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.
Man, it must be tiring to thatpessimisticrealistic all the time, but hey I like your spirt. No wonder we're getting our rights taken away from us, if you think you've lost before you ever attempt stand up for your rights you will surely loose them.
Lots of truth in this post, unfortunately, but still ...Fixed your post. I have watched this all play out before seeing what has happened in our neighbor to the south ...
I don't see any regulation of magazine size except those that are permanent. Did I miss something?
Legislative immunity, also known as parliamentary immunity or parliamentary privilege, protects legislators from prosecution for doing their jobs, which is creating legislation.
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.
You are so right, we have to stand and fight this. It's easy to push a person around until they stand up for themselves, at that point things have a tendency to change.
My guess is Rep. Helt would spoil any chance of denying a quorum in the House but I sure would like them to put that on the table.The only way I can see to stop this is to get ALL, I mean ALL of the Republican's in both the house and the senate to deny a quorum when these types of bills come up for a vote. As of now, there are enough Republicans in both the house and senate to do this. However, if only one senator or representative shows up for the vote, they will have a quorum.
Unfortunately for me, I'm stuck. I have Peter Courtney for a senator and Teresa Leon for a rep. Both are not particularly gun friendly.
Throwing someone out of their job because they are doing it poorly is not a criminal prosecution. Legislators should only be passing constitutional legislation(it's their job). If a court agrees they failed their job, why not toss them out?
The problem is that they recognize the mass-mailed emails and disregard them. Use the names and emails and mailing addresses and send individual correspondence. I heard this from two Democrat-voting gun owners who usually lobby their Dem legislators for other things. Write your own email/letter. You can use material you learned from others, but it should be in your own words.Contact all Oregon reps using the OFF auto mailer here Votility
I agree with all this except that legislators can make a personal decision on whether they believe a law is going to be constitutional or not. And if they don't believe a law is constitutional they can and should vote no on that law (imho).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.
The legislature's job is to pass laws. It isn't their job to decide if a law is constitutional. That is the role of the judiciary. The legislature can't be blamed for not knowing ahead of time which laws are going to be challenged, and not knowing ahead of time which way the court is going to decide. Sometimes the courts can't even decide. A district court will say a law is constitutional (or unconstitutional). Then it is appealed to a three judge panel of the Court of Appeals who reverse the district court and say the law is unconstitutional (or constitutional). Then it is heard by the full (en banc) Court of Appeals and they reverse their own panel and say it is constitutional (or unconstitutional).
Meanwhile, the reverse is happening in a different circuit of the Court of Appeals with a different but related case. So now you have one circuit of the Court of Appeals saying a law is constitutional (or unconstitutional) while another circuit of the Court of Appeals rules in a similar case the opposite, that the law is unconstitutional (or constitutional). That is known as a "circuit split". Sometimes the SCOTUS will settle it, and sometimes they decline.
Anyway, with such uncertainty as to whether a law is going to be found constitutional or unconstitutional, the legislature can't be held responsible for not being able to see into the future. I'm not talking about blatantly unconstitutional laws like trying to re-institute slavery or segregation, those laws never get passed. I'm talking about laws like gun control laws that can and have gone either way.
In the DC v Heller case the plaintiffs challenged the DC handgun ban at the district level and lost. Then they appealed to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, who reversed the district court. So then the government appealed that ruling to the SCOTUS, and lost on a 5-4 vote that could have gone either way.
There is a already mechanism for throwing out bad legislators. It's called an election.
If I am wrong, 1% chance of that then stock up on 22lr conversion kits for all of your ARs and avoid the registration. You can transfer them that way too. But I am very confident that 22lr version of the rifles that resemble those on the list are going to be banned as wellThese parts of Section 3 don't appear to distinguish between centerfire or rimfire rifles.
Section 3: (2) (a) Means the following semiautomatic rifles:
Long list of firearm platforms
Section 3 (2) (d) Includes any type, series or model of a firearm that is a variation, with minor differences,
of a firearm model described in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection, regardless
of the manufacturer.
If it resembles any of the specific platforms in their list it's banned (eg. rimfire ARs) . The rimfire exemption would apply to rifles not resembling the banned rifles. I am open to a different translation?
If they keep it up they will get more than a bark and a growl.This onslaught will not end until our collective bark gets much louder and with more of a growl. They are emboldened by our meekness.
I agree with all this except that legislators can make a personal decision on whether they believe a law is going to be constitutional or not. And if they don't believe a law is constitutional they can and should vote no on that law (imho).