Thread: Protecting the constitutionally guaranteed right to the lawful possession of firearms during an emer
HB 1832 - 2009-10
Protecting the constitutionally guaranteed right to the lawful possession of firearms during an emergency.
History of Bill
as of Friday, January 30, 200911:59 PM
RepresentativesHerrera, Blake, Orcutt, Takko, Short, McCune, Kristiansen, Hope, Pearson
2009 REGULAR SESSION
First reading, referred to Judiciary. (View Original Bill)
Agreed -- looks great. Perhaps a couple of small ammendments that would clarify that Article I Section 24 applies to all types of arms . . .
". . . no person who is not otherwise prohibited from the possesssion, transfer, sale, transport, storage, display, or use of firearms, ammunition, or other weapons shall be prohibited . . ."
Similar change to Section 2 paragraph 4.
Perhaps these representatives are possible sponsors for more restrictive language on the pre-emption clause (should follow what they have in their bill -- i.e., "nor any governmental entity or political subdivision of the state.") I'd sure like to see in the same bill a pre-emption of all weapons, so that carry of knives, etc. followed the same rules state-wide.
FWIW I'm writing the uber-libs in my district...
sv_libertarian wrote:hehehehFWIW I'm writing the uber-libs in my district...
I'm thanking the ones in my home district.
I was thinking of thanking Orcutt, he is not my Rep, but has most of the rest of the country around me.
But then I thought, why not drop them all a thank you note? They are supporting a bill that would help state-wide and it could help reinforce the voices from their constituents.
Pretty funny how this works in our favor. The Federal Emergency Powers Act has been signed and re-signed every year since 1861, we have officially been in a state of emergency since....that would authorize us to carry indefinitely if this bill goes through...
When the **** hits the fan, ask yourself: What Would Bugly Do?
As someone who is considered leftist on a number of issues (libertarian on the rest), I would say that this is something that many liberal types would support, with the exception of the "ban them all, the government will protect you," police-state advocate type.