Please write your politicians!

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by nforest, Dec 23, 2012.

  1. nforest

    Eugene, OR & Costa Rica
    Active Member

    Likes Received:
    I encourage all of you to write your politicians. Here is the letter i just sent out.

    I am writing you this letter to express my concern over recent events and how they will impact my freedoms.
    I grew up in a rural area in western Oregon. From the age of six, I was taught strict gun safety. I was not allowed to play with toy guns, or even pretend to shoot someone with my finger. I was taught that guns ended life, they were not a game. Throughout my childhood it was common for us to go shoot targets several times per week. It was what we did for fun. We did not hunt or kill animals, only paper targets. We would then come back home and reload our ammunition in preparation of the next target session.

    I am now a responsible adult, active in my community. I volunteer many hours per year between the Local Sheriff's office, and several other emergency response organizations. I have a Concealed handgun permit, and have a Trust set up that allows me, with the proper tax paid, to legally have firearm suppressors, true fully automatic firearms, Short Barreled Rifles etc.

    I am now thinking of having kids of my own. With the recent events, I worry that my children will not have the same opportunities that I had. I remember shooting a semi automatic rifle with a standard capacity (30 round) magazine for the first time. I remember how much fun it was to fill the paper full of holes and to try and keep all 30 of them in the very center.

    I realize that you likely did not come from the same background as I have. I had the freedom to be taught proper gun safety and to be able to target shoot semi automatic rifles, with 30 round (standard capacity) magazines. I feel that my children should have the same rights.

    The point here is not about 30 round magazines, or semi automatic rifles, its about having my personal freedoms as a responsible firearms owner stripped away due to the actions of several individuals. They could have caused the same amount of damage regardless of what legislation is or was on the books. Criminals do not follow the laws, so why make new laws that will only strip away our liberties as responsible citizens?

    I often try to put myself in others shoes when I have a disagreement. Most people become closed minded and fail to try to truly understand where the “other side” is coming from. Please keep your mind open.

    I always vote against anything that limits my individual freedoms. Even when I disagree with what can be done with those freedoms. Often I find myself voting for something that I don't think is right, I do this because I don't want any more of my liberties taken away. I want someone in disagreement with me to have the freedom to make their own choices.

    For the protection of our children, I would recommend the following. Set up a program that is similar in length and depth of a reserve police academy. Something along the lines of 6 months of evenings and weekend courses. Get volunteers to go through this academy, and complete a thorough background check, and firearms training. Use these volunteers to staff local schools in their community as volunteer armed civil security. I personally would volunteer for at least 24 hours a month.

    It might surprise you that I have voted democrat most of my life. I recently switched to the Libertarian Party, however I believe that you should vote for what you believe in, not what the rest of the people in your party believe . I tend to ignore what party a politician is in, and look at the beliefs and past actions have been. I have been known to vote for someone when I disagree with most of their views, yet feel they are the most honest.

    I will be watching the coming months, and will put my time, energy, money and my vote towards the politicians that protect my personal freedoms. The Second Amendment of the Constitution is the single most important law on the books, without it, the liberties of the American people are counterfeit.

    I love my country, my freedom, and my right to make decisions as a citizen of the United States
    Please support my personal freedoms in the coming months.
  2. jimboshooter

    West Portland, Oregon
    Active Member

    Likes Received:
    This is on my plan today as well.
  3. nforest

    Eugene, OR & Costa Rica
    Active Member

    Likes Received:
    Its the single most important thing we can do to protect our freedoms. Either make your voice heard, or go sit down and accept what is handed out.
  4. dallen1x

    Wil_Val, OR
    Active Member

    Likes Received:
  5. CounterOfBeans

    Active Member

    Likes Received:
    I'm posting some Oregon State laws to raise people's awareness about something that might be helpful with everyone's letter writing. These laws relate to our gun "rights" and if they are cited back to the Legislators who created them, they can't escape the responsibility of addressing the gun rights grievances of their constituents.

    According to the language of these laws, it's clear that we Citizens have come to put too much trust in official assertions about how CHL laws apply. A complete reading of these laws shows that CHL laws don't apply the way we are lead to believe they do. These laws point to how discussions that link CHL laws to our gun "rights" are taking us way off target in protecting our gun rights. We all know that "knowledge is power", so please take a moment to read these laws and decide for yourself, because in light of these laws, it seems that we have to make a decision about whether we actually have rights and exercise them.... or that we just pretend to have rights by applying for them and making scheduled payments to maintain government approval to keep them.

    I’ll cite the laws first and offer some suggestions on how they can be used at the end. If it’s easier to read the suggestions first for context, then by all means feel free. Please share your questions and comments.

    Oregon Constitution, Article 1, "Section 26
    . 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 [sic].—"

    Oregon Constitution, Article 1, "Section 27
    . Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]"

    ORS "181.400
    Interference with personal and property rights of others. No member of the state police shall in any way interfere with the rights or property of any person, except for the prevention of crime, or the capture or arrest of persons committing crimes."

    ORS "181.030
    Powers and duties of department and its members. (3) Each member of the state police has the same general powers and authority as those conferred by law upon sheriffs, police officers, constables and peace officers. A member of the state police may be appointed as a deputy medical examiner."

    ORS "174.030
    Construction favoring natural right to prevail. Where a statute is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former is to prevail."

    Oregon Constitution, Article 1, "Section 22.
    Suspension of operation of laws. The operation of the laws shall never be suspended, except by the Authority of the Legislative Assembly."

    Oregon Constitution, Article 1, "Section 21.
    Ex-post facto laws; laws impairing contracts; laws depending on authorization in order to take effect; laws submitted to electors. No ex-post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall ever be passed,nor shall any law be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution; provided, that laws locating the Capitol of the State, locating County Seats, and submitting town, and corporate acts, and other local, and Special laws may take effect, or not, upon a vote of the electors interested.—"

    ORS "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."

    ORS "166.291.
    (1) The sheriff of a county, upon a person’s application for an Oregon concealed handgun license, upon receipt of the appropriate fees and after compliance with the procedures set out in this section, shall issue the person a concealed handgun license if the person: ....."

    ORS "166.292
    Procedure for issuing; form of license; duration. (1) If the application for the license is approved, the sheriff shall issue and mail or otherwise deliver to the applicant at the address shown on the application, within 45 days of the application, a wallet sized license bearing the photograph of the licensee. The license must be signed by the licensee and carried whenever the licensee carries a concealed handgun. ...."

    ORS 166.210
    Definitions. As used in ORS 166.250 to 166.270, 166.291 to 166.295 and 166.410 to 166.470:
    (1) “Antique firearm” means:
    (a) Any firearm, including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap or similar type of ignition system, manufactured in or before 1898; and
    (b) Any replica of any firearm described in paragraph (a) of this subsection if the replica:
    (A) Is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition; or
    (B) Uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition that is no longer manufactured in the United States and that is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
    (2) “Corrections officer” has the meaning given that term in ORS 181.610.
    (3) “Firearm” means a weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of powder.
    (4) “Firearms silencer” means any device for silencing, muffling or diminishing the report of a firearm.
    (5) “Handgun” means any pistol or revolver using a fixed cartridge containing a propellant charge, primer and projectile, and designed to be aimed or fired otherwise than from the shoulder.
    (6) “Machine gun” means a weapon of any description by whatever name known, loaded or unloaded, which is designed or modified to allow two or more shots to be fired by a single pressure on the trigger device.
    (7) “Minor” means a person under 18 years of age.
    (8) “Offense” has the meaning given that term in ORS 161.505.
    (9) “Parole and probation officer” has the meaning given that term in ORS 181.610.
    (10) “Peace officer” has the meaning given that term in ORS 133.005.
    (11) “Short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than 16 inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle if the weapon has an overall length of less than 26 inches.
    (12) “Short-barreled shotgun” means a shotgun having one or more barrels less than 18 inches in length and any weapon made from a shotgun if the weapon has an overall length of less than 26 inches. [Amended by 1977 c.769 §1; 1979 c.779 §3; 1989 c.839 §1; 1993 c.735 §14; 1995 c.670 §3; 1999 c.1040 §2; 2001 c.666 §§32,44; 2003 c.614 §7; 2007 c.368 §1; 2009 c.610 §4]

    So, based on what you see above:

    ....We have the "right" to instruct our legislators & the "right" to petition them for redress of our grievances (See #1), those grievances being that:

    ....We have the "right" to "bear arms for the defense of ourselves” (See #2) and neither the Oregon or federal Constitutions impose conditions on that right, yet those rights are being interfered with.

    ....We have the "right" to contract with others and sales transactions are contracts, yet our right to contract through purchase of handguns is being interfered with through CHL "policies". Here's how. We generally buy things because we expect to be able to use them as we see fit for our needs. Otherwise, we don't buy them? A handgun is a primary tool for close quarter defense and when we enter a purchase transaction contract to acquire one (we get a bill of sale), it’s for the purpose of "bearing" it for self-defense, as a matter of “right”. As a result, a fundamental, inseparable ingredient of a handgun purchase contract is the legal presumption and common understanding that it will be rightfully used for self defense. So to impair the “right”... is to impair the purchase contract’s agreement between the parties (buyer & seller). Since “No law shall impair the obligation of contracts nor be made to depend on any authority except as authorized by the Constitution (See #7), laws or policies that impose conditions on the method that a handgun is carried is a violation of the “right” to contract, as tacitly, inherently expressed through the nature of handgun sale contracts.

    ….that our gun rights are being interfered with in spite of the fact that the Legislature's intent in law is to favor arguments that support rights, during disagreements over the interpretation of laws pertaining to rights (See #5).

    …. that our gun rights are being interfered with in spite of the Legislature's intent to prohibit the State police (who have the same general powers and authority as other LEOs - See #4) from interfering with “rights” or property in any way, except for when they need to prevent "crime" in the line of duty (See #3).

    ….The word “license” is defined in the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) under the Administrative Procedures Act (in Oregon that is chapter 183). The Administrative Procedures Act controls how executive branch agencies carry out their duties of carrying out the legislative intent of the law, through "administering" or enforcing the law. The legislative intent of the lawful definition of “license” (See #8) is that “license” only applies to activities of a “commercial” nature. The exercise of “rights” is not “commercial” in nature. It is natural, fundamental and unalienable in nature. The word "license" is not applicable to the exercise of "rights" and so we should stop letting gun rights debates be infected with the false premise that CHL's are legitimate restrictions of our rights.

    ….Oregon’s concealed carry license laws are ORS 166.291 through 166.295 (See #9). The definitions section that applies to these laws is at ORS 166.210 (See #11). If there was a definition of “license” that the Legislature intended to be specific to concealed carry laws and different from the definition at ORS 183.310(5), it would be included in 166.210. But, since this definitions section does not provide a definition of “license”, the definition in the Administrative Procedures Act at 183.310(5) applies by default…. i.e. “license” only applies to “commercial” purposes… i.e. armored truck personnel, private security firms & employees, private detectives, body guards, etc.

    ….If the effect of concealed carry “policies” is to use the force of perceived officialness (through the word "policy") to claim lawfulness, but in reality those "policies" unlawfully expand the plainly-worded legislative intent of what the law(s) actually say, then “policies” function only to “suppress” the operation of what the Legislature actually intended for the law…. i.e. concealed carry “policies” suppress or oppose concealed carry “laws” (See #6). To systemically use "policy" to suppress the legislative intent of the "law" is to make Legislators (the agents for the will of the People) irrelevant. If Legislators are made irrelevant by the actions of another branch (through "policy"), then the People’s will has no effect and we cease to have the form of government guaranteed by US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4, See #12 below:

    US Constitution Article 4, Section 4
    . Guaranty of republican form of government; protecting states against invasion or domestic violence. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
  6. CharonPDX

    Portland, OR
    Active Member

    Likes Received:
    I wish. My state senator is the indomitable Ginny Burdick. I even met with her last year in person. I explained the difference between a "clip" and a "magazine", and why bans don't work. Hell, I even threw in a "bone" to her to try to get her to back CHL privacy, namely that she should try to sponsor legislation that defines "gun free zone" signs that have legal standing, similar to some other states. (Personally, if a business wants to ban guns, I think they should do it in a very public up front sign as some other states require. A tiny fine-print disclaimer you have to go to customer service to read doesn't do it. If you want law-abiding gun owners out of your property, you should be forced to post a sign obviously in every door. And if they are willing to do that, fine, add force of law to it - I won't be going there anyway.)

    Nope. Not willing to compromise one bit, and didn't learn the difference between clips and magazines. If only her actual proposed bill had the wrong wording. I would have no problem giving up 30-round "clips"... :p (Actually, I'd kind of like to see one of those for my SKS. That would be ridiculously unwieldy.)
  7. Coffindodger


    Likes Received:
    Doneski!! Sent emails and hand written copies. Our Republic depends on us using the Constitution to protect us from the tyranny!! I had to print and sign for snail mail after the first four because my hand got tired. Going to hand write more tomorrow. Call me crazy but I still think a hand written letter carries more meaning. Don't go thinking about that statement. All that really matters is that the constituencies care.

Share This Page