Oregon New Petition Oregon 2020-008

[EricW]

The wording of section 3(g) concerns me. i.e. - "(g) those who carry or use firearms in public". I assume the intent is to call out those who illegally carry or use firearms in public...?

The wording as-is would include any of us who conceal carry (carry firearms in public), wouldn't it? Thereby leaving the door open for an outright ban on carrying in all public spaces, permit or no.

Feel free to set me straight if I'm misreading or being overly paranoid.

Under sec. 1: Laws regulating firearms may not place unreasonable burdens or special liabilities upon the right to acquire a common firearm for self-defense, or to keep it in a readily available operable state for self-defense within one's home, when carried upon one's person or when temporarily transferred to another person for a lawful purpose.


Currently the state of Oregon has the constitutional authority to regulate carrying in public for public safety purposes (otherwise the concealed carry laws would be unconstitutional). This measure would specify that the state's (existing) authority to regulate publicly carried firearms cannot unreasonably burden your ability to keep such a firearm in an operable state for self-defense. It limits the power of the state (slightly) but does not expand it.

 

[bbbass]

Not gonna interact with you if you can't muster some basic manners in speaking to me. I made no insults to you, so I see no reason why you feel the need. I'm glad you're secure in your opinion, but that doesn't change I'm right historically, and legally speaking. I'm educated and lived long enough to know what I'm talking about, but won't have a conversation with someone that can't show basic respect. Just cause we're gun owners doesn't make us friends.

Your right, I have no respect for you. You failed to read my initial response in an intelligent manner and implied that I am for big government.

Thank you for saying you will not interact with me. You just signed up today, and you've already made my IGNORE list... a new record!!!!!

 

[USAisTheBest]

Your right, I have no respect for you. You failed to read my initial response in an intelligent manner and implied that I am for big government.

Thank you for saying you will not interact with me. You just signed up today, and you've already made my IGNORE list... a new record!!!!!

Ok, kiddo.

 

[Kruel J]

The right to keep and bear arms is not a "god given" right. Sorry guys. It is a right given to us by some pretty smart dudes for their time.

 

[bbbass]

And before to respond I taught American history and government for many years, and atop that I know an uninformed, uneducated, and immature response when I see one. You got some growing up to do.

A good example of the idiots that have been teaching our children. And since you would not listen to the INFO that was in my first post put there to help with your IGNORANCE, and refuse to learn, I'd say that YOU are the one with some growing up to do.

Yeah, I'm pizzed off. You come in here on the first day and want to take everybody on. I don't like what you say, and I don't like your attitude.

 

[Kruel J]

A good example of the idiots that have been teaching our children. And since you would not listen to the INFO that was in my first post put there to help with your IGNORANCE, and refuse to learn, I'd say that YOU are the one with some growing up to do.

Yeah, I'm pizzed off. You come in here on the first day and want to take everybody on. I don't like what you say, and I don't like your attitude.

I think you need to tone it down a bit, brother. Remember rule #1 here at NWFA.

 

[KEMOSABEJR1]

Got it. Not a constitutional scholar like some of us on here. Glad to know!

 

[USAisTheBest]

A good example of the idiots that have been teaching our children. And since you would not listen to the INFO that was in my first post put there to help with your IGNORANCE, and refuse to learn, I'd say that YOU are the one with some growing up to do.

Yeah, I'm pizzed off. You come in here on the first day and want to take everybody on. I don't like what you say, and I don't like your attitude.

The way I see it this space is welcome to all gun owners. And an attitude such as yours makes it seem as if you own this space, which you don't.

You're so far acting like a child: name calling, tantrum, and generally immature.

If anything this is a space for adults who own firearms and are educated on those rights

 

[tiggers97]

Simple, and straight forward. Common sense and reasonable. I like it.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Sorry, disagree. I don't see it as a states rights issue. In my mind 2A rights include right to carry, therefore under the constitution states don't have precedence over constitutional rights. IMO everybody should be allowed the method of carry that they wish without the need for the governments permission. Talk about big government. Just because some folks are afraid, does not mean that others don't get to exercise their rights. As a libertarian ideology, I say keep yer mitts off my right to carry!

Maybe I move to Idaho...

You got it!
Let's all back the truck up here for a min and have a look at the first lines of the BOR, that spells it out EXACTLY as it IS intended to be used! LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, BESTOWED BY OUR CREATOR!
No where does it say "God"!
The 2nd dosnt ask permission, Ever, and concealed carry IS and should always be considered a 2nd right, BESTOWED by the creator! I don't want, or need a state preempting this RIGHT, and further more, most states are more specific in their interpretation of the National BOR, especially when it comes to the 2nd! What we want is national Constitutional carry, NO PERMIT required, no state or locality Permission slip and fee to excersize a RIGHT!
@USAisTheBest ,your new here, ( And Welcome aboard by the way! ) and that's fine, but the forum has a certain flow in these discussions, and one of the things we work very hard to avoide is flaming on members! I'm not a moderator, but I do caution you to tread softly during the first several weeks until you get a good feel for how things run around here! I recommend taking a deep breath before posting, especially something emotionally charged or derogatory, especially toward well known and highly respected members here!

 

[USAisTheBest]

You got it!
Let's all back the truck up here for a min and have a look at the first lines of the BOR, that spells it out EXACTLY as it IS intended to be used! LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, BESTOWED BY OUR CREATOR!
No where does it say "God"!
The 2nd dosnt ask permission, Ever, and concealed carry IS and should always be considered a 2nd right, BESTOWED by the creator! I don't want, or need a state preempting this RIGHT, and further more, most states are more specific in their interpretation of the National BOR, especially when it comes to the 2nd! What we want is national Constitutional carry, NO PERMIT required, no state or locality Permission slip and fee to excersize a RIGHT!
@USAisTheBest ,your new here, ( And Welcome aboard by the way! ) and that's fine, but the forum has a certain flow in these discussions, and one of the things we work very hard to avoide is flaming on members! I'm not a moderator, but I do caution you to tread softly during the first several weeks until you get a good feel for how things run around here! I recommend taking a deep breath before posting, especially something emotionally charged or derogatory, especially toward well known and highly respected members here!

I appreciate the advice, but as a man in his late 60s that fought in wars, taught, and got multiple degrees, and has spoken with nothing but respect and educated opinions I feel no need to tread lightly. Nor will I censor myself for anyone else's benefit. I'm an American and I don't shirk at anyone no matter how well known or respected they are to you. You're just another man to me, nothing more. I give no special credence to your idea of privilege here.

 

[USAisTheBest]

You got it!
Let's all back the truck up here for a min and have a look at the first lines of the BOR, that spells it out EXACTLY as it IS intended to be used! LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, BESTOWED BY OUR CREATOR!
No where does it say "God"!
The 2nd dosnt ask permission, Ever, and concealed carry IS and should always be considered a 2nd right, BESTOWED by the creator! I don't want, or need a state preempting this RIGHT, and further more, most states are more specific in their interpretation of the National BOR, especially when it comes to the 2nd! What we want is national Constitutional carry, NO PERMIT required, no state or locality Permission slip and fee to excersize a RIGHT!
@USAisTheBest ,your new here, ( And Welcome aboard by the way! ) and that's fine, but the forum has a certain flow in these discussions, and one of the things we work very hard to avoide is flaming on members! I'm not a moderator, but I do caution you to tread softly during the first several weeks until you get a good feel for how things run around here! I recommend taking a deep breath before posting, especially something emotionally charged or derogatory, especially toward well known and highly respected members here!

Some friendly advice in return I'd ditch the threatening language, and speaking as if you speak for everyone in how they feel and what they want. It's presumptuous at best, sir.

 

[RaceFan]

I LOVE this IP effort. I've made a few suggestions below.

I believe our primary effort and focus should be to effectively stop future ban attempts. We can work on conceal carry and other matters later.

JMHO.

Section 27b. (1) The right to bear arms includes the unrestricted, legal ability to acquire, possess, use, or transfer common firearms for self-defense. Laws regulating firearms shall not cause, or place unreasonable burdens or special liabilities upon the right to acquire and possess a common firearm for self-defense, or to keep it in a readily available operable state for self-defense within one's home, when legally carried upon one's person, or when temporarily transferred to another person for a lawful purpose.

(2) "Common firearms for self-defense" are firearms that enable persons having reasonable proficiency to defend themselves or others and include those firearms and compatible ammunition magazines that were not subject to civilian purchase restrictions as of July 1, 2018, in Oregon, other than mandatory background checks. "Common firearms for self-defense" also include any functionally similar models of firearms, mechanical actions, or magazines developed thereafter, so long as such items are not subject to civilian purchase restrictions under federal law at the time of purchase. "Common firearms for self-defense" do not include devices subject to purchase restrictions covered under the National Firearms Act, such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles or shotguns, other destructive devices, nor do such firearms include any firearm accessories or modifications used to enable or mimic automatic firing, including but not limited to "bump stocks." No firearm shall be excluded from the definition of a "common firearm for self-defense" because it utilizes a semi-automatic action, a threaded barrel, the capacity to mount an accessory feature that is otherwise legal for civilian ownership under federal law, or a grip or stock configuration that is not designed to mimic automatic firing.

(3) This section does not prevent the authority of the state or its authorized subdivisions to enforce firearm regulations in effect as of July 1, 2018, or any regulations enacted thereafter that are specifically limited to regulating the acquisition, possession or use of firearms by: (a) minors (b) non-citizens; (c) persons under arrest, pre- or post-conviction state supervision or those with prior felony convictions; (d) those under domestic violence restraining orders or other court orders limiting access to or possession of firearms following notice to the individual and an opportunity to be heard before a judge; (e) those who have had their possession of or access to firearms temporarily limited pursuant to legal processes designed to determine if they pose a serious risk to self or others; (f) those adjudicated to be mentally defective, incompetent or a serious risk to self or others, or those involuntarily committed to a mental health facility; (g) those who carry or use firearms in public, or (h) anyone prohibited from possessing firearms under Oregon or federal law.

(4) Nothing in this section expands the authority of the State or any of its political subdivisions to regulate firearms, nor limits any other rights otherwise retained by the People of Oregon under Article I, Section 27.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Uncle TED said it best, the 2nd IS my Concealed carry permit, States that Preempt that are constitutionally wrong, PERIOD!
What part of Shall Not be Infringed is the problem here, States have created a permission to excercize a right where none existed, that needs to be changes and the States need to be brought to heal!

 

[3MTA3]

@Kruejl or other moderator - this thread has value in terms of supportive positive firearms legislation and is being derailed by a pissing match. Respectfully, could we move the pissing match to a new thread or simply clean it up have folks slug it out via PM? I'm afraid that if one of the sponsors of this IP reads this they will back away slowly and then run for it.

 

[USAisTheBest]

Uncle TED said it best, the 2nd IS my Concealed carry permit, States that Preempt that are constitutionally wrong, PERIOD!
What part of Shall Not be Infringed is the problem here, States have created a permission to excercize a right where none existed, that needs to be changes and the States need to be brought to heal!

States need to be brought to heel...

This is the kind of talk fascists use. States rights are a constitutional right just like the 2nd.

 

[USAisTheBest]

@Kruejl or other moderator - this thread has value in terms of supportive positive firearms legislation and is being derailed by a pissing match. Respectfully, could we move the pissing match to a new thread or simply clean it up have folks slug it out via PM? I'm afraid that if one of the sponsors of this IP reads this they will back away slowly and then run for it.

Sponsors should be open to multiple views of various gun owners. We all don't think alike, and all opinions should be heard. Shutting down basic debate is not the answer to bettering gun rights

 

[Ura-Ki]

And STATE rights do not have preemption over National rights, NOT when its a BOR issue! Never did, never will!

 

[Kruel J]

@Kruejl or other moderator - this thread has value in terms of supportive positive firearms legislation and is being derailed by a pissing match. Respectfully, could we move the pissing match to a new thread or simply clean it up have folks slug it out via PM? I'm afraid that if one of the sponsors of this IP reads this they will back away slowly and then run for it.

I'm not sure I could clean it without it losing some valuable context.

 

[3MTA3]

Sponsors should be open to multiple views of various gun owners. We all don't think alike, and all opinions should be heard. Shutting down basic debate is not the answer to bettering gun rights

I'm not advocating shutting down debate. I'm advocating keeping this thread on topic.