SB 941 passed. Now what?

[Solved]

According to @bolus in this thread: https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/riley-mclain-recall.195405/page-10 It appears SAF was unwilling to help in the recall efforts. Not sure if they'd be willing to do something else.

To be honest I can understand that. I think that's a little out of their playing field. I would be will to bet they would be interested in lawsuits regarding SB 941.

 

[Jarhead0093]

But isn't informing the voters and/or changing their minds the same as trying to get to the politicians the same? These officials are elected by people who generally agree with their ideology and stances on issues. If you don't believe the voters can be changed, why would you think they will elect different people?

 

[etrain16]

People keep bringing up the lack of knowledge on the issues. You are assuming they even care to know. There are issues out there that I really just don't care either way on, (weed, gay marriage). So I'm not driven to fight for them or against them. Same way with the gun issue.

Voter apathy is a big problem, and one that the other side counts on to win. Our biggest ally is truth, but we have to find a way to get that truth into their heads, and encourage them to act. That is where we lack, and where they continually succeed. We may need to start playing more like them if we hope to win. Remind people that the same people in Salem passed this measure, did so by refusing additional funding for mental health and for law enforcement - things many of them promised they would do. We need to point out more than just the gun issues if we want more involvement and more support - show them that they are losing on more than one front, and they may just get ticked enough to 'learn' and get involved.

Call me an optimist if you like, I think we can use a few.

 

[etrain16]

To be honest I can understand that. I think that's a little out of their playing field. I would be will to bet they would be interested in lawsuits regarding SB 941.

Perhaps. I'd love it if that could happen. I guess first that law (once it becomes law) will have to be scrutinized carefully to see if there is in fact anything that could substantially be worthy of a lawsuit. We already know that the idea of BGC in general was already supported by the Supreme Court, so they would likely have to find some other part of the bill that could be challenged. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say what they may find.

 

[Jarhead0093]

Voter apathy is a big problem, and one that the other side counts on to win. Our biggest ally is truth, but we have to find a way to get that truth into their heads, and encourage them to act. That is where we lack, and where they continually succeed. We may need to start playing more like them if we hope to win. Remind people that the same people in Salem passed this measure, did so by refusing additional funding for mental health and for law enforcement - things many of them promised they would do. We need to point out more than just the gun issues if we want more involvement and more support - show them that they are losing on more than one front, and they may just get ticked enough to 'learn' and get involved.

Call me an optimist if you like, I think we can use a few.

That's part of my point. The general public nowadays cares way more about fairytale football, who got kicked off the island, who can sing better than who and what celebrity is coming out of the closet. Especially people my age. People don't follow this issue or a lot of issues as closely as they used to. They have other things that catch their attention because politics quite frankly are boring for most people.

 

[Solved]

Perhaps. I'd love it if that could happen. I guess first that law (once it becomes law) will have to be scrutinized carefully to see if there is in fact anything that could substantially be worthy of a lawsuit. We already know that the idea of BGC in general was already supported by the Supreme Court, so they would likely have to find some other part of the bill that could be challenged. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say what they may find.

I might be mistaken, but I thought the only thing the USSC has ever ruled on is that congress can regulate interstate commerce so background checks at ffls are fine.

I don't know if they have rule on BGC's within the states.

 

[Just Jim]

I've talked to many people about this boycott that are all in for it. Yet they still buy things from those states.

I just fail to see what you're calling for people to do.

State runs on money so if you want them to have less power then take away the money. Let them know you are unhappy by not buying the things they get money from. Buy booze in legal amounts from other state, when pot comes on line don't buy from Oregon. Just think before you buy as to how much is going to the state.

 

[etrain16]

That's part of my point. The general public nowadays cares way more about fairytale football, who got kicked off the island, who can sing better than who and what celebrity is coming out of the closet. Especially people my age. People don't follow this issue or a lot of issues as closely as they used to. They have other things that catch their attention because politics quite frankly are boring for most people.

Absolutely agree. The gradual dumbing down of the American voter has taken considerable time and effort over generations. There was a time when students were expected to understand how it all worked and to pay attention and be involved. But now they vote with their hearts rather than their minds and are motivated more out of fear than by facts.

Our daughter is home schooled and she is learning about the founding of this country, how the political system works, and likely soon, will be helping collect signatures in her first (and my first) recall attempt for our rep. Brent Barton. Education at it's finest. I can guarantee at least one fewer apathetic voter in the next generation.

 

[Jarhead0093]

The state will get its money either way. Raising property or income taxes can be one way. Everything you do the state gets something from. Buying gas, going to work, turning on a light, buying food. Unless you move to the mountains and grow your own food, you're always paying to the state

 

[etrain16]

I might be mistaken, but I thought the only thing the USSC has ever ruled on is that congress can regulate interstate commerce so background checks at ffls are fine.

I don't know if they have rule on BGC's within the states.

It was part of the 2008 Heller decision. As I recall, it was part of Chief Justice Robert's commentary as part of the decision, wherein he noted that background checks did not violate our Constitutional rights. That fact was noted several times yesterday during the testimony by the pro-941 side. Justice Roberts did us no favors on that one.

 

[Just Jim]

I do think it's still possible to wake them up. Only time will tell if that's actually the case. My hope is that we can, working collectively, wake up a lot of voters and get them to actually vote, we'll also wake up the bozos in Salem. But whatever way gets them to worry or panic is good with me. I don't think it has to be either/or, it really should be both. Oh, and what a message that would send

I've talked to two people already today that didn't even know about SB941. Once I informed them, they were mad. Too late for this one, but two more voters to get involved in the next round. And it was as simple as a 5 minute discussion.

I have no confidence in the voters and dam little confidence that people will stand up for their rights by boycott. It is the only peaceful way to protest short of a work stoppage. Those who won't fight for their rights today will have a much bigger fight tomorrow.

 

[etrain16]

I have no confidence in the voters and dam little confidence that people will stand up for their rights by boycott. It is the only peaceful way to protest short of a work stoppage. Those who won't fight for their rights today will have a much bigger fight tomorrow.

I will remain optimistic for the voters to change, for now. I guess I'm not at the point in my life yet where I'm ready to feel defeated (and I'm not suggesting you are, just FYI), but I still feel a pull of optimism, and that keeps me going here.

 

[RVTECH]

Just opinion, if you go though life with that opinion that people can't fight

I, like others are not going through life with any particular opinion - it's more a matter of being pragmatic about what can really be done. Quite frankly I read all the time about how "We have to stop this", or "We have to fight this" or any one of a number of things but really most of it sounds like childlike banter. Jarhead's post somewhat echoed my point and like me he is NOT giving in or giving up - we (and we are probably not alone) would simply like to see something plausible to work towards rather than just the time-worn, redundant empty threats. Sorry but no amount of screaming about 'inalienable rights' , calling the Dems names, threatening non-compliance with the law or anything else I can see at this juncture is going to do much. As much as I HATE to admit it (and as long as the Dems are the MAJORITY) there will be changes! Like it or not, right or wrong, good or bad it will happen and until something dramatic happens (such as win back majority) changes will take place - and everyone has a choice of how they will deal with the changes. I just hope they are good choices and not anything that will get anyone into trouble or worsen the situation.

 

[Just Jim]

The state will get its money either way. Raising property or income taxes can be one way. Everything you do the state gets something from. Buying gas, going to work, turning on a light, buying food. Unless you move to the mountains and grow your own food, you're always paying to the state

Best way I can explain it is compound interest, what seems like a small amount will really grow over time. Every dollar spent generates 10, with hold those dollars and it's tax money not generated. They will have to bring tax increases to the voters and that is one issue that fails every time because it's about money. Money is the key, keep it from them and send a message.

 

[Jarhead0093]

Best way I can explain it is compound interest, what seems like a small amount will really grow over time. Every dollar spent generates 10, with hold those dollars and it's tax money not generated. They will have to bring tax increases to the voters and that is one issue that fails every time because it's about money. Money is the key, keep it from them and send a message.

I agree that money is important, especially to legislators. But I just don't see people backing a boycott from the passage of this law. If they had passed a law banning everything but bolt actions and single shot shotguns, I may be with you on it. But the background check issue just isn't big enough to spark the fire in people. 11 other states have proven that.

 

[Just Jim]

I, like others are not going through life with any particular opinion - it's more a matter of being pragmatic about what can really be done. Quite frankly I read all the time about how "We have to stop this", or "We have to fight this" or any one of a number of things but really most of it sounds like childlike banter. Jarhead's post somewhat echoed my point and like me he is NOT giving in or giving up - we (and we are probably not alone) would simply like to see something plausible to work towards rather than just the time-worn, redundant empty threats. Sorry but no amount of screaming about 'inalienable rights' , calling the Dems names, threatening non-compliance with the law or anything else I can see at this juncture is going to do much. As much as I HATE to admit it (and as long as the Dems are the MAJORITY) there will be changes! Like it or not, right or wrong, good or bad it will happen and until something dramatic happens (such as win back majority) changes will take place - and everyone has a choice of how they will deal with the changes. I just hope they are good choices and not anything that will get anyone into trouble or worsen the situation.

We all pick the road we travel to the same destination. I will boycott to fight back, it may not have much affect or it may send a message but it's the path I choose. I am sure there were plenty of people in Komiefornia that sat back in a pragmatic way waiting for it all to change, it doesn't look to me like it worked for those folkes. I will look for folkes who care about their right to help with this.

 

[Jarhead0093]

To be fair you're not really boycotting if you're still living here and paying taxes.

 

[Just Jim]

I agree that money is important, especially to legislators. But I just don't see people backing a boycott from the passage of this law. If they had passed a law banning everything but bolt actions and single shot shotguns, I may be with you on it. But the background check issue just isn't big enough to spark the fire in people. 11 other states have proven that.

11 other states have decided to fail by going to the vote, time to do something to send a message. It's far more than a background check, this is gun registration and the first step to confiscation. Plus the state is stealing your money by forcing you to use a dealer to sell your property. It's not a background check, it's a tax and registration.

 

[Jarhead0093]

And please don't accuse me of not caring about my rights. I wore a uniform to defend them.

 

[RVTECH]

And please don't accuse me of not caring about my rights. I wore a uniform to defend them.

Same here - twice over- first blue then green