Southwest Firearms Forum
Buster Beaver Cerakote
RifleClass.com
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Oregon Rifleworks
Sporting Systems
Defensive Arts
J&B Firearm Sales
Low Price Guns
Oregon Arms & Ammunition
Gun Deals
Welcome to Northwest Firearms
Join our community, sign up for free today!
Sign Up

A better world??? Not my vision!

E4mafia

Messages
1,416
Reactions
3,124
So wait....does this apply to vets coming home who live in this state and to the police as well or just mainly targeting paid to operate private lessons?

What about private security?
 

AndyinEverson

Messages
12,702
Reactions
62,292
To train or not to train , that is the question.
Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of failure to fire or slow magazine changes.
Or to take arms against a sea of ignorance and arrogance...

Understanding how something works , how to use something better and practicing the skills to do so...
Will be what I continue to do...no matter who says I can't.
Andy
 
Senate Bill 64 is an amendment of existing 18.2-433.2 .
Nonetheless, the "existing" provisions contained within are interpretable towards firearm training.
I do not see that as fake news, Outdated, yes, but fake, NO.
Instead believing the call out of any unjust provisions against citizens regardless of state, or chronological relevance, is beneficial publicity.
Your post with no additional, clarifying commentary leaves one with only the information supplied by the article...which leads one to believe that sections 1, 2, and 3 are all on the table as a newly proposed bill. The article, thus, gives a false impression and you propagated that false impression by not clarifying any context with your post.

Yes, the article writer should feel shame for their misrepresentation of the situation...but you should as well for not spotting it and propagating the falsehood. We, as a community...you and me both...have to do better.

Fact is, sections 1 and 2 have existed since 1987. While you may think the article's interpretations are correct, I'd argue that they are not simply due to the fact that none of their "predictions" have come to pass over the last 30 years. Their interpretation falters in the face of demonstrable evidence.

If you wanted to start a cause looking to repeal section 1 and 2...then you've failed. You've given the impression that you could shut it down at the bill level and that's not true...you'd need a repeal.

As for section 3, the only thing on the table...It's going to be a court driven rule. I'm perfectly fine if an assembly intent on intimidating others is no longer allowed to assemble. I'm not okay if peaceful, open-carry protesting is assigned intent that they don't have. This differentiation will come down to the courts, if this is passed.

Frankly, I don't think it should pass in its current state.

But, everything I've posted here has yet to be the subject of this thread....because...to be short and sweet about it...

FAKE NEWS.

:D
 

Taco_lean

Messages
2,909
Reactions
6,100
FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE NEEEEEWWWWWSSSSSS

Sections 1 and 2 are already on the books: § 18.2-433.2. Paramilitary activity prohibited

And they have been since 1987. Section 3 is a proposed amendment.

Article's "how this will be interpreted" is demonstrably false for sections 1 and 2...'cause it's already law.

Really bugs me when ANY news source doesn't do their homework. But c'mon right wingers...if you're going to bash the left about junk news...try to be different eh?

Edit to add:

Check out section 166.660: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors166.html

Yea, it's already law here too.

Let the panties begin to untwist :D

166.660 Unlawful paramilitary activity.
(1) A person commits the crime of unlawful paramilitary activity if the person:
(a) Exhibits, displays or demonstrates to another person the use, application or making of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device or any technique capable of causing injury or death to persons and intends or knows that such firearm, explosive or incendiary device or technique will be unlawfully employed for use in a civil disorder; or
(b) Assembles with one or more other persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons with the intent to unlawfully employ such firearm, explosive or incendiary device or technique in a civil disorder.
(2)(a) Nothing in this section makes unlawful any act of any law enforcement officer performed in the otherwise lawful performance of the officer’s official duties.
(b) Nothing in this section makes unlawful any activity of the State Department of Fish and Wildlife, or any activity intended to teach or practice self-defense or self-defense techniques, such as karate clubs or self-defense clinics, and similar lawful activity, or any facility, program or lawful activity related to firearms instruction and training intended to teach the safe handling and use of firearms, or any other lawful sports or activities related to the individual recreational use or possession of firearms, including but not limited to hunting activities, target shooting, self-defense, firearms collection or any organized activity including, but not limited to any hunting club, rifle club, rifle range or shooting range which does not include a conspiracy as defined in ORS 161.450 or the knowledge of or the intent to cause or further a civil disorder.
(3) Unlawful paramilitary activity is a Class C felony.
(4) As used in this section:
(a) “Civil disorder” means acts of physical violence by assemblages of three or more persons which cause damage or injury, or immediate danger thereof, to the person or property of any other individual.
(b) “Firearm” has the meaning given that term in ORS 166.210.
(c) “Explosive” means a chemical compound, mixture or device that is commonly used or intended for the purpose of producing a chemical reaction resulting in a substantially instantaneous release of gas and heat, including but not limited to dynamite, blasting powder, nitroglycerin, blasting caps and nitrojelly, but excluding fireworks as defined in ORS 480.111, black powder, smokeless powder, small arms ammunition and small arms ammunition primers.
(d) “Law enforcement officer” means any duly constituted police officer of the United States, any state, any political subdivision of a state or the District of Columbia, and also includes members of the military reserve forces or National Guard as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101 (9), members of the organized militia of any state or territory of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the District of Columbia not included within the definition of National Guard as defined by 10 U.S.C. 101 (9), members of the Armed Forces of the United States and such persons as are defined in ORS 161.015 (4) when in the performance of official duties. [1983 c.792 §2; 1987 c.858 §3; 2001 c.666 §§26,38; 2005 c.830 §27; 2009 c.610 §7; 2013 c.24 §12]
 

Taco_lean

Messages
2,909
Reactions
6,100
Your post with no additional, clarifying commentary leaves one with only the information supplied by the article...which leads one to believe that sections 1, 2, and 3 are all on the table as a newly proposed bill. The article, thus, gives a false impression and you propagated that false impression by not clarifying any context with your post.

Yes, the article writer should feel shame for their misrepresentation of the situation...but you should as well for not spotting it and propagating the falsehood. We, as a community...you and me both...have to do better.

Fact is, sections 1 and 2 have existed since 1987. While you may think the article's interpretations are correct, I'd argue that they are not simply due to the fact that none of their "predictions" have come to pass over the last 30 years. Their interpretation falters in the face of demonstrable evidence.

If you wanted to start a cause looking to repeal section 1 and 2...then you've failed. You've given the impression that you could shut it down at the bill level and that's not true...you'd need a repeal.

As for section 3, the only thing on the table...It's going to be a court driven rule. I'm perfectly fine if an assembly intent on intimidating others is no longer allowed to assemble. I'm not okay if peaceful, open-carry protesting is assigned intent that they don't have. This differentiation will come down to the courts, if this is passed.

Frankly, I don't think it should pass in its current state.

But, everything I've posted here has yet to be the subject of this thread....because...to be short and sweet about it...

FAKE NEWS.

:D
The current method of control favored by governments around the world is to make everything vaguely illegal, then selectivly enforce laws against those they don't like. The fact these laws have not been used against people an mass does not mean they couldn't be in the future.

It could also be the case that we have not heard of them being used.
 
But, everything I've posted here has yet to be the subject of this thread....because...to be short and sweet about it...

FAKE NEWS.

:D
Maybe re read the title instead of getting in a huff. No reference to anything you posted. Antagonistic rhetoric was not called for. On your word, life is fake until its perceived your way. Good luck with that. Must be real fun at gatherings.
 
The current method of control favored by governments around the world is to make everything vaguely illegal, then selectivly enforce laws against those they don't like. The fact these laws have not been used against people an mass does not mean they couldn't be in the future.

It could also be the case that we have not heard of them being used.
Ambiguity will always be used to meet one's own ends and it's a reality in our legal system - though I believe appropriately solved for with the system of case law that we use. Granted, it isn't impervious to abuse.

The Virginia statutes have similar exemptions as Oregon's (https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2018/04/Prohibiting-Private-Armies-at-Public-Rallies.pdf):
2. Any activity, undertaken without knowledge of or intent to cause or further a civil disorder, which is intended to teach or practice self-defense or self-defense techniques such as karate clubs or self-defense clinics, and similar lawful activity;

3. Any facility, program or lawful activity related to firearms instruction and training intended to teach the safe handling and use of firearms; or

4. Any other lawful sports or activities related to the individual recreational use or possession of firearms, including but not limited to hunting activities, target shooting, self-defense and firearms collection.
At current, they could not tyrannize a training group due to points 2 through 4. I haven't found any case law in Virginia to the contrary and would be more than intrigued if you find anything.
 
Maybe re read the title instead of getting in a huff. No reference to anything you posted. Antagonistic rhetoric was not called for. On your word, life is fake until its perceived your way. Good luck with that. Must be real fun at gatherings.
You misunderstand me - I'm in no huff nor do I believe my post to be antagonistic. I quite literally wrote that it is all of our responsibility to do better at consuming, posting/sharing, and providing context for news/information.

There are many responders to your original post taking it at face value and thinking OMG THA TYRANNIES. My point was that context is lacking in the article in addition to incorrect facts. This allows for anyone reading said post, but not researching themselves, to head off in an incorrect intellectual direction due to the junk information provided. As the sharer of such information, you become the direction setter. I believe it the responsibility of such action to not allow for misinformation or misrepresentation; how else do we do better?

And no, life's realities have nothing to do with my own perceptions. My point about the fake news and my own comments was simply to point out that, had context to the article been provided, the direction of the thread would be noticeably different. News is "fake news" when it is either completely false or partially false and misleading. In this case, it was very misleading and mostly false.

All that being said...I guess there is the argument that if everyone shares in the same delusion, that the odd man out is the one who is, in fact, devoid of reality. But that's a philosophical game we can play later.

And yes, I'm great at gatherings, mostly because I try really hard to impress - I always smoke some meat and make something homemade (pulled pork with baked beans and slaw with homemade bbq sauce and homemade fresh mayo, for example...with creme brûlée for desert, and your choice of beer, old fashioned, manhattan, or sazerac), and I've got a large collection of table games and couch coop/fighting video games. If you like to debate, I'm also a decent spar. But hey, no reason to get personal.
 

Taco_lean

Messages
2,909
Reactions
6,100
Ambiguity will always be used to meet one's own ends and it's a reality in our legal system - though I believe appropriately solved for with the system of case law that we use. Granted, it isn't impervious to abuse.

The Virginia statutes have similar exemptions as Oregon's (https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2018/04/Prohibiting-Private-Armies-at-Public-Rallies.pdf):


At current, they could not tyrannize a training group due to points 2 through 4. I haven't found any case law in Virginia to the contrary and would be more than intrigued if you find anything.
I beg to differ. I specifically small unit tactics when I can. Why? Why not? Use case? Anything up to defending against a tyrannical governement. Not sure that falls under self defense....
 

Koda

Messages
5,040
Reactions
9,274
I read about this about a week ago. Paramilitary training is already illegal, the new proposal would prohibit training and assembling for the cause of civil unrest. The law doesn't prohibit firearm training, or any other martial art training.

Fake news. I agree with Hueco, we should fact check stuff before accepting it as fact. Lawenforcementtoday has a "mixed" track record of factual reporting with extreme right wing bias rating. Law Enforcement Today - Media Bias/Fact Check

 
I can see what needs to happen. Every member of the militia, which is every American citizen need to do their duty. Which is to escort, push, pull, or drag these democRats from their perch, set up citizen courts, try, and then hang them for going against the Constitution. I would also allow them to rot from the tree as a warning to anyone taking their place. Our worst enemy this country has ever faced, and it is hard to face an enemy that always stabs you in the back. This gang of unholy. Godless, moral-less, branch bait, something for nothings one of their free-bees needs to be a short rope. The only bad thing from hanging everyone of those brainless something for nothings would be a temporary shortage of hemp rope. Something I'm more than willing to live with.

Those traitors got them a new scare word. Super Gun Owner, us crazies owning 10 or more firearms. I think I'm speaking for all when I say we will never disarm. I figure all 8 million of us will be waiting behind the door with our 10 or more weapon wearing a CS mask waiting for the opportunity to hand them all over. DemocRats, ya can't live with em and ya can't kill em, yet. One thing we won't have to worry about is over estimating the enemy.
 

NEW CLASSIFIED ADS

LATEST REVIEWS

  • Rapid Fire Arms
    5.00 star(s)
    Great place friendly service always take time to help you, great knowledge of products
    • RJSouth
  • Supporting Vendor Copeland Custom Gunworks
    5.00 star(s)
    Perfect install of peep sight on my cz 527 carbine. Price was right, was expecting it to be more. Will be my go to for anything I can't handle...
    • cd90caprice
  • Adaptive Firing Solutions
    5.00 star(s)
    I've been party to a couple transactions with Steve and he is a great guy to deal with.
    • titsonritz
  • TJ Gun Sales
    5.00 star(s)
    Purchased two handguns there and have one on consignment now nice folks!
    • rl280
  • Northwest Armory - Tigard
    5.00 star(s)
    Went in to help my buddy with his purchase and ended up trading in a 1911 towards a CZ SP-01 Tactical. They gave a higher price that some of the...
    • nosbocaj

SUPPORT NORTHWEST FIREARMS

Staff online