Another great letter

[Trlsmn]

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




Joe Huffman:
<broken link removed>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 <broken link removed>. 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,

Legislation to regulate the use of firearms is and should remain primarily a state issue.

Oh Fingolfin

Read More

 

[HappyRoman]

I think that Merkley needs a copy too.

 

[Trlsmn]

I think that Merkley needs a copy too.

 

[Stomper]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaaaa.....


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!!!

 

[wakeadrian]

That's awesome! Hahaha

 

[Joe Link]

Awesome!

 

[tionico]

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.

 

[fingolfen]

Don't you just love how politicians try to talk out of both sides of their mouths???

 

[Trlsmn]

Don't you just love how politicians try to talk out of both sides of their mouths???

And end up showing their cluelessness!

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.

 

[ZeroRing]

And end up showing their cluelessness!

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.

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).

 

[tionico]

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.

 

[ZeroRing]

I sure hope that is true... frankly though... I remain skeptical.

 

[tionico]

sceptical and vigilant. best policy.

 

[ZeroRing]

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!!

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.

 

[CEF1959]

Joe Huffman for Senator!

 

[CounterOfBeans]

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.

 

[simon99]

This thread made my day....thank you!

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Oh, man was that letter 8utt kick1n

Brought tears to me eyes

 

[Sgt Nambu]

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!

 

[41Slinger]

If you just shut up you can learn something every day. Thanks Counterofbeans

Mr. Huffman has mad skills.