Firearms freedom actin Oregon?

imported post

I've been reading on other forums about several of the other states producing legislation aiming at nullifying federal control of firearms within the borders. Trying to regain some local control under the tenth amendment.I've also read the letters the BATF has sent in reply to these actions taken by the states. Why has there been no large debate or mention of it at the federal level? Just curious.

I have seen nothing similar in Oregon. This state is as liberal as they come and seems to be controlled by a large majority of gun grabbers. Most of the legislation produced here seems to only be concerned with how the state can grab more money from it's businesses and citizens to better fund the bad spending habits and social fantasies of the local government nut jobs that have tenured seats in Salem.

Is there a large silent majority of gun owners here in Oregon,that would even consider such a law? Or does Oregon, depend to much on federal dollars to buck the system in your opinions? Of course federal dollars are important to the states, but isn't the mob tactics of the feds a little old or even illegal when it comes to extorting the will of the states orrisk no federal funds?

What I'd really like to hear here, isopinions for/or against such a piece of legislation.

imported post

It's hard to believe no one would be interested in this subject. I guess we prefer to print pamphlets and argue with cops on occasion. Don't get me wrong I believe in the right to carry anyway a person chooses without government interference.But wouldn't it be nice to nip one big problem in the butt by establishing a sovereign states ability to regulate itself? And if you think an AWB is not coming back, your living in a fantasy world. It's nice to dream, but reality is where we all live.

With so many 2nd amendment supporters on this site always touting OC being a right and wanting 2nd amendment incorporation. I'd just think we would like to try and do something about our little piece of the union here in Oregon.

This forum represents some interesting people and ideals. But I guess just passing our opinions on to one another or anyone interested in reading them is all this site is bound to do. But local city awareness is not really getting the word out except for the few well known OCer's who are already known for their activism in the same oldsmall towns that are always bitched about. Shouldn't we as Americans and gun owners try to better the country as a whole? Why can't we in Oregon show the feds and our representatives we are not just lying down and taking the slow dissolution of our rights. If the 2nd amendment is important to us all. Then the 10th should be as equally important to this cause. The scope of freedom is much larger than owning guns and carrying them around. Anything the governmentallows you to do, can be taken away.

imported post

Being a political refugee from the peoples republic of Taxifornia, I don't think Oregon could be considered a terribly liberal state. We have the same problem Taxifornia does though, a large concentration of liberals in a few large cites who drive the politics of the rest of the state.

I'm interested in the letters you mentioned from the BATF as I haven't seen any.

I'm new here (on this site) but have been CC for years and just recently started OC. I think one thing to consider before attempting radical pro gun legislation here is that we need to raise awareness and acceptance of both CC and OC within the state. The pro 2A contingent in our legislature has a hard enough time trying to keep the rights we do have and any radical proposal will be met with overwhelming opposition supported by all the anti-gun groups across the nation.

What we have now is not perfect but it's a lot better than many places. The reality is that Oregon has many "transplants" from California and, unfortunately, many of them have brought their politics with them and now vote here. The recent passing in the legislature of the RESOLUTION (non binding) declaring Oregons soverignty is a message, especially when combined with all the other states which have passed similar resolutions. However, it's not as simple as passing a "we preempt" law.

The medical cannibis issue is still having problems in some locations. The states which have passed medical cannibis have faced off with the feds for several years now and it's still not resolved. The feds, having their own enforcement, courts, etc. can trample the states citizens for violation of federal laws and they do. My understanding of the current "cease fire" is that the feds have simply decided to back off. A situation which can change with the stroke of a pen or a spoken sentence by someone "in charge" because it's a matter of not enforcing their laws rather than having changed them.

The same problems will occur with facing down the feds on firearms. It's a great goal but one which in not yet ready politically.

imported post

I'd actually beg to differ with you on our legislators all being a bunch of gun-grabbers. One has only to look at the Oregon Firearms Federation website to see that we do have some allies in state government. (I do agree with you about the majority of them being a bunch of tax& spend idiots).

Oregon is fairly liberal in it gun laws. The only real restriction I've seen to date is necessity to have a CCW permit in order to open carry in about a half-dozen cities in Oregon. Other than that we're pretty OK I think.

imported post

Ironbar wrote:

I'd actually beg to differ with you on our legislators all being a bunch of gun-grabbers. One has only to look at the Oregon Firearms Federation website to see that we do have some allies in state government. (I do agree with you about the majority of them being a bunch of tax& spend idiots).

Oregon is fairly liberal in it gun laws. The only real restriction I've seen to date is necessity to have a CCW permit in order to open carry in about a half-dozen cities in Oregon. Other than that we're pretty OK I think.

Click to expand...

Man, I thought you were talking about my post. LOL Thought I'd miss typed something and needed to edit it.

imported post

Thanks for posting a reply, to both of you.

If you would like to read the letters the BATF sent both Montana and Tennessee, you need only look in the forums under those states on OpenCarry.org. You can also do a Google search and see the bills past by both states. I'm for the states myself.

I agree that Oregon is not as bad as Kalifornia. But how long before wehere in Oregon,are abiding by the same totalitarian system they have? I firmly believe things are the way they are in the states of this union, because all the good people stood by and hoped for the best.

If a person in Washington, can have the police called on him (by migratingKalifornian no less)for wearing a gun and shooting gophers on his own property, and the police arrest him when no crime has been committed. We have a serious problem with people recognizing basic rights of their fellow Americans. And police that don't get the picture themselves. Now being martyrs and all is good publicity, but the fact remains one still can't feel totally guarded against, and secure in his own person not knowing if he is going to be hassled for going armed.

Now Oregon has all kinds of pro gun laws. A few are the protectionsgun owners have duringstate of emergencies declared in Oregon. Government can't confiscate firearms. The other is the non confiscation of firearms for back taxes. Saying in the law that no one will be deprived of their firearm for back taxes up to a value of $1000. That just about covers one nice firearm now days or a couple of decent ones.

But non of these mentions the Federal government. Nor do they recognize in the wording of the laws, theright of the citizens to be armed. And I can see as has happened in many cases this being twisted by what ever judge or so called law enforcer is interpretating the meaning at the moment. Just as existing laws are twisted now.Justrecently the Oregon Appeals court has ruled the interior of your personal car is public property. I believe this was State vs. Parker. So the way I see it these laws are meaningless and virtually void of any real protections. Why would we need these laws if the Constitution was alive and well? Apparently Oregon had to reassure people in a piece of legislation that a Katrina incident would not happen here.

imported post

The good people are no longer just standing by. I've CC'd since I became a refugee here in Oregon and just this week began OC'ing because the 2nd amendment is important to me. It is the most important because without it, we would soon be without any of the others.

A movement is afoot, it is growing, and it is having an affect. We must ensure that it continues and support it in any way that we can. I would suggest that you visit this site: www.secondamendmentmarch.com and get involved in whatever way you are able.

As for the federal government. The Heller case in DC was a major hit against the anti's and DC is resisting (who'd a thunk it) by stalling, procrastinating, and trying their best to sidestep the finding with new regulations that will have the same affect.

I can tell you this because the statute of limitations has passed. When I lived in Maryland I would NOT go into DC without carrying, illegally concealled, and caught some minor grief from my mother in law about that when they were visiting us......until we were nearly carjacked. After that my mother in law's entire attitude about me changed to one of near adoration because she knew I wouldn't let her daughters safety be compormised by anything, including the law.

I tell you that story because those who have not been to DC have little to no idea of just how unsafe it can be in certain areas. Areas that one can find oneself in by simply making a wrong turn. Just a few blocks from the Whitehouse (or just about any other tourist attraction) you will find the dregs of society running roughshod over the unarmed population who lives there.

I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. Jury nullification of defendants in trials over firearms charges not involving criminal activity or intent, could make a very important impact on "the system". However, the way our system works, a "jury of your peers" is unlikely to include any TRUE peers because their pro-gun ideas will cause their removal for bias.

I'm not advocating perjuring ones self in court to get on a jury but I most certainly am advocating not volunteering any information that might allow the prosecution in such a case to have you removed. Answer their questions with as simple an answer as possible, don't get "diarreah mouth", and then judge your peer fairly. Personally, any defendant in any case concerning violation of a "victimless"crime is going to get some serious benefit of the doubt.

imported post

Oregon may be a lot better than Nu Yoak, but I notice that it is not one of the states signing onto the "friends of the court" (that is what the Latin phrase means) brief in the Heller case.