Oregon NPR: Oregon Republican Lawmakers Face Gun-Rights Backlash Over New Law

[Superglide]

Our side needs to beat a big drum, relentlessly and loud. Over and over with a simple beat. Not just one issue (guns), but a focused platform on the erosion of the whole BOR.
If a one issue candidate runs, they will be trounced.
The same way we can feel the squeeze on our right to bear arms, is the way the public needs to be made aware of the water getting pretty warm on 1st and 4th amendments as well. Am I the only one who feels that an individual's privacy and liberty is disappearing faster than silencers in San Francisco? I think not.
We can point out MSM bias examples all day long, but it only gets a response of 'anti-Fox News'.
Point out gungrabber falsities and you get 'evil NRA'.
They are shooting fish in a barrel now and the new trophies that are being mounted have a R after their name.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I never liked the term "Gun rights" since people have rights not objects. The Anti's love the term Gun rights, because if the general public considers firearms to be bad, then restricting Gun rights is good.

For awhile I thought gun culture would become more normalized like gay culture, but instead we are being more redistricted like smokers. Yes, second hand smoke is harmful. You can see it, like open carry. But vaping only harms the user. I appreciated when my smoker friends and family would go through the extra expense to vape at functions instead of going outside and dragging the stink back in on their clothes. Discrete vaping was sort of like concealed carry.

But no the State considers vaping to be as bad as smoking and it is banned from businesses and public places. It is socially acceptable to discriminate against smokers, because cigarettes are bad, so they must be bad people. Don't even get me started on how much marijuana we now smell in businesses and public places, but that's ok because for reasons.

So firearms owner need to come out of the closet and denounce discrimination against Ammosexuals.

 

[parsons_12b]

No the Federal Government can active the National Guard under Title 10 at any time. They only need the Governor to approve if it's under Title 32.

If you still believe in states rights, whether or not you agree with Brown's reasoning, she controls our state national guard and the Feds need state cooperation to use them.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Who is the commander in chief of a state's National Guard?

In theory and usual practice, the Governor of the State. He or She ( some states have had female governors- like New Jersey under Whitman) can call out the National Guard to control civil emergencies such as riots, etc.

However, as the President of the United States has CINCUS ( Commander In Chief- US) he can and does have the authority to federalize NG units which are technically a part of the US Army and dispatch them on various missions- one peacetime example was the Federalization of guardsmen to contain racial problems in Little Rock, Arkansas during the Desegregation battles. This is the best known action of the type- unlike deployment of Guard units to foreign wars- for example stop-loss assignments in Iraq.



That is all, carry-on.

I was in the Florida NG in the early 80's, we were mobilized to Miami (Little Havana uprising) when the riots broke out. We were guarding sheriff & police stations and driving APC's with deputies inside to serve warrants. Freaky bubblegum.

 

[Ura-Ki]

The Gov'ness is the C.I.C. only for domestic IN-STATE actions such as disaster relief or other state needs! Once the POTUS merely asks, that IS a fed order, and Bloody Kate full well knows it! Trump may be a lot of things, but he is no dummy and dosnt suffer them well. Kate just sealed her fate defying the Prez. Though he needs to make his "Request" formal! Kate also has to commnicate with the State Adjunct General, who is the State C.I.C. and is the go-to for every thing related to activated guard units, and in fact becomes acting Gov'ner if in times of war, civil unrest, or martial law! He could also forcefully remove Kate should he have good reason to do so, and there isn't a damn thing any one but POTUS could do to stop him!
A good example of this, say the gun grab goes through, Kate orders the State Politzi into action, that's a move against the people, one for which the Adjunct General could use to remove her, and arrest and hold tribunals against Kate and the OSP and any others involved! Something to think about! Our current Adjunct General is a stand up guy, very pro BOR, and would be the best bet should OryGun decide to go full stupid against the people!