Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Another great letter

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Trlsmn, Jul 25, 2009.

  1. Trlsmn

    Trlsmn In Utero (Portland) Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,838
    Likes Received:
    1,186
    This cut an paste is soon to be a classic. Pay close attention to the guys response to the senators letter. You can bet I will be paraphrasing from the response when a situation warrants it :D




    Joe Huffman:
    http://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/07/24/ResponseFromSenatorMurray.aspx
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Response from Senator Murray (to a letter)

    At least I had fun. I wonder if she and her staff will enjoy reading my response as much as I did writing it:

    From: Senator Murray
    Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:30 AM
    To: Joe Huffman
    Subject: Response from Senator Murray


    Dear Mr. Huffman:

    Thank you for writing to me regarding S. Amdt. 1618, Senator Thune (R-SD)'s amendment to provide for uniform reciprocity for concealed weapon possession across the country. It is good to hear from you.

    Senator Thune's amendment would allow gun owner with a right to carry concealed weapon in one state the right to carry a concealed weapon across the United States. Like you, I am concerned about the level of violence in this country, and its effect on our families and communities. Legislation to regulate the use of firearms is and should remain primarily a state issue. I believe that our national crime-fighting strategy should include reasonable measures to control firearms that strike a balance between reducing street crime and maintaining individuals' rights.

    As a U.S. Senator, I have supported common-sense measures to reduce or restrict gun violence while posing the least possible inconvenience to law-abiding gun owners. Please know that as the Senate considers this and other firearms legislation, I will keep your concerns regarding this important issue in mind. If you would like to know more about my work in the Senate, please feel free to sign up for my updates at http://murray.senate.gov/updates. Thank you again for writing, and please keep in touch.

    I hope all is well in Kirkland.



    From: Joe Huffman
    Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:58 PM
    To: Senator Murray
    Subject: RE: Response from Senator Murray

    Thank you for taking the time to respond to this important issue.

    Since you are of the opinion that legislation to regulate the use of firearms is, and should remain, primarily a state issue I presume I can count on your support of efforts to remove firearm regulations at the Federal level. I would like to suggest you introduce legislation to undo the continuing infringement of our rights inflicted by the following Federal firearms laws:

    • National Firearms Act of 1934
    • Gun Control Act of 1968
    • The Hughes Amendment
    • The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

    Once those are infringements have been successfully resolved I will be glad to provide you with a list of other Federal firearms laws that need to be eliminated as well.

    Since you are opposed to Federal regulation of firearms I cannot help but conclude you are also opposed to any new Federal firearm regulations. I was concerned that you might be considered a supporter of a new ban on “assault weapons” or think there was some utility in restricting both the First and Second Amendments by some law that claims to “close the gun show loophole”. As I’m sure you know there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole”. All Federal laws that are applicable at a gun shop are also applicable at gun shows.

    Thank you for your support. I will be sharing your email and my response on my blog and with my friends at NRA-ILA. This will allow other Washington State gun owners know what a good friend they have in you and for the NRA-ILA people to start a dialog with you to begin getting some relief from the stifling and bewildering array of Federal gun laws.

    If you meet any resistance in your efforts to roll back the infringements on the Second Amendment I would like to suggest you ask them Just One Question:

    Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

    I’ve been asking that question of gun-control supports for several years now without once getting a defendable answer.


    Regards,

    Oh Fingolfin :p
     
  2. HappyRoman

    HappyRoman Sherwood Forest Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    2,166
    Likes Received:
    120
    I think that Merkley needs a copy too.
     
    rocky3 and (deleted member) like this.
  3. Trlsmn

    Trlsmn In Utero (Portland) Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,838
    Likes Received:
    1,186
    :D
     
    rocky3 and (deleted member) like this.
  4. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,912
    Likes Received:
    19,573
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaaaa..... :bluelaugh: :bluelaugh:


    These schmoes must REALLY think most Americans are always asleep at the switch and/or are STUPID!! They talk out both sides of their mouths FOR SURE!!!
     
  5. wakeadrian

    wakeadrian Beaverton Member

    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    10
    That's awesome! Hahaha
     
  6. Joe Link

    Joe Link Portland, OR Well-Known Member Staff Member Lifetime Supporter 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    6,272
    Likes Received:
    4,551
    Awesome!
     
  7. tionico

    tionico Thurston County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,219
    Likes Received:
    128
    The federal government is bound to prohibit any state efforts or laws that interfere with interstate commerce. When I can drive in my vehicle in Washington with a loaded handgun close to my driving position, or even on my person, thanks to my CPL, so far find and dandy. BUT----the instant I cross that large hunk of green steel and find myself in Oregon, I am now a criminal, guilty of some serious firearms violation. (I do not yet have an Oregon CHL, therefore cannot have a loaded pistol available to me or on my person whilst driving in my car in Oregon). If THIS is not an interference upon interstate commerce, can someone please riddle me what might be one? I often drive into Portland on business... commerce, if you please. Crossing that bridge makes it interstate commerce. Having to pull over just north of the bridge and disable my personal protection before proceeding on my mission of interstate commerce IS a restriction upon it.

    Passing this bit of legislation will go far to eliminate at least this one form of interference of interstate commerce. SHE does not "get it", and likely never will. Da noive a dat dame!! Claiming firearms regulation needs to be on a state level, and supporting all manner of federal regulations....

    It was the Interstate Commerce clause that led to national reciprocity of driving licenses..... same clause should unbind conceal carry permits as will.
     
  8. fingolfen

    fingolfen Oregon Member

    Messages:
    749
    Likes Received:
    3
    Don't you just love how politicians try to talk out of both sides of their mouths??? :bluelaugh: :laugh: :bluelaugh:
     
    civilian75 and (deleted member) like this.
  9. Trlsmn

    Trlsmn In Utero (Portland) Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,838
    Likes Received:
    1,186
    And end up showing their cluelessness! :D

    I have to say that statement (Senator Murray) was even more clueless than Merkleys. I don't understand why people feel that their Representatives have any actual knowledge or intelligence on the subjects the put their names on.
     
  10. ZeroRing

    ZeroRing 26th District, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    Likes Received:
    18
    Well, they don't read any of the bills they vote on so why should anyone expect them to read the letters they receive (or send). :eek:
     
  11. tionico

    tionico Thurston County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,219
    Likes Received:
    128
    Oh, Zipring, didja HAFFTA say that? Talk about shattering illusions......

    that bit about talking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time reminds me of the old evangelical joke... you can tell when the devil is lying.... he's talking.

    WHYOWHYOWHYOWHY do this sort keep on getting elected? The reason we've clueless representatives is that the majority of the PEOPLE are clueless.

    But I sort of suspect that might be changing.... seems things are approaching a tipping point, and maybe a few more will be awakening from their slumber and realising while they've slept some ugly critters have taken up residence.
     
    rocky3 and (deleted member) like this.
  12. ZeroRing

    ZeroRing 26th District, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    Likes Received:
    18
    I sure hope that is true... frankly though... I remain skeptical. :paranoid:
     
  13. tionico

    tionico Thurston County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,219
    Likes Received:
    128
    sceptical and vigilant. best policy.
     
  14. ZeroRing

    ZeroRing 26th District, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    Likes Received:
    18
    The amazing thing to watch is the sheer disbelief and, dare I say "shock" in the murmurings coming from many liberal groups and individuals at the extreme "socialist" policies of this current administration!! :banghead:

    DUH!!!!!

    Does anyone besides me get a palpable sense of deja vu over the things that BHO and Stretch Pelosi are trying to ram through right NOW?? Seems a lot like 1993 all over again. :paranoid:
     
  15. CEF1959

    CEF1959 Willamette Valley, Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    14
    Joe Huffman for Senator!
     
  16. CounterOfBeans

    CounterOfBeans northwest Active Member

    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    117
    Hey great, so now that we're all fired up about keeping it real and holding our Congress critters' feet to the fire on the high fashion of gun rights infringement, what's holding us back on lifting the rug on the same thing at the State level? After all, we all know that the 2nd Amendment keeps the feds in check without qualifications on how we carry our guns. And we all know that the Oregon State Constitution goes a step further by saying the right is for our own self-defense. See Or. Const. Art 1, Sect. 27:

    "Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people
    shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and
    the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]"

    So with such straight forward constitutional provisions making not even an implied authority reference for the meddling of how we carry our guns, why do we 2nd Amendment lovers flock to the CHL classes to pay to get permission to do something we can already do?

    Here's an example. Those who "we" pay to "uphold and defend" the Constitution... meaning... "our" rights, make a regular habit of telling us instead that in order for us to exercise our (2nd Amendment/ Art. 1, Sect. 27) rights, we must first pay them a "fee" to "apply" for a "license" which gives We The People types who already have a right to arm themselves...permission to arm themselves.

    No one gets much of a chance to learn about the basics of reading law in public schools, and I directly blame state level curriculum architects for that, but the result is that we don't think to look at the definitions of law terms before we make our conclusions about what it says. That's a problem, because even though "public servant" types will rotely insist all day long that we have to have a "license" for this and a "license" for that, they never back up their assertion by proving it with the lawful definition of "license", i.e. ORS 183.310(5) of the Oregon Revised Statutes, see below:

    "(5) 'License' includes the whole or part of any agency permit, certificate, approval,
    registration or similar form of permission required by law to pursue any
    commercial activity, trade, occupation or profession."

    The ONLY adjective inserted into the definition of "license" by the Legislature is "commercial". This definition is the only definition in the Oregon Revised Statutes of the base word "license". This definition is in the Administrative Procedure Act chapter of Oregon. The APA is the body of law that governs how executive branch people and agencies do their job of carrying out the Legislature's intent in the laws. Judicially speaking, When a judge "construes" the law in rendering an opinion, they are not authorized by law to "insert" words that were omitted by the Legislature, nor "omit" words that are inserted by the Legislature. See ORS 174.010

    "174.010 General rule for construction of statutes. In the construction of a statute,
    the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or in
    substance, contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what
    has been inserted
    ; and where there are several provisions or particulars such
    construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all."

    So, not even a judge can argue that a "license" can apply to anything... other than a "commercial" trade, occupation or profession. Even if they try, they lose, compliments again from the Oregon Legislature. See ORS 174.030:

    "174.030 Construction favoring natural right to prevail. Where a statute is equally
    susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the
    other against it, the former is to prevail."

    I've brought these points up many times in the past, but no one seems to want to lift this corner of the rug up. My question is why. We moan about all the arbitrary, administrative encroachments on our gun rights, but when the law itself is screaming at us that the whole business of CHL credentials is a load of crap, we just get quiet and then get back to complaining about stuff that has nothing to do with us. The overt fraud of "licensing" our rights doesn't even get off the ground as a discussion.

    To allow our gun rights to be framed in terms of politicians' debates about the pros and cons of a national licensing reciprocity system is to announce to them that we have surrendered our rights. And as we all know, once that's a done deal with gun rights, it's a done deal for all rights.
     
  17. simon99

    simon99 Central Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,673
    Likes Received:
    1,673
    This thread made my day....thank you!
     
    Taku and (deleted member) like this.
  18. Blitzkrieg

    Blitzkrieg WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,674
    Likes Received:
    4,849
    Oh, man was that letter 8utt kick1n

    Brought tears to me eyes
     
    Taku and (deleted member) like this.
  19. Sgt Nambu

    Sgt Nambu Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    7,591
    Likes Received:
    10,722
    Nice letter! I sure wish Murray would go away. She is the very picture of "if her lips are moving she's lying!" Great job, Mr Huffman!
     
    Taku and (deleted member) like this.
  20. 41Slinger

    41Slinger Harrisburg Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    751
    Likes Received:
    1,271
    If you just shut up you can learn something every day. Thanks Counterofbeans

    Mr. Huffman has mad skills.