JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I have said here and other places they will approach gun control anyway they can directly and indirectly ANYTHING that side steps actual gun ownership

...including


-Access to ammo and components. such as Enacting environmental laws to curtail shooting/hunting , ammo components and the so- called serial number ammo.

-liability laws & liability insurance for gun owner,

-Taxes; excessively high taxes on new sales guns, ammo and components transfer and background checks.

-Over the top storage requirements and fees



This should be a wake up call!

Gun control nuts are looking for any leverage or loop hole they don't go away they just crawl under a slimy rock and look for the next opportunity
 
As soon as they are done with "assault rifles" they will start to get spun up on "sniper rifles" - you know, hunting guns...

I'm taking names on these bills (for and against), and I'm putting my money where my mouth is when it comes to campaign contributions.
 
I listened to Burdick on "Think Out Loud" on 2/21 and she talked about how she has chosen to focus on other issues and support the national level efforts to effect the same changes. Judging by here choice of language and the passion in her voice, she is definately a "true-beleiver" and must of had some considerable pressure put on her to back-off. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in that meeting.

They also had a Republican Representative, who when asked about a potential ban on guns in the state house, remarked how many other representatives and staff members regularly carried and would be impacted. I suspect our capitol is not such a soft target and is partially responsible for quashing the proposals.

You can get the podcast on Itunes or the OPB website. 2/21/13 is the date. Very interesting hearing such a frank discussion and the host was pretty good at asking the hard questions for both sides of the discussion. Is this what journalism should be be?
 
I don't think this legislation will pass. However I encourage all Oregonians to let your legislators know (in a calm and polite manner) how you feel. I also encourage all gun owners to generally represent the gun owning community well. Be extra safe, extra courteous, pick up your trash, and make damn sure no criminal or juvenile gets hold of your guns and does something stupid or evil with it. We need to keep our image polished.
 
I have said here and other places they will approach gun control anyway they can directly and indirectly ANYTHING that side steps actual gun ownership

...including


-Access to ammo and components. such as Enacting environmental laws to curtail shooting/hunting , ammo components and the so- called serial number ammo.

-liability laws & liability insurance for gun owner,

-Taxes; excessively high taxes on new sales guns, ammo and components transfer and background checks.

-Over the top storage requirements and fees



This should be a wake up call!

Gun control nuts are looking for any leverage or loop hole they don't go away they just crawl under a slimy rock and look for the next opportunity




And here it is.... Proposals to make gun owners carry 1 million liability insurance policy.

Proposals to make gun owners carry liability insurance - Overlawyered

N.Y. bill would force gun owners to buy at least $1M in insurance - Washington Times



The future IMO is "back door" gun legislation making it too costly to own/shoot guns permits, fees, taxes, insurance requirements, and such
 
And here it is.... Proposals to make gun owners carry 1 million liability insurance policy.

Proposals to make gun owners carry liability insurance - Overlawyered

N.Y. bill would force gun owners to buy at least $1M in insurance - Washington Times



The future IMO is "back door" gun legislation making it too costly to own/shoot guns permits, fees, taxes, insurance requirements, and such

Do you remember that decision from the USSC on Obamacare? That would be the one where they said that the required insurance was really, legally, a tax, and that as a tax it was legal for Congress to impose the requirement. Somebody might remember that at the time I said the basis for this decision was going to be important in the future, and not necessarily all bad.

Now, there's this thing in the law called stare decisis. In Latin that means "let the decision stand". It means that one of the guiding principles of the law is that new decisions should not be inconsistent with prior decisions. This has the desirable effect of making the law consistent and understandable.

Now let's consider this new required insurance on firearms in light of the prior decision. If the USSC and lower courts are going to be consistent, this provision will be called what it amounts to, a tax. It would then follow that it is a tax on exercising a Constitutional right. The courts have taken a very dim view of such activities in the past. It's very likely that any such requirement will be found unconstitutional.
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top