Oregon New Petition Oregon 2020-008

[CommonFirearms]

@Joe Link we should invite the chief petitioners to join this conversation on NWFA:
Eric Winters [email protected]
Sharon Preston [email protected]
Carlyan Castellano [email protected]

I'm here.

 

[Mister Bisley]

The right to bear arms is a timeless natural right and precedes the US Constitution and the BOR. All that our BOR does is put it into documentation to secure it's future. The right to keep and bear arms is the people's right to defend themselves. They did this to ensure that the armed populace could fight a tyrannical govt. Men wrote philosophical writings about it long before the USA was a glimmer of hope, including Aristotle, Cicero and Machiavelli.

In England, in the late 1600s, it was written in their BOR to "have Arms for their Defense suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law". This came about because the king would ask generals and such to design cutting edge weaponry. Once they displayed the new powerful weapons, the king would confiscate them in fears of being overthrown.

 

[3MTA3]

I'm here.

Thanks for coming and even more thanks for initiating a pro Second Amendment Initiative! There has been quite a bit of discussion about IP-8 and, as always in an Internet forum quite a bit of off topic drift.

 

[Stomper]

The constitution is a governmental document literally giving you permission to own and carry guns.

States rights is a constitutional issue, period. There's no argument that can refute that. It's literally in the words of the Amendment.

Democracy works best on the small scale within the community such as a state where those actually living there get to decide how those coming in get to benefit. Oregon doesn't owe Georgia the right to conceal carry.

If you like big government making big choices for you, by all means support that avenue, but in the end the benefits only last when that power support something you support, they can just as easily use same power to squash your other rights.

It is very much a states rights issue.

Your logic is flawed on concealed carry reciprocity, and here's why. Case in point, driving a motor vehicle is a privilege (not an enumerated right) and one must obtain a license (permission slip) to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. Your State driver license is valid in ALL 50 States...

There are several ways to explain this, but the most evident is Article IV, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

Section 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

It is generally accepted that Americans can freely move between states, even though they have different, sovereign laws. It would be impractical for people to have to obtain a driver's license for every state they intended to pass through. So, each state recognizes the driver's licenses of all the others.

It would also be impractical (if not impossible) for a citizen to obtain a CC license (BTW- a permission slip to exercise an enumerated right), so each State should recognize the CC license of all others.


The 2A is NOT a States Rights issue.

No, it's a state issue. As clearly stated in the wording.


Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


If it was a human right it apply to the world.

A free "state" isn't referring to "THE State". The ENTIRE context of the Bill of Rights (that contains the 2A) concern individual rights, therefore a "free state" refers to a state of being.... being in a state of freedom.

Notice also it does NOT say being necessary to the security of "free stateS" (there were 13 at the time)... the founders were weary of an all powerful centralized State since they had recently fought one off at great personal costs.

The founders wanted to live in a state of personal liberty and freedom.

When you write such things, you are falling into the progressive trap of thinking that rights come from government. That's total BS. Some things are privileges, like driving, others are rights. The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution are called the Bill of Rights, not the bill of government provided permissions. Learn it, Friend!!!!

Otherwise, I think we agree.

"He's" not in the Progressive trap, "he's" setting the traps. "His" posts are right out of the Rules For Radicals playbook..... I.C.U.... Schmedley!

 

[Kruel J]

"He" is on vacation, @Stomper. A long one.

 

[Stomper]

"He" is on vacation, @Stomper. A long one.

Did you make like a coil gun and flush?



Man... I was just getting warmed up... many anti-2A's (wearing sheep's clothing) underestimate me by my jockularity... to their own folly.

 

[Kruel J]

Did you make like a coil gun and flush?



Man... I was just getting warmed up... many anti-2A's (wearing sheep's clothing) underestimate me by my jockular... to their own folly.

I'm sure your services will be required again soon, Stomper.

 

[Mister Bisley]

We are being infiltrated by the day

 

[Kruel J]

We are being infiltrated by the day

Agreed, and of the 42,000+ members here, there is a VERY small handful of us that are here to deal with it. So if we seem a little edgy lately, cut us some slack guys.

 

[Stomper]

I'm sure your services will be required again soon, Stomper.

Yes, business is guuuuud.

 

[Stomper]

Agreed, and of the 42,000+ members here, there is a VERY small handful of us that are here to deal with it. So if we seem a little edgy lately, cut us some slack guys.

Edgy? Hell, I like y'all sharp n' stuff!

 

[3MTA3]

For a guy with that member name, that is a funny! JK

Sorry man, I don't back down easy and did not throw the first insult. However, I would be happy to duke it out in PM mode. Did not realize I was spoiling the thread. But I get what you are saying... I'm out.

You weren't the issue

The back story on my handle is that back in the 90's I saw my first Acura NSX, a dream car at the time for me. Better yet, it was being driven by a VERY attractive blond, so I had to shadow it for a while as we drove southbound on I-5. After a while I couldn't hold my lane up any longer and pulled ahead. As I took a last look in my rear view mirror I finally figured what her license plate "3M TA3" meant. True story.

 

[bbbass]

You weren't the issue

The back story on my handle is that back in the 90's I saw my first Acura NSX, a dream car at the time for me. Better yet, it was being driven by a VERY attractive blond, so I had to shadow it for a while as we drove southbound on I-5. After a while I couldn't hold my lane up any longer and pulled ahead. As I took a last look in my rear view mirror I finally figured what her license plate "3M TA3" meant. True story.

I luv it. And you were wishing your license plate read "NETIME".

BTW, I was here a long time before I understood your screen name.

 

[Defense Minister]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Declaration of Independence

So, my point here is this: If we have the Right to Life, it is implied that we have the Right to defend that same Life, anywhere, anytime, in any country, against anyone or any thing, whether we are under federal law or state law, whether we are white, black, male, female, young, old, fat, or ugly, and THAT is what the 2nd Amendment is about, to put into writing what our Creator has put in our hearts for all men, in all places, and for all time, and NO LAW OF MAN has rightful authority to restrict it!

 

[bbbass]

Here hear!!!

Well said!!!!!

 

[Ura-Ki]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Declaration of Independence

So, my point here is this: If we have the Right to Life, it is implied that we have the Right to defend that same Life, anywhere, anytime, in any country, against anyone or any thing, whether we are under federal law or state law, whether we are white, black, male, female, young, old, fat, or ugly, and THAT is what the 2nd Amendment is about, to put into writing what our Creator has put in our hearts for all men, in all places, and for all time, and NO LAW OF MAN has rightful authority to restrict it!

ZACKLIES! and that's what we need here, and this I.P. addresses!

 

[Koda]

I do not see it as a problem. It's a balance, and a democracy. If the majority by quite a lot wants to change Amendments it is their right given by this constitution to do so through elected representatives, that's democracy.

I thought America was a Federal Republic where majority does not rule and cannot take away certain unalienable rights?

 

[G0nefishin]

I thought America was a Federal Republic where majority does not rule and cannot take away certain unalienable rights?

Thank you I keep seeing democracy. we are a republic.

 

[arakboss]

I'm certainly not ok with it. I don't mind that Oregon doesn't have any reciprocity. At best I'd support it for states that touch ours.

You don't want national reciprocity? Why not?

 

[Superglide]

Section 27b. (1) The right to bear arms includes the ability to acquire, possess, use, or transfer common firearms for self-defense. Laws regulating firearms may not <place unreasonable burdens or special liabilities upon> restrict 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 legal ( or law abiding or legally entitled etc) person for a lawful purpose.

(2) "Common firearms for self-defense" are firearms that enable persons to defend themselves or others. <with reliable precision and> They 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 by 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 semiautomatic action, a threaded barrel, or 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 of the Circuit Courts; (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 federal law.

(4) Nothing in this section expands the authority of the State or any of its political subdivisions to regulate firearms, <n>or limits any other rights otherwise retained by the People of Oregon under Article I, Section 27.


Here is my edit and take on this long overdue offensive maneuver.
Point number one, the less spelled out, the better. KISS.
On section 1, I feel it's good to separate the person and the purpose for legal clarity.
Section 2, are we going to want to define specifically what is meant by reliable or precision? I think not. See assault weapon definition.
As far as section 3 goes, it seems to me that a-f and h are " bad guys to have guns" and I belong to sub-section g. That is why there is confusion. As far as the striking out of half of e through to h, the first half of e and sub-section h covers that already. See point number one.

A huge thank you to those who put forth the effort to get this going. I will be happy to support your efforts.
I bet many others here will also.