- Messages
- 889
- Reactions
- 233
Thank you both, Stomper and Bark.
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.
Part of an OFF alert, I agree that this may not be a bad thing, less federal involvement the better.
(But there are other considerations.
As you know, OFF worked hard to get Oregon to recognize other state's permits this past session. We do not believe that an American should have to ask permission to exercise a right, but as long as the permit system is alive (against our wishes) we will work to allow your license to be valid in other states, and other states' permits to be valid here.
Still, we are not sure that this proposed amendment was the best way to go about this.
Most gun owners wonder why a driver's license is good anywhere in the country but a CHL is not.
That's a good question. But keep in mind, driver's licenses were always the domain of the states. Now, the FEDs have moved in to use them as a back-door national id card.
If the states do not comply with Federal mandates on driver's licenses. they will not be acceptable ID for boarding planes or entering Federal buildings. The long and belligerent arm of the Federal Government has stepped in on driver's licenses. What happens when they do the same on CHL's?
The problem I have with this is that Oregon, back in the day (1972), required my birth certificate to get my DL. They issued my ODL and it has served as my ID ever since. I have no idea where my original BC went, and would have to contact the state, at my expense, time etc. to get another one.While I understand the distrust of the Federal "Gooberment" in the handling of PRIVATE information and its potential for nefarious uses, the "Real I.D. Act" simply mandates that the individual States MUST ensure that when they issue an OFFICAL piece of I.D. to a person, that they PROVE that person is who they say they are via acceptable standards.... otherwise what's the point of I.D.? I agree with the reasons for the RIDA... we have too many "hard working, honest" illegal aliens running around with bogus Oregon I.D., who should NOT be in possession of ANY goverment issued documents with the exception of their deportation papers!!
I actually called Merkley's office this moroning(though that's a spelling error it may be more accurate when our Senators are involved).....you ought to hear his press release......."blah, blah, we don't want the States to be subject to Federal regulation in something that should be the State's business, don't want other States with lower restrictions to allow concealed carry holders in Oregon........blah, blah"......I asked the press release be read to me by the nice guy in the Portland Office that answered. The interesting thing is when I asked the guy if he was aware that the requirements for CHL holder in Oregon were some of the lowest in the States, and that this was a benefit to Oregon, it seemed like a revelation. Wasn't Merkley a State Senator or Representative first? He should know this.
Merkley is simply a tool of the Democratic leadership. He as no opinions of his own and he is completely clueless when it comes to 2nd Amendment issues.
Mike, I agree he is a "tool", but I beg to differ... Merkley is NOT clueless on the 2A and I believe he knows EXACLTY what he is doing... trying to tear down the 2A in any way he can.
So if Vermont said convicted rapists, murderers, 9/11 terrorists, and the criminally insane were entitled to concealed carry permits, and Oregon thought that was wrong, it would be OK for the federal government to cram that Vermont permit down Oregon's throat, with no ability of Oregon to say no?
What if the feds said Oregon had to respect Vermont's restrictions on CHL permits. OK with that too?
Oregon is a sovereign state. You may favor federal hegemony, but I do not.
+1.
Sorry guys, but in this case I'm going with State's rights.
Utah may decide it's OK for felons to own and carry... I have no ability to effect the election of Utah politicians. I will not have people I didn't have a chance ot vote for effecting me, either way. I will not depend on the "sanity of all 49 other states".
This may be a pain in the rear in this case, but states rights end up helping us in the long term. I'm not willing to give them up. Choose your issue and 9/10 we want state's rights to prevail.
The fact is the 2nd amendment isn't a state right it is a national right of every qualifying American citizen. As Stomper said the federal government is obligated to honor this right, they are not, under the constitution, empowered to take it away thought, and that point is where some are misunderstanding the states right argument.
Well, then argue for a national CHL. As long as other states can decide who carries without my ability to vote them out of office, it's a state right.
I totally agree that there should be a national CHL with national requirements. That would fit 2A. Forcing me to recognize what some other state decides on a bad day is state's rights, regardless of the issue.
You are making a constitutional argument, but I am not. I am making a process argument. Our federal government has a history of f&*(ing up process to someone else's advantage.