Right to Carry and Senator Merkley

[HappyRoman]

Dear Sanford,



Thank you for contacting me to share your views about the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, which would modify gun ownership regulations by requiring states to recognize all other states' concealed carry permits. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.



I understand that people feel very passionately on both sides regarding the regulation of gun ownership. The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act would allow gun owners with valid permits from one state to carry concealed weapons in other states that issue such permits. While I have always supported the right of law-abiding gun owners to own and use firearms, I oppose this bill because I believe states should have the right to establish and enforce their own gun laws. This bill would eviscerate Oregon's ability to set its own laws related to carrying concealed weapons. I believe that Oregonians, not politicians in other states, should determine who has the right to carry within our state.



Thank you, again, for sharing your thoughts with me, and please continue to keep me informed about the issues that matter most to you.




All my best,

Jeffrey A. Merkley
United States Senator

Read More

 

[bikejunkie]

What a douche. Thanks for ousting Gordon Smith people of the Portland metro...

 

[FarmerTed1971]

Well regardless of the issue I think he is right about preserving states' rights. Unfortunately on this particular issue I think he is wrong, but we cannot have it both ways.

 

[BroncoFan]

What a douche. Thanks for ousting Gordon Smith people of the Portland metro...

Actually I like it when they get this specific. I did not in any circumstance expect him to support the bill but now you have ammunition to ask the question - "Given your position on the national reciprocity bill, how can you defend your support of Obama care and FEDERAL mandates that obvisouly attempt to circumvent not only individual but also states' rights?"

 

[hermannr]

Well regardless of the issue I think he is right about preserving states' rights. Unfortunately on this particular issue I think he is wrong, but we cannot have it both ways.

You guys will never understand, will you. The National reciprocity act has nothing to do with states rights. It has to do with the national government tell the states to get along, acknowledge the lawful act of another state...something that the national government has a legitimate purpose doing as per Article IV section 1.

If you don't study history, you might want to...history will tell you where this all came from. Specifically, study Germany in the 16th century.

The National Reciprocity Act does not force any law on the states, it only tells the states to acknowledge the lawful acts of another state. That is simply all it does, and it totally within the perview of what the National government is SUPPOSED to do. The individual states are to treat all of the citizens of the United States, the same way. You are a citizen of your state, but at the same time, you are a citizen of the United States.

When I, as a citizen of another state (WA), visit Oregon, I am expected to abide by the laws of the state of Oregon...However...I am not required to get an Oregon drivers license, I do not need to reregister my car, and they are not even guaranteed "rights" in the constitution...No, If I was to visit Oregon (or you visit WA) my drivers license and registration of my state of residence, and it's laws concerning same, are accepted by the other states. There is no reasonable reason the same should not be with firearms. I still have to abide by Oregon Traffic law, but my privilage to operate a motor vehicle in Oregon is not questioned.

To prove this point, the law does not require IL to recognize anyones permits...why...because IL does not allow it's own citizens to carry, so to have equal protection under law, it can also refuse to allow non-resident US citizens to carry. IF/When IL has a carry provision for it's own citizens, then the National reciprocity act would effect them...they would be require to acknowledge other states permits. That is at least until Wollard V Sheriden makes it's way through the US Supreme Court and the right to carry outside the home is recognized, US wide.

This is NOT the same concept as the NFA, or the CGA68. Those were founded on completely different principles and are, IMHO, unconstitutional infringments on states rights.

That your senator is hiding behind "states rights" is exactly what he is doing...hiding from the issue because it is politically hot.

 

[FarmerTed1971]

Very well written post hermannr.
You should send this to Merkeley. I'd be curious as to what his response would be.

 

[bikejunkie]

"Given your position on the national reciprocity bill, how can you defend your support of Obama care and FEDERAL mandates that obvisouly attempt to circumvent not only individual but also states' rights?"

Well played sir- that's a great one to drop on someone...

 

[fd15k]

Yes, states have powers (not rights) to regulate firearms. Citizens have a right to defend themselves. Citizens' rights > State's powers. When a state is in violation of citizens' rights, not only Feds have authority to intervene, but they also have an obligation to do so.

 

[hermannr]

Very well written post hermannr.
You should send this to Merkeley. I'd be curious as to what his response would be.

Go ahead and use it, send it to him. I would also be curous as to his reasoning. He is not my senator...I have my own o'bhinds to deal with here. Might add fd15k's followup comment to the end of it.

 

[chemist]

It's tricky business - once the feds assume nationwide control, they can wipe out legal carry in one stroke.
I actually have to agree with Merkley here, since creeping federalization is such a broad risk to our autonomy.

 

[Cougfan2]

It's tricky business - once the feds assume nationwide control, they can wipe out legal carry in one stroke.
I actually have to agree with Merkley here, since creeping federalization is such a broad risk to our autonomy.

While I don't believe this was Merkley's motivation, I do agree that if the feds ever assume nationwide control of concealed carry that it's just a matter of time before it is so over regulated that it basically becomes impossible to carry concealed legally. I don't want the federal camel's nose under that tent.

 

[fd15k]

It's tricky business - once the feds assume nationwide control, they can wipe out legal carry in one stroke.
I actually have to agree with Merkley here, since creeping federalization is such a broad risk to our autonomy.

I get an impression that you are neither familiar with the provisions of that bill, or the mechanisms of enforcement behind it. Please
read on, and come back with any questions you may have.

While I don't believe this was Merkley's motivation, I do agree that if the feds ever assume nationwide control of concealed carry that it's just a matter of time before it is so over regulated that it basically becomes impossible to carry concealed legally. I don't want the federal camel's nose under that tent.

Same goes for you

 

[Cougfan2]

Same goes for you

I guess you trust the feds far more than I do.

 

[fd15k]

I guess you trust the feds far more than I do.

It's really not about trust or distrust towards feds, but it's about what that bill does and how it does it. It absolutely doesn't expand Federal powers, and does not establish any regulative authority over CCW.

 

[CharonPDX]

I'm writing him a letter refuting the "wouldn't let Oregon..." part, and if you REALLY want to get the leftie "personal rights" part of him up in arms, mention how this is something akin to marriage licenses, and wouldn't it be nice if we also had a law that made all states recognize all other states marriage licenses...

 

[Cougfan2]

It's really not about trust or distrust towards feds, but it's about what that bill does and how it does it. It absolutely doesn't expand Federal powers, and does not establish any regulative authority over CCW.

With all due respect, you miss my point. It absolutely doesn't expand Federal Powers and does not establish any regulative authority over CCW YET!

My point is that once the feds establish ANY KIND of authority over concealed carry laws they are open to add more regulations in the future. I know what the law says. We must agree to disagree.

 

[fd15k]

With all due respect, you miss my point. It absolutely doesn't expand Federal Powers and does not establish any regulative authority over CCW YET!

My point is that once the feds establish ANY KIND of authority over concealed carry laws they are open to add more regulations in the future. I know what the law says. We must agree to disagree.

I will make it easy for you. If the feds really decide to mess with ccw, they will do it via Interstate Commerce clause. This bill operates via Full Faith and Credit though. Your tinfoil hat is not needed here

 

[Cougfan2]

I will make it easy for you. If the feds really decide to mess with ccw, they will do it via Interstate Commerce clause. This bill operates via Full Faith and Credit though. Your tinfoil hat is not needed here

Can't argue with a true believer. Party on Garth!!!

 

[fd15k]

Can't argue with a true believer. Party on Garth!!!

Yes, I am the stupid one

 

[Hairtrigger]

May I also take this to understand, that Sen. Merkley distrusts lawful CCW holders, unless they are Oregonian?