JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I just used the link in knuckle Head's post #42 above to write both of Oregon's senators expressing my support for HR822 and requesting theirs. Thanks for the link!

If by some chance this bill makes it through the senate we should try to send a flurry of emails to the president asking him to sign this bill into law. There are tons of gun forums across the nation and it wouldn't be that hard to get the word out.

In the mean time I second knuckle Head's request that all of you write your senators. Click on the link U.S. Senate: Senators Home and select your state of residence. At the bottom of each senator's info is a link to send them a message. It's very easy to do.

Here's a direct link for OR Senator Jeff Merkley: Jeff Merkley - Fighting for Oregon in the U.S. Senate: Contact
and here's the one for OR Senator Ron Wyden: Contact Ron Wyden | Senator Ron Wyden | Standing Up for All of Oregon
 
That is why Sent both of my Senators an email, telling them to pass a matching bill, note I did not ask, I told them. If they do not I will rally against them next election.

I recommend everyone here do the same U.S. Senate: Senators Home

I'd bet money that you'll receive a reply back from your usual antigun senators stating they won't support it's because it a "states rights issue". It's not a states right issue, it's not a Fed issue, it is a constitutional issue.
 
sounds like the best way to deal with states that dont honor our second amendment rights as americans should not get our money.
no more disney land vacations,no more football jerseys bought from say?california....and certainly dont buy guns or gun parts from gun ban states like the kimbers made in new york.boycott hollywood,boycott illinois,boycott washington dc and let them know why you will not go into their state because they dont honor your second amendment rights but they sure love to push their first amendmend rights in the occupy wall street joke of a protest dont they?....democrats are sooooo two faced,thats why i left the party and will never look back.
 
Right, of course; lawyers know best because the rest of us unwashed masses just are not sophisticated enough to read and understand for ourselves.

You were the one complaining about the rest of us not being smart enough to understand your posts. I just figured I'd cure you of that misunderstanding.
 
From Rep Reichert


Actually, this legislation does not maintain our 2A rights, because it reinforces the concept of requiring a permit to carry a gun. (A CPL to carry concealed)

My understanding is that under current legal framework permitting (licensing) requirement is allowed as long as no undue burden is created. It is also important to take into account that Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled on the "bear" part of the 2nd Amendment yet, clarifying which specific regulations are permissible. Without the latter, your opinion is just as good as mine :D
 
My understanding is that under current legal framework permitting (licensing) requirement is allowed as long as no undue burden is created. It is also important to take into account that Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled on the "bear" part of the 2nd Amendment yet, clarifying which specific regulations are permissible. Without the latter, your opinion is just as good as mine :D

Which part of "shall not be infringed" is too hard to understand?
 
Which part of "shall not be infringed" is too hard to understand?

The part where the highest court said "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited". Absolutist position on this
matter is unwarranted. Courts have been shaping Constitution for centuries now, and we're pretty lucky to even have
what we have - just remember that some provisions of Bill of Rights are NULL at the moment.
 
The part where the highest court said "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited". Absolutist position on this
matter is unwarranted.
Courts have been shaping Constitution for centuries now, and we're pretty lucky to even have
what we have - just remember that some provisions of Bill of Rights are NULL at the moment.

With that sort of attitude the position you will find yourself in is bent over, grabbing your ankles while screaming "thank you master".
The supreme court has made a bunch of bad decisions. Too bad that the founding fathers did not foresee that possibility when they wrote the constitution and put in another level of checks and balances. I guess when you live in times where honor means something and a handshake is worth its weight in gold, it is difficult to envision a time when a leader of a nation takes the view of "depending on what you meaning of the word 'is' is".
 
With that sort of attitude the position you will find yourself in is bent over, grabbing your ankles while screaming "thank you master".
The supreme court has made a bunch of bad decisions. Too bad that the founding fathers did not foresee that possibility when they wrote the constitution and put in another level of checks and balances. I guess when you live in times where honor means something and a handshake is worth its weight in gold, it is difficult to envision a time when a leader of a nation takes the view of "depending on what you meaning of the word 'is' is".

May I ask what do you propose ? Armed rebellion ? By portraying yourself as a gun extremist you only alienate moderate citizens and don't achieve
anything. So yeah, repeat "shall not infringed" many more times, perhaps a higher force will hear you.
 
May I ask what do you propose ? Armed rebellion ? By portraying yourself as a gun extremist you only alienate moderate citizens and don't achieve
anything. So yeah, repeat "shall not infringed" many more times, perhaps a higher force will hear you.

No I do not propose an armed rebellion. I do propose that these people are called out on it every time they do it and we use examples how they disregard other clauses of the constitution to limit people's liberty over time. Someone who does not care about gun, is not going to get excited over them, but if you point out for instance the case of Wickard v. Filburn and how absurd it was, and how it now leads to the federal agencies pulling over Amish buggies you might get their (those with whom you talk) attention.
 
With that sort of attitude the position you will find yourself in is bent over, grabbing your ankles while screaming "thank you master".
The supreme court has made a bunch of bad decisions. Too bad that the founding fathers did not foresee that possibility when they wrote the constitution and put in another level of checks and balances. I guess when you live in times where honor means something and a handshake is worth its weight in gold, it is difficult to envision a time when a leader of a nation takes the view of "depending on what you meaning of the word 'is' is".

They did. It is We The People. But We The People are letting a few others make the decisions and then We say and do close to nothing when bad decisions are made....Over and over and over again. What good are the checks and balances when We The People remain for the most part silent.
 
Looks like Oregon's Walden voted yeah (I'd expect that) but pleasantly surprised that DeFazio and Schrader were yeahs.
I'm torn - I really believe that state's right should trump feds but individual rights trump state's rights. I don't like the precedent but I suppose this is about the best we could expect at the federal level.

Amen!
 
Looks like Oregon's Walden voted yeah (I'd expect that) but pleasantly surprised that DeFazio and Schrader were yeahs.
I'm torn - I really believe that state's right should trump feds but individual rights trump state's rights. I don't like the precedent but I suppose this is about the best we could expect at the federal level.

I'm sorry, where did you see a state right here ? States don't have a right to deprive citizens of means for self defense. 14th Amendment authorizes Congress
to intervene whenever states are in violation of rights of national citizenship, such as bearing of arms for self defense. What we're seeing here is not
even any close to abuse of Interstate Commerce clause, rather very appropriate use of Full Faith and Credit.

Now perhaps Congress is not going far enough with this bill, as some believe license should not be required in the first place. Well, leaving that alone
I just want to point out that should this bill pass, there is a good chance it will be challenged by one of those carry restrictive states. So taking
careful steps in the right direction is a good tactic here, it can always be expanded later on.
 
No I do not propose an armed rebellion. I do propose that these people are called out on it every time they do it and we use examples how they disregard other clauses of the constitution to limit people's liberty over time. Someone who does not care about gun, is not going to get excited over them, but if you point out for instance the case of Wickard v. Filburn and how absurd it was, and how it now leads to the federal agencies pulling over Amish buggies you might get their (those with whom you talk) attention.

Once again, it might be good for carrying out one's principles, but will unlikely yield any practical results. Our battle is in the courts, and with enough support for organizations like SAF we will prevail.
 

Upcoming Events

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

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top