New image in support of concealed carry and ending "gun-free" zones

[FreedomNW]

This image will be posted tomorrow. Please let me know if you have any comments or input.

Read More

 

[krkruse]

Where are you posting it? If you put it on NWFAs Facebook I would repost it.

 

[gryghin]

That is awesome. Let us know where you post it, so that we can share. Hooyah!

 

[FreedomNW]

I have been posting on Twitter: www.twitter.com/freedomnw
And all of the images are on Flickr: Flickr: freedomnw's Photostream

All the images are free to share, email, post on Facebook, print out, etc.
I am not quite set up on Facebook yet.

Check them out an let me know if you have any suggestions, see anything that needs correction, or if you have any ideas for graphics to create. I have a bunch in the hopper that will be coming out over the next week or so. Some are more compelling than others but you never know what will strike a chord with people.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

That is very well done! Great job!

 

[PainCakesx]

This image will be posted tomorrow. Please let me know if you have any comments or input.

View attachment 58450

One thing - the Clackamas Mall isn't technically a gun free zone. If you recall, it was even stopped by a legal CCW holder.

 

[Doctnt]

Actually, Clackamas town center states, they are a "Gun Free Zone." They will ask you to leave if they see or know you are legally armed.

 

[Slowpoke]

One thing - the Clackamas Mall isn't technically a gun free zone.

According to this sign, it is.

 

[FreedomNW]

I debated whether or not to include Clackamas. As noted above, they appear to have some posted signs about no carry. At the same time, there was a CHL there that most likely prevented it from being a much worst situation. In any case, I ended up leaving it on since it can spur a conversation either way. As any rational person would admit, someone willing to commit mass murder certainly isn't going to give a concern about a no weapons sign.

 

[Slowpoke]

As just an aside, does this make it a double negative?

"Examples of specific activities that are not permitted include, but are not limited to:" "No firearms or illegal weapons"

 

[CounterOfBeans]

This image will be posted tomorrow. Please let me know if you have any comments or input.

View attachment 58450

One comment I have is that while this ad seems to do a good job of making the case for why Citizens should be empowered to protect themselves and others, it also appears to reinforce the premise that Citizens can only protect themselves with concealed firearms if they first get government permission to do so in the form of a "license". The lawful definition of "license" in Oregon doesn't support this idea. See ORS 183.310(5) below:

"ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT
(General Provisions)
183.310 Definitions for chapter. As used in this chapter:
(5) "License" includes the whole or part of any agency permit, certificate, approval, registration or similar form of permission required by law to pursue any commercial activity, trade, occupation or profession."

The Administrative Procedures Act is the body of law that governs how executive branch agencies and people carry out their duties of "administering" the legislative intent of the law. In 183.310(5) above, the adjective "commercial" is THE only word the legislature uses to describe what "license" applies to. So if we take it seriously that we are a nation governed by the rule of "law", then why are we Citizens so eager to get permission to pursue a commercial activity in order to exercise a fundamental right?

 

[FreedomNW]

That is a technical oversight. The language is shared with a similar one done regarding national carry. Also, the audience for this is the uninformed or people who have a negative assumption about who concealed carry people are. The intention is to let the skeptical know that at least as of current law, people 'authorized' to carry are screened by law enforcement and otherwise decent responsible people.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

That is a technical oversight.

How do you mean "technical oversight"? Oversight by whom?

The language is shared with a similar one done regarding national carry.

Which "similar one" regarding national carry are you referring to? Any link?

Also, the audience for this is the uninformed or people who have a negative assumption about who concealed carry people are. The intention is to let the skeptical know that at least as of current law, people 'authorized' to carry are screened by law enforcement and otherwise decent responsible people.

If the goal is to enlighten an audience that is uninformed, then in light of what the "law" says about what "license" means, how is perpetuating a legal falsity of CHL legitimacy making people more informed?

Does pandering to irrational hand-wringers (who have been trained to think of guns as the cause of gun crime) help the cause of gun rights when we reinforce CHL policies that infringe gun owners' rights to self-defense?

 

[RoneKiln]

CounterOfBeans, I think trying to tackle that level of detail in a little picture people will be posting on FB and Twitter would completely fail to reach its target audience. I fully agree with your legal arguments, but the picture is not meant for those as informed as you nor those that are willing to become as informed as you. When one is forced to keep something simple, it will often fail to be accurate. The complexity required to keep many things accurate would alienate and lose the "student." It sucks, but its how most people work. We can give up on all those people, or work on their level to try to educate them the best we can.

 

[FreedomNW]

Oversight by the artist.

Other images at: Flickr: freedomnw's Photostream

The bigger picture that RoneKiln points out is that the point is to distribute these, not be overly picky about the fine details.

Also, from a tactical standpoint, the enemies of firearms ownership are willing to take away rights a small chunk at a time. We need to make attempts to reclaim the ground one chunk at a time. While nothing is perfect, if we attempt to get all of the rights back at once and fail, what have we gained? If we fight amongst ourselves over technical details, and only talk to ourselves, what have we gained?

What these politicians are doing is unconscionable and the public needs to be informed and persuaded to care about what the politicians are trying to say isn't a big deal.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

CounterOfBeans, I think trying to tackle that level of detail in a little picture people will be posting on FB and Twitter would completely fail to reach its target audience.

I understand what you're saying here, but just because it took a little esplain'n to make my case on this thread, it doesn't mean it can't be quick and simple on an educational flyer like the one above. It could say something as simple as:

"Oregon law (ORS 183.310(5)) defines 'license' as 'permission required by law to pursue a commercial activity'. So why does the man on the right need a concealed handgun 'license' to protect his family and neighbors from the criminals on the left? Do we actually need CHLs to defend ourselves? Maybe it's time to get back to basics by challenging the farce of licensing our fundamental rights"

Maybe this language could be whittled down even more or changed, but the existing flyer uses 19 lines of text to argue it's point. An accurate flyer that keeps a lay readers' attention doesn't have to be a legal dissertation.

RE: FreedomNW's comments at post #15.... In terms of a tactical standpoint, if your flyer simply raises awareness that "license" only legally applies to "commercial" activities, that gamble could also pay off in terms of starting a wildfire of public indignation about CHL policies that altogether changes the gun rights debate game in general. If it doesn't turn out that way, then fine, put out another flyer that does what your original does now. Or better still, put out one of each as an experiment to see what kind of reactions you get from them by comparison. If you put out a flyer with the "license" issue raised, it's not like you have sealed your fate from ever being able to put out other flyers. Anyway, I've said my peace and if there's no interest then I tried and I still appreciate your efforts in defense of gun rights. Good luck.

 

[FreedomNW]

Time is of the essence here. We don't really have the luxury of doing market research to see what is most impactful.

Right now, what we are dealing with is a number of new bills to limit where CHL's can go such as schools, universities, etc. They are trying to institute "gun free" zones in Oregon where they do not currently exist. The point is not to argue whether a license, permit, or what ever the card says on it should be required. That is a different argument and not one that is currently before the legislature.

Yes, in a constitutional sense, the right to bear arms should not require a license. But these are the times we are in. The one in my wallet says "Concealed Handgun License." That is what we have to deal with and I at least still wish to move freely around the state without having to worry about who owns a building I enter and if I may inadvertently commit a felony for doing so.

Because after all, the murderers certainly don't care.

 

[FreedomNW]

All of these images are over on Facebook now and can be shared:

http://www.facebook.com/freedomnw

Please "like" and "share" to help spread the word on all the images.

 

[FreedomNW]

Direct link to images page. More images coming soon.

https://www.facebook.com/freedomnw/photos_stream