Sponsor of 3200 and 758 responds

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Felt Lizard, Mar 2, 2013.

  1. Felt Lizard

    Felt Lizard
    The great NW

    Likes Received:
    Michael Dembrow had a discussion with constituents in a small venue in Portland this morning. It went about 2 hours. Approx 30 minutes focused on gun legislation.

    Dembrow was soft spoken and polite. He served as more of a moderator than an actual participant. He let the opposing folks in the room argue against one another. No one specifically targeted Dembrow's support for the legislation. Very smart on his part. Teflon smart. It may be the case that some of the vocal anti-gunners in the room were placed to protect him.

    Right off the bat, a woman objected to filming in the room. (she later revealed herself as rabidly anti gun) It was a pro gunner with the camera. Before the meeting got started, her objection cast a veil of friction and hostility over the entire event. I was perplexed that anyone at such a public event would expect the event not to be recorded. Regrettably, it divided the pro gunners in the room, and at one point pro-gunners were speaking against one another about it. This should never happen again. The pros should have been unified.

    Liability insurance was discussed. Dembrow admitted that though he is the sponsor, he had not read the entire bill. The pro gunners mentioned that the legislation will price people out of self protection. An anti responded that anytime someone gets shot, the financial burden on the public for providing medical care to that shot person is great. A pro gunner responded that the insurance is difficult to obtain and that his own carrier doesn't offer even it. Ironically, the rabid anti response was that it is available through the NRA and that it is not costly. The point was then made that Dembrow's district is very diverse in terms of class and race, and since insurance companies are frequently owned by the big banks, the requirement to add more cost for firearms ownership might essentially be classist and racist. This drew looks of disgust and head shaking from the anti crowd. Dembrow's response was : "I didn't mean it to be racist."

    When discussing the legislation regarding college carry, the point was made that only the armed stop the armed. An anti responded that in his personal experience, he had talked down multiple shooters with weapons in their hands. Another woman chimed in that she noticed that shooters always seemed to take their own lives with their guns after their crimes. Dembrow stated that he felt each school should be free to set the policy on their campus. (Take this in context though; currently CHL holders can legally go to any school)

    There was a comment that lead to a discussion about government tyranny and democide and guns being the ultimate check and balance. Dembrow fielded this one himself. He said that many may fear the police and military, but that these organizations are afforded extra privileges and trust to provide security for the rest of us. He stated that we don't live "in a society of absolute freedom." The implication was that sacrificing some liberty was required for some security.

    Someone asked Dembrow to assess what the odds were that the various gun bills would pass. Dembrow was quite candid. He stated that politicians typically draft a lot of legislation in the hopes that just a few the would pass. They wait a while and then come back and try to pass more. He stated that HB3200 is virtually dead on the vine, but Dembrow was very open about his hopes for smaller measures such as the universal background checks and liability insurance to get through. He also stated that he had received approx 2000 emails regarding gun control and that the majority of it supported his current position.

    Please let me know if I forgot something.

    tunus, your efforts and insight are greatly appreciated. I thank you for coming, and your unique perspective on this issue is critical. I meant what I said. I do hope you'll attend more of these as we gather to oppose this storm.

    Afterthought: Pros need to be more unified and organized.
  2. timac

    Loading Magazines!
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Gun owners need to stand as one period. The women used a typical Socialist /Communist tactic, use our freedoms against us. She protested the use of recordings, as I'm sure it violated her privacy etc. She knew it would get some Pro gun people on her side, as most gun owners strongly believe in their freedoms. She did her job very well, divide the Pro gunners and turn them on each other making their voices almost useless.
    Recognize the tactics they use to make us look like the angry gun owner they expect, read their literature. Know your enemy.

    State of Flux
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    My hats off to you, excellent reporting!
  4. tunus

    PDX, United States
    Active Member

    Likes Received:
    That particular woman did more than just divide the pro-gun crowd. She also fielded a few questions on behalf of Dembrow and I felt she distracted the gun control discussion with her factually unsupported blabber.
  5. One-Eyed Ross

    One-Eyed Ross
    Winlock, WA
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Remind the good representative of the people, that according to the Supreme Court of the United States, the police ARE NOT REQUIRED to protect us from violence. (SeeDeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989))

    (The Due Process Clause does not impose a special duty on the State to provide services to the public for protection against private actors if the State did not create those harms. "The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.")

    See also Castle Rock v. Gonzales, (04-278) 545 U.S. 748 (2005) 366 F.3d 1093, reversed.
  6. Kable

    Active Member

    Likes Received:
    Funny that they didn't want to be recorded because of privacy issues yet want universal background checks which kind of violates our privacy and these kind of people also favor police state type laws to feel safe yet it sacrifices their privacy
  7. pyromancer

    Freelance Graphic Designer

    Likes Received:
    From the other thread on this.

    165.540 Obtaining contents of communications. (1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 or 133.726 or subsections (2) to (7) of this section, a person may not:

    (c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained.

    Also apparently legal in washington as long as they know they are being recorded. http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/washington/washington-recording-law

    It is only illegal to record someone during a public forum if they do not know they are being recorded. You can record as is your legal right and they can chose not to speak as is there legal right, but if you are in a public space they can not force you to leave they can just chose not to speak.

    For example I could not force a news crew to leave somewhere because I did not want to be recorded. I could leave, I could ask them to not record me directly but I could not in anyway make them not report the events in a public space. I know they are their and if I chose to stay I am giving up my right to not be recorded. Just as an officer during an arrest can give you your right to remain silent however if you wave that right and continue talking anything you say can be used against you.

    Do not let anyone convince you to not record. If they have a problem being recorded they likely have a problem being accountable for what they are saying. The anits should be accountable for what they say as should the pros. It will also force people to be more organized because most people would not want to be on record as arguing with the people they are standing with. It may cause some to not speak but you do not have to speak directly to show support. there is a lot of impact in recordings or public speaking when the crowd claps or cheers to show support for a statement. Not everyone needs to speak directly they just need to show support.
    Caveman Jim and (deleted member) like this.
  8. beavernation

    Active Member

    Likes Received:
    Thanks for the unbiased report! And thanks for going and setting a good example for the pro-gun group!!
  9. Jamie6.5

    Western OR
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Likes Received:
    Of course they didn't want it recorded.
    For the same reasons that the NY legislature passed Cuomo's draconian bills in the middle of the night.

    The light of day scares these people. They KNOW that there will be irrefutable proof of their efforts to subvert the constitution and deprive you of your rights.

    Free speech is a funny thing.
    Some people love it, until they figure out their ideas sound ABSOLUTELY ridiculous when compared to the very doctrine that allowed them to speak in the first place!
    pyromancer and (deleted member) like this.
  10. LimPShoT


    Likes Received:
    Is this person apart of ceasfire oregon i assume? I am wondering if any of Bloombergs groups or $ are involved in any of these crazy illegal bills being proposed?
  11. GuyBMeredith

    Salem, Oregon
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    We really need to jump on the insurance thing. Most shooters are not in a position to run into liability issues and so should not have to insure. We are just not part of the liability issue.

    Maybe on same basis as cars? Not carried (at home, secure transport, at range) same as car not driven on road--no insurance required. For carry, maybe, but premiums are issued based on financial risk to the carrier. Most firearms owners are demographics that do no harm, therefore no risk, therefore nil premiums. Metro/minority/inner city would be risk, have premiums. Point out this targets minorities.
  12. FreedomNW

    Portland, OR

    Likes Received:
  13. pokerace

    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:

Share This Page