What do you want your firearm laws to look like in Oregon?

[cyborg]

We were at the Portland gun show last week and had discussions with quite a few of you concerning a Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) in Oregon. We got a lot of great feedback then and we want to keep the ball rolling. Montana and Tennessee have passed theirs and a lot of others are in the works in various states. WE need one here in Oregon.

Here is the official thread at the Oregon Tenth Amendment Center for our community to discuss what form we would like our FFA to take. Here is a chance for you to have your input on Oregons future firearms laws.

<broken link removed>

Yes, we are aware that this is an uphill battle in OR but what is the alternative? Do you wish to give up and not even try? Maybe if you are personally unwilling to fight for your rights maybe you just need to read this....
<broken link removed>

Oregon firearms laws by Oregonians, For Oregonians.

Read More

 

[ZachS]

I'm perfectly happy to wait and see how well this idea plays out in other states.

 

[clearconscience]

I just want what the men fought and died for me to have. My god given right to keep and bear arms. No mention that I can have this or that. No scary black rifles, blah, blah, blah. If I can afford it and don't hurt anyone. Leave me alone.
And for those who use guns to hurt other people with out reason. Kill them. Don't waste my tax money giving them a better life than I have out here.

 

[trainsktg]

Regarding these Firearm Freedom Acts...as the 1942 case Wickard vs. Filburn showed, the Federal Government can and will use the Commerce Clause to regulate intrastate as well as interstate commerce. Until the referenced case is overthrown (or until the Feds actually start abiding by the original intent of the Constitution), these States' efforts, while certainly well intentioned, are also certainly doomed to fail.

Keith

 

[motoman98]

Fighting for what you believe in, is not a waste of time or effort.
Like Sales: plant the seeds! Reap the harvest in due time.

 

[TonsOfOregonBrass]

Regarding these Firearm Freedom Acts...as the 1942 case Wickard vs. Filburn showed, the Federal Government can and will use the Commerce Clause to regulate intrastate as well as interstate commerce. Until the referenced case is overthrown (or until the Feds actually start abiding by the original intent of the Constitution), these States' efforts, while certainly well intentioned, are also certainly doomed to fail.

Keith

Agreed, but if you just accept the government is just going to do as it pleases and not as the people want it will not change. By the states asserting that they have the right to control intrastate commerce and the government doesn't. it sets up for the wickard vs. filburn case to be challenged.

Remember the civil war wasn't all about slavery, it was mostly about states rights vs federal rights.

Personally i would like to see the same laws passed here. I am not willing to be the test case though.

 

[Saint]

I live in Rainier Oregon, and we take our gun rights very seriously around these parts. As far as the "Feds" are concerned all I have to say is: DON'T TREAD ON ME...

 

[trainsktg]

Agreed, but if you just accept the government is just going to do as it pleases and not as the people want it will not change. By the states asserting that they have the right to control intrastate commerce and the government doesn't. it sets up for the wickard vs. filburn case to be challenged.

Good point. I hadn't thought of it this way.

Keith

 

[zeezee]

I just want what the men fought and died for me to have. My god given right to keep and bear arms. No mention that I can have this or that. No scary black rifles, blah, blah, blah. If I can afford it and don't hurt anyone. Leave me alone.
And for those who use guns to hurt other people with out reason. Kill them. Don't waste my tax money giving them a better life than I have out here.

RIGHT ON!!!! Good post.

 

[longcolt]

Its always worth taking the time and making the effort to promote gun rights in the Oregon legislature. The more pro-gun bills in the works the more it puts the anti-gun nuts on the defensive.

Have no pro-gun legislation in the works and watch the anti-gun nuts push their agenda to put us on the defensive.

Offense is always the best defense.

 

[Gray Peterson]

But I believe that our political capital should be best spent not on "pie in the sky" laws.

Oregon's laws are damned good by itself, but there are some issues that need to be attacked:

1) Oregon's non-resident licensing provision needs to be entirely changed to comply with the forthcoming McDonald case. As a CHL is the only way one can be assured with certainty that they can carry a functional firearm for self defense statewide (exclusive of local loaded carry bans and the fact that state law's "public building" firearm ban is very extensive versus the law of say, Washington State), banning people from Montana, Arizona, and Utah from being able to acquire a license whereas people from the states bordering Oregon can, is stupid, unconstitutional, and will not survive a legal challenge post-McDonald. Make the process for both citizens and permanent resident aliens the same (this is actually required by equal protection case law, but no one has challenged the current Oregon law......YET).

2) Allow someone out of state, or even everyone, to be able to apply for a CHL by mail (luckily we have a sheriff raising funds in Grant County who will come to surrounding states to take applications, who we're still trying to raise funds for).

3) Repeal the "Black Panther Panic" inspired public building ban contained in ORS 166.370(1) off of the books. Require that courthouses allow check-in of self defense firearms, similar to what Washington State does.

4) Repeal ORS 166.173, which allows cities to ban loaded carry without a CHL.

5) Strengthen the preemption statute to "Utah-style" to absolutely forbid public agencies and institutions from banning students, employees, and faculties from carrying. After the vicious assaults against TriMet and other transit drivers, violent crimes against students and faculty, it's time to stop the Oregon Court of Appeals from neutering state preemption because they don't like guns.

6) Add knives and other weapons to the state's preemption statute.

7) Require CLEO signoff on all ATFE Form 4's, turning it into a ministerial duty rather than discretionary duty.

8) Reduce the Age to get a CHL to 18 years of age.

9) Repeal parts of ORS 166.250, and allow an otherwise lawful person to carry concealed without a license, AND:

10) Strengthen the State constitution's RKBA provision to require the Oregon courts to apply "strict scrutiny" to any issue involving the state RKBA clause or the 2nd amendment to the US Cosntitution.

Introducing a "Firearms Freedom Bill" allows marginal politicians to cast "safe, pro-gun votes" when they know it won't do anything because of federal involvement. The above issues are a lot more difficult, but it would help a great deal more people. You know a politician is for you when they have to vote for a bill banning the Universities from banning carry. You can't say the same for a "10th amendment firearms freedom" law which is a nice "status simple", but it's all flash and no substance.

 

[Fjolnirsson]

But I believe that our political capital should be best spent not on "pie in the sky" laws.

Oregon's laws are damned good by itself, but there are some issues that need to be attacked:

1) Oregon's non-resident licensing provision needs to be entirely changed to comply with the forthcoming McDonald case. As a CHL is the only way one can be assured with certainty that they can carry a functional firearm for self defense statewide (exclusive of local loaded carry bans and the fact that state law's "public building" firearm ban is very extensive versus the law of say, Washington State), banning people from Montana, Arizona, and Utah from being able to acquire a license whereas people from the states bordering Oregon can, is stupid, unconstitutional, and will not survive a legal challenge post-McDonald. Make the process for both citizens and permanent resident aliens the same (this is actually required by equal protection case law, but no one has challenged the current Oregon law......YET).

2) Allow someone out of state, or even everyone, to be able to apply for a CHL by mail (luckily we have a sheriff raising funds in Grant County who will come to surrounding states to take applications, who we're still trying to raise funds for).

3) Repeal the "Black Panther Panic" inspired public building ban contained in ORS 166.370(1) off of the books. Require that courthouses allow check-in of self defense firearms, similar to what Washington State does.

4) Repeal ORS 166.173, which allows cities to ban loaded carry without a CHL.

5) Strengthen the preemption statute to "Utah-style" to absolutely forbid public agencies and institutions from banning students, employees, and faculties from carrying. After the vicious assaults against TriMet and other transit drivers, violent crimes against students and faculty, it's time to stop the Oregon Court of Appeals from neutering state preemption because they don't like guns.

6) Add knives and other weapons to the state's preemption statute.

7) Require CLEO signoff on all ATFE Form 4's, turning it into a ministerial duty rather than discretionary duty.

8) Reduce the Age to get a CHL to 18 years of age.

9) Repeal parts of ORS 166.250, and allow an otherwise lawful person to carry concealed without a license, AND:

10) Strengthen the State constitution's RKBA provision to require the Oregon courts to apply "strict scrutiny" to any issue involving the state RKBA clause or the 2nd amendment to the US Cosntitution.

Introducing a "Firearms Freedom Bill" allows marginal politicians to cast "safe, pro-gun votes" when they know it won't do anything because of federal involvement. The above issues are a lot more difficult, but it would help a great deal more people. You know a politician is for you when they have to vote for a bill banning the Universities from banning carry. You can't say the same for a "10th amendment firearms freedom" law which is a nice "status simple", but it's all flash and no substance.

Mr. Peterson, you just said all I had to say. Thank you.

 

[tionico]

Gray Peterson has it right..... as far as he takes it. Best plan is to start with the most abusive of these Oregon laws needing repealed, and working toward the ones he suggests as seriously beneficial. Take a few each year, until they are passed. Rotate next year, Find elected lawmakers who will support these, and push to carry them forward. Vote out of office those who stand hard against these laws.

BUT-- take a quick look at the Federal Real IS law, actually passed by both houses and signed into law........ as it was coming near to passing, a few states passed their own nullification and interposition laws. Not likely to do anything to change things, right? Then more did... and more,. There are now TWENTY FOUR such laws on the books in 24 different stated... and guess what? Real ID remains the law of the land...... but it has not been executed, as twenty four states have declared "that won't be the law here, and you Feds aren't big engough to MAKE it law here". Thus, despite its legal and "binding" status at the Federal level, Real ID is effectively neutralised.

So far, we've got Montana and Tennessee with FFA signed into law. Some nineteen other states are considering it in their own legislatures. More are working on submitting bills. If more than 25 states enact such laws, BATF will have a SERIOUS problem on their hands.... what, will they shut down the FFL Dealers in half the states? Will they come and put ten thousand dealers in jail? Will Eric Holder actually have the guts to prosecute? It WILL go to the SUpreme Court... and I've read a bit on that case Gray cited, where the courts upheld the "interstate commerce applies intrastate" folly.... that was involving some transactions in agricultural products, and many feel the lower courts, and the Supreme, overstepped all reason by a wide margin. That is the only precedent, and it is VERY shakey. Many believe it would not take much of a challenge to upset that precedent. Today's court does not seem likely to invoke stare decisis...... without seriously reconsidering it on its merits. And, it is further thought some skillful legal research and writing could well undermine the "legal" basis on which that case now stands, opening the way for it to be tossed aside.

In any case, state nulification, in reality, actually trumps even the Supreme Court.... IF enough states would come aboard that train, the outcome would likely be a changed world. Of course, all that would take some years.... but maybe getting some "generic pie in the sky" past a legislature that would vote for it to appease gun owners, thinking it would make little real difference, mightn't be a bad use of resources. On the face of it, it may well appear harmless......... and sneak under the fence. Ah, one more state in THAT camp.

But, Gray is perfectly correct-- working on dealing with many of the issues he raises, both from legislative and judicial endeavours, is ALSO a needed course of action.

 

[Gray Peterson]

In any case, state nulification, in reality, actually trumps even the Supreme Court....

Tell that to the 30 states which (thankfully from a civil rights perspective) had their anti-miscegenation laws struck down by Loving v. Virginia.

"Will Eric Holder arrest half of the dealers? No he won't".

You should never assume that the federal government will not do a massive crackdown. You should read Gonzalez v. Raich and United States v. Schmidt for information on this. Schmidt should prove that any "Firearms Freedom Act" isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Spending political capital and giving easy cover votes to squishy politicians isn't my idea of moving the 2nd amendment forward.

 

[tonyspdx]

The Firearms Freedom Act needs to be challenge by the Feds in court in order to validate it. Who's going to break the current law in order to get it to court?

 

[Gray Peterson]

Remember the civil war wasn't all about slavery, it was mostly about states rights vs federal rights.

The "it was about states rights versus federal rights" is utter falsehood that has been parroted, and needs to be immediately challenged.

I suggest that you read both of these wikipedia articles:

Origins of the American Civil War

and

Timeline of Events Leading to the Civil War

The Civil War was primarily about slavery and Slaves, contrary to what some believe in the "10th amendment movement". To state so is in complete ignorance to history, and also goes against the reasons for the "Reconstruction Amendments" (13th, 14th, 15th amendments) in the first place. In 1858, South Carolina perpetuated outrages against the civil rights of individuals, to the point of summarily executing pastors for preaching abolition in the pulpit. The people in control of southern government not only excluded all freedmen, but also anyone who did not believe in slavery.

This is one of the reasons the 14th amendment was passed, and the privileges/immunities clause of the 14th amendment is so important to understand. It wasn't merely just one of equality, it was to destroy the southern government's belief that they can take away the liberties of people merely based on who they are or their political beliefs. Unfortunately, a pro-southern Supreme Court neutered the 14th amendment in the Slaughterhouse Cases. As a result, we have tortured jurisprudence on the civil liberties of Americans against a state's encroachment (due process clause incorporation, which was never intended to be used as a lever for broad constitutional civil liberties envisioned by the framers of the 14th amendment), which hopefully will be rectified by McDonald v. City of Chicago.

This has little to nothing to do with the 10th amendment movement, except some members of the "10th amendment movement" state that the judiciary cannot "force a state to recognize something it doesn't want". Sorry, that gives too much power to the recalcitrant states that refuse to legalize the right to bear arms by continuing may-issue statutes. The 14th amendment gives the federal judiciary all the authority it needs to protect the civil liberties of people against state encroachment.

The "made in oregon" firearms freedom act, while good, is essentially a nullity before it passes. Do not give squishy politicians cover votes by allowing them to vote for something "pro-gun" but ineffective and allow them to stall other good and EFFECTIVE pro-gun legislation. Especially in a place like Oregon where getting good pro-gun bills passed is somewhat difficult. I'd rather the "easy bill to pass" be one to fix the non-resident problem, or remove the "naked man" provision to the Oregon CHL laws. Those should be the "easy bills to vote for", especially post-McDonald.

There should be a BUNCH of bills that addresses the issues that I've stated. These are real problems that everyday ordinary Oregon gun owners have to deal with, rather than this sort of thing where no one is really effected on a day to day level.

 

[tionico]

Gray, sorry but I must reject Wiki as an authoritative source. The very fact it mentions the "10th ammendment movement" tells me it has been recently composed as a sly maneouvre to deconstruct history to someone's preset agenda.

Read original contemporary courses, such as Lee, Jackson, Dabney. THEY tell the story of how the war came about.

Also, study contemporary sources relating specificaly to slavery, the encroaching industrialisation, the economy as a whole, how it was threatening the labour-intensive methods of field cropping in the fact of such developments as Whitney's cotton gin, steam powered field equipment and milling equipment. Compare the desires of the industrialised north, with their superior political power, and how they passed many laws usurping control over the agrarian south, burdening them with tariffs, taxes, other requirements, making their ability to prosper subject to northern institutions.

No, that conflict was clearly an invasion of the sovereign states of the South who rose up against the tyranny of the north by seceeding. Slavery was already on its way out economically. Had the north not invaded and destroyed much of the south, forcing the issue's implementation in haste and violence, it is highly likely the death of slavery as an institution would have come about peacefully, decently, and left both "sides" in far better shape overall. The United States are the ONLY people on the planet who fought a war over "slavery", if this is true..... no, and I'll go so far as to claim that most of the "race troubles' arose from the harsh and unreasonable "reconstruction" efforts forced uponn the vanquished South in the years following that conflict. Millions of uneducated, unskilled (in any usable or practical sense) es-slaves were forced out of the only homes they had ever known, left fully to their own devices, hungry, nowhere to go, nothing to do... by decree, of a sudden, no time to prepare or train. No wonder they took to maurauding, stealing, squatting...... they had to live, and the places they'd done that for generations were denied them. Had it been done decently and in order, they could well have been integrated in practical ways into the larger society, taking on valuable roles and becoming part of the larger society, rather than nuisances, threatening everywhere they went, and thus despised.

The wiki entries you cite are myopic, agenda driven, and inaccurate. Deeper study will return rather a different version of reality. It won't be politically correct, but so what? It will be more accurate.... and more appropriate to today's battles, as we are far further along that same Lincoln Road to the dissolution of the Union.

 

[cyborg]

Alright, it looks like we have a discussion started. i must disagree with tonyspdx statement of...
"The Firearms Freedom Act needs to be challenge by the Feds in court in order to validate it."

In a traditional sense of the way that law works I would agree but is this what has been done with medical marijuana or the Real ID? I am no lawyer but my understanding in both of these cases the states simply ignored federal laws that were beyond the constitutional reach of the authority of the federal government.

In other words...if enough states pass a FFA then they will not have enough resources when state and local LEOs and courts do not provide officers, courts or jails etc. So these unconstitutional laws just sit idle on the books and wither. DId federal courts make medical marijuana LEGAL? No but you find it in many states and the MASS of states has grow too large for the feds to tackle on their own.

The true power of an FFA IMHO is not in its ability to persuade a tyrannical government in IT"S courts to give up power it has illegally seized. IT is in the power of the people,,, YOU AND I, to simply say enough! We will no longer support your illegal laws that oppress our rights! The FFA only works when enough states pass it and hang together. You know what happens if we don't.

Use the 10th amendment to regain your constitutional rights.

As for those of you that might be content to sit idle and let Montana and Tennessee hang out in the cold by themselves might I suggest that you move to Cuba. Its warm and the feds will take good care of you and you won't have to worry about all that silly talk about freedoms.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Gray, sorry but I must reject Wiki as an authoritative source. The very fact it mentions the "10th ammendment movement" tells me it has been recently composed as a sly maneouvre to deconstruct history to someone's preset agenda.

I stated "10th amendment movement", not the Wikipedia article, and I said "Some", not a majority or a significant minority.

The only reason I even delved into the Civil War historical issues is because it was brought up as an aside in this thread. The Civil War had NOTHING to do at all with 10th amendment, and it shouldn't have been brought up in the first place. It had to do primarily with slavery and "Slave Power" seeing their power slip away. You can reject wikipedia all you want, but I have the knowledge of the post Civil War debates on reconstruction (Rep. John Bingham and Sen. Charles Sumner, the Framers of the 14th amendment), which proves that your "freedman turned into marauding bands because they had no home to go to" was nothing more than a pretext for some of the southern legislatures and local town councils to pass the "Black Codes", to ban them from bearing arms, from being outside of their homes at night, and so on.

I am going to leave the Civil War issue alone at this point because I have a feeling that no matter what evidence of context is provided, it would probably get summarily rejected as un-authoritative. I leave you with the amicus brief filed by the CalGuns Foundation in the McDonald case, which you can read <broken link removed> , debunking many of the arguments by Raoul Berger and Charles Fairman against incorporation.

As for those of you that might be content to sit idle and let Montana and Tennessee hang out in the cold by themselves might I suggest that you move to Cuba. Its warm and the feds will take good care of you and you won't have to worry about all that silly talk about freedoms.

Was that a shot at me? I've explained my position on this issue pretty clearly. The "Firearms Freedom Act", while well intentioned and I believe in the core intentions of that sort of legislation, to me gives cover to squishy moderate politicians appear to be pro-gun while not passing good bills that would help every day Oregonians, such as strengthening state preemption.

There is also already litigation on this issue in Montana (MSSA v. Holder, which you can read here. Since Montana is within the 9th Circuit, it would have an effect on us anyway and give what the folks pushing the FFA wants, assuming that MSSA/SAF win the litigation at the appeals court level.

 

[parallax]

note to 3 strike felons. after 3 strikes, electric chair.