Are background checks back on the table?

[deen_ad]

At least one Republican, Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, is reportedly considering changing his vote

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) may have breathed new life into a defeated amendment to expand background checks for gun buyers. The conservative is reportedly open to reversing his opposition, provided an exemption is added for online sales between friends.

The reported about-face is possibly the first indication that the Senate could resurrect the bipartisan legislation, which was hammered out by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). In a demoralizing defeat for gun-control supporters, the amendment last month fell six votes shy of the 60 needed to get past a GOP-led filibuster.

Gun control: Are background checks back on the table?

Read More

 

[nilknarf]

(sigh) more letter writing... don't forget to mention the latest stats on the declining gun homicides and violence since 1993 stuff as fodder for our argument guys...

 

[rpatton]

His name is "Flake"... oh the irony...

 

[Father of four]

"Are background checks back on the table?" It will probably be a newly adopted Multnomah County ordinance in the near future.

 

[solv3nt]

"Are background checks back on the table?" It will probably be a newly adopted Multnomah County ordinance in the near future.

Only the State Legislation has the authority to regulate the sale of firearms.

166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.

(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances[\B], including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]

 

[Father of four]

I don't think the Multnomah County commissioners care.


http://www.northwestfirearms.com/ge...-objections-some-approve-new-gun-control.html

 

[solv3nt]

I don't think the Multnomah County commissioners care.


http://www.northwestfirearms.com/ge...-objections-some-approve-new-gun-control.html

They're free to try, I'm in need of a big retirement fund

 

[Father of four]

You know buying and selling firearms is probably just a privilege? They can probably take those away from citizens as easily as the open carry privilege was taken away from the innocent citizens.

Who needs the United States Constitution or the Oregon Constitution when we have city commissioners.

 

[BigStick]

Only the State Legislation has the authority to regulate the sale of firearms.

166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.

(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances[\B], including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]

Yeah, but that won't stop the coucil from trying and forcing the people to take it to court. They have a tendancy to keep pushing the envelope and manouvering around the constitution.

 

[solv3nt]

Yeah, but that won't stop the coucil from trying and forcing the people to take it to court. They have a tendancy to keep pushing the envelope and manouvering around the constitution.

This particular issue is protected under Oregon Law, and if they force you to court, you force them into a settlement, which is why the Judicial branch is separated from the Legislative and Executive branch of government.

 

[deen_ad]

which is why the Judicial branch is separated from the Legislative and Executive branch of government.

Tell that to Oblammer and Holder (the withholder)!

 

[solv3nt]

Tell that to Oblammer and Holder (the withholder)!

Eric Holder is the Attorney General, and I wouldn't quite classify the Attorney General as part of the Judicial Branch. The Attorney General is the top legal advisor of the United States. The position is NOT tied to the Supreme Court.