Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There are a couple of things you are confused about.No, it gives only those that live in this country that right. Not all people born from their creator, etc. The Constituion is not a religious document, nor does it give rights to those outside America. You can add as much as you please to the meaning but it does not change the factual and legal meaning of the document. I'm not sure how you can't deny the basic fact that The Constitution is a legal government document, I can see putting special meaning for your own sake, but it is still what it is.
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.
This is utter nonsense, and the 10th Amendment has little or nothing to do with the argument. It is the 14th Amendment which applies the prohibitions in the Bill of Rights to the several individual states:Amendments are completely ratifiable. So the states in unison and agreement do in fact have the right to ratify, limit, regulate, and restrict Amendments.
Edit: and as I mentioned in another comment SC interpretations leave states open to their 10th powers in creating gun control
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Welcome!!! I'm excited about the IP. I could tell on the first reading that you were quite aware of the value of not giving our opponents arguments to use against us. I'm 100% behind you.I'm here.
EXACTLY!!!!!!!NFA items ARE NOT "PROTECTED" NOW in Oregon. You can't "lose" a protection that doesn't currently exist.
If 2020-008 passes NFA items and bump stocks would not be any less "protected" than they are now.
If you try to add NFA item and bump stock protection to 2020-008 the gun controllers will rightly claim it is trying to make sure people can buy machine guns and silencers and bump stocks, and IT WON'T PASS in blue Oregon.
Then guess what, not only will NFA items and bump stocks not be protected (as they are not protected now) nothing else would be protected. Then the gun controllers will pass IP 43, and while you would theoretically be able to buy NFA items (until they ban those too) you wouldn't be able to buy AR-15s, AKs, Marlin 60s, anything with a threaded barrel, and a whole host of other semiauto firearms. I guess that sounds good to you.
No it doesn't. It simply restates "codified" CURRENT LAW:
It doesn't codify SB 719. SB 719 is already law.
False. Read the proposition again:
2020-008 would prospectively protect future designs and items, as long as they aren't banned at the Federal level. If they are banned at the Federal level then we are out of luck anyway.
Wrong again.
Again, you couldn't be more wrong.
Because it already has the protections for magazines and future developments that you want. You're nitpicking about the way it is worded.
There is nothing protecting NFA items now. There is nothing stopping Michael Bloomberg or Paul Allen from trying to ban NFA items in Oregon now. NFA items would not be any less "protected" if 2020-008 passes than they are now.
You couldn't be more wrong.
2020-008 is a PREEMPTIVE strike. For once, we will be on OFFENSE, instead of on defense as usual. The alternative is to stay on defense in blue Oregon, fighting the next gun ban, and the one after that, and the one after that, ad infinitum.
Those of you that don't understand or support 2020-008, that's OK. Grumble and gripe and complain and nitpick all you want in the trenches, stay on defense and try to fight off the next attack on our rights. The rest of us are going over the top and going on offense. If you aren't going to help at least stay out of the way and don't help our enemies by badmouthing 2020-008.
This measure does not increase the state's ability in any way to regulate firearms in public. Any "open door to infringement" exists already. In order to get this measure passed we need to refrain from offering our opponents anything they can point to as radical or a loosening of current regulations. By doing so, we give them nothing to argue about. For once, we will look like the reasonable ones and those who oppose us as radicals.(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: (g) those who carry or use firearms in public,
Sounds like an open door to infringement to me.
This measure does not increase the state's ability in any way to regulate firearms in public. Any "open door to infringement" exists already. In order to get this measure passed we need to refrain from offering our opponents anything they can point to as radical or a loosening of current regulations. By doing so, we give them nothing to argue about. For once, we will look like the reasonable ones and those who oppose us as radicals.
(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: (g) those who carry or use firearms in public,
Sounds like an open door to infringement to me.
That section doesn't make things any better or worse than they are TODAY. The state currently has the power to "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: (g) those who carry or use firearms in public". Are you bothered by that right now? Because that's the way it is right now. That section just states 2020-008 wouldn't change the status quo regarding other gun laws. But it DOES remove a line of attack that gun controllers might use i.e. "This measure will keep us from banning carrying guns IN OUR SCHOOLS!!!!" Supporters can say "No it doesn't. Read the proposition."
This measure is very well written to accomplish what it is intended to do - preempt and prevent gun and magazine bans like IP 43 now and in the future - while also anticipating and removing lines of attack that opponents might use to criticize it. Unfortunately, those carve-outs listing things it wouldn't change - things that already exist now - seem to be confusing some people here into thinking it gives the state new powers to regulate guns when in reality it wouldn't give the state any new powers at all. The state already has those powers. 2020-008 doesn't give Oregon any more restrictions on guns than it has now, but it does take away the ability to ban so-called "assault weapons" and so-called "large capacity magazines". Everything else stays the same as it is today.