Gold Supporter
- Messages
- 24,546
- Reactions
- 37,220
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It could be crafted more along the lines of prohibiting the State from using its agencies and resources from enforcing any firearm related laws period.The rub from that would be the "opinion" of what "violates" the 2A, which is essentially the argument and reason there's so many gun laws (over 20k nation-wide) on the books now.... add mealy-mouthed lawyers and big-money to the mix and it's just another layer of what we already have going on.
This would leave it up to each county to decide if they want to enforce the state gun laws.It could be crafted more along the lines of prohibiting the State from using its agencies and resources from enforcing any firearm related laws period.
Except its not legal to hunt deer with a 30 rd mag already....It might be a long shot getting the votes for it but it could restore our gun rights back to what federal law is, in the counties that have SAPOs right now. The State's agencies and resources could then be redirected to enforcing and prosecuting other crime and providing security training and assistance for schools. I doubt the State agencies enforce or prosecute many gun laws now but it's the threat that we would be eliminating.
Example: Guy is otherwise legally hunting deer in a SAPO county forest with a 30rnd mag. An ODFW agent or State trooper runs in to him and sees the violation. Under current law the guy is busted for the 30rnd mag.
Under Statewide SAPO type law, the guy walks away free.
That's the point. The ODFW agent or trooper would not be able to enforce the law under my SAPO type law idea. Now if somebody was poaching deer they could nab them for poaching deer but not for anything related to the firearm or ammo.Except its not legal to hunt deer with a 30 rd mag already....
The rub from that would be the "opinion" of what "violates" the 2A
These are some of the Oregon Attorneys General office views on our 27th Amendment of the Oregon Constitution:We already have this read the Oregon Constitution
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[.]
And see how well that works?
I can't tell if you are in support or not, of a law prohibiting the State from using State agencies and resources to enforce and prosecute firearms laws but I would be happy to engage with you as why I feel it's a good idea.why ask? many of these gentlemen already said we were wasting our time on a county level, yet the anti's cant turn "some of us" into a felons for non compliance now without a major court battle....we the people voted
sadly it would have been a far better tactical maneuver if all the counties voted individually had the NW firearms enthusiasts formed ranks when we called to arms
thats a federal decision and the only gun laws we will lawfully adhere to..
same federal laws that many of you choose to adhere to but choose the "scream mulon labe" course of action as opposed to our voting a protective law
If the over reaching infringements come into law it will go to court regardless by one of our pro gun advocates like SAF, OFF maybe nra (wont hold my breath)
we will certainly take it all the way to the supreme court if word game/opinions are played & violating our existing laws voted on by "we the people" of ourselves strictly adhering to FEDERAL LAW and the 2nd Amendment Constitution only.
I dont want to sound like a ghoul but I dont think Ginsberg has more than a year, she just had lung cancer tumor removed and they did not say if the cancer had metastasized or not, people are always happy to announce it has not metastasized!
Ginsberg also has a history of cancer and maybe a different type, 2 types of cancer for a non smoker isnt a good prognosis
additionally the fact that the statement says the nodules are indeed malignant means that at least a preliminary pathology report has been done, but this crucial detail—what type of malignancy?—was either unclear or withheld from the statement.
just sayin
I'm pretty sure the hunting regs say your gun cannot have more than 5 rounds for big game and 3 for birds. So let's just change your analogy to target shooting, otherwise legally.It might be a long shot getting the votes for it but it could restore our gun rights back to what federal law is, in the counties that have SAPOs right now. The State's agencies and resources could then be redirected to enforcing and prosecuting other crime and providing security training and assistance for schools. I doubt the State agencies enforce or prosecute many gun laws now but it's the threat that we would be eliminating.
Example: Guy is otherwise legally hunting deer in a SAPO county forest with a 30rnd mag. An ODFW agent or State trooper runs in to him and sees the violation. Under current law the guy is busted for the 30rnd mag.
Under Statewide SAPO type law, the guy walks away free.
Except its not legal to hunt deer with a 30 rd mag already....
You are correct about the hunting regs. What I was trying to explain in the example was that the hunter using a 30rnd mag is violating a state firearm law. My proposal is that we vote in a law that prohibits State agencies from enforcing firearm laws old or new. So in my example if the only law the hunter was violating was having a 30rnd mag then he would walk free.I'm pretty sure the hunting regs say your gun cannot have more than 5 rounds for big game and 3 for birds. So let's just change your analogy to target shooting, otherwise legally.
I'd vote for it, but I doubt that it would pass. We should just keep chipping away until there is two thirds majority county SAPO, then take the bill to state committee.
PS; We should use SB501 as fuel for our fire!
In Oregon it is written in the game reg book they give out. Don't know about washington.When I first got into hunting I heard that from seasoned hunters, but after looking and looking for a specific statement by a governing agency that says that, in Washington state, I couldn't find one. Maybe I was looking in the wrong places.
I checked department of fish and game, and googled it multiple times. Couldn't find anywhere saying hunting with a rifle was limited to a certain number of rounds, waterfowl and shotgun, sure, but not mammals and rifles.
It is the law in Oregon, you will find it in the hunting synopsis along with caliber restricitonsWhen I first got into hunting I heard that from seasoned hunters, but after looking and looking for a specific statement by a governing agency that says that, in Washington state, I couldn't find one. Maybe I was looking in the wrong places.
I checked department of fish and game, and googled it multiple times. Couldn't find anywhere saying hunting with a rifle was limited to a certain number of rounds, waterfowl and shotgun, sure, but not mammals and rifles.
Maybe go in with that expecting it to be a concession.You are correct about the hunting regs. What I was trying to explain in the example was that the hunter using a 30rnd mag is violating a state firearm law. My proposal is that we vote in a law that prohibits State agencies from enforcing firearm laws old or new. So in my example if the only law the hunter was violating was having a 30rnd mag then he would walk free.
You said: "I'm pretty sure the hunting regs say your gun cannot have more than 5 rounds for big game and 3 for birds. So let's just change your analogy to target shooting, otherwise legally.
I'd vote for it, but I doubt that it would pass. We should just keep chipping away until there is two thirds majority county SAPO, then take the bill to state committee.
PS; We should use SB501 as fuel for our fire!
Concession to whom? I am proposing that this law be voted in on the Ballot using the Initiative Petition process. All we would need is a 1000 qualifying signatures maybe 1500-2000 to get a 1000 good ones and it will be off to the races. We would have plenty of time to get through the draft ballot title process and all that junk and still collect signatures for 2020 election.Maybe go in with that expecting it to be a concession.
In Oregon it is written in the game reg book they give out. Don't know about washington.