Bronze Supporter
- Messages
- 5,083
- Reactions
- 9,009
They discussed amendments but the only thing with a dash 1 is 2007 and that addresses metal detectors at soft targets/free fire zones.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's an uphill battle. Fighting hard to not slap the crap out of some gun owners that just don't give a chit. Lots of people shout "shall not be infringed" or "concealed is concealed" and think they're tough guys. Ask them to lift a finger to write two sentences and you'd think you were stealing their first born.It amazes me just like with measure 114 how many people are just not interested or aware of the details of these bills, until it's too late!
100%!!!It's an uphill battle. Fighting hard to not slap the crap out of some gun owners that just don't give a chit. Lots of people shout "shall not be infringed" or "concealed is concealed" and think they're tough guys. Ask them to lift a finger to write two sentences and you'd think you were stealing their first born.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA nope. The anti-2A are absolutely not worried about an uprising, an effective insurrection, nor any real, actionable resistance to them. Else; they would not be pushing so hard for gun control... because if they were really worried about armed Americans storming the Capitol and taking their security out and dragging them out onto the steps to be tarred and feathered or worse.... they would be telling their sponsors that it's political suicide to pass these gun laws, and they would be right.100%!!!
The 2a community keeps saying that the left is worried about an uprising, and that's why they are trying to disarm Americans. That may be true.
well I hope Judge Roschio shuts them down in court....The TRO is in effect until the end of the state trial in Harney County. The state is required to have the process in place prior to a trial taking place. SB 348 details that permitting process.
View attachment 1390690
Hundreds of thousands of Oregonians hope so too. Let's keep in mind that hope isn't a plan. The lawsuits cost money so it's important to support the groups bringing the lawsuits.well I hope Judge Roschio shuts them down in court....
You said "dropped".Oregon Legislative Information System
olis.oregonlegislature.gov
Search for Firearm
Oregon State Legislature
www.oregonlegislature.gov
I'd love to se this go down in a steaming pile of dog crap. Unfortunately, it'll have to go through the courts. They will be using our money (taxes) to defend themselves in the lawsuits we are bringing with our hard earned money. IMO, the state, if it loses, should be required to reimburse our legal costs.I haven't read it through the whole thing yet, but my initial take is that the state really doesn't give a Phuckin about the laws already on the books forbidding them from doing any of this amd protecting our rights, and further more, they are flying over the edge with their "Process" to get the system working, which it's self is fataley flawed! It's not going to pass the constitutional sniff test, but that's not what's important to them! What they are actually trying to do is not only thump their noses at existing laws, but a major F.U. to SCOTUS and Bruen! They are trying to use state Preemption, ( something they have been threatening to remove) in hopes of subverting Fed Laws!
From what I see of this trash, this is going down in smoke and fire, Splat!
Now that they have detailed their plan, it's way different then what they sold the people in the first place, and none of their promise's will hold up, as if they ever could, as we all knew it anyway! No, they have shown how stupid they actually are, and tipped their hand at what they really want, and once the courts are through with them, it's OVER!I'd love to se this go down in a steaming pile of dog crap. Unfortunately, it'll have to go through the courts. They will be using our money (taxes) to defend themselves in the lawsuits we are bringing with our hard earned money. IMO, the state, if it loses, should be required to reimburse our legal costs.
That's what they said.I thought the FBI was refusing to do the expanded background checks?