Oregon New Petition Oregon 2020-008

[USAisTheBest]

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

The Tenth Amendment says otherwise.

 

[USAisTheBest]

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

Understandably, it is not my intent to derail your want to bring attention to this, but it is only a draft and not in stone. So many of us have opinions of what should or shouldn't be included in the current a and futue language. That I feel is applicable here.

 

[Ura-Ki]

@Kruejl tough call brother I'm gonna back out for a while, no sense letting this crash the party!

In the words of the immortal Clark W. Grizwold, LATER DUDES!

 

[USAisTheBest]

@Kruejl tough call brother I'm gonna back out for a while, no sense letting this crash the party!

In the words of the immortal Clark W. Grizwold, LATER DUDES!

@Krueji is making the right call. Rhetoric does not change laws, or constitutional precedence. We all love the 2A, but that should never make use ignore the rest of the very valuable Amendments.

 

[Mister Bisley]

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.

Nice 1st post.

 

[3MTA3]

The Tenth Amendment says otherwise.

Pray tell, what part of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" means a State can ignore any element of the Bill of Rights or any other Amendment? Did not each State agree to the US Constitution in it's entirety, including Amendments, when they joined the Union?

 

[USAisTheBest]

Pray tell, what part of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" means a State can ignore any element of the Bill of Rights or any other Amendment? Did not each State agree to the US Constitution in it's entirety, including Amendments, when they joined the Union?

You'll have to give me specific context for your question so I can better answer it.

 

[USAisTheBest]

Pray tell, what part of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" means a State can ignore any element of the Bill of Rights or any other Amendment? Did not each State agree to the US Constitution in it's entirety, including Amendments, when they joined the Union?

As far as your second question I feel I should remind you that the Consititon has changed over the years and it does not require unanimous agreement to ratify Amendments. The 10th is in place to assure that rights given by the Constitution are not the only rights, allowing states to modify laws as their own democracy votes.

 

[3MTA3]

You'll have to give me specific context for your question so I can better answer it.

Let's try the post you replied to with your statement regarding the Tenth Amendment:

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

Is that enough context or do you need something more specific?

 

[USAisTheBest]

Let's try the post you replied to with your statement regarding the Tenth Amendment:


Is that enough context or do you need something more specific?

No, it is not. But I'll do my best. The BOR is as ever open to interpretation and has had many Supreme Court cases had in deciding those interpretations. That's important, because the tenth gives states the rights that aren't specifically given and interpretations by our SC. So if the court rules this law does not cover so and so, then that frees the state to vote and make its own laws on the matter.

 

[USAisTheBest]

Let's try the post you replied to with your statement regarding the Tenth Amendment:


Is that enough context or do you need something more specific?

I understand many 2A supporters (definitely not all, perhaps not even a majority) want to have supreme freedom when it comes to guns. As few laws as possible. But that just isn't the reality we live in, nor is it a secure interpretation of the 2A. The tenth will always be apart of the 2A debate as unless ruled upon conclusively by the SC once and for all, states will have rights to create gun control, and that's important part of national balance. You don't have to agree, but that's reality. I don't believe In a free for all, mostly because I don't believe All citizens are good gun owners.

 

[SUPER X]

Prolly wanna let that dog alone, we WANT national constitutional carry, and national reciprocity, so it might be best to leave that for another fight at another time![/QUOT

Even if it does not pass I'm sure it will burn up some of the anti money and energy buying airtime and articles to lie about it .I seen ceasefire has something in the works to ban hollow point ammo and some other nonsense.

 

[USAisTheBest]

Let's try the post you replied to with your statement regarding the Tenth Amendment:


Is that enough context or do you need something more specific?

I hope I answered your questions, if you're interested in learning more about how our rights intermingle I'd be happy to make a list of some good academic books and articles.

 

[bbbass]

Ok, kiddo.

Ok mr big time public educator who can't be challenged because he knows everything and is always right. Schoolkids don't talk back, do they. Maybe you're a bit spoiled?

 

[3MTA3]

I hope I answered your questions, if you're interested in learning more about how our rights intermingle I'd be happy to make a list of some good academic books and articles.

You did and we do agree on this point:

That's important, because the tenth gives states the rights that aren't specifically given and interpretations by our SC. So if the court rules this law does not cover so and so, then that frees the state to vote and make its own laws on the matter.

EDIT: But then again, that is pretty much what the Tenth states

 

[USAisTheBest]

Ok mr big time public educator who can't be challenged because he knows everything and is always right. Schoolkids don't talk back, do they. Maybe you're a bit spoiled?

You're absolutely welcome to challenge me on anything you wish, as long as it's respectfully done. And of course backed up by accurate factual information, or sourced precedence.

 

[Konajay]

Love to see us on the offensive side of things, but I gotta admit I don't like the language regarding NFA regulated items. I would rather see language protecting legally owned and registered NFA items

 

[USAisTheBest]

You did and we do agree on this point:

I'm glad to hear. The tenth is very important. If ever there was a majority to ratify the 2nd the 10th May be the only thing keeping certain states as "free" states for gun owners.

 

[bbbass]

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.

Lot's of people say "God given"... tho indeed I was being provocative when I wrote that. Reality is... I really don't care whether people say natural rights (which also has a problematic history) or God given.

But the guys that wrote the constitution did not consider that they were "giving" us rights... surely you mean that in a different way... I prefer to understand it as they affirmed or verified those rights that are implicit to being a free human being. If you read the Federalist Papers, you can learn all about what those smart dudes thought, researched, understood, believed, and enshrined in a blueprint for a new Republic. It's worthwhile reading.

 

[USAisTheBest]

You did and we do agree on this point:


EDIT: But then again, that is pretty much what the Tenth states

Well as to your addition think of it this way. The 2A doesn't say anything about 30 round mags, so therefore we get to thankfully live in a state that says we can own them unlike other states. The tenth is to thank for smaller more specific laws based on contemporary firearms.