We need to go on the legislative offensive

[Boats]

Both Oregon and Washington have the initiative process.

How could we theoretically avail ourselves of this process to pre-empt these perpetual attempts to curtail gun rights?

One thought I have is to enact legislation that makes legislators personally liable for statutory damages for even attempting to curtail the firearms rights of the citizenry under the color of authority.

For instance, in Oregon, if a piece of legislation is introduced with an aim to impair the rights of the people under Article One, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution, legislative immunity is barred as a defense and the proposed Act shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to violate the constitutionally protected rights of the people.

The author and/or co-sponsors of the bill in question shall be strictly liable in court of law for statutory damages of $100,000 per person per incident, without limitation.

A repeat offense under this statute shall be tried as a Class C Felony.

Or

A petition to amend ORS 166.005 "Treason"

(1) A person commits the crime of treason if the person levies war against the State of Oregon or adheres to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; or

(A) The person, in an official legislative capacity, or via an initiative petition, attempts to pass legislation with the aim of impairing the civil rights of the people of the state.

(2) No person shall be convicted of treason under Section 1 unless upon the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or upon confession in open court.

(A) For the purposes of Section 1(A), legislative or parliamentary immunity shall not be considered a valid affirmative defense to a charge of treason.

(3) A person convicted of treason under Section 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for life without possibility of parole. A person convicted of treason under Section 1A shall be punished by a minimum ten year prison sentence and a fine not to exceed $100,000.00, or the equivalent of such sum, adjusted biennially for inflation.

(4) If the Attorney General fails to criminally prosecute persons suspected of treason under Section 1(A) within 365 days of an alleged incident of legislative treason, private individuals shall have standing to sue allegedly treasonous persons in civil court for a minimum $100,000.00 presumed statutory damages, or the equivalent said minimum amount adjusted for inflation on a biennial basis.

Read More

 

[James 61]

I think this is a great idea and worth a the effort. Even if it makes it on the ballot to be voted on and doesn't pass it would act as a major wake up call to our local politicians. It may even get the attention of the federal level politicians since it may be applicable to them as they are residents of the state.

I don't know even know where to start something like this but I would be willing to help where and how I could here in WA.

 

[timac]

I think this is a great idea and worth a the effort. Even if it makes it on the ballot to be voted on and doesn't pass it would act as a major wake up call to our local politicians. It may even get the attention of the federal level politicians since it may be applicable to them as they are residents of the state.

I don't know even know where to start something like this but I would be willing to help where and how I could here in WA.

Contact Tim Eyman, maybe he could get you headed in the right direction or help. VWMC Main Page [email protected]

 

[drew]

Basically what I thinking about yesterday. If we change it we could say our politicians are committing treason and be correct.

 

[Misterbill]

Both Oregon and Washington have the initiative process.

How could we theoretically avail ourselves of this process to pre-empt these perpetual attempts to curtail gun rights?

One thought I have is to enact legislation that makes legislators personally liable for statutory damages for even attempting to curtail the firearms rights of the citizenry under the color of authority.

For instance, in Oregon, if a piece of legislation is introduced with an aim to impair the rights of the people under Article One, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution, legislative immunity is barred as a defense and the proposed Act shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to violate the constitutionally protected rights of the people.

The author and/or co-sponsors of the bill in question shall be strictly liable in court of law for statutory damages of $100,000 per person per incident, without limitation.

A repeat offense under this statute shall be tried as a Class C Felony.

Or

A petition to amend ORS 166.005 "Treason"

(1) A person commits the crime of treason if the person levies war against the State of Oregon or adheres to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; or

(A) The person, in an official legislative capacity, or via an initiative petition, attempts to pass legislation with the aim of impairing the civil rights of the people of the state.

(2) No person shall be convicted of treason under Section 1 unless upon the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or upon confession in open court.

(A) For the purposes of Section 1(A), legislative or parliamentary immunity shall not be considered a valid affirmative defense to a charge of treason.

(3) A person convicted of treason under Section 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for life without possibility of parole. A person convicted of treason under Section 1A shall be punished by a minimum ten year prison sentence and a fine not to exceed $100,000.00, or the equivalent of such sum, adjusted biennially for inflation.

(4) If the Attorney General fails to criminally prosecute persons suspected of treason under Section 1(A) within 365 days of an alleged incident of legislative treason, private individuals shall have standing to sue allegedly treasonous persons in civil court for a minimum $100,000.00 presumed statutory damages, or the equivalent said minimum amount adjusted for inflation on a biennial basis.

You couldn't get enough signatures to get it on the ballot.
1. It smacks too much of "thought crime." You just made it "treason" to vote for an initiative in the privacy of a voting booth.
2. You also just made free speech a crime.
3. So if they want to amend the constitution and can get the required votes it's "treason?"

This is an extremely poorly thought-out idea. A, it's got less than zero chance of going anywhere, and even if it wasn't so hopeless, it's got so many implications on free speech and freedom to petition the government that *I* would vote against it, and I'm as hardcore on gun rights as you're likely to find among the sane.

You'd be far better off trying to amend the constitution of Washington to specifically include magazine size and weapon type. THAT might actually go somewhere and wouldn't make every civil libertarian in the country cringe.

 

[padd54]

You couldn't get enough signatures to get it on the ballot.
1. It smacks too much of "thought crime." You just made it "treason" to vote for an initiative in the privacy of a voting booth.
2. You also just made free speech a crime.
3. So if they want to amend the constitution and can get the required votes it's "treason?"

This is an extremely poorly thought-out idea. A, it's got less than zero chance of going anywhere, and even if it wasn't so hopeless, it's got so many implications on free speech and freedom to petition the government that *I* would vote against it, and I'm as hardcore on gun rights as you're likely to find among the sane.

You'd be far better off trying to amend the constitution of Washington to specifically include magazine size and weapon type. THAT might actually go somewhere and wouldn't make every civil libertarian in the country cringe.

Perhaps you could craft a better propostion?

Something needs to done.

 

[bnsaibum]

Both Oregon and Washington have the initiative process.

How could we theoretically avail ourselves of this process to pre-empt these perpetual attempts to curtail gun rights?

One thought I have is to enact legislation that makes legislators personally liable for statutory damages for even attempting to curtail the firearms rights of the citizenry under the color of authority.

For instance, in Oregon, if a piece of legislation is introduced with an aim to impair the rights of the people under Article One, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution, legislative immunity is barred as a defense and the proposed Act shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to violate the constitutionally protected rights of the people.

The author and/or co-sponsors of the bill in question shall be strictly liable in court of law for statutory damages of $100,000 per person per incident, without limitation.

A repeat offense under this statute shall be tried as a Class C Felony.

Or

A petition to amend ORS 166.005 "Treason"

(1) A person commits the crime of treason if the person levies war against the State of Oregon or adheres to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; or

(A) The person, in an official legislative capacity, or via an initiative petition, attempts to pass legislation with the aim of impairing the civil rights of the people of the state.

(2) No person shall be convicted of treason under Section 1 unless upon the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or upon confession in open court.

(A) For the purposes of Section 1(A), legislative or parliamentary immunity shall not be considered a valid affirmative defense to a charge of treason.

(3) A person convicted of treason under Section 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for life without possibility of parole. A person convicted of treason under Section 1A shall be punished by a minimum ten year prison sentence and a fine not to exceed $100,000.00, or the equivalent of such sum, adjusted biennially for inflation.

(4) If the Attorney General fails to criminally prosecute persons suspected of treason under Section 1(A) within 365 days of an alleged incident of legislative treason, private individuals shall have standing to sue allegedly treasonous persons in civil court for a minimum $100,000.00 presumed statutory damages, or the equivalent said minimum amount adjusted for inflation on a biennial basis.

I feel your frustration and think the idea has merit. To actually get something that has a chance of passing in the initiative process it would need to drop any mention of treason for now. Perhaps two bills;

The first would get any lawmaker removed from office and barred from ever holding any public office again if it was found that any bill they sponsored infringed upon the Rights of the citizens.

The second would hold them personally liable and assess damages at a minimum of $lots-o-dough for any bill that proves to be more harmful than helpful for the citizens.

As an example of the second consider the plastic bag bans now popping up in various places around the country. While they may or may not reduce the consumption of oil and they probably reduce plastic bag litter, the bag bans seem to increase the incidence of food borne illness Grocery Bag Bans and Foodborne Illness by Jonathan Klick, Joshua Wright :: SSRN .

 

[Boats]

You couldn't get enough signatures to get it on the ballot.
1. It smacks too much of "thought crime." You just made it "treason" to vote for an initiative in the privacy of a voting booth.
2. You also just made free speech a crime.
3. So if they want to amend the constitution and can get the required votes it's "treason?"

This is an extremely poorly thought-out idea. A, it's got less than zero chance of going anywhere, and even if it wasn't so hopeless, it's got so many implications on free speech and freedom to petition the government that *I* would vote against it, and I'm as hardcore on gun rights as you're likely to find among the sane.

You'd be far better off trying to amend the constitution of Washington to specifically include magazine size and weapon type. THAT might actually go somewhere and wouldn't make every civil libertarian in the country cringe.

Your first point is inapt. It is aimed at the chief petitioner, not people who sign or vote for a petition.

Treasonous speech is, by SCOTUS ruling, not a protected class of speech.

If you attempted to pass a statute that abrogated the Fourth Amendment on searches and seizures, you are making a self-evident attempt to deprive the citizenry of one of their enumerated rights. For example, with HB 3200, the fourteen Democratic sponsors have declared an intent to violate the state equivalents of the Second, Fourth and Fifth amendments, through attempting to ban certain firearms, create a warrantless search process, and by demanding uncompensated takings of "previously legal" private property. They are also promoting an ex post facto law to boot.

The concept I propose isn't that hard to figure out. None of these people were elected to subvert the Oregon Constitution, it's treasonous when they propose just that and they should fear for their own freedom and security when they actively undermine the citizenry's.

 

[aslinged]

Yes, offensive, absolutely.

Pre-empt any more gun grabbing.

We need to kill the NFA act as well.

 

[BAMCIS]

By going on the offensive we should be talking about getting laws passed to make gun ownership easier and more desirable. How about tax breaks for owning a gun? Tax credits or at least deductions for shooting, (oh I don't know,) 10,000 rnds a year? Or tax credits for successfully attending training? Something like that. Or how about talking about getting laws passed that do away with gun-free killing zones?

The point is we need to stop reacting and start controling the debate. The best way to control the debate is get some gun friendly legislation debated and then hopefully passed.

 

[RW-Ore]

Sounds good to me who is going to write the legisllation ? I'll do what I can being legal stupid.

 

[beavertonbuck]

Any initiative process first needs to secure more rights and then to protect those rights.

To expand rights I think we could propose a constitutional carry law and a law restrict local governments' ability to preempt loaded carry for individuals that do not have a CHL.

 

[Rotty]

Both Oregon and Washington have the initiative process.

How could we theoretically avail ourselves of this process to pre-empt these perpetual attempts to curtail gun rights?

One thought I have is to enact legislation that makes legislators personally liable for statutory damages for even attempting to curtail the firearms rights of the citizenry under the color of authority.

For instance, in Oregon, if a piece of legislation is introduced with an aim to impair the rights of the people under Article One, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution, legislative immunity is barred as a defense and the proposed Act shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to violate the constitutionally protected rights of the people.

The author and/or co-sponsors of the bill in question shall be strictly liable in court of law for statutory damages of $100,000 per person per incident, without limitation.

A repeat offense under this statute shall be tried as a Class C Felony.

Or

A petition to amend ORS 166.005 "Treason"

(1) A person commits the crime of treason if the person levies war against the State of Oregon or adheres to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; or

(A) The person, in an official legislative capacity, or via an initiative petition, attempts to pass legislation with the aim of impairing the civil rights of the people of the state.

(2) No person shall be convicted of treason under Section 1 unless upon the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or upon confession in open court.

(A) For the purposes of Section 1(A), legislative or parliamentary immunity shall not be considered a valid affirmative defense to a charge of treason.

(3) A person convicted of treason under Section 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for life without possibility of parole. A person convicted of treason under Section 1A shall be punished by a minimum ten year prison sentence and a fine not to exceed $100,000.00, or the equivalent of such sum, adjusted biennially for inflation.

(4) If the Attorney General fails to criminally prosecute persons suspected of treason under Section 1(A) within 365 days of an alleged incident of legislative treason, private individuals shall have standing to sue allegedly treasonous persons in civil court for a minimum $100,000.00 presumed statutory damages, or the equivalent said minimum amount adjusted for inflation on a biennial basis.

Here is the email I fired off to Tim Eyman. I copied and pasted the above Quote in the email I sent.

Email Quote:

Mr. Eyman,

I am reaching out to you regarding the recent events threatening our 2nd Amendment rights. I am sure I am not the first nor do I suspect I will be the last. Oregon and Washington have had proposed initiatives that threaten our constitutional rights. I for one will not tolerate having my freedoms threatened by friend or foe. I vowed to protect this great country from all enemies foreign and domestic. At this point in time it would seem the domestic enemies out weigh the foreign. The people need a voice in the political realm. I am charging you to be that voice. In the past you have stepped up to the plate for the people. That is the very reason I have chosen you. The NRA is doing battle, they need allies, they need to know others support them, they need to know we stand shoulder to shoulder with them.

I have never contacted a political figure in my life. Today is that exception. I do not like where our Government is taking us and it concerns me and others like me to the point we are saying "Enough"!!! I and the others who feel the same way are reasonable Americans and we feel we are not being heard by those who make policy. Below is a snip it of concerns and consequences for not following procedure according to the constitution.

We need a voice to enforce such consequences however unpopular it may be to do so. We need a Bull Dog in the face of a Bull Dog. Fight Fire with Fire if you will.

Please HEAR US!! Unquote

 

[timac]

Sounds good, I hope he can or will help with the initiative process. We do need to stay proactive not reactive on gun issues, as the Socialists/ Communists would expect us to be.
Its time to change the playing field, we need to start having them defend their actions and laws in the courts. We have been defending our God given right in the courts for some time. Please keep us informed on any responses and information.

 

[hollowbase]

I like the idea of going on the offensive using the initiative process. It doesn't matter if you're not successful the first time or even the second time and maybe we wouldn't get everything we were looking for at one time. We do what the opposition is doing, nibble away and don't go away. We, as pro 2A people have lost some things, but it took time and it was done a little at a time. One small victory here and one small victory there and we could succeed. If your being defensive it makes it harder to be offensive.