Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Military style weapons are legal in Oregon – OR Supreme Court opinion

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by dallen1x, Feb 24, 2013.

  1. dallen1x

    dallen1x Wil_Val, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    46
    They can write laws about such things as not waving your gun in public or not allowing felons to own guns but if they make the possession of a military style weapon an illegal act then they will have passed a law that the Oregon Supreme Court has already deemed unconstitutional.

    OREGON v. KESSLER, 1980
    II. The Oregon right to bear arms
    B. The meaning of the term "arms"

    "In the colonial and revolutionary war era, weapons used by Militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same. A colonist usually had only one gun which was used for hunting, protection, and militia duty, plus a hatchet, sword, and knife. G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6-15, 252-254 (1973)."

    "Therefore, the term "arms" as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense.
    …The term "arms" would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens."

    "If the text and purpose of the constitutional guarantee relied exclusively on the preference for a militia "for defense of the State," then the term "arms" most likely would include only the modern day equivalents of the weapons used by colonial militiamen. The Oregon provision, however, guarantees a right to bear arms "for defense of themselves, and the State." The term "arms" in our constitution therefore would include weapons commonly used for either purpose, even if a particular weapon is unlikely to be used as a militia weapon."

    OREGON v. HIRSCH, 2003
    III. SCOPE OF THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 27
    B. Construction of Article I, Section 27
    1. Text
    "…Article I, section 27, clearly guarantees the right to bear arms for purposes of defense -- specifically, "for the defence of [the people] themselves, and the State." See Kessler, 289 Or at 371 (clarifying that the "defence of themselves" wording includes right "to possess certain arms for defense of person and property" (emphasis added)).
    …Specifically, Article I, section 27, precludes the legislature from infringing on the people's right to bear arms for purposes of defense, but not for purposes other than defense. It follows that Article I, section 27, does not preclude the legislature from prohibiting persons convicted of felonies -- or any other persons -- from owning or possessing firearms for other than defensive purposes."

    2. Case Law
    "…this court has held that Article I, section 27, generally precludes the legislature from prohibiting the mere possession of constitutionally protected arms by "any person" but also has noted that the legislature permissibly may regulate the manner of possession and the use of constitutionally protected arms."

    "…the framers viewed citizen arms possession as a critical check on governmental tyranny and as necessary protection against outlaws and enemy attack."
     
  2. Ralgha

    Ralgha Portland Well-Known Member 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    398
    Good find! I wonder how a ballot initiative to make legislators criminally liable for proposing unconstitutional laws would go over. Someone said that such a thing would mean no laws would ever be passed though I disagree.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus that ate your iPhone.
     
  3. aslinged

    aslinged Southern Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    251
    Now we just gotta work on that 'no cannons' part and we'll be getting somewhere.
     
  4. Dunerunner

    Dunerunner You'll Never Know Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,476
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    Would not proposing an Unconstitutional Law, promoting it or drafting it be grounds for impeachment?
     
  5. Kevinkris

    Kevinkris Aloha Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,216
    Likes Received:
    444
    just so happens you can own cannons and the old style mortars(not our modern versions) too. i believe you only need to register it though. never heard of anything special as far as being able to own the older types of artillery or battery type guns.

    it would be hard to proove a case for getting explosives out to everyone. probably wouldnt be a good thing to have the bad gun handlers firing off anything more than a bottle rocket.
     
  6. Dunerunner

    Dunerunner You'll Never Know Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,476
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    Ya Hoo, where is my M16A4!! Check that....My Harrier Jump Jet!!
     
  7. Mark W.

    Mark W. Silverton, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    5,782
    Likes Received:
    4,990
    No problem Cannons as long as they are front stuffing fall under a completely different set of laws and are perfectly legal in Oregon and under Federal law. No tax stamp or anything. I know people with everything from little golf ball motars to one that will throw a 8lb bowling ball a mile+ The same guys also have cannons that will fire from 1" bore all the way up to a 3" And have the accuracy of a good rifle.
     
  8. Ralgha

    Ralgha Portland Well-Known Member 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    398
    How much does a modest cannon cost? Say one that would fire a 2-3 inch diameter ball?
     
  9. dallen1x

    dallen1x Wil_Val, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    46
    Oregon Legislators cannot be impeached.....but they can be charged, brought to trial and dismissed from office.
    I know, I know, it's just a play on words. I think it means that they can be charged in a circuit or district court and not in the Oregon congress. Instead of other congressional members bringing charges of impeachment it could be a private citizen bringing charges in open court.

    Oregon Bill of Rights
    "Section 6. Incompetency or malfeasance of public officer. Public officers shall not be impeached; but incompetency, corruption, malfeasance or delinquency in office may be tried in the same manner as criminal offenses, and judgment may be given of dismissal from office, and such further punishment as may have been prescribed by law. [Created through initiative petition filed July 7, 1910, and adopted by the people Nov. 8, 1910]"

    The sponsors of HB 3200 have committed malfeasance and could be charged.
     
  10. mrblond

    mrblond Salem OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,948
    Likes Received:
    1,789
    you should check out some Civil War reanactor sites. I remember camping a few years ago at Silvercreek falls and waking up one morning to the ground shaking from the cannon fire from one of the battles they were doing.
     
  11. PMKN_PI

    PMKN_PI Milwaukie, Oregon, United States Active Member

    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    187
    SEND THIS TO ALL SIGNERS OF BILL 3200 VIA REGISTERED MAIL.
     
  12. Mark W.

    Mark W. Silverton, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    5,782
    Likes Received:
    4,990
  13. Baggerman

    Baggerman Corvallis, Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    58
    So how do we go about doing this? Does OFF or another organization have an attorney that would take this on?
     
    Squidly and (deleted member) like this.
  14. One-Eyed Ross

    One-Eyed Ross Winlock, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,367
    Likes Received:
    752
    Harrier Jump Jet wouldn't qualify because, as was said in Miller: "...that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

    United States v. Miller
     
  15. Ralgha

    Ralgha Portland Well-Known Member 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    398
  16. bwchase

    bwchase Pacific City Active Member

    Messages:
    202
    Likes Received:
    54
    Thanks to the origional poster for bringing this to the forum.
    The question is whether Ginny B and her ilk even care about the very constitution they
    swore to uphold.
     
  17. clambo

    clambo Vancouver, Wa. Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    370
    Not much at all, especially muzzle loading. I made mine from a scrap locomotive axle. 2 1/2" bore. Concrete filled beer cans as shot. Fairly amazing. It got even better using homemade cannister w/roofing nails. A thousand years from now some archaeologist is gonna wonder who the dumbasses were that drove nails into alder trees backwards and sideways. Wish I could see that.
     
  18. dallen1x

    dallen1x Wil_Val, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    46
    Sorry, no jump-jet. A 30 round AR15 magazine is constitutionally guaranteed though.