HB 2238 Allows seizure of real and personal property

HB 2238  VOTE:NO
Died In Committee on 06/26/21
Status (overview) of bill:https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Measures/Overview/HB2238

Chief Sponsor of this bill was Rep. Wilde (D. HD-11).  Why is he trying to cheat property owners?  Why did he have his name removed as the sole sponsor?

This bill would change the way businesses are compensated when governments take possession of their property during an emergency with massive impacts on businesses in Oregon and their ability to recover damages. Allows seizure of real and personal property.

Personal Choice and Responsibility
Section (3) becomes personal: “Take any other action, including through the seizure, use or possession of any real or personal property, that may be necessary for the management of resources following an emergency.” Seizure of personal property includes guns, weapons of any kind for made-up safety reasons, or transportation to keep us locked down, or confiscating your food stash for distribution.

Limited Government
Currently under Oregon Law, if a piece of property is a threat to persons or property during an emergency, a government agency is allowed to take possession of it, but the owner must be compensated. It’s fairly clear that this bill is intended to curb lawsuits by businesses to recover damages from the state because of being shut down during the COVID-19 lockdowns.

Free Markets
“An owner of a property that is used or possessed only temporarily under this section is not entitled to compensation except as the owner may prove entitlement…” implies that under an order to lock down the state takes possession.


  1. Kathleen Johnson says:

    This bill far oversteps the property rights of Oregonians which are guaranteed by the US constitution. It is another way for lawyers to take the money of private citizens and the state to act unresponsibly against individuals without being prosecuted. It should not be passed.

  2. Lynn Bryant DeSpain says:

    Under Our Constitutional Bill of Rights, the First Ten Amendments, what is proposed go against the very grain and Law established in these Rights to “Protect the Citizens From Their Own Government!”

  3. David Carl Lukens says:

    I have read the amendment as submitted and have some real concerns about it violating the 4th amendment which in turn leads to violations of the 1st and 2 nd amendments if this statute becomes law. The really sad thing is our state government doesn’t want to listen to it’s residents they only want to tell them what to do even though it can be very costly. I hope that there will be a proper opportunity to debate this as it smacks of trying to justify issues that have been raised in regards to our governors actions during these trying times.

    • Lynn Bryant DeSpain says:

      This Measure is abhorrent and against every Principle of our Constitution and the Basic Concepts of our Bill of Rights, guaranteed to all Citizens and which last was infringed against brought about the War of

  4. Jon Lundberg says:

    This measure is written in such a manner that it allows the state to target specific individuals, groups of individuals or companies.

    Imagine the state raiding grocery stores so that food can be redistributed. Of course private citizens who stock food could also see it seized.

    What about commandeering private property to be used for housing?

    How easy for the state to say that only state employees can be trusted with guns.

    How very sad to see our elected representative government trying to control the same citizens who elected them. If we lose the right to bear arms & the right to free speech, we will have lost any semblance to democracy.

No tags for this post.

Comments are closed.