Game changer for SB941????

[CounterOfBeans]

Has anyone called their reps yet about ORS 174.030, which says:

"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."

This law is found in chapter 174, which has the title of "Construction of Statutes". The word "Construction" here means the act of "construing". If 174.030 above says that interpreters of the law are required to interpret laws in favor of rights, then it goes without saying that lawmakers are also prohibited from passing laws in the first place that infringe or impair rights outright.

If we want to help the gun grabbers win, then let's continue to let them frame the debates in ways that enable them to win. ORS 174.030 sure looks to me to take away the stage that the gun-grabber howler monkeys need for their pseudo-intellectual pretenses. Oh and by the way, this law (ORS 174.030) is "plainly worded", because it has to be to comply with Oregon Constitution, Article 4, Section 21, which says:

"Section 21. Acts to be plainly worded. Every act, and joint resolution shall be plainly worded, avoiding as far as practicable the use of technical terms.—"

On another note, this gun-grabbing fraud is also not allowed to be disguised as something else by tacking it onto the coat tails of some other piece of warm & fuzzy legislation. See Oregon Constitution, Article 4, Section 20:

"Section 20. Subject and title of Act. Every Act shall embrace but one subject, and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title. …"

Please consider these and exercise your Article 1, Section 26 right to "instruct" your Representatives.

"Section 26. Assemblages of people; instruction of representatives; application to legislature.No law shall be passed restraining any of the inhabitants of the State from assembling together in a peaceable manner to consult for their common good; nor from instructing their Representatives; nor from applying to the Legislature for redress of greviances [sic].—"

If they ignore you anyway, then remember your rights as a juror when someone gets victimized, errr I mean arrested for violating SB 941. As a juror in Oregon, the law is as much on trial as the defendant. See Oregon Constitution, Article 1, Section 16:

"Section 16. Excessive bail and fines; cruel and unusual punishments; power of jury in criminal case. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense.—In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases."

Funny how they don't teach us this stuff in high school. How many prior jury members got told by the judge that it was their constitutional "right" to "determine the law"?

Read More

 

[WinterBaer45]

Jury nullification.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

SB-941 as asinine as it is seems plainly worded enough, the summary is very plain.

They went through the pretense of listening to us in a committee and written testimony was accepted (some of it) and they might glance at some of them.

The Natural Rights thing seems a bit vague........

I'm not seeing it but spell it out for us. Maybe you have a Legal background.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Jury nullification.

Indeed, and it's even enshrined… as a right… in the Bill of Rights of Oregonians' very own State Constitution. Good times. Have some fun with this folks.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

The Natural Rights thing seems a bit vague...….. I'm not seeing it but spell it out for us.

Notice how Article 1, Section 1 of Oregon's Bill of Rights, begins with the word "Natural rights"… See below:

"Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.—"

Then this Oregon Bill of Rights goes on from this intro, to list many rights that fall into this category. These are "rights": to freedom of worship, to religious opinion, of speech and press, from unreasonable searches and seizures… you know, all the usual rights we expect out of a free society, including …… to bear arms. The language in Article 1, Section 1 above reminds us that all of these rights are "natural rights". They are, as it says, "inherent" in us.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

"and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.—"

The Progressives in the Democrat party sure have altered our Gun Rights anyway.
When it says "inherent in the people" I assume "people" means the majority of the people.
Since we have a Representative Govt. the Majority Party is a substitute for "people" I think.

Now, do a Majority of Oregonians want this new gun Law? They say 79 or 83% polled but won't put it to a vote of the people. If they are so sure of their sham poll then they should welcome a vote of the people to prove them right!

 

[Biped]

I think "people" is just that. I do not (should not) lose my inherent rights just because I'm not part of the majority.

 

[3MTA3]

I think "people" is just that. I do not (should not) lose my inherent rights just because I'm not part of the majority.

I agree and you shouldn't, but as a practical matter what we are fighting boils down to "big" people enforcing their will against us "little" people. If we let this go on long enough there will be no turning back.

 

[Martini_Up]

ORS 174.030? What's that but some letters and numbers! No guns for you, you gun-hugger!!! You're paranoid!! Nobody want's your guns! What do you need them for anyway? More so those cucumber clip 100 rounds a second school sweepers!!!

Thanks for posting and let's hope you're onto something, COB

 

[CounterOfBeans]

"and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.—"

The Progressives in the Democrat party sure have altered our Gun Rights anyway.
When it says "inherent in the people" I assume "people" means the majority of the people.
Since we have a Representative Govt. the Majority Party is a substitute for "people" I think.

Now, do a Majority of Oregonians want this new gun Law? They say 79 or 83% polled but won't put it to a vote of the people. If they are so sure of their sham poll then they should welcome a vote of the people to prove them right!

Glad you picked up on the last part of Art 1, Sec 1. But why would you assume "people" means the majority. That's the same as saying 49% of the people have no rights, save for those the 51% lets them have. In a society like that there would be no need for courts, because majority rule controls all. That kind of society goes by the name "democracy", because in a direct democracy, there are no elected representatives, the people do all the voting on laws themselves. In a republic, the people vote in their best & brightest to tend to the business of government so they can get on with the daily errands of pursing life, liberty and happiness. That's the main difference between a democracy and a republic. The word "democracy" does not appear once in the US Constitution, but a "republic" is guaranteed in every State by Article 4, Section 4. In a republic, if bad laws are passed, the rights of a single citizen (through the courts) can be protected from the rampant ignorance and piqued emotions of the masses around him/her. It only takes one juror to say "NO". That is at least if they know enough about the basic principles of rights to know how to perform their role in a jury.

Regarding "a vote of the people", ask Washingtonians how they feel about "a vote of the people" (i.e. the initiative/petition system, i.e. billionaire-funded direct democracy) on the heals of I-594… the so-called law up there that has emboldened those in Oregon to sire SB 941 for you in Oregon. Do not bet for a second that they can't or won't use the media to spin the public's emotions to support something like SB 941. THAT is the danger of direct democracy. THAT is why the founders wrote Art. 4, Sec. 4 to guarantee a republican form of government in all States.

 

[Liberty97045]

I just got a call back from representative Bill Kennimer on SB941. It is going to the house floor next week and is likely to have the emergency clause in it. His guess is Thursday or Friday for a vote. He says it is likely to pass.

He also said that Brent Barton (Oregon City) or Brad Witt (scappose) might vote against.

Keep the pressure up!

 

[CounterOfBeans]

I just got a call back from representative Bill Kennimer on SB941. It is going to the house floor next week and is likely to have the emergency clause in it. His guess is Thursday or Friday for a vote. He says it is likely to pass.

He also said that Brent Barton (Oregon City) or Brad Witt (scappose) might vote against.

Keep the pressure up!

This doesn't tell anyone anything about how he plans to vote for it. Please throw ORS 174.030 in his face and ask your friends to throw it in their reps faces. Force them to explain how a pro-941 vote doesn't violate ORS 174.030. If lawmakers enacted 174.030 to prohibit law interpreters from infringing rights, then they are accountable to that standard as well… lest their agenda-serving hypocrisy shine like the mid-day summer sun.

 

[Liberty97045]

This doesn't tell anyone anything about how he plans to vote for it. Please throw ORS 174.030 in his face and ask your friends to throw it in their reps faces. Force them to explain how a pro-941 vote doesn't violate ORS 174.030. If lawmakers enacted 174.030 to prohibit law interpreters from infringing rights, then they are accountable to that standard as well… lest their agenda-serving hypocrisy shine like the mid-day summer sun.

He is voting against it obviously

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

I just got a call back from representative Bill Kennimer on SB941. It is going to the house floor next week and is likely to have the emergency clause in it. His guess is Thursday or Friday for a vote. He says it is likely to pass.

He also said that Brent Barton (Oregon City) or Brad Witt (scappose) might vote against.

Keep the pressure up!

Representative Brent BartonDemocrat - District 40 - Clackamas County

Capitol Phone: 503-986-1440
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, H-275, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]
Website: <broken link removed>

Dear Friends,

Thank you for the opportunity to serve you in the Oregon House of Representatives. I am honored to represent District 40, which includes Oregon City, Gladstone, Jennings Lodge, Johnson City, as well as parts of Clackamas and Milwaukie.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to serve as your State Representative. I frequently hold town halls and community events to hear your thoughts and concerns. Please drop me a line or sign up for my email newsletter to stay connected about how we can make Clackamas County an even better place to live, work, and raise a family.

Regards,


Brent

Representative Brad WittDemocrat - District 31 - Clatskanie
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1431
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, H-374, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/witt



Thank you for visiting my website. I am honored to represent House District 31 during the 2015-2017 term. I will continue to work closely with our community leaders and individual citizens to provide an effective voice in the legislature. I want to ensure that Oregon's urban majority does not drown out rural voices in handling such issues as sustainable development, creating more profitable businesses and family-wage jobs, and stimulating economic growth.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance to you, and please share your opinions and concerns with me as well.

Thank you!

Brad Witt

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Those in his district when you call him, remind Brad Witt what he said on his web page!

"I want to ensure that Oregon's urban majority does not drown out rural voices in handling such issues as sustainable development, creating more ............"

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Glad you picked up on the last part of Art 1, Sec 1. But why would you assume "people" means the majority. That's the same as saying 49% of the people have no rights, save for those the 51% lets them have. In a society like that there would be no need for courts, because majority rule controls all. That kind of society goes by the name "democracy", because in a direct democracy, there are no elected representatives, the people do all the voting on laws themselves. In a republic, the people vote in their best & brightest to tend to the business of government so they can get on with the daily errands of pursing life, liberty and happiness. That's the main difference between a democracy and a republic. The word "democracy" does not appear once in the US Constitution, but a "republic" is guaranteed in every State by Article 4, Section 4. In a republic, if bad laws are passed, the rights of a single citizen (through the courts) can be protected from the rampant ignorance and piqued emotions of the masses around him/her. It only takes one juror to say "NO". That is at least if they know enough about the basic principles of rights to know how to perform their role in a jury.

Regarding "a vote of the people", ask Washingtonians how they feel about "a vote of the people" (i.e. the initiative/petition system, i.e. billionaire-funded direct democracy) on the heals of I-594… the so-called law up there that has emboldened those in Oregon to sire SB 941 for you in Oregon. Do not bet for a second that they can't or won't use the media to spin the public's emotions to support something like SB 941. THAT is the danger of direct democracy. THAT is why the founders wrote Art. 4, Sec. 4 to guarantee a republican form of government in all States.

Like Martini-up said, "Thanks for posting and let's hope you're onto something!" Keep on with it. It sure can't hurt us.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

"I ran to represent you because I believe the values that make America great – hard work, telling the truth, and looking out for your neighbor – are under unprecedented assault. Government should be on the side of the people who work hard and play by the rules." Quote from Brent Barton's Official Site.
<broken link removed>

Again when calling these guys, remind them what's they wrote on their websites.
Representative Brent Barton
Democrat - District 40 - Clackamas County

Capitol Phone: 503-986-1440
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, H-275, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]
Website: <broken link removed>



Dear Friends,

Thank you for the opportunity to serve you in the Oregon House of Representatives. I am honored to represent District 40, which includes Oregon City, Gladstone, Jennings Lodge, Johnson City, as well as parts of Clackamas and Milwaukie.

I ran to represent you because I believe the values that make America great – hard work, telling the truth, and looking out for your neighbor – are under unprecedented assault. Government should be on the side of the people who work hard and play by the rules. But that is not happening right now – as anyone can attest who looks at Wall Street or the grip that special interests hold on Salem.

I am pleased to announce that before the 2013 session adjourned, the legislature authorized a $5 million investment in the Willamette Falls redevelopment at the former Blue Heron site. Securing these funds has been a top priority, and I appreciate the many community leaders who devoted countless hours to help make it happen.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to serve as your State Representative. I frequently hold town halls and community events to hear your thoughts and concerns. Please drop me a line or sign up for my email newsletter to stay connected about how we can make Clackamas County an even better place to live, work, and raise a family.

Regards,

 

[etrain16]

I just got a call back from representative Bill Kennimer on SB941. It is going to the house floor next week and is likely to have the emergency clause in it. His guess is Thursday or Friday for a vote. He says it is likely to pass.

He also said that Brent Barton (Oregon City) or Brad Witt (scappose) might vote against.

Keep the pressure up!

This doesn't tell anyone anything about how he plans to vote for it. Please throw ORS 174.030 in his face and ask your friends to throw it in their reps faces. Force them to explain how a pro-941 vote doesn't violate ORS 174.030. If lawmakers enacted 174.030 to prohibit law interpreters from infringing rights, then they are accountable to that standard as well… lest their agenda-serving hypocrisy shine like the mid-day summer sun.

Representative Barton would be a surprise if he voted against it. That said, he's in Clackamas County, which has a strong pro-gun voter roll. He's currently the only D from Clackamas County in the Oregon Legislature, so he is a bit in the minority. I think the only reason he got elected is that he represents the northern part of CC, closer to Portland. And he is, unfortunately, my rep. He has an "F" rating from the NRA and OFF rates him at only 22% in favor of gun rights.

I hope he votes no, and if he doesn't, I hope someone can organize a recall on him. He only won by 2,000 votes, which isn't a large amount considering the number of voters.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Barton looks young and new to the Game. He needs to feel the pressure from HIS constituents.
Call him, write him and then Call him again! Make him lose sleep over this.

 

[etrain16]

Barton looks young and new to the Game. He needs to feel the pressure from HIS constituents.
Call him, write him and then Call him again! Make him lose sleep over this.

My wife and I will be at the Capitol on Thursday the 30th. We're going there for an unrelated event/gathering regarding education. But I am planning to get in front of him prior to the vote, if it hasn't happened by that time. He needs to see the faces of his constituents. My wife and daughter will be with me.

Now, if the vote has already happened, he will still see us. And I will be expressing not only my extreme discontent with his poor decision, but also let him know that he can plan on me supporting any recall effort against him, and definitely working against his re-election should a recall not happen.