A recent case involving an Oregon man who was the subject of two “red flag” gun confiscation orders illustrates one of the many problems with the foolish policy.
As NRA-ILA has repeatedly pointed out, “red flag” laws strip a person of a constitutional right, often without due process, without addressing the allegedly dangerous person’s underlying condition or conduct. This leaves the potentially dangerous individual free to continue their course of conduct. If a “red flag” gun confiscation order is used in lieu of a more comprehensive method of addressing the individual’s condition, the procedure could hurt rather than help an individual in need of services and those around them.
According to an article from the Oregonian, on May 2, a disgruntled former employee of the Multanomah Athletic Club (MAC) in Portland drove a “car packed with explosives” into the club. Describing the incident, the paper reported,
Investigators believe that the former employee rented a black Nissan Rogue on Friday, which he used to drive into the building, careening around the first floor before setting off the explosive devices, believed to be a mix of propane tanks and pipe bombs.
Another Oregonian article explained,
[the vehicle] was stocked with around 10 “improvised explosive devices,” or pipe bombs, and 20 propane tanks. When firefighters assessed the scene, a partially detonated pipe bomb fell at one of their feet, according to police Sgt. Jim DeFrain.
“Had the correct situations occurred, that explosion would have been fivefold of what it was,” DeFrain said. “What we had that kept some of these folks from getting hurt or a much bigger tragedy is simply luck.”
The former employee was the only person killed in the attack, but “[t]he ground floor of the building was ‘completely destroyed’ and suffered ‘millions of dollars in damages,’ said one of the law enforcement sources.” Police called the attacker “’sophisticated’ and ‘intelligent.’”
The former employee was the subject of two “red flag” orders. The first was in 2022, stemming from what was described by law enforcement as “the belief people associated with the MAC have been conspiring against him and are involved in a campaign of harassment and wanting to cause physical harm.” Another was issued in early 2026 after the attacker is reported to have “shot himself in the head.” Describing the bomber’s other behavior the Oregonian stated that he “became fixated on the private club, terrorizing members and threatening violence.”
The “innovative” “red flag” orders didn’t stop the bomber from carrying out his attack, but what might have are adequate use of the longstanding tools governments have to incapacitate dangerous individuals.
There is the civil commitment process. Some reporting shows that the Portland police did attempt to make use of this tool, but the attacker kept getting released.
In determining whether a person needs involuntary treatment,
the court may consider information that assists the court in making its determination, including but not limited to any of the following:
(a) The person's recent overt acts causing or attempting to cause serious physical harm to self.
If the facts of this case are as reported, shooting oneself in the head would seem to meet this threshold.
If the attacker had a history of “terrorizing members and threatening violence,” as reported, criminal law could have been brought to bear.
O.R.S. § 163.190 prohibits “menacing,” and provides,
A person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.
O.R.S. § 166.065 prohibits “harassment,” and provides,
(1) A person commits the crime of harassment if the person intentionally:
(a) Harasses or annoys another person by subjecting such other person to offensive physical contact;
…
(c) Subjects another to alarm by conveying a telephonic, electronic or written threat to inflict serious physical injury on that person or to commit a felony involving the person or property of that person or any member of that person's family, which threat reasonably would be expected to cause alarm.
Menacing is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year imprisonment. Depending on the facts, harassment is a Class A misdemeanor, or Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to six months imprisonment.
Given the tools already at governments’ disposal to address genuinely dangerous individuals, gun rights supporters know that “red flag” gun confiscation orders are about undermining a Constitutional right, not promoting public safety. To the extent they might be used as a due process workaround in lieu of more robust means to incapacitate dangerous individuals or get sick people the treatment they need, these laws are counterproductive.
The unfortunate situation in Oregon is just the latest example, but it undoubtedly won’t be the last.
More Like This From Around The NRA
