JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
40
Reactions
138
Not sure how many of you have seen that the Washington oligarchs have funded the new gun control initiative. Has anyone considered filing a lawsuit, not against them, but against Bob Ferguson for failure to enforce the state constitution? Like the anti's tend to forget the second part of the 2ND, many in the gun rights community ignore the part after the comma in our state constitution. The "...but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men" part. Hanaur, who just coughed up 1 million, has exposed his fear in writings and speeches that the 99% will come after the oligarchs with "pitchforks." And Allen tossed in his million earlier. Both employ an "armed body of men" and they don't have muskets or revolvers. Just a thought.
 
There are currently 4 challenges to the ballot title, which is a start. Ferguson doesn't care about the constitution, he's been pandering to the anti's for years now, I don't expect anything useful from his office.
 
There are currently 4 challenges to the ballot title, which is a start. Ferguson doesn't care about the constitution, he's been pandering to the anti's for years now, I don't expect anything useful from his office.
I make the suggestion of filing suit against him because it is the only way to expose the motives and hypocrisy of the oligarchs. They are protected from direct challenge by private citizens because no court would let one of us file suit to disclose what type of weapons their guards are armed with. If you file against Bobby you may expose, through disclosure and deposition, that the state constitution is being violated by people who are paying large sums of cash to deny your right to use the same weapons to protect yourself. Combine with this the strong likelihood that both of these oligarchs have contributed to his campaign and, worse, the campaigns of several state supreme court justices. My only concerns are the length of time it would take to fire up such a law suit and how it could be funded. The NRA might not want to participate in this.
 
The Democrats have been in power in Washington for decades and they have written laws that protect themselves from prosecution by any means. They do not care about anything but their agenda and those who have donated to get them elected.

I have no faith in government because it is such a corrupt organization.
 
Last Edited:
The Democrats have been in power in Washington for decades and they have written laws that protect them from prosecution by any means. They do not care about anything but their agenda and those who have donated to get them elected.

I have no faith in government because it is such a corrupt organization.
And this is EXACTLY why I suggest legal action be taken against Fergie. Let me explain a little better. This initiative is being funded entirely by people who, by proxy, are protected by the very weapons they want banned and removed from the state.

Let's take Paul, for example. He has employed in the past former special forces operatives, former police officers and other highly skilled individuals who sign NDAs baring them from ever speaking about their duties, equipment or anything they do or see while in Paul's employ. A very small window for this was exposed 8 or 10 years ago when he either sued a former employee, or the employee sued him, over the NDA. It was briefly in the news paper, but disappeared. The only way to expose this is take legal action against Fergie for failure to uphold the state constitution. You get disclosure on things like the oligarchs who violate the constitution are also the ones who fund Fergies campaign. You also may get disclosure as to the types and numbers of weapons he wants banned that his employees use. I think even the leftist media would expose the hypocrisy just for the ratings. Right now the majority of the public has no idea that people like Paul and Nick fund these politician's campaigns directly and indirectly. Then the ones like Fergie carry out their wishes through initiative or
 
And this is EXACTLY why I suggest legal action be taken against Fergie. Let me explain a little better. This initiative is being funded entirely by people who, by proxy, are protected by the very weapons they want banned and removed from the state.

I along with many here agree wholeheartedly. The problem we face is the 9th Circuit Supreme Court judges on the Left Coast.

They have proven time and again that the left is the ruling party and their agenda rules. Just look at California, it would take many years of purging the Liberals from their sacred cow positions, barring a civil war would make it happen sooned i'd hope.


Let's take Paul, for example. He has employed in the past former special forces operatives, former police officers and other highly skilled individuals who sign NDAs baring them from ever speaking about their duties, equipment or anything they do or see while in Paul's employ. A very small window for this was exposed 8 or 10 years ago when he either sued a former employee, or the employee sued him, over the NDA. It was briefly in the news paper, but disappeared. The only way to expose this is take legal action against Fergie for failure to uphold the state constitution. You get disclosure on things like the oligarchs who violate the constitution are also the ones who fund Fergies campaign. You also may get disclosure as to the types and numbers of weapons he wants banned that his employees use. I think even the leftist media would expose the hypocrisy just for the ratings. Right now the majority of the public has no idea that people like Paul and Nick fund these politician's campaigns directly and indirectly. Then the ones like Fergie carry out their wishes through initiative or

;);););)
 
@4whatitsworth What specifically do you believe we (collectively) could charge Ferguson with? He has technically broken no laws that I can tell -yet. I have a FOIA request in for the office of the AG for the type of information you are elluding to. When it is delivered I will post it up here.

~Whitney
 
@4whatitsworth What specifically do you believe we (collectively) could charge Ferguson with? He has technically broken no laws that I can tell -yet. I have a FOIA request in for the office of the AG for the type of information you are elluding to. When it is delivered I will post it up here.

~Whitney
It isn't a matter of breaking the law, though we both know that he probably is, it is a matter of failing to uphold the Washington State Constitution. You can find all of his past declarations about "Assault Rifles" and magazine capacities and how he believes they need to be banned. In other words fighting against our rights and the first half of Article 24 (I believe.) Yet he does nothing about the many individuals, like Paul and Nick, who employ armed bodies of men. The point isn't to charge him with a crime, or force him from office (though that would bring about a grand party) but it is the only way to expose the countless numbers of corporations and individuals who are not in line with the letter of the constitution. Imagine if all of these people paying to keep the peasants from owning pitch forks could be exposed. Some protect themselves through third parties with fancy security names, but it is still an armed body. Boeing does it (they even have a bomb squad) as do the railroads. That is exactly why this was put into our state constitution, so that the land, timber, railroad and mining barons couldn't rule over us peasants. The key is to expose all of this and, hopefully, expose the true motives of Nick and Paul. You do know that Paul has no children, right? He has zero concerns about "the children" unless grown as a crop for his future transplants. He fears civil unrest, natural disaster and other threats to his wealth and power. That is what has to be exposed. And since that can't be done directly, it has to be done by going after Fergie for violating his oath of office, selective enforcement of state law and favoring the wealthy over those of us who are ammo poor.
 
So, the basic premise here is .................an armed body of men! Which also can be used to describe "A Standing Army" as in Mercenary forces ( sort of like Blackwater and Halliburton) which have in fact been proven to be a "Standing Army" which is independent of the Gov. and Not subordinate to the people! To me, this is the most crucial catch, a Standing Army in the personal employ of a private citizen to be used notinally as a "Security force" up to certain levels of force [Defined] but otherwise not answerable to any one but the titled contractor and employer! Makes for an interesting chain here! When does private security become a Standing Army [defined] and how are those armed and equipped? What provisions are there in place against the private ownership and use of NFA restricted arms otherwise forbidden from private ownership post 1934/1968/1998?
I think this is the crux of this discussion, disclosing this information, and moving actions against "Private Security" as unconstitutnal!
 
So, the basic premise here is .................an armed body of men! Which also can be used to describe "A Standing Army" as in Mercenary forces ( sort of like Blackwater and Halliburton) which have in fact been proven to be a "Standing Army" which is independent of the Gov. and Not subordinate to the people! To me, this is the most crucial catch, a Standing Army in the personal employ of a private citizen to be used notinally as a "Security force" up to certain levels of force [Defined] but otherwise not answerable to any one but the titled contractor and employer! Makes for an interesting chain here! When does private security become a Standing Army [defined] and how are those armed and equipped? What provisions are there in place against the private ownership and use of NFA restricted arms otherwise forbidden from private ownership post 1934/1968/1998?
I think this is the crux of this discussion, disclosing this information, and moving actions against "Private Security" as unconstitutnal!

Well... Paul has his collection of military vehicles, and an FFL which allows him to circumvent Washington's ban on full auto weapons, he employs a large "private security" force which is comprised of former military and law enforcement, armed with pistols and one can only assume evil black rifles. Hell, they may even have heavier firepower at the ready. I would say a man with functional military aircraft/vehicles, with working machine guns, and an armed security force has himself a private army. I bet he has boats for his security people too, so he has the capability to wage marine, air, and ground ops. Paul Allen should be target of a special councel investigation! I bet he knows a few Russians tol, whos to say he's not sitting on a couple fire sale Soviet nukes, maybe a sub?
 
Well... Paul has his collection of military vehicles, and an FFL which allows him to circumvent Washington's ban on full auto weapons, he employs a large "private security" force which is comprised of former military and law enforcement, armed with pistols and one can only assume evil black rifles. Hell, they may even have heavier firepower at the ready. I would say a man with functional military aircraft/vehicles, with working machine guns, and an armed security force has himself a private army. I bet he has boats for his security people too, so he has the capability to wage marine, air, and ground ops. Paul Allen should be target of a special councel investigation! I bet he knows a few Russians tol, whos to say he's not sitting on a couple fire sale Soviet nukes, maybe a sub?
And don't forget his foreign flagged and registered "Research vessels" to include "submersibles" and other sea assets. I wonder how he skips through a U.S.C.G. inspection with out issue? Could it be he never enters U.S. waters with it, because that's the only way he could "Own" banned or restricted items outside the NFA! Hummmmm:eek:
 
And don't forget his foreign flagged and registered "Research vessels" to include "submersibles" and other sea assets. I wonder how he skips through a U.S.C.G. inspection with out issue? Could it be he never enters U.S. waters with it, because that's the only way he could "Own" banned or restricted items outside the NFA! Hummmmm:eek:

Thats it, Paul Allen is a real James Bond villian. Should arrest him before he launches his coup, or tries to steal the Space Needle!
 
If we're against millionaires/billionaires donating to influence our political process, should we be consistently against it across the board, or should we be for/against it depending on which team they're playing for?
 
If we're against millionaires/billionaires donating to influence our political process, should we be consistently against it across the board, or should we be for/against it depending on which team they're playing for?

I'm for grassroots donations, small dollar donations, but I'm personally against Super Political Action Committee's donating money and even more against them if they come from outside sources.
 
They could of donated this 3mil, 1mil for Allen, 1 mil for other guy and 1 mil for his wife, to feed malnourished children in our state or donate to local schools for classroom resources or any other charitable deed.

Instead they put their money on insulating themselves from us through disarmament.
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top