OFF alert

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by pokerace, Nov 25, 2012.

  1. pokerace

    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    This is what we face in the new legislature. Long but a good read.

    Where We Stand
    In the wake of the election many gun owners are wondering what to expect in the coming legislative session.

    On the national front we have re-elected a person who has used executive power to cover up gun running to Mexican drug gangs and thinks that anyone who has ever started a successful business "didn't build that." He has already stated his desire to reintroduce a ban on most rifles and shotguns and has also commented on more restrictions on handguns.

    You may have seen internet postings about the new "banned gun lists," although we cannot confirm that these are accurate. What we do know is that almost immediately after winning a second term, Obama renewed efforts to get a gun control bill via United Nations treaty. It may be impossible to overestimate that particular threat. A gun ban by international treaty would be unlike any threat to our gun rights we've seen before.

    Obama has shown no reluctance to bypass Congress to enact his agenda and Congress has shown precious little backbone to stop him. As a result there is a very real possibility that we may face some kind of new restrictions that Congress does not even weigh in on.

    You may recall that when Bill Clinton was President, a whole family of shotguns was made illegal overnight by Clinton's administration simply reclassifying them as "destructive devices." Countless people who owned these guns were made felons overnight and many never knew it. There is little reason to think this could not happen with virtually any gun you own, whether it's that black "assault weapon" in your gun safe or the "sniper rifle" you've hunted with for 20 years.

    On a statewide level, both Houses of the Oregon Legislature are once again under the control of anti-gunners. While the numbers in the Senate have not changed, some of the players have.

    There are now two Democratic Senators who have a history of being pro-gun most of the time. This was the case last session, but now one, Joanne Verger, has been replaced by Arnie Roblan, who was co-speaker of the House last session. Roblan often supported gun rights in the House, and we can hope that he will continue to in the Senate, but with the exception of Senator Betsy Johnson, every other Democratic Senator is anti-gun. That means that if anti-gun legislation moves in the Senate (which it certainly will) we need to get Roblan or Johnson to buck their caucus AND we need every single Republican to take a stand or the bill passes. That's going to be a tough hill to climb.

    In the House, the numbers are even worse. What had been an evenly split House is now controlled by anti-gunners 36-24. The even split forced both sides to work together but you can bet that the Obama victory and the takeover by Democrats will be seen as a "mandate" for more gun control.

    While we have a handful of fairly pro-gun Democrats in the House, there is simply no telling how much pressure will be put on them by the Democratic Caucus, and it gets worse.

    The new Speaker of the House is Tina Kotek. Kotek is anti-gun, as are most House Democrats, and she will have the power to decide who sits on which committees and to appoint committee chairs. Committee Chairs have virtual life-and-death power over bills that come before them.

    For some time, Democrat Jeff Barker has been chair or co-chair of House Judiciary, which hears gun bills. Barker has been solid on gun rights all this time, but there is no guarantee that he will get this chairmanship again. If he does not, the most likely candidates for the job are all anti-gun.

    This is probably the most dangerous situation for gun owners. If Kotek appoints a chair of House Judiciary who is anywhere near as militant and irrational as the likely chair of Senate Judiciary, Floyd Prozanski, gun owners in Oregon are in for the fight of their lives.

    We believe multiple anti-gun bills have been "pre-session" filed and will be ready for introduction on the first day of the new session. It's safe to say they will include a ban on modern rifles, shotguns and ammunition feeding devices, a reversal of Oregon's "preemption" law and a ban on concealed carry anywhere school children congregate.

    One more factor will be important in 2013. Long time NRA lobbyist Rod Harder is retiring. At this time we do not expect him to be replaced, so barring something really unexpected we believe there will be no regular NRA representation in Oregon. As you know, we have had many differences with NRA over the years, but Rod has been a close friend and trusted colleague for a long time and he will be missed.

    There is no question that gun owners will have their work cut out for them. There will be an awful lot to do in 2013. It's not going to be easy. But we'll be there, and with your help, we'll win.

    We wish you a very happy Christmas season and suggest you rest up. We're all going to be busy.
  2. just dan

    just dan
    Active Member

    Likes Received:
    Theres that uneasy feeling...
    thanks for sharing.
  3. CounterOfBeans

    Active Member

    Likes Received:
    In the midst of all the dangerous anti-gun politicking going on that you mention, maybe now is the time to break out the big guns that can really take the fight out of anti-gunners, by exposing what they have accomplished so far as being the anti-2nd Amendment fraud ring that it is. I've posted this before, so I'll just copy and paste.

    "[Concealed Carry] is a "licensing" or "permit" thing right? You have, as most Citizens have, been trained from a young age to believe that the concept of "licensing" the public is legitimate and lawful. That training has been so effective that most people have no reason to question it. But they don't teach us even the basics of law in K-12 public education, like how to accurately read the law for ourselves to tell whether or not someone is blowing smoke. Sometimes words have different meanings in the law than what we think they do. "License" is a perfect example of that. Here is its definition in Oregon at ORS 183.310(5):

    "183.310 Definitions for chapter. As used in this chapter:
    (5) “License” includes the whole or part of any agency permit, certificate, approval, registration or similar form of permission required by law to pursue any commercial activity, trade, occupation or profession."

    Notice how it only refers to "commercial" activity? The Legislature inserted no other words in this definition to cause it to apply to anything else. As a result, it applies to nothing else. And to make sure that readers don't take the liberty of putting words in their mouths, the Legislature has passed laws to prohibit even judges from adding words or omitting words from the law in order to suit their pre-conceived notions, personal biases or agendas. See ORS 174.010 below:


    174.010 General rule for construction of statutes. In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all."

    Simply put, the law applies exclusively only to what is inserted into it by... the Legislature. If it is legitimate to insinuate the inclusion of other things into the law, then what's the point of writing the law to begin with if it can simply be added to or subtracted from in order to fit whatever special interest might come along with shifting political winds. That would render the whole idea of having laws at all moot and make legislators irrelevant. And last I looked legislators are required in a Republican form of government.

    When the Legislature chooses to omit words in a law, it's because they recognize that those words are not properly connected to the purpose or context of that law and its subject matter. They do this because the Oregon Constitution requires them to restrict any single law to one subject and matters that are properly connected to that one subject. See Or. Const. Art 4, Section 20:

    "Section 20. Subject and title of Act. Every Act shall embrace but one subject, and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an Act which shall not be expressed in the title, such Act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be expressed in the title...."

    Getting back to your you know that a "license" or "permit" or "registration" pertains ONLY to people who want to pursue "commercial" activities, trades, occupations or professions. Your right to keep and bear arms is not a "commercial" activity. It's your right and you don't need "permission" to pursue it. If you do need permission, then it stops being a right, doesn't it? So if you insist on being enthusiastic about a national CCW program, you only have a passion for throwing your rights away, not to mention those of your fellow Americans. Rights, by the way, that have already been paid for with the blood of our founding fathers and successive generations of our military.

    Also, just so you know, Chapter 183 (see definition of "license" above) of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) is called the Administrative Procedures Act. This "Act" exists in all States. It governs how the laws are "administered", i.e. carried out, i.e. enforced, by the executive branch's various agencies in the performance of their lawful duties....including law enforcement agencies."
  4. CounterOfBeans

    Active Member

    Likes Received:
    Hey Pokerace,

    As far as those menacing, scary treaties go, here's a Christmas present from the Supreme Court in 1901, in De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 US 1; 21 S. Ct. 743; 45 L. Ed. 1041:

    "Where a treaty is the law of the land, and as such affects the rights of parties litigating in court, that treaty as much binds those rights, and is as much to be regarded by the court as an act of Congress. The Constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision. By the Constitution a treaty is placed on the same footing, and made of like obligation, with an act of legislation. Both are declared by that instrument to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other. When the two relate to the same subject, the courts will always endeavor to construe them so as to give effect to both, if that can be done without violating the language of either; but if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control the other, provided always that the stipulation of the treaty on the subject is self-executing."

    So just to make sure, the purpose isn't being missed for why I cited this, the Constitution treats Congressional laws and treaties as being on the same footing. They have the same effect in law. They just come from different sources. But as we all know, laws are not immune from being found unconstitutional. So if treaties are on the same footing as laws, neither are they. The Constitution is the rule book that must be satisfied for mere laws or treaties to stand as effective. It goes without saying that if they violate the Constitution's purpose, they can be thrown out. We are only obligated to them if they satisfy the Constitution. And my bet is that the UN treaty you're worried about above is dead on arrival.

    Lesson to be learned ... Treaties aint sh*#....necessarily. Happy holidays

Share This Page