Oregon HB 3223 Assault Weapon Ban

[dancinghippos]

I have some experience "fighting city hall" on another topic, years ago. Here is what I observed:

1: Most politicians care most about their re-election. Therefore, the most voices will sway them
2: They need a good excuse to justify changing an already-stated opinion. You have to give them one. When you email or write or call, you should give good reasons that are easy to understand and repeat to others.
3: Your good reason(s) should be solid logic that can't easily be shot down
4: Never embarrass your team. Never threaten violence or say things that most would find offensive. Never be one of "those" people they use as justfication for confiscating your means of defense.
5: You and everyone you know should flood their phones, emails and snail-mail with communications.
6: Direct communications are far better than the mass mailing websites. They see that YOU cared enough to send an individual correspondence. Phone calls too. They estimate that is worth another 100 voters.
7: When they see which way the crowd is going, they will use some of those "good reasons" to justify voting with the crowd.
8: Therefore, MAKE A CROWD. Flood them with emails, phone calls and letters. Let them understand they awakened a sleeping giant.

In summary: They must see a hurricane of polite but firm emails, phone calls and letter. The hurricane must contain lots of justification for voting YOUR WAY.

 

[arakboss]

Deaths from mass shootings get all the headlines, but they are extremely rare compared to other violent crime, even now. There have been 1135 mass shooting deaths since 1966 (Washington Post, Oct 2018). That represents less than 2 years in Chicago. Same for many other big cities where guns are almost banned. That doesn't support the gun control narrative, so it is ignored.

The ice.gov website enumerates 2038 homicides committed by illegal immigrants they deported in 2018 and a similar number in 2017. So border control would stop more deaths every year than the total number of mass shooting victims. But that doesn't support the gun control agenda, so it is ignored.

The Parkland shooting was a textbook case of failure of "the authorities" we are supposed to depend on for protection. The authorities tell us: "See Something, Say Something". Local residents and school officials called the authorities on Cruz 45 times. No arrests, because the Broward County Sheriff chose to take money from the PROMISE program to divert teen offenders to counseling instead of arrests. Residents called the FBI twice. No arrest, even after Cruz posted a video saying he wants to be a school shooter. With no arrests, Cruz passed the background check to buy the murder weapon. So the "reasonable" response? Punish gun owners, of course.

The authorities say the police will protect us. Yet the four Broward County deputies who were on the scene when Cruz started shooting kids stayed outside. The Sheriff ran to a CNN "Town Hall" event to blame the NRA for the murders his deputies let happen. This sequence of real events would fail the smell test for a TV drama.

That is truth and a narrative that we have to spread. When you write your legislators include that info, with links to these articles:

I have some experience "fighting city hall" on another topic, years ago. Here is what I observed:

1: Most politicians care most about their re-election. Therefore, the most voices will sway them
2: They need a good excuse to justify changing an already-stated opinion. You have to give them one. When you email or write or call, you should give good reasons that are easy to understand and repeat to others.
3: Your good reason(s) should be solid logic that can't easily be shot down
4: Never embarrass your team. Never threaten violence or say things that most would find offensive. Never be one of "those" people they use as justfication for confiscating your means of defense.
5: You and everyone you know should flood their phones, emails and snail-mail with communications.
6: Direct communications are far better than the mass mailing websites. They see that YOU cared enough to send an individual correspondence. Phone calls too. They estimate that is worth another 100 voters.
7: When they see which way the crowd is going, they will use some of those "good reasons" to justify voting with the crowd.
8: Therefore, MAKE A CROWD. Flood them with emails, phone calls and letters. Let them understand they awakened a sleeping giant.

In summary: They must see a hurricane of polite but firm emails, phone calls and letter. The hurricane must contain lots of justification for voting YOUR WAY.

Good stuff!

 

[WoodsPlinker]

That Gresham ex-cop may pretend guns are the problem, but most street cops support the Second Amendment and they fear the loss of gun owners rights MORE than the few criminals with guns. It is not even close.

Police officers overwhelmingly say it is more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns than it is to control gun ownership (74% of officers vs. 53% of the public). (Pew Social Trends, January 2017)

The National Association of Chiefs of Police polled 20,000 sheriffs and police officers. 76% say that armed citizens help law enforcement reduce violent crime. They are more pro-gun than the general public. This links to their survey results:

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/NACOP-surveyresults-2016.pdf

PoliceOne, an organization of about 380,000 active and 70,000 retired officers, surveyed 16,000 members on the gun control in 2013.
71% say a ban on so-called "assault weapons" would have no effect on violent crime.
20% say it would make crime worse. This is a link to their results
http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf

These are the experts. These are the guys I believe. Not ex-chiefs. And when companies like Gallup survey Americans, they poll 1000-2000 people and extrapolate. These two polls were 20,000 and 16,000 cops respectively. So the confidence level is huge.

Yeah and maybe posse comitatus could be used, maybe the sherrifs willing to stand up for the consitution can restore the supreme law of the land?

Guess we'll see that in WA likely first.

 

[arakboss]

Deaths from mass shootings get all the headlines, but they are extremely rare compared to other violent crime, even now. There have been 1135 mass shooting deaths since 1966 (Washington Post, Oct 2018). That represents less than 2 years in Chicago. Same for many other big cities where guns are almost banned. That doesn't support the gun control narrative, so it is ignored.

The ice.gov website enumerates 2038 homicides committed by illegal immigrants they deported in 2018 and a similar number in 2017. So border control would stop more deaths every year than the total number of mass shooting victims. But that doesn't support the gun control agenda, so it is ignored.

The Parkland shooting was a textbook case of failure of "the authorities" we are supposed to depend on for protection. The authorities tell us: "See Something, Say Something". Local residents and school officials called the authorities on Cruz 45 times. No arrests, because the Broward County Sheriff chose to take money from the PROMISE program to divert teen offenders to counseling instead of arrests. Residents called the FBI twice. No arrest, even after Cruz posted a video saying he wants to be a school shooter. With no arrests, Cruz passed the background check to buy the murder weapon. So the "reasonable" response? Punish gun owners, of course.

The authorities say the police will protect us. Yet the four Broward County deputies who were on the scene when Cruz started shooting kids stayed outside. The Sheriff ran to a CNN "Town Hall" event to blame the NRA for the murders his deputies let happen. This sequence of real events would fail the smell test for a TV drama.

That is truth and a narrative that we have to spread. When you write your legislators include that info, with links to these articles from leftist media sources that back up the rarity of mass shootings.

 

[dancinghippos]

Police chiefs and commissioners are usually political appointees. It is the street cops who can't be fired for disagreeing the mayor who will say plainly that magazine limitations and gun bans DO NOT WORK.

 

[Jabba]

In order to "throw them out" you would have to create a law that allows that. Even if you could get such a law passed a court would throw it out.

On what grounds? We could pass a law that if a legislator ever missed a vote, they would be removed. Or if they got a parking ticket, same thing. It may not be a great idea, or easily workable, but what specific part of the state constitution would prohibit these laws? I notice you didn't mention my comment on the criminal part of it, so I take it you aren't going to back up your assertion that legislative immunity would be involved here?

Legislators are required to swear an oath to the constitution already(state and national). It wouldn't be that far a step to provide some punishment for violating it. Section 8 lays down the requirement of eligibility for Senators and Representatives. It would likely have to be amended to prevent them from running again.

 

[dancinghippos]

That is truth and a narrative that we have to spread. When you write your legislators include that info, with links to these articles from leftist media sources that back up the rarity of mass shootings.

The funny thing about that Post article is that they were saying what a huge number 1135 deaths since 1966 is. Yet they fully ignore how many annual deaths are due to people not legally in the country. The politics are riskier. But that is a comparison, I am not here to rant about border problems. It's just a comparison of the magnitude of the problems and solutions.

 

[Mistman]

What are the criteria for something to be deemed an emergency? This is obviously a ploy, to conjure up 'extremes' so there's an appearance of an emergency that everyone knows doesn't exist. How can they consider it an emergency, can't it be argued that the situation doesn't meet the criteria of an emergency? What percentage of the population is in fear for their lives because their neighbor has a semi-automatic firearm? How many deaths in Oregon can be attributed to these 'assault rifles'?

Somethings fundamentally amiss within the gray matter of people WE elect. I keep trying to figure who the H these peoples parents are and how they ended up so deluded. I also can't help thinking that at some point some of their own are going to wake up and say 'that's enough!' but then I'm somewhat of a dreamer.

If only I were a jobless pregnant illegal immigrant with the obligatory permanent 'get out of jail free' card I'd have it freakin made in this wonderful state!

 

[arakboss]

The funny thing about that Post article is that they were saying what a huge number 1135 deaths is. Yet they fully ignore how many annual deaths are due to people not legally in the country. The politics are riskier. But that is a comparison, I am not here to rant about border problems. It's just a comparison of the magnitude of the problems and solutions.

I would be more inclined to use the criminal deaths or suicide deaths.

 

[arakboss]

What are the criteria for something to be deemed an emergency? This is obviously a ploy, to conjure up 'extremes' so there's an appearance of an emergency that everyone knows doesn't exist. How can they consider it an emergency, can't it be argued that the situation doesn't meet the criteria of an emergency? What percentage of the population is in fear for their lives because their neighbor has a semi-automatic firearm? How many deaths in Oregon can be attributed to these 'assault rifles'?

Somethings fundamentally amiss within the gray matter of people WE elect. I keep trying to figure who the H these peoples parents are and how they ended up so deluded. I also can't help thinking that at some point some of their own are going to wake up and say 'that's enough!' but then I'm somewhat of a dreamer.

If only I were a jobless pregnant illegal immigrant with the obligatory permanent 'get out of jail free' card I'd have it freakin made in this wonderful state!

I believe the reason they labeled it an emergency bill is so they could introduce it after the Jan. 18th deadline for bills.

Edit: And because of this:
Contesting a bill that lawmakers have passed but that, lacking an emergency clause, has not yet taken effect, is done via the state's ballot referral process of signature gathering. Trying to repeal a law that already has taken effect is much more complex and must be done via a ballot initiative, with greater signature-gathering and other requirements.

 

[sonic]

They do this crap because you as a gun owner and someone who charishes your rights don't stand up and fight these sombubblegumes...... so when are gun owners going to stop living in peace and start defending their rights? Curious cos every Billy badass oh cant wait for the civil war and they are the first ones to say matters need to be kept peaceful lol crazy..... gun owners are unfortunately pansies and will do absolutely nothing when politicians force you to turn in your guns......it wont stop unless people start really standing up and saying enough

 

[WoodsPlinker]

On what grounds? We could pass a law that if a legislator ever missed a vote, they would be removed. Or if they got a parking ticket, same thing. It may not be a great idea, or easily workable, but what specific part of the state constitution would prohibit these laws? I notice you didn't mention my comment on the criminal part of it, so I take it you aren't going to back up your assertion that legislative immunity would be involved here?

Legislators are required to swear an oath to the constitution already(state and national). It wouldn't be that far a step to provide some punishment for violating it. Section 8 lays down the requirement of eligibility for Senators and Representatives. It would likely have to be amended to prevent them from running again.

5 USC 7311 loyalty and striking advocating for our constitutional form of government to be overthrown. With advocating being described further in executive order 10450 section 8 sub 3 as also "alteration of the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means." With the penalty being removal from office and jail up to a year.

The local sherrifs would probably be within their right to remove them from office. In my opinion. But I'm no lawyer.

 

[Defense Minister]

Whatever you do, if you see things that the Demonrats may view as shortcomings in the bill, PLEASE DON'T POINT THEM OUT HERE! They are watching, and there's no sense in educating the insistently ignorant.

 

[sonic]

Man that would be awesome if the sherriff could remove them

 

[BSG 75]

We could pass a law that if a legislator ever missed a vote, they would be removed. Or if they got a parking ticket, same thing.

Who is "we"? You mean through a ballot initiative? Do you have any idea how difficult/expensive that is? They were able to get initiatives on the 2018 ballot to end Oregon's sanctuary state status and taxpayer funded abortions. Both lost in a landslide. Even if you were able to get your proposals on the ballot, you wouldn't be any more successful.

Certainly the legislature would never pass such a law.

Removal over a parking ticket? A couple of Baltimore politicians were able to get charges of bribery, malfeasance in office, nonfeasance in office and perjury dismissed under the principle of legislative immunity FindLaw's Court of Special Appeals of Maryland case and opinions.

I don't think beating a parking ticket charge would be much harder.

It may not be a great idea,

I agree.

but what specific part of the state constitution would prohibit these laws?

The legal justification for legislative immunity is explained here http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-...on-of-powers-legislative-immunity.aspx#Debate

In America, the constitutions of 43 states provide legislators with a fundamental protection of free speech and debate. [Oregon is one of those 43 states] This immunity protects legislators from punitive executive or judicial action. The intent is to allow lawmakers to work independently and unimpeded by the threat of intervention from the other branches of government in the discharge of their legislative duties.
Court decisions interpreting the extent of protection afforded by legislative immunity vary. The interpretations have centered on a definition of "legitimate legislative activity." Such activities extend beyond floor debate and include the act of voting and views expressed in committee deliberations.

A court decision regarding the scope of the Oregon constitution's speech and debate clause is here
STATE v. BABSON | 326 P.3d 559 (2014) | 20140515585 | Leagle.com
Have fun.

Even if you were to get such an initiative on the ballot (unlikely) and get a majority of voters to pass it (even less likely), it would quickly get thrown out in court. This whole subject is a waste of time.

I notice you didn't mention my comment on the criminal part of it, so I take it you aren't going to back up your assertion that legislative immunity would be involved here?

As I said earlier, legislative immunity doesn't protect legislators who commit criminal acts such as murder or bank robbery. But you said if a court found a law to be unconstitutional that should be justification to "throw out" those legislators. How? Under what authority would you do that? Who would enforce it?

Legislators are required to swear an oath to the constitution already(state and national). It wouldn't be that far a step to provide some punishment for violating it.

You would have to convince a court that a legislator voting for a law that is later held to be unconstitutional is "violating" their oath. Good luck with that. As the link I gave you earlier lists http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-...tion-of-powers-legislative-immunity.aspx#Case there is plenty of case law supporting the principle of legislative immunity.

Fantasizing about removing legislators who vote for a law that is later found to be unconstitutional - other than through an election - is a waste of time. I gave you some links to read, have at it.

I get that you are frustrated with these legislators, but spend your time on something realistic, not a fantasy.

 

[NW Backpacker]

What's the plan of attack on this one?

Any chance we could get an exemption put into the law for guns you already own and have already passed a BGC for when you purchased them? This would be so you don't have to pass ANOTHER BGC. We know they have a list of all of our guns bought via BGC. After every mass shooting, it's less than one hour before they announce where the perp bought the gun, whether he passed a BGC, etc.

 

[NW Backpacker]

What's the plan of attack on this one?

You mean as opposed to sitting on our asses and doing nothing?

 

[L84Cabo]

If legislators pass an "unconstitutional" (in your opinion) law, you challenge it in court.

If you don't like the laws certain legislators are passing, you get a chance every couple of years to vote for better legislators.

If a majority of your fellow citizens like the laws the legislature is passing and keep on re-electing those politicians, you can always move to a state where most citizens have views more similar to yours. That's the federalism system the Founders created.

Our Founders specifically gave us a republic and not a democracy because they realized that a democracy was nothing more than "mob rule."

In a republic, the Constitution is supposed to keep the mob at bay. Even if, say, 51% of the population voted to imprison the other 49% and take their money, they couldn't (in theory) do this because of the COTUS.

In reality, however, things are much different. The mob grows big enough to elect their preferred candidates to office who will create bills/laws that are inherently unconstitutional.

Don't worry you say, because the COTUS is still in place and the laws can be challenged through the court process!

There's only one problem with that. The mob has grown big enough and powerful enough that they have been able to stack the courts with their people who will affirm their unconstitutional laws. Another name for this would be The Ninth District Court...the most patently corrupt District Court in the country.

Don't worry, you say, because there is still the Supreme Court!

Except the mob has grown big enough to infiltrate SCOTUS as well. And it's highly questionable if SCOTUS will even agree to hear a gun case, let alone actually uphold the COTUS.

When the rule of law dies the Republic is lost. And the only solution at that point is to invoke the Second Amendment to refresh the tree of liberty.

The rule of law in our country is on life support. Many would say that it's already dead and I have a hard time arguing with them given what we've seen go on in the last 10 years.

At any rate, we are very quickly approaching the point where there is no peaceful solution that will resolve our problems.

May God save our republic.

WOLVERINES!

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I tried reading this bill tonight. I wanders all over the place. I don't see how the average Fudd could figure out if their firearms are in compliance or not. It looks like a copy of the 2019 FEINSTEIN Ban, but more confusing https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s66/BILLS-116s66is.pdf

 

[BSG 75]

And it's highly questionable if SCOTUS will even agree to hear a gun case,

I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news.

Supreme Court to hear biggest gun rights case since 2010 | Reuters