Lewis County Officials say they will not make good folks criminals

[Stomper]

Well I just relieved my bladder on his Birkenstocks.

 

[U201491]

Well I just relieved my bladder on his Birkenstocks.

Oh my aching stomach... I forgot about those things :=/\/\/\/\/

 

[Stomper]

Yeah, he's got woven corn rows on his toes.

 

[linflas]

None of your colorful descriptives fit, but, that is allright. Just a poignant reminder of the tunnel vision I mentioned.

Stomper, the constitutional argument though I understand your point, the 3 branches of our government have on multiple occasions have disagreed with your interpretation.

Whether the electorate is involved populace or not is irrelevant to the meaning of law. You make your bed, you lie in it.

I carry a gun, I have had a CHL for 20 years, in AZ and now OR.

I do however agree with a states right to regulate the transfer of firearms. I think that is what state's rights are all about. Just how I interprate freedom.

I was commenting on the tone of the response's prior to mine.

 

[308]

linflas,

While the States do have the right, they also have the responsibility to craft the bill in an intelligent, logical fashion. I594 was not constructed in that way. I594 demonstrates the author's lack of critical thinking and ignorance towards firearms, and everything that goes with them.

How completely ignorant does one have to be to think I594 will cause a criminal in the commission of a crime to pause and ask if selling that stolen firearm should go through the legal transfer process...liberalism truly is a mental disorder.

In Multnomah County Oregon we have a (5) people who got together and created an ordinance that goes beyond Oregon state law, making it illegal to carry a loaded weapon in public and mandating that gun owners take pains to keep their weapons out of a minor's hands. (Translation: Thugs under the age of 21) With some exceptions, it also prohibits firing a gun anywhere in the county. If I remember correctly, you cannot even carry a loaded magazine in your car on your way to the range.

Multnomah County is a large area and this ordinance was created to prevent criminals from discharging firearms in the commission of a crime in the Portland area. Problem is, Multnomah Co. is not just Portland; it extends NW to Scappoose, SW to Tigard and east through the Columbia Gorge to Cascade Locks, and SE well into the Mt.Hood National Forrest...so no plinking anymore when you are up in the wild because (5) libtard buffoons say so...nice, ehh?

The idiot commissioners responsible for the farce are:

Jeff Cogen, Chair
Term ends: December 2014
503-988-3308
[email protected]
<broken link removed>

Deborah Kafoury, District 1
Term ends: December 2016
503-988-5220
[email protected]
<broken link removed>

Loretta Smith, District 2
Term ends: December 2014
Phone: 503-988-5219
[email protected]
<broken link removed>

Judy Shiprack, District 3
Term ends: December 2016
Phone: 503-988-5217
[email protected]
<broken link removed>

Diane McKeel, District 4
Term ends: December 2016
503-988-5213
[email protected]
<broken link removed>
Ref: http://www.oregonfirearms.org/multnomah-county-passes-anti-gun-ordinances

Let's not forget Australia...a place where a small group came together and disarmed the entire Country. Why? Because they could.

 

[chariot13]

" If I remember correctly, you cannot even carry a loaded magazine in your car on your way to the range."

That is incorrect. Going to or from a shooting range or going to or from a fishing or hunting expedition is covered the same way a concealed permit covers you. Its under the 14 exemptions under state law that every Oregon county also included in their bs laws. Including multnomah and Marion county.

 

[linflas]

308,

I agree with you, bad law is harmful, and should be struck down. There is due process for that.

The statute you refered to is Multnomah County Ordinance #15.064, this restricts any firearm not covered by ORS 166.173. So it defacto outlawed open carry, but not CHL.

Though I may not agree with every law passed, or the language used, Refering back to the original post, I prefer my LEO's to uphold the laws they are sworn to. This in some ways reminds me of the story of the Chelan county (I think) sheriff who thought it was OK to allow his officers to do routine traffic duty in unmarked vehicles even though that is against state law.

Thanks for the rational reply

 

[IronMonster]

I doubt a plant, more likely a Fudd.

 

[linflas]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fudd

Casual, I guess, only 18 guns in my safe, and 1 on my person. Though I prefer non-sporting firearms, as I do not hunt anymore.

 

[308]

There is a lot of piling on when it comes to the interwebs.

BarfKom is at the top of the list when kiddies with no rational thinking abilities of their own attack when they believe it will gain them favor of the alpha poster. I admit to making snide comments occasionally, but prefer to offer the benefit of the doubt.

This is a really good website. I've been a long time admin across the street and have seen the way things go.
Maybe we could all give each other the benefit of the doubt and be as respectable here as we would be sitting across from each other at a coffee shop.

My $0.02

 

[IronMonster]

My policy is never to say anything behind a persons back that I would not say to their face, That goes if I am talking to a friend over coffee or posting on an internet forum.

Of course on the internet its hard to infer intent sometimes.

 

[linflas]

It is a great website, why I frequent it. My opinions at times do not jibe with the "alpha" posters as you put it, so do not post too much.

I started the vitriol, so I can take a few lashes for it.

 

[Redcap]

Wow, you folks sure talk big game about rights and freedoms, but when a law is voted on by its states inhabitants, which a state has a right to do. Which in no way infringes on the 2A, but requires changes in the way transactions between private parties are done, you cannot blast it enough.

Leave the state if you do not like the laws. Such a bunch of hypocrites and tunnel vision advocates.

I do not often post, but this just made me upset.

You must be on some really awesome drugs.

 

[Stomper]

None of your colorful descriptives fit, but, that is allright. Just a poignant reminder of the tunnel vision I mentioned.

Stomper, the constitutional argument though I understand your point, the 3 branches of our government have on multiple occasions have disagreed with your interpretation.

Whether the electorate is involved populace or not is irrelevant to the meaning of law. You make your bed, you lie in it.

I carry a gun, I have had a CHL for 20 years, in AZ and now OR.

I do however agree with a states right to regulate the transfer of firearms. I think that is what state's rights are all about. Just how I interprate freedom.

I was commenting on the tone of the response's prior to mine.

So your focus is on the "tone" of the posts prior to yours? Well, let's just deflect away from the POINT of what's been said that Universal Background Checks is the foundation for UNIVERSAL GUN REGISTRATION, which has ALWAYS BEEN the foundation for GUN CONFISCATION and focus on the mean spirited "tone" of the "bitter clingers"... how utterly, and transparently infantile.

You've carried for 20 years? Is that some sort of special qualification to be taken seriously? Diane Feinstein and many other leftist politicians (hypocritically) carry/carried a CCW too, big deal.

As for the three branches of goverment disagreeing with my "interpretation" is of little concern as statutory law comes and goes with be wind. At one point the SCOTUS upheld a "state right" to institutional slavery, racial segregation, the criminal prosecution of homosexuals, etc. furthermore, a blind person can see that the Federalist Papers (arguably the spirit and intent of the Constituion) are ROUTINELY ignored by elected and appointed officials who are puffed up by their vain egos, motivated by personal gain of money and power over others' lives through the twisting and perversion of laws.

Case in point, look at the conduct of our "illustrious" executive branch of federal government refusing to enforce immigration laws, illegally changing duly passed laws, and making its own laws on the fly as it suits their "agenda".

How about our executive branch right here in Oregon? Shifty, shady, and outright corrupt operations and actions going on. They (state and federal) don't even hardly make an effort to conceal their actions anymore because too many emotional "low-information" voters (like yourself apparently) accept it as proper "interpretation" and behavior.

When the other two branches of government actually do their job when it's actually hard to do and check and out of control executive branch, then I'll give their "interpretations" a little more credence. I'm not obligated to honor mob rule when it cuts across ESTABLISHED case law, and the Constitutional rights of peaceful and free citizens.

States rights are all well and good, but under the 14th amendment they are still subject to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Case in point, Illinois, Wash. D.C. (and recently California and perhaps Hawaii next) have been COMPELLED to establish some sort of viable CCW framework and 2A rights for their residents. Are you offended at that infringment against "states rights"?

I wonder if you bother to wag your finger at the ivectives and slander used by other special intrest groups that file lawsuits to stop other ballot measures pertaining to other matters that won the popular vote?


When asked what form of government have they brought us, Ben Franklin answered, "a Republic... if you can keep it".

 

[linflas]

Universal bacground checks are not the beginning of anything. They are a background check. They, using technology attempt to regulate a currently unnregulated section of trade and transfer of firearms within the state laws . Yes it is a hassle, some of the definitions for transfer are ludicrious, but it is state law. And a Sherrif is a sworn officer of the court to uphold the law. Not pick and choose what is politically expediant for him.

I just do not agree this is a gun issue, as it is a legislated and beurocratic issue to resolve it and streamline. Or remove it if it is odious to the constituants.

I end here, thanks for the discussion, and micturition humor. Be well, be safe, be kind, think of others before self

 

[Dave Workman]

Wow, you folks sure talk big game about rights and freedoms, but when a law is voted on by its states inhabitants, which a state has a right to do. Which in no way infringes on the 2A, but requires changes in the way transactions between private parties are done, you cannot blast it enough.

Leave the state if you do not like the laws. Such a bunch of hypocrites and tunnel vision advocates.

I do not often post, but this just made me upset.

You must be pretty easily upset.
And you don't even live in Washington. This law is more than a background check law, and anybody who reads it carefully will see that in a heartbeat. It is a gun ownership discouragement / deterrent law, crafted to treat law abiding gun owners as second-class citizens.

I'll go as far as this in concurring with your viewpoint: There are a lot of now-indignant gun owners, probably to include some on this forum, who didn't bother to vote. I have no use for them. Talking a good fight but failing to wage one — for the three lousy minutes it takes to fill out a ballot — is a disgrace.

But so far as moving, a lot of us were born here buster. Grew up here. This law was passed thanks to a lot of (&%$#!ing carpetbaggers who moved to the Seattle metro area and live along the I-5 corridor who brought their (&(*&*&^%#ing attitudes about guns with them from wherever they came from.

They're the ones who should move. Yesterday would be fine.

Some people here fought that measure tooth and nail. They have a right, they EARNED the right, to be angry and defiant, because the measure does more than simply inconvenience people (oh, and BTW, an "inconvenience" is an impairment, and under the Washington constitution, the right to bear arms "shall not be impaired.") it criminalizes things they have done for generations.

Ah, but I probably waste my time.

I just do not agree this is a gun issue, as it is a legislated and beurocratic issue to resolve it and streamline. Or remove it if it is odious to the constituants.

Oh, it's a gun issue alright. That you fail to see this says everything. It's "constituents."

 

[Stomper]

Universal bacground checks are not the beginning of anything. They are a background check. They, using technology attempt to regulate a currently unnregulated section of trade and transfer of firearms within the state laws . Yes it is a hassle, some of the definitions for transfer are ludicrious, but it is state law. And a Sherrif is a sworn officer of the court to uphold the law. Not pick and choose what is politically expediant for him.

I just do not agree this is a gun issue, as it is a legislated and beurocratic issue to resolve it and streamline. Or remove it if it is odious to the constituants.

I end here, thanks for the discussion, and micturition humor. Be well, be safe, be kind, think of others before self

Then you "sir", are asleep at the switch. It's spelled out right there in I594 that all firearm information is recorded and maintained by the Washington DOL.

So you have an issue with an elected Sherriff "picking and choosing" what law he'll enforce, what's your "upset feelings" about the POTUS, and the AG "picking and choosing" what laws to enforce?

You've yet to give any viable reply of any depth to what's been said, nor provide anything to quantify your statements. It'd be interesting to hear them, but I guess it's too hard for you.

Off you go.

 

[The Heretic]

I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if someone has already said this.

Discretionary enforcement is okay, and I am all for giving LEOs and prosecutors some discretion in law enforcement - that is just common sense.

However, the problem with such enforcement is that the LEOs and prosecutors get to decide who is "ordinary" and who isn't. If they don't like someone's politics, religion, whatever, then they can (and many have) pull out some law they claim you have broken, charge you with it, and make your life hell.

My point is, that this puts too much power in the hands of LE.

Also, you wind up with variations in regional enforcement - i.e., Lewis county LE says one thing, King county says another, state LE says yet another. The "ordinary" citizen often will not know where they stand.

So no - this doesn't make me feel any better, and I am not even a WA state resident any longer.

 

[The Heretic]

As for this being simply a background check law - if it was only background checks, then why does it require the make, model and serial number of the firearm??

I will tell you why: registration.

 

[Gunguy45]

Universal bacground checks are not the beginning of anything. They are a background check.

If they actually wanted merely to institute background checks on permanent transfers they would have written a law that actually did that.

They chose not to. And the people who crafted this law are neither stupid nor ignorant. They deliberately crafted a law which bans virtually every aspect of gun culture. Read the text. the INTENT was to criminalize and discourage gun ownership to the maximum possible extent. If you don't believe that, then you must believe the crafters of this bill are mentally defective. Five MINUTES with an attorney would have shown them how badly this mess was crafted. You really think someone with criminal law experience never looked at this before it was filed?

And a Sherrif is a sworn officer of the court to uphold the law. Not pick and choose what is politically expediant for him.

Oh, so you're a big supporter of local law enforcement enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act? Because that's exactly what you said.

However, you're also factually incorrect, because law enforcement has always had the ability and DUTY to use discretion in the enforcement of law. This is why you don't get pulled over for going one mile over the speed limit.

You're welcome to an opinion, it's your right. But you seem to have some real confusion over both the scope of this law AND the actual duties of elected law enforcement.