MORE Anti Gun Bills in Oregon

[Ralgha]

New OFF Alert: http://www.oregonfirearms.org/avalanche-of-anti-rights-bills-introduced

Bills include requiring you to run from an attacker, requiring liability insurance for every firearm, banning licensed carry in the capitol, and making it harder to get a CHL.

Can we have an election now so we can vote these hacks out of office tomorrow?

Read More

 

[Kable]

You can try to do a recall election. You'll need 25 percent of registered voters to sign something in a short period is time after its initiated. Do you guys not have a cut off for bills? Here in WA there is a time at the beginning of each legislative session where bills for anything can be submitted but there it's a cut off date and I'd they don't make it out of committee by the cut off date they have to wait until next session. Only exception is bills about budgets

 

[duane black]

I like that fact about WA. Allows us to focus on UBC bubblegum.

SB699 is absurd. Why do these people keep targeting us ? 699 specifically targets the good guys. I don't understand wtf is wrong with these people.

 

[Ralgha]

I need a good argument against requiring liability insurance, "it's not fair" doesn't sound good to me. What are other people using?

 

[Glock Jock]

I still, will not comply

 

[PMKN_PI]

I need a good argument against requiring liability insurance, "it's not fair" doesn't sound good to me. What are other people using?

Paying for Insurance would HUGELY effect low income gun owners. Liberal elites have ALWAYS wanted to be the only ones able to protect themselves. So now the poor will have to shell out money just to keep their guns. So if your rich, wont effect you. Poor? I guess the poor will have to be raped, assaulted, robbed in the name of progressivism. That should be brought up at Burdick's town hall.

 

[BSG 75]

Paying for Insurance would HUGELY affect low income gun owners.

+1

Point out to the "progressives" supporting the insurance bill that it will punish the poor who can't afford the insurance, while "the rich" will be able to buy whatever they want. Ask the "progressives" why they are pushing a bill that would punish the poor and favor the rich.

 

[PMKN_PI]

+1

Point out to the "progressives" supporting the insurance bill that it will punish the poor who can't afford the insurance, while "the rich" will be able to buy whatever they want. Ask the "progressives" why they are pushing a bill that would punish the poor and favor the rich.

Burdick's town hall should be fun

 

[duane black]

I just looked at the SB 760. Duty to retreat essentially. WA killed a similar bill this session. Why do progressives want to protect violent felons during the commission of violent felonies ? I just don't get it.

In the other bill thread someone posted a video of that dingbat burdick and some idiot blond discussing her opposition to Oregon measure 11. I don't want to thread jack but if you are bored read about measure 11 crimes. How some one can be in favor of peoples rights that commit measure 11 crimes is beyond absurd.

 

[PMKN_PI]

I just looked at the SB 760. Duty to retreat essentially. WA killed a similar bill this session. Why do progressives want to protect violent felons during the commission of violent felonies ? I just don't get it.

In the other bill thread someone posted a video of that dingbat burdick and some idiot blond discussing her opposition to Oregon measure 11. I don't want to thread jack but if you are bored read about measure 11 crimes. How some one can be in favor of peoples rights that commit measure 11 crimes is beyond absurd.

Ive said it before, and Ill say it until I die. PROGRESSIVES LOVE RAPE. THEY LOVE ASSAULT. THEY LOVE DEAD KIDS. ITS ALL AGENDA ADVANCEMENT FOR THEM. If a woman is raped because she cannot shoot her attacker, people like Burdick are just as guilty as another person holding the victim down while the rapist plunges into his victim. Burdick would be smiling with anticipation and excitement at the sight.

 

[mancat]

Paying for Insurance would HUGELY effect low income gun owners. Liberal elites have ALWAYS wanted to be the only ones able to protect themselves. So now the poor will have to shell out money just to keep their guns. So if your rich, wont effect you. Poor? I guess the poor will have to be raped, assaulted, robbed in the name of progressivism. That should be brought up at Burdick's town hall.

you're mistaken in thinking that liberals would care about laws that affect poor gun owners. poor gun owners = republican white trash baby killers. poor everyone else = angels crying out for help.

and yes, I would love to hear some good arguments against requiring insurance to own guns. my own arguments that "you cannot charge a fee or tax on a constitutional right" has been poorly received by the idiots that support this idea, most of whom seem to equate it with car registration and conveniently overlook the fact that the right to own a car, without infringement, doesn't exist in the bill of rights.

these people are so stupid that they can't envision a scenario for the precedent this would set. imagine requiring slander/libel insurance before speaking in public or commenting online - hey, someone might sue you and you may lose in court, so let's let the insurer cover it. imagine requiring police misconduct insurance because the police or justice system may violate your 4th or 5th amendment rights - hey, you might fall victim to false arrest, and you can't reasonably expect the taxpayers to pay for your public defense or the prosecutor's wages in this time of economic duress, so let's let the insurer cover it.

huge slippery slope.

 

[solv3nt]

Over the weekend, Greenlick, the sponsor of HB3200, was flooded with over 1,000 emails and phone calls, which was enough for him to tuck tail and run from his bill. Write your representatives, they need to hear from you stating that you will not support them in coming elections. It's time for a wakeup call.

 

[chainsaw]

Funny how they want to outlaw guns in the capitol,are they scared or something?

 

[beavertonbuck]

I need a good argument against requiring liability insurance, "it's not fair" doesn't sound good to me. What are other people using?

I will argue that the insurance requirement is an undue burden meant to limit exercising one's natural right to self-defense. For example you aren't required to get a permit or insurance if you want to stand in a public square and exercise your 1st admendment rights. Poll taxes and literacy test have been ruled unconstitutional because they sought to limit access to voting.

Further it is really difficult if no impossible to get firearm specific insurance whatever that means. I work in insurance and can tell you that most renters or homeowners policy will provide some liability coverage for gunowners but only if the shooting was accidental or in self-defense. So I think they are hoping to limit people being able to exercise their right to bear arms. Also notice this is just to own arms and is not tied to getting a CHL.

 

[PiratePast40]

I need a good argument against requiring liability insurance, "it's not fair" doesn't sound good to me. What are other people using?

The first thing is that you would need to register your guns to show that you had a need to buy insurance. After that, it's forcing people to purchase a product, based not on useage of public resources, but to pay for services or damages caused by others. We just saw the same thing applied to health care in that it was declared a tax and not a fee. That's not exactly the same but the same principal.

Something that keeps getting lost in the discussion is that shooting and killing people is allready illegal! If you perform an illegal act, you go to jail, not buy insurance.

 

[DMax]

WHy don't they make the capital a gun free zone including law enforcement. I dare them to do it. Those cowards will not do that instead they go after free, law abiding people and take away there liberty. The progressives, nothing more than communists lite.

 

[DireWolf]

Ive said it before, and Ill say it until I die. PROGRESSIVES LOVE RAPE. THEY LOVE ASSAULT. THEY LOVE DEAD KIDS. ITS ALL AGENDA ADVANCEMENT FOR THEM. If a woman is raped because she cannot shoot her attacker, people like Burdick are just as guilty as another person holding the victim down while the rapist plunges into his victim. Burdick would be smiling with anticipation and excitement at the sight.

You are a troubled individual.

 

[mortar maggot]

Insurance is an undue burden.

It is basically a "poll tax" so you can excercise a right, think voting in the Southern states.

It is wrong

criminals will not get insurance, only law abiding citizens, many will not be able to afford said insurance, so they will then become criminals.

I must have insurance that covers me from criminal acts, of a person stealing my gun and then said person using the gun to shoot someone. Is there any insurance out there that covers this for any subject not just guns?

Tell all gunowners and potential gunowners, it is not just "Assault Weapons" or semi auto-matics, it is a full out assault on all guns and gun owners, they will not stop, they will chip away and get what they can, when and where they can.

 

[Baggerman]

So I am again today sending emails and making phone calls and will do so EVERY bubblegumING DAY!

 

[iGun]

I am really disturbed and frightened by these new proposals. I have used a handgun to defend my family during a home invasion. The requirement to retreat would have endangered us, given the layout of the house. Instead no one was injured, including the criminal.

Current laws regarding use of force are already quite restrictive: the law requires means, intent, and opportunity to do harm.

It appears that our representatives want us to be helpless.