Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Oops, We meant to make it easier to take guns from people

One word makes all difference in gun law.

How did this happen in a state that constantly tries to limit the rights of gun owners?

"HILLSBORO (AP) Â? A housekeeping bill passed by the 2003 Legislature inadvertently wiped out a tool used by police to keep guns out of the hands of people considered dangerous.

The legislative mishap was discovered this fall, when the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that the Washington County sheriff had no right to confiscate the gun permit of Tom Bates, of Raleigh Hills, for making threats to state officials and phone company employees.

The judge ruled, moreover, that not only had Sheriff Rob Gordon erred when he took away BatesÂ? permit, but that no Oregon sheriff can use the Â?danger to self or othersÂ? revocation clause to take away the gun permits of Oregonians in the future.

Before, the dangerousness clause allowed sheriffs to make the case that some Oregonians are unfit to carry a gun. But a 2003 bill did away with it by accidentally inserting the word Â?andÂ? between two crucial phrases.

In the old wording, the clause read: Â?Any act or condition that would prevent the issuance of a license under ORS 166.291 to 166.293 is cause for revoking a concealed handgun license.Â?

In the new wording, legislators wrote: Â?Any act or condition that would prevent the issuance of a license under ORS 166.291 and 166.293 is cause for revocation...
read the whole story

Anyone wanna laywhetheron wether the Oregon Supreme Court will reverse the decision?

No comments: