt, per OP's view, I view it as a good thing to enforce strictly domestic violence laws.

    Let's be honest with ourselves. There are people who are not up to the responsibility of gun ownership, and when they are self-identified through their own poor acts and bad judgement, I see no reason to put anyone at risk by allowing them to obtain a CHL. (A life time ban seems overboard, as people do mellow with age and often after a divorce and re-marriage.)

    We can argue till the cows come home on whether or not the level of "proof" needs to rise to the level of a felony conviction, or a court ordered mental hold, but at some point it is perfectly OK to deem someone ineligible.

    The OP seems to me to be saying, well, there is this law,
    " conviction of even the most minor crimes of violence, such as 4th Degree Assault, will now cause a person to forfeit their right to own firearms for the rest of their life, under recently expanded federal domestic violence statutes,"

    but we'll complain about a prosecutor who tries to enforce it.

    Sure, there is plenty of injustice done every day to all sorts of people by our "justice" system, but that is all we have. So long as the prosecutor is not engaging in misconduct or overzealous prosecution and keeping it in perspective, I have no problem.
    I agree with you whole wholeheartedly, but what if we are talking about a vindictive "victim" where a female is so mad at her spouse she calls in a false report just to get an O-of-P ? Who do you think the LEO is going to side on. On some level there DOES need to be Due Process.
    HAPPY NEW YEAR
    INFIDELS

  8. #7
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    7,552
    This is the same type of bull crap as when a wife cries child abuse, in a divorce proceeding to get favor of the court on her side, so the father has limited supervisory, of at worst, loses his right to see his children.
    This law is so vague, and idiotic, that when a call is made, and the police show up on a dom. abuse run, even if no proof is verified; IE witnesses or signs of actual abuse, he still gets a ride downtown, and now the ball is rolling against him.


    All part of the grand plan to slowly remove firearms from as many of the general populace as they can, until there is not enough people to put up a fuss when they do come for all of them.
    JMHO.









    "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your
    own gun."His Holiness, the XIV Dalai Lama
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  9. #8
    Distinguished Member Array LanceORYGUN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ORYGUN
    Posts
    1,517
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I don't know the ins and outs of stuff like this.
    The main problem here lies with women who during a hostile divorce or relationship breakup, make up false allegations of abuse, in order to gain advantage. Ask any divorce lawyer, and you will hear that it is very common in hostile divorces for women to seek protective orders.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Rather than hold the attempt to protect society in some level of contempt, per OP's view, I view it as a good thing to enforce strictly domestic violence laws.
    Here you have greatly mischaracterized my remarks, which I really resent you doing here in such an extremely unfair manner.

    I also want women protected from domestic violence. But should not the rights of accused men also be protected too? Does one HAVE to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

    If you have a one-sided system, with no proper checks and balances, it is going to be abused. There is no way around that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    (A life time ban seems overboard, as people do mellow with age and often after a divorce and re-marriage.)
    Well, but that is how the law is. Who is complaining now about the law???

    It used to be that one had to commit a felony. Then it was lowered to include certain misdemeanor crimes involving domestic abuse. Now, with these latest changes by the Congress, even the lowest 4th Degree Misdemeanor Assault against a domestic partner invokes the lifetime loss.

    Should the Congress perhaps not lower the bar even further? After all, if 4th Degree assault on a domestic partner reaches the level of a person deserving to lose one's guns, should not 1st or 2nd degree misdemeanor assault against ANYONE also trigger a forfiture? Just how far should we take this line of thinking? Should it be extended to include even serious non-violent 1st degree and 2nd degree misdemeanors?

    The simple fact is this: if a wife or girlfriend starts a fight with you, and you own a gun, your only option is to run like hell to get away from her. Do anything at all to defend yourself, and leave any mark at all on her, no matter how minor, and you risk losing your firearms for life.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Sure, there is plenty of injustice done every day to all sorts of people by our "justice" system, but that is all we have. So long as the prosecutor is not engaging in misconduct or overzealous prosecution and keeping it in perspective, I have no problem.
    Well, but the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution specifically to prevent the abuse of power by government. That is stated right in its preamble. The 5th Amendment clearly gives all Americans the right to have due process.

    So I don't understand why you cannot see that there is a problem here, if men end up losing their guns, without ever having any chance to defend themselves in court.


    .

  10. #9
    Distinguished Member Array jumpwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    1,271
    The simple fact is this: if a wife or girlfriend starts a fight with you, [snip] you risk losing your firearms for life.

    Fixed it for you.
    "The flock sleep peaceably in their pasture at night because Sheepdogs stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
    cafepress.com/bgstudios

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,007
    It is a sad situation when a man can lose his Second Amendment rights without having been convicted by a jury. Some of these guys do not get a hearing before judge: It amounts to being guilt by administrative decision.

    Sometimes there is justice, but not often enough. A friend of mine is a retired Navy SEAL. He caught his wife cheating and she went bonkers. She lied to the cops and claimed that he had beat her up. She also told the cops that he was armed and had threatened to kill anyone who tried to arrest him. The SWAT team came and arrested my friend: He was quickly released from custody. He left and went to another home in an adjacent county. She called the police in the second county and here came another SWAT team.

    To make a long story short; the lady was convicted on a dope violation and got a felony record. My friend got custody of his son and the former wife has no visitation rights.

  12. #11
    Member Array dylistn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Harriman, TN 37748
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by LanceORYGUN View Post
    Well, but the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution specifically to prevent the abuse of power by government. That is stated right in its preamble. The 5th Amendment clearly gives all Americans the right to have due process.

    So I don't understand why you cannot see that there is a problem here, if men end up losing their guns, without ever having any chance to defend themselves in court.


    .
    That's the problem. Due process means different things! Here they are trying to make an accusation due process! And deprive a person of their second amendment rights and of property. If they do this first for an alien, the ACLU will step in and defend them. If a citizen is first, they’ll be on their own.
    PT145, CZ52, PM for carry. Lots of others to look at

  13. #12
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Jmac00 View Post
    I agree with you whole wholeheartedly, but what if we are talking about a vindictive "victim" where a female is so mad at her spouse she calls in a false report just to get an O-of-P ? Who do you think the LEO is going to side on. On some level there DOES need to be Due Process.
    Oh, absolutely, there needs to be due process and I think it happens when a judge issues the order. Maybe the standard needs to be tightened. Maybe gun rights shouldn't be lost unless that issue, the ability of the alleged abuser to continue to hold a license is litigated. I know there is injustice in this world and certainly perpetrated by some of our courts. All the same, I'm not going to pound the Federal prosecutor for attempting to do what the law requires; add the names of those with such orders against them to the list.

    There are plenty of folks who get wrongly wrongly accused and wrongly convicted, but we don't shut down all our jails because it happens.

  14. #13
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    It is a sad situation when a man can lose his Second Amendment rights without having been convicted by a jury. Some of these guys do not get a hearing before judge: It amounts to being guilt by administrative decision.

    Sometimes there is justice, but not often enough. A friend of mine is a retired Navy SEAL. He caught his wife cheating and she went bonkers. She lied to the cops and claimed that he had beat her up. She also told the cops that he was armed and had threatened to kill anyone who tried to arrest him. The SWAT team came and arrested my friend: He was quickly released from custody. He left and went to another home in an adjacent county. She called the police in the second county and here came another SWAT team.

    To make a long story short; the lady was convicted on a dope violation and got a felony record. My friend got custody of his son and the former wife has no visitation rights.
    I'm not sure the standard needs to be convicted by a jury. I do think the standard needs to be that a judge or jury hears the evidence and decides on the preponderance of it, including stuff like who they believe, as is done daily with all civil litigation.

  15. #14
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by jumpwing View Post
    The simple fact is this: if a wife or girlfriend starts a fight with you, [snip] you risk losing your firearms for life.

    Fixed it for you.
    Yes, but you clipped the important qualifiers: "if a wife or girlfriend starts a fight with you, and you own a gun, your only option is to run like hell to get away from her. Do anything at all to defend yourself, and leave any mark at all on her, no matter how minor, and you risk losing your firearms for life.

    The part in bold, especially the "leave any mark at all on her" really is the meat of the issue. A man who leaves a mark on "his woman" is not a man and should not have a CHL. A smart man would break off the conflict and leave the house immediately. Then, there would be no mark. No evidence.

    We all know from school days how this works. Two kids get in a fight. Matters not who started it. The one with the bloody nose comes out looking the victim in the eye of the school officials. The one who bloodied the nose gets the higher punishment.

    Life ain't always fair. No one loses anything until a judge makes a determination based on evidence and testimony presented--- that is due process.

  16. #15
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by LanceORYGUN View Post
    This is an aspect of this subject that I was struck by too. In one case, the person has only committed a misdemeanor. In the other case, the person has not necessarily even been convicted of any crime at all.

    Yet, these are the crimes that the Federal prosecutors want to focus on? They do give the government the ability to force people to give up their guns, though.
    Are you sure you are understanding the motive correctly? Maybe it isn't about the guns at all, but about making domestic violence something men (and women as well) will fear doing because the price to be paid is too high?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. SCOTUS Sets New Precedent
    By jahwarrior72 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 19th, 2010, 11:40 PM
  2. Court appointed attorney in shooting ?
    By Fdisk in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: June 24th, 2009, 06:06 PM
  3. New DC Attorney General fires lead attorney in Heller case
    By Scott in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: January 4th, 2008, 01:17 AM
  4. State & Federal Civil Cases Now Have Right to Court Appointed Attorney
    By donhamrick in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 24th, 2006, 03:37 AM

Search tags for this page

2nd amendment lawers oregon
,

can i own a gun with a assault 4 in oregon

,
court appointed attorney oregon
,
falsley accussed of contempt portland oregon
,
i just got a 4th degree assault charge and i own guns
,
it gets better video and us attorney's office and portland
,
list of newly appointed lawyers in oregon
,
newly appointed enforcement under president obama
,
newly appointed oregon us attorney
,
newly appointed us attorney
,
speech to newly appointed
,
u s attorney oregon
,
u.s. attorney appointed for portland, or
,
wrongfully charged assault 4 felony oregon
,
www,newly appointed us attorney
Click on a term to search for related topics.