Thread: Official NorthwestFirearms.com Legislative Positions

I'm creating this thread so everyone will know where this website stands regarding legislation, ordinances, and policies, both current and proposed. I feel this is important so the world can see exactly where we stand, and perhaps why.

Members are free to submit entries in this thread which I'll review and, upon consideration, add to this first post. I'd recommend if one would like to discuss a particular piece of legislation it be done in a separate thread. Some conversation and discussion in this thread is fine, but it may be deleted if it gets cluttered or overwhelming

Please note that this is not a consensus of our membership, but rather our official positions as an organization.


Federal

Current:

National Firearms Act (1934) - Oppose
Federal Firearms Act (1938) - Oppose
Gun Control Act (1968) - Oppose
Firearm Owners Protection Act (1972) - Oppose
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994, now sunset) - Oppose

Proposed:

H.R. 45 - Oppose

Defeated:

_______________________________________________

Oregon State

Current:

Proposed:

Washington State

Current:

Proposed:

Idaho State

Current:

Proposed:




_______________________________________________


City

Are these "official" positions restricted to firearms related items or is it anything current?? I am assuming the former.

These are restricted to firearm related items.

How are these position reached? Seems to me if you are taking
money for membership, the membership should be consulted
or at least told why you get to you position???

A forum is not a democracy.

Originally Posted by JohnWayne

How are these position reached? Seems to me if you are taking
money for membership, the membership should be consulted
or at least told why you get to you position???

Its in the fine print




From the OP;

Originally Posted by Joey Link

Please note that this is not a consensus of our membership, but rather our official positions as an organization.

Fine print now changed to italicized RED font.

If the membership is not the organization, who is?

Well, the ONLY reason I ask, is there is NO justification as to why those are the official position. I am concerned if a group I affiliate with might be subversive in some way, using the membership for personal or malevolent purposes.

We have "freedom of association". So if a group you have chosen to join no longer upholds the values or beliefs that you hold dear you are free move on.

Please don't take that statement as a invitation to leave or as a snide comment. It's just a comment. Bottom line is that this IS Joey's site. None of us who post here own stock in a corp. that allows us a vote. His site, his opinions on endorsements, his rules. If I start to think that he has drifted to far I will make my point heard (read) then move on. Maybe even start my own site . Yeah right.

Anyhow, look forward to good debate.

Originally Posted by Sawdust

We have "freedom of association". So if a group you have chosen to join no longer upholds the values or beliefs that you hold dear you are free move on.

Please don't take that statement as a invitation to leave or as a snide comment. It's just a comment. Bottom line is that this IS Joey's site. None of us who post here own stock in a corp. that allows us a vote. His site, his opinions on endorsements, his rules. If I start to think that he has drifted to far I will make my point heard (read) then move on. Maybe even start my own site . Yeah right.

Anyhow, look forward to good debate.

And, I have no problem with his site. My question is, does he know why he took those positions and if so, maybe he could share that with the hive.

Originally Posted by JohnWayne

does he know why he took those positions and if so, maybe he could share that with the hive.

Fair enough question.

So???

Originally Posted by JohnWayne

So???

I imagine it is pretty simple. This is a pro-firearms site. Those bills/acts are anti-firearm. Hence he is against them. Pretty simple.

Originally Posted by KENOC

I imagine it is pretty simple. This is a pro-firearms site. Those bills/acts are anti-firearm. Hence he is against them. Pretty simple.

It ain't rocket science

Originally Posted by Trlsmn

A forum is not a democracy.

And in this case it's a damn fine thing. I totally agree with the positions

Also please note the armor piercing pistol ammo ban and the "new" Machine gun bans that Romald Reagan foisted on us. I am sure I know what the admin's stance will be on these, just wanted to mention them

Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg

And in this case it's a damn fine thing. I totally agree with the positions

Also please note the armor piercing pistol ammo ban and the "new" Machine gun bans that Romald Reagan foisted on us. I am sure I know what the admin's stance will be on these, just wanted to mention them

Agreed, I wish people wound understand the enemy's of or 2nd amendment right's are on both sides of the isle, it is the only true "bipartisan" issue of the Republicans and the Democrats have been consistent with other than bailing out the rich.

I don't see the logic in any gun laws. They only control the sane and law abiding.

Originally Posted by slingshot1943

I don't see the logic in any gun laws. They only control the sane and law abiding.

+1

Originally Posted by slingshot1943

I don't see the logic in any gun laws. They only control the sane and law abiding.

+1

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I fail to see what part of “shall not be infringed” is not understood. There is no mention of a permit to carry, no mention permissible type of weapons, no mention of past criminal status, no mention of how many firearms may by purchased in a month, nothing about hunting or sporting and so on and so on.

WTF don’t law makers have more pressing issues to deal with?