• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

House Rep. Peter Buckley "stance" on Article 1 Section 27

Warren Drouin

Regular Member
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
125
Location
Medford, Oregon, United States
Warren--

I voted for the final legislation to maintain the privacy of concealed weapon permits in the same manner other records of citizens are kept private. The Oregon University System recently passed a rule that will reduce the ability of people to carry arms on campuses, and I support that rule.

I would have voted yes on SB 1574. It is the right of citizens to own guns, and it is the right of institutions to restrict the presence of guns on their property or in their buildings, such is the case in court buildings and other institutions (as well as on airplanes). There is nothing in the Constitution that says otherwise. Your right to keep and bear arms is protected, but your right to take your gun onto someone else's property when they have expressed their opposition to your doing so is not protected by the Constitution.

Rep. Buckley
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that my Representative did not read Article 1 Section 27 "Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power". I guess he did not read that ONE word "bear". It sad to see that our Representative are not taking their oath serious to our constitution, but for their own agenda. He need to understand that it is a "public building" that is Publicly OWN, not personally own (personal property). :confused:


Rep. Peter Buckley (D)
District: 005
900 Court Street NE
Suite H-286
Salem, OR 97301
Phone: (503) 986-1405
Fax: (503) 986-1130
WebSite: http://www.leg.state.or.us/buckley
E-Mail: rep.peterbuckley@state.or.us
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
Got to love his conflating of public property and private property. Public schools aren't somebody else's property; they're the property of the people of Oregon. By his logic, our governments could take all private property under eminent domain, then declare that we couldn't bring firearms onto their property. There has to be some logical reason for the government to restrict natural rights (under intermediate scrutiny), and simply saying that the "owners" of the property don't like it isn't good enough. With regards to restricting guns from schools, there isn't a logical reason to do so. With regards to prisons, jails, and criminal courtrooms, there is a logical reason to do so.
 
Top