Oregon Oregon following Virginia?

[2thdrglock]

I donate to and receive regular firearm new updates from Oregon Firearms Federation. The recent push for gun control legislation in Oregon is alarming. Why haven't we heard anything from our counties and Sheriffs like was done in Virginia in response to the unconstitutional laws being pushed thru? Do you think they will stand up for us?

Read More

 

[jackrv]

I donate to and receive regular firearm new updates from Oregon Firearms Federation. The recent push for gun control legislation in Oregon is alarming. Why haven't we heard anything from our counties and Sheriffs like was done in Virginia in response to the unconstitutional laws being pushed thru? Do you think they will stand up for us?

Very few, maybe 1 or 2. I know for certain the Multnomah County Sheriff won't.

 

[turbo_vanner]

not likely west of the cascades. The legislation will never end, and will pass bit by bit as the generations go by. Guns are not important to the vast majority of young people.

 

[2thdrglock]

So we are all going to be relegated to being criminals? I hate the politics in this state...George Orwell was right.

 

[Aero Denezol]

not likely west of the cascades. The legislation will never end, and will pass bit by bit as the generations go by. Guns are not important to the vast majority of young people.

That's certainly true of Gen Y. I'm now (just barely) old enough to have witnessed this phenomenon where successive generations rebel against the previous generation. A lot of this anti-gun propaganda is a cultural referendum on previous generations. But it's also not impossible we could see the pendulum swing back at some point.

My daughters are Gen Y. Right now they believe they are in sole possession of the truth, just like I used to believe. But they're not. Their children are going to think their ideas suck, and do the exact opposite of them.

Of course, we may have lost all of our rights by then.

 

[bbbass]

Do you think they will stand up for us?

What is it you want them to do? Union County Sheriff has posted a letter that he will not enforce gun grabber laws. We are also a 2A sanctuary.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Last go around, believe 11 counties in Oregon passed 2nd Amendment Sanctuary ordinances out of 36 Counties

 

[2thdrglock]

What is it you want them to do? Union County Sheriff has posted a letter that he will not enforce gun grabber laws. We are also a 2A sanctuary.

That's what I would want...to uphold the laws of the constitution, not fake, made up laws that are in clear violation of the 2nd Amendment. I don't know if the Oath of a Sheriff swears to uphold the US Constitution, maybe I am expecting too much. I have not read the Oregon state Constitution, so I don't know if there is a limit on government there to not infringe on 2A rights.

 

[CamoDeafie]

That's what I would want...to uphold the laws of the constitution, not fake, made up laws that are in clear violation of the 2nd Amendment. I don't know if the Oath of a Sheriff swears to uphold the US Constitution, maybe I am expecting too much. I have not read the Oregon state Constitution, so I don't know if there is a limit on government there to not infringe on 2A rights.

The politicans know the laws, they dont care

Far as I know, County Sheriffs are elected, and sworn into duty with oaths to enforce the State and Federal Constitutions
Oregon Constitution

Section 27
Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power.

The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power

no mention of arms limitations


Section 8 states

No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right. —

Antifa is trying their best to destroy this.



Section 26 says

Assemblages of people; instruction of representatives; application to legislature.

No law shall be passed restraining any of the inhabitants of the State from assembling together in a peaceable manner to consult for their common good; nor from instructing their Representatives; nor from applying to the Legislature for redress of greviances

They're just gonna ignore this.




Source;

Oregon Constitution/Article I - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

I donate to and receive regular firearm new updates from Oregon Firearms Federation. The recent push for gun control legislation in Oregon is alarming. Why haven't we heard anything from our counties and Sheriffs like was done in Virginia in response to the unconstitutional laws being pushed thru? Do you think they will stand up for us?

Counties And Cities With Pro-Gun Ordinances, Proclamations, Resolutions or Letters – Oregon Firearms Federation

 

[turbo_vanner]

the 2A can be interpreted however lawmakers choose to. One way to put it would be limiting gun ownership to single shot .22s... can one not keep and bear arms if they are only single shot .22s? From a certain point of view, that question could be answered with a yes. A single shot .22 is still an arm, and you can still keep and bear them.

Obviously that is an extreme take, and obviously most folks here think there is no other way to interpret the 2A than no restrictions whatsoever, but in my opinion, that is just burying your head in the sand.

 

[CamoDeafie]

the 2A can be interpreted however lawmakers choose to. One way to put it would be limiting gun ownership to single shot .22s... can one not keep and bear arms if they are only single shot .22s? From a certain point of view, that question could be answered with a yes. A single shot .22 is still an arm, and you can still keep and bear them.

Obviously that is an extreme take, and obviously most folks here think there is no other way to interpret the 2A than no restrictions whatsoever, but in my opinion, that is just burying your head in the sand.

The problem with that... is that the founding fathers wrote extensively on the subject of arms and purposes of arms... from the Federalist Papers;

"…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…" – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Source

The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment

The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment: This Says it ALL

thefederalistpapers.org

So. The Founding fathers all agreed that the citizens must be as well armed as the standing armies in order to preserve liberty and freedom. That it was enacted in a time where muskets and blunderbusses, muzzleloading rifles, cannons, and warships armed with cannon were found equally owned by both private citizens and military forces, is irrelevant, because the sentiment is the same; the citizens must be as well armed as the militaries in order to preserve liberty.

 

[nammac]

Counties And Cities With Pro-Gun Ordinances, Proclamations, Resolutions or Letters – Oregon Firearms Federation

Hit that link above and there's a form letter that can be sent to your county commissioners. It's worth the two minutes to complete and send. Washington County might be lost considering the number of Kalifornian transplants there are here...

 

[Ura-Ki]

Hit that link above and there's a form letter that can be sent to your county commissioners. It's worth the two minutes to complete and send. Washington County might be lost considering the number of Kalifornian transplants there are here...

Not so fast, County maybe, but NOT Sheriff Garrett, One of the strongest in the State, and we know he is Pro 2nd! Might wanna drop him a friendly note to re affirm his position!

 

[nammac]

Not so fast, County maybe, but NOT Sheriff Garrett, One of the strongest in the State, and we know he is Pro 2nd! Might wanna drop him a friendly note to re affirm his position!

I understand Pat's Pro 2A, and have supported him for his stance, but we're being overrun with them there kalifornians... I will draft up a letter to him, for re-affirmation...

 

[2thdrglock]

Thank you all for educating my lazy self...I should have done some digging.

 

[turbo_vanner]

The problem with that... is that the founding fathers wrote extensively on the subject of arms and purposes of arms... from the Federalist Papers;

those are all good points, and I do agree with you on their intent, just playing devil's advocate since politics is usually as pedantic as it can get.


that said, a judge or sheriff can ignore all that context if they want to, it's not in the constitution, and there can be a million ways around it. For instance, we don't necessarily have to own scary arms to become " little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms ". We just need yearly bgc's, supervised range training, and a designated shtf meeting location to get our civilian response ar-15s handed out by rev. Knutson. All that could be done while still keeping and bearing single shot .22s.

Again, that's obviously ridiculous, but might technically fit, from some kind of perspective.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Yes it is ridiculous, and borders on criminal.
How else do you define "own arms" if not privately purchased property??

Thats like saying the State judge or sheriff can and will give you a turbo van on your say so while you own a bicycle

 

[turbo_vanner]

if turbo vans were the means by which we maintain national security then yes, we could have a civilian vanners brigade, but it could also be strictly controlled, so long as people have the right to keep and ride transportation, like bicycles.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The linchpin of the 2A is the People

Not the State, not the Militias.
The People.

A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the State, the right of the State, Militias, Military to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;

would enshrine that the State, Militias, Military have the power and means of ownership of all arms



But that is not how it is written.

It is written as thus

A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the State; the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

In plain English, this refers to individuals' right to own arms of all types. It does not specify "small arms", nor "crew served arms" nor "armed ships/wagons/vehicles" nor "devices meant to launch missiles(as in rocks, flaming arrows, rockets)"

But specifies arms as a whole.

This includes poleaxes, halberds, spears, halfstaffs, polearms, axes, knives, swords, muskets, rifles,.rockets, grenades, flamethrowers. And so on.

You may note that the SCOTUS have indeed ruled that certain classes of arms are not to be owned due to their relative rarity, expenses, and danger (dangerous and unusual weapons); but one can own limited quantities of fissible materials; and one does not need a specific license to build a nuclear reactor nor particle accelerator

Also, the ATF defines most blackpowder weaponry as not firearms; thus not subject to FFL requirements nor bg checks;

You also can legally own fully functional flamethrowers without a ffl, or bgc.