Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by FreedomNW, Mar 4, 2013.
This image will be posted tomorrow. Please let me know if you have any comments or input.
Where are you posting it? If you put it on NWFAs Facebook I would repost it.
That is awesome. Let us know where you post it, so that we can share. Hooyah!
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.
That is very well done! Great job!
One thing - the Clackamas Mall isn't technically a gun free zone. If you recall, it was even stopped by a legal CCW holder.
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.
According to this sign, it is.
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.
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"
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
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?
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.
How do you mean "technical oversight"? Oversight by whom?
Which "similar one" regarding national carry are you referring to? Any link?
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?
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.
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.
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.
All of these images are over on Facebook now and can be shared:
Please "like" and "share" to help spread the word on all the images.
Direct link to images page. More images coming soon.
Separate names with a comma.