Oregon Senate 243C and HB 3076 Commentary

[Will_White]

Also looking at the other ammendments, if they wanted restrictions, they would have put them in.

 

[Will_White]

Well. Obscene and pornographic materials?

Those are protected speech, age based restrictions are reasonable.

Replace the word soldier with homeless? Maybe similar situation for property owners, including those in the hotel/motel business?

That's not the government mandating it, and you can remove them non-violently. Its a problem but not a violation of the Third Ammendment.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Those are protected speech, age based restrictions are reasonable.

Potato, tomato, schmotato. I do know that there are State level laws and I believe also there was a federal thing about distribution of "obscene" materials too? Way this country is going, I wouldn't be surprised to see a weird return to those kind of laws but the content is different from what was considered "obscene" back then

 

[Will_White]

Potato, tomato, schmotato. I do know that there are State level laws and I believe also there was a federal thing about distribution of "obscene" materials too? Way this country is going, I wouldn't be surprised to see a weird return to those kind of laws but the content is different from what was considered "obscene" back then

Other then recent state level laws that will be ruled unconstitutional eventually, The only laws I know of are in regards to making with or distributing to minors. There might also be local employment laws regarding the making of (Its not something I've looked into that much).

 

[mithrandir]

You are kidding me?

Dude. Privately owned warships. Privately owned cannon. Equipment as good or better as the British Army at that time. And they defeated what was one of the largest empires at that time (only the French and the Spanish empires were technically on par with the British), winning the freedom to become the USA.

I think evidence is ample in their writings in the Federalist Papers and their speeches that they intended that both the organized militias and unorganized militias were to be on par with the armies of the time, equipment-wise. Training is an issue, yes but that is true no matter the era or the country.

And there were state laws restricting going out in public with weapons at the time of the founding.

What restrictions are there on religions, speech, or press? When was the last time you non voluntarily housed a soldier? When are you compelled to incriminate yourself?

I'll admit that the 4th amendment has been eroded but we should be fighting against that just as much.

Well. Obscene and pornographic materials?


Replace the word soldier with homeless? Maybe similar situation for property owners, including those in the hotel/motel business?


In the public? but really, most of the time people are dumb enough to incriminate themselves without promoting.


Indeed.

Also time, place, and manner restrictions, fighting words/genuine threats of violence, harassment, etc.

 

[mithrandir]

Other then recent state level laws that will be ruled unconstitutional eventually, The only laws I know of are in regards to making with or distributing to minors. There might also be local employment laws regarding the making of (Its not something I've looked into that much).

Still an abridgement regardless of what you think is reasonable.

 

[Will_White]

And there were state laws restricting going out in public with weapons at the time of the founding.

Those weren't about the weapons they were about the action of causing fear and disturbance.

Also time, place, and manner restrictions, fighting words/genuine threats of violence, harassment, etc.

Genuine threats of violence and harassment aren't protected because they cause harm to someone else, same with libel and defamation.

 

[mithrandir]

Those weren't about the weapons they were about the action of causing fear and disturbance.

Genuine threats of violence and harassment aren't protected because they cause harm to someone else, same with libel and defamation.

They did name weapons. Regardless, sounds like you don't think those laws violate the right to bear arms, so by that same reasoning it would be ok to outlaw bearing AR-15 pattern rifles to the terror of the public.

And that's still an abridgement of the freedom of speech.

 

[Librarian]

Agree. Vote by mail is part of the problem in Oregon. Another is the low IQ of many Oregonians - who stand by and do nothing to fight the Democrat's agenda.

Let us not stand by this time - https://www.endvbm.com/

Donate, get a sign or two, sign the petition to get the measure on the 2026 ballot

 

[Will_White]

They did name weapons. Regardless, sounds like you don't think those laws violate the right to bear arms, so by that same reasoning it would be ok to outlaw bearing AR-15 pattern rifles to the terror of the public.

And that's still an abridgement of the freedom of speech.

Yeah bearing weapons to the terror of the public is illegal, doesn't matter the weapon. Thats not analogous to concealed carry restrictions, assault weapon bans, NFA regulations, High capacity mag restrictions, or anything that puts the American people on an unequal footing with a US Army infantry squad or even the local PD.

Calling Libel and Defamation an abridgement of the freedom of speech is like saying that the 2nd ammendment is restricted because its not legal to shoot people. Your rights end where it causes harm to someone else.

 

[mithrandir]

Yeah bearing weapons to the terror of the public is illegal, doesn't matter the weapon. Thats not analogous to concealed carry restrictions, assault weapon bans, NFA regulations, High capacity mag restrictions, or anything that that puts the American people on an unequal footing with a US Army infantry squad or even the local PD.

Calling Libel and Defamation an abridgement of the freedom of speech is like saying that the 2nd ammendment is restricted because its not legal to shoot people. Your rights end where it causes harm to someone else.

Never said that it was analogous to those things, nor that I support them.

If one argues that the Second Amendment doesn't distinguish between different kinds of arms and therefore protects all of them, then to be consistent one must apply that same reasoning to the First Amendment as it makes no distinctions between different kinds or manners of speech or publication.

I'll grant libel and defamation for the sake of argument because they can cause objectively measurable harm. That does not, however, cover time/place/manner restrictions, certain definitions of harassment, or even necessarily fighting words or e.g. incitements to violence. The First Amendment makes no distinction. I don't think you get to define it away by saying "restricting illegal speech isn't abridging the freedom of speech because it's illegal speech," or even "because it's harmful." The fact is, we make some distinctions where the First Amendment does not.

 

[Will_White]

Never said that it was analogous to those things, nor that I support them.

If one argues that the Second Amendment doesn't distinguish between different kinds of arms and therefore protects all of them, then to be consistent one must apply that same reasoning to the First Amendment as it makes no distinctions between different kinds or manners of speech or publication.

I'll grant libel and defamation for the sake of argument because they can cause objectively measurable harm. That does not, however, cover time/place/manner restrictions, certain definitions of harassment, or even necessarily fighting words or e.g. incitements to violence. The First Amendment makes no distinction. I don't think you get to define it away by saying "restricting illegal speech isn't abridging the freedom of speech because it's illegal speech," or even "because it's harmful." The fact is, we make some distinctions where the First Amendment does not.

The distinction is the same with the first amendment and the second, your rights end where it causes or legitimately threatens harm to someone else. My having a 120mm Mortar, M2 machine gun, or even a fully loaded F22 doesn't cause harm to anybody.

Quoting from Google "Time, place, and manner restrictions are content-neutral limitations imposed by the government on expressive activities like speech and assembly. These restrictions regulate when, where, and how something can be said, without regard to the content of the message. Such restrictions are constitutional if they serve a significant government interest, are narrowly tailored to that interest, and leave open ample alternative channels for communication."

If we accept that as legal, which for the most part I don't, then let's look at it as it would pertains to the second amendment.

Time: Restrictions on usage of firearms at certain times, if its narrowly tailored, sure.

Place: Restrictions on where you can carry, if its narrow and serves a significant government interest, sure lets call it high security and high sensitivity areas can be restricted.

Manner: Restrictions on whether you can carry openly or have to conceal it, sure.

Leave open ample alternative channels: What is the alternative to carrying your own gun? If a government entity bars carry they must limit access and provide liable security and screening? That's not the most egregious.

None of that covers what I can own, use, and make on private property.

 

[mithrandir]

The distinction is the same with the first amendment and the second, your rights end where it causes or legitimately threatens harm to someone else. My having a 120mm Mortar, M2 machine gun, or even a fully loaded F22 doesn't cause harm to anybody.

Quoting from Google "Time, place, and manner restrictions are content-neutral limitations imposed by the government on expressive activities like speech and assembly. These restrictions regulate when, where, and how something can be said, without regard to the content of the message. Such restrictions are constitutional if they serve a significant government interest, are narrowly tailored to that interest, and leave open ample alternative channels for communication."

If we accept that as legal, which for the most part I don't, then let's look at it as it would pertains to the second amendment.

Time: Restrictions on usage of firearms at certain times, if its narrowly tailored, sure.

Place: Restrictions on where you can carry, if its narrow and serves a significant government interest, sure lets call it high security and high sensitivity areas can be restricted.

Manner: Restrictions on whether you can carry openly or have to conceal it, sure.

Leave open ample alternative channels: What is the alternative to carrying your own gun? If a government entity bars carry they must limit access and provide liable security and screening? That's not the most egregious.

None of that covers what I can own and use on private property.

All of which infringe (as it's been defined here) the right to bear arms. So if, in theory, you're ok with some restrictions like those as long as they are narrowly tailored for a compelling governmental interest, then we are on the same page.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Is the KelTec PR57 with 10 round stripper clips and no magazine legal for carry outside of the house after the 10 round magazine limit goes into effect in Oregon?

 

[Will_White]

Is the KelTec PR57 with 10 round stripper clips and no magazine legal for carry outside of the house after the 10 round magazine limit goes into effect in Oregon?

As m114 is written that would be a large capacity magazine.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

As m114 is written that would be a large capacity magazine.

Is that the same as the 3075 that passed in Oregon this year?

 

[Will_White]

Is that the same as the 3075 that passed in Oregon this year?

3075 didn't pass, sb243 changed the implementation date of m114

 

[Will_White]

All of which infringe (as it's been defined here) the right to bear arms. So if, in theory, you're ok with some restrictions like those as long as they are narrowly tailored for a compelling governmental interest, then we are on the same page.

As it has been interpreted by The Lawyers in Black Robes for the first ammendment, those are the only analogous restrictions that would be acceptable.

The Lawyers in Black Robes haven't decided that to be the standard, they've decided on a text, history, and tradition standard. The text is clear. Looking at historical restrictions none of them say anything about the type of weapon, other then those saying that The Militia must have weapons compatible with army standards. The tradition is that people could privately own the WMDs of the day.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Looking at historical restrictions none of them say anything about the type of weapon, other then those saying that The Militia must have weapons compatible with army standards. The tradition is that people could privately own the WMDs of the day.

Indeed. Warships and cannon were basically the WMDs of the day, to say nothing of biological warfare (think smallpox infected blankets)

 

[Chris Siler]

HB3075 and HB3076 are unconstitutional. Particularly because they will be law in the whole state, but may only be adjudicated in one county.