Right to Carry and Senator Merkley

[fd15k]

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

Even if that's really his reasoning, he should be reminded that it's a two-way street. Not only persons from other states are not allowed to defend themselves in urban Oregon, but also Oregonians are not allowed to defend themselves in places like California and Colorado.

By the way, another point for the folks worried about federal regulation. This bill would fix the CCW exemption of the school zones. Right now Gun Free School Zones Act exempts persons with carry licenses issued in the particular state. But such exemption doesn't extend to the permits recognized by the state via reciprocity. And once again, GFSZA operates via Interstate Commerce clause, while this bill works via Full Faith and Credit.

 

[pchewn]

The main problem that I have with this proposed law is that it reinforces the idea that a permit should be required to carry concealed. I would like to leave the door open for a future where Oregon can change the state law to allow concealed carry without a permit. This law effectively would make sure that never happens.

 

[fd15k]

The main problem that I have with this proposed law is that it reinforces the idea that a permit should be required to carry concealed. I would like to leave the door open for a future where Oregon can change the state law to allow concealed carry without a permit. This law effectively would make sure that never happens.

Look at Arizona. This bill would change only one thing when you are visiting AZ - if you have a CHL from Oregon, then you would not be in violation of the GFSZA if you happen to be near a school. Otherwise it would make no difference at all - carry without a permit where allowed by AZ law. So by that example, if the legislature of Oregon later decides to allow permitless carry, they are free to do so.

 

[pchewn]

Look at Arizona. This bill would change only one thing when you are visiting AZ - if you have a CHL from Oregon, then you would not be in violation of the GFSZA if you happen to be near a school. Otherwise it would make no difference at all - carry without a permit where allowed by AZ law. So by that example, if the legislature of Oregon later decides to allow permitless carry, they are free to do so.

Understood. However, I am still against this law because it reinforces the idea that a permit is required to carry concealed.

 

[bikejunkie]

I'm sure the liberals in Oregon will approve permit-less concealed carry on or around the 1rst of Never

 

[fd15k]

Understood. However, I am still against this law because it reinforces the idea that a permit is required to carry concealed.

It's a bit too late for that:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

[CharonPDX]

Understood. However, I am still against this law because it reinforces the idea that a permit is required to carry concealed.

As fd15k says, the Supreme Court has already decided it. Without another Supreme Court decision to overturn the existing one, it's settled that a state can make it required.

Personally, while I would rather see constitutional carry at the Federal level, this step is better than nothing. I would rather have laws that should be unnecessary to increase freedoms than wait longer for the freedom that should exist to be validated. Baby steps that get us there in 10 years, where every 2 years we get 20% of the way there, is better to me than waiting 10 years to get all 100%. And if the political climate *NEVER* reaches the level where 100% can be had, I'd rather be at 80% after four increases than be stuck at 0%. (And it is a very real possibility that the political climate could never reach 100%.)

This is my belief on gun rights as well as other issues. I'd rather get what freedoms I can when I can than wait around forever for "the perfect" situation.

bikejunkie, there are plenty of liberals trying to convince the others that this should be a freedom equal to free speech, environmental protection, marriage equality, etc. Once we get the anti-gun liberals either replaced or educated, it will happen. (Dammit, I wish I had realized it was Ginny Burdick's re-election year - I would have run against her. I thought she wasn't up until 2014... Now I'll have to wait until 2016... Of course she's uncontested in the primary, and in this Senate district, she's guaranteed to win the general.)

 

[kyzug]

It's a bit too late for that:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Why do we even have a constitution if the most straightforward, plain language, statement, "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." can be casually brushed away by "conservative" justices who convince themselves that it does not mean what it says it means. These guys are supposed to be constructionists? They torture the language until it confesses what they want it to say.

/insert rant about the tree of liberty and protecting against domestic enemies.

 

[CharonPDX]

Yup. Those who claim that only "liberal" judges are "activist" aren't paying attention. *ANY* judge is an "activist" judge. That's just a label those on both sides use to make a judge that ruled in a way they disagree with sound bad. In reality, it seems that there are three kinds of judge:
1. Judges who refuse to rock the status quo. It doesn't matter what the issue is, they'll stick with "whatever current prevailing opinion is".
2. Judges who try to interpret laws and the Constitution "as the framers meant at the time of framing".
3. Judges who try to interpret laws and the Constitution "as the framers meant - applied to the current reality".

Personally, I would prefer somewhere between 2 and 3. A judge who is willing to interpret as it applies today, but within limits. For example, guns are completely different now than in 1792. "Arms" can refer to cruise missiles and even nuclear weapons. That seems like something that goes too far for a private citizen. But that's "drawing a reasonable line in the sand", not re-interpreting the entire amendment. Obviously, since the framers, soon after framing, passed a mandate requiring all able-bodied men to own a gun, they didn't think the right should be restricted. Thus, many of the restrictions (DC's recently overturned, Chicago's, etc,) should require an amendment, not simple "interpretation". (For that matter, the framers also passed a law mandating that certain segments of the population buy insurance...)

 

[hermannr]

Yup. Those who claim that only "liberal" judges are "activist" aren't paying attention. *ANY* judge is an "activist" judge. That's just a label those on both sides use to make a judge that ruled in a way they disagree with sound bad. In reality, it seems that there are three kinds of judge:
1. Judges who refuse to rock the status quo. It doesn't matter what the issue is, they'll stick with "whatever current prevailing opinion is".
2. Judges who try to interpret laws and the Constitution "as the framers meant at the time of framing".
3. Judges who try to interpret laws and the Constitution "as the framers meant - applied to the current reality".

Personally, I would prefer somewhere between 2 and 3. A judge who is willing to interpret as it applies today, but within limits. For example, guns are completely different now than in 1792. "Arms" can refer to cruise missiles and even nuclear weapons. That seems like something that goes too far for a private citizen. But that's "drawing a reasonable line in the sand", not re-interpreting the entire amendment. Obviously, since the framers, soon after framing, passed a mandate requiring all able-bodied men to own a gun, they didn't think the right should be restricted. Thus, many of the restrictions (DC's recently overturned, Chicago's, etc,) should require an amendment, not simple "interpretation". (For that matter, the framers also passed a law mandating that certain segments of the population buy insurance...)

The rights of owners of firearms in the 1600's are no different than the rights today. The framers of the constitution expected overbearing government, and wished to provide a means to resist the government when it is out of control, as well as provide for a ready military force, without having a standing army. Think the same way the Swiss do, that is the idea of a "milita". An armed force of citizens available to protect their state/country from some OUTSIDE threat.

Then you also have the individual's right to self defence...The right to bear arms is much broader than just your right to carry, and if we are to be able to resist an overbearing government, we need to have access to the same weapons the government has. If we are going to be an effective "milita" for the state, we need to have access to the same weapons the enemy has. Restricting what weapons a civilian has access to is not in the spirit of the 2A.

It was a lot simpler to understand in the 16th and 17 century..violent felons we executed..you did not have to worry about them wether the violence was from a mental problem or not. Those that were put in prison, were free to continue their lives when they were released. There were no restriction as we have today.

What I see forthcoming from the US Supreme court (assuming no changes there) is a ruling like Idaho's "in re Brickley" In re BRICKEY. which will unfetter Open Carry, once open carry if nationally recognized via the 2A...you will see more states get on board with their CC laws.

 

[fd15k]

The framers of the constitution expected overbearing government, and wished to provide a means to resist the government when it is out of control

You're omitting word Federal or Central.

Think the same way the Swiss do, that is the idea of a "milita". An armed force of citizens available to protect their state/country from some OUTSIDE threat.

Today we have the National Guard for that, in fact a very close equivalent of Swiss militia minus the draft.

Restricting what weapons a civilian has access to is not in the spirit of the 2A.

When Supreme Court ruled that Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states in 1830, Madison was still alive. In fact Madison's own actions were used in the reasoning.

 

[wence5]

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 obviously attempt to circumvent not only individual but also states' rights?"

I was thinking the same thing when I was reading his b.s. response. Merkley is a liberal politition, and will fall right in line behind Smuck Schumer.