Oregon Could We Have Statewide Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance (SAPO)?

[WoodsPlinker]

There is a double standard. In the States that violate federal law in our favor overturning the NFA the feds pounce on individuals complying with state law in an instant.

How many police or legislators do you see pounced on when the anti gun crowd violate federal law with their state laws? Yeah nobody jumping all over that at all. In fact they are more then happy to let them fester in the courts for years while our rights are violated.

Hence any preservation we did I'm sure the feds would sit blindly and let local authorities abuse it and trample it to their hearts content without lifting a finger.

We can say we are siding with federal law and the Constitution with the second amendment but if the police and courts locally aren't willing to play ball it's as worthless as the paper it's voted on.

 

[N Monty]

I could easily destroy that point of view in court and I'm a damn dump truck driver.

Don't worry, the courts have already destroyed our idiot AG's stance multiple times. Most explicitly, here:

Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016)
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining "whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment." The court explained that stun guns are not protected because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment," that stun guns are "dangerous per se at common law and unusual," and that "nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military." The U.S. Supreme Court, per curiam, vacated, reiterating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding," and that it has rejected the proposition "that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected."
​

Posted from my computer. If that's allowed. I mean, the Founding Fathers never thought that we'd have computers. The First Amendment only protects speech written with a quill and ink, IIRC?

 

[arakboss]

Don't worry, the courts have already destroyed our idiot AG's stance multiple times. Most explicitly, here:

Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016)
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining "whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment." The court explained that stun guns are not protected because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment," that stun guns are "dangerous per se at common law and unusual," and that "nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military." The U.S. Supreme Court, per curiam, vacated, reiterating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding," and that it has rejected the proposition "that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected."
​

Posted from my computer. If that's allowed. I mean, the Founding Fathers never thought that we'd have computers. The First Amendment only protects speech written with a quill and ink, IIRC?

You would think this would apply to "assault weapon" bans too, but that doesn't seem to be the case, what gives?

 

[N Monty]

You would think this would apply to "assault weapon" bans too, but that doesn't seem to be the case, what gives?

The Supreme Court has refused to do their job and hold rogue state's feet to the fire regard 2nd Amendment violations. "Hey, don't break the rules, but if you do break the rules to get your way, there are no consequences" is not an effective form of governance.

Add: I mean, there was a judge that ruled the exact opposite of Heller in his ruling, using out-of-context quotes from Heller! I think that was Connecticut? Mass? Some East coast state.

 

[arakboss]

The Supreme Court has refused to do their job and hold rogue state's feet to the fire regard 2nd Amendment violations. "Hey, don't break the rules, but if you do break the rules to get your way, there are no consequences" is not an effective form of governance.

Add: I mean, there was a judge that ruled the exact opposite of Heller in his ruling, using out-of-context quotes from Heller! I think that was Connecticut? Mass? Some East coast state.

They could have cleared this up in this case but you are right they didn't do their job: Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Ill., 136 S. Ct. 447 - Supreme Court 2015 - Google Scholar

RIP Justice Scalia

Move on soon Justice RBG

 

[Hellingbamster]

How about some legal input on the concept of not allowing ballot issues on things that would affect constitutional rights. The 2A in this particular case. How would it go if there was a ballot issue to "adjust" the first amendment? Say, not allow a certain religion. Not too well I venture. So, why is it legit for the mob (general citizenry) to vote away or nullify the 2A constitutional rights of we, the law abiding public? I just don't see how this should be legal.

 

[raylo]

I think that the bills are being killed in committee and will continue to be because of logistics. How do they expect to enforce this crapola successfully? They aren't living in the real world. To attempt to enforce all of this would cost them their political career likely by force or lack of participation.
A SAPO would be great if it passes but if it doesn't pass, they will go apestuff crazy with anti gun legislation. We still have some holdover snowflakes that have ballot access.