JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Indeed. From Heller:

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.​
 
(c)
"Transfer" means the delivery of a firearm, including, but not limited to, the sale,gift,loan or lease of the firearm.

I hate the use of the word transfer when it applies to more than the sale of a firearm. It brings up a tonne of legal entanglements in just that one word.
 
This one has Prozanski written all over it take one idea and cram a whole bunch of non-related stuff and yet
claim it to be all the same. SB941 was one such bill.

I am surprised this new petition didn't ask for a the first born while their at it. Some will get the later reference.
 
Gotta love this Vague statmeent in it :
(2) For purposes of section
s1and 3of this 2018 Act, a firearm is under the control of a
person when the person is lawfully authorized to possess the firearm and the person is in
sufficiently close proximity to the firearm to prevent another person from obtaining
possession of the firearm.

This right here, a lawyer could use in a court room as it asks you to determine what a third party may or may not do.
Making it impossible to prevent possession without knowing the persons intent and ability to access said firearms.
Dropping that word in "prevent" is an impossibility, by this same logic could we not sue Gun Free Zones? As they are designed to prevent shootings ? So by this thinking every Gun Free Zone is liable when a shooting happens.

Its all illegal anyways.
 
What a crock!! And tell me this lady, if someone is breaking into your house do you want to have mess with removing the trigger lock from your firearm or do you want it at the ready in case you have to defend yourself??? :confused:
 
I assume these folks are liberals. I know a lot of people that are liberal and they are not my friends, although I force myself to tolerate some of them if there is no escape route. That being said, I can't think of a thing that I would want to take away from them. I don't care how they live or what they do as long as it is legal. When I think about what they want to do that affects my life, the list seems to have no end. I really don't understand how these people think.
 
  • Be fully liable for an injury caused with their gun, unless the injury results from self defense or defense of another person
Does this mean if someone steals my gun, I am liable for what they do with it?

What a crock of sh*
 
Perhaps we should have locks on keyboards to stop stupid people from typing up stupid initiatives...

The conservative community really needs to take a lesson here and start hitting hard and constant against all things the left is so fond of, same sex marriage, gender confusion bathrooms, binary sex identification, drug abuse, and the list goes on and on and on...
 
Can we make a bill that's go after anti-gun bills? :rolleyes:

If it's pretty much the same anti-gun bill over and over again....:p

Maybe ban all liberals?? ;)
That'll Save more lives ! I'm for it!!!!!!

That would be great!:D
 
The conservative community really needs to take a lesson here and start hitting hard and constant against all things the left is so fond of, same sex marriage...
36 states (including OR/WA/CA/ID/MT/UT/NV/AZ/NM/CO/WY/OK/AK/HI) legalized same sex marriage at the state level prior to SCOTUS legalizing it nationwide in 2015.

Re-litigating something that is established law and really has nothing to do with gun control sounds like a waste of time and resources.
 
That would put the state in legal responsibility. If passed, one could make the case that due to the law they were unable to obtain their life saving tool in time.

Id love to see the state sued back to the stone age over such a stupid law.
 
Indeed. From Heller:

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.​

Unbelievable!
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top