hermannr
Regular Member
Well, spent the day searching through your laws and appeals court cases...I really feel sorry for you guys, you laws are screwed up. And your court cases are even more screwed up. Are you sure you didn't have some of the Brady bunch on your appeals court back in the 1920's...there was only one sane decenting judge in Pierce V State who argued exactly what I have been arguing.
Then there is 21-1289.6(a)(6) which did not exist in 1920, and for some insane reason the two judges that concured in Pierce seemed to think the right to bear arms was only military (milita) arms...well that idea is now gone with McDonald....I think that my position is still sound. (always was sound reasoning in OR, WA and ID which are the states I really know and frequent...I only lived in OK for 4 months back in 1974, I lived in OR 8 years (55 and 63) ID 1 year and still visit frequently, and WA for 41 years. The rest of my years have been in Canada or Europe, and oh yea, and 18 months in Vietnam 68-69)
Conside 21-1289.6(A)(6) "any lawful activity not prohibited" Well, carry a pistol (or other firearm) on your own property is not specifically prohibited...so therefore it must be allowed...no?
Another thing I saw in 1289, don't remember which part but we are still talking gun activities, but it went something like, this activity is ok, "with the property owners permission" If the activity requires the "property owner's permission" then the property owner must already have the right himself, if he can give premission.
So, back to 1289 again...another thing that really bothers me, and you really need to fix....you cannot legally give a pistol to a person under the age of 18 for the purposes of target practice????? Now we know why there has never been a RFP or even a slow fire pistol contender for the Olympics...the kids cannot practice...that is just stupid. Secondly, you can enter the militarty at 17 with your parents permission...so Army guys, you have to wait until your 18 to go through basic training if you are doing basic in OK....
Then there is 21-1289.6(a)(6) which did not exist in 1920, and for some insane reason the two judges that concured in Pierce seemed to think the right to bear arms was only military (milita) arms...well that idea is now gone with McDonald....I think that my position is still sound. (always was sound reasoning in OR, WA and ID which are the states I really know and frequent...I only lived in OK for 4 months back in 1974, I lived in OR 8 years (55 and 63) ID 1 year and still visit frequently, and WA for 41 years. The rest of my years have been in Canada or Europe, and oh yea, and 18 months in Vietnam 68-69)
Conside 21-1289.6(A)(6) "any lawful activity not prohibited" Well, carry a pistol (or other firearm) on your own property is not specifically prohibited...so therefore it must be allowed...no?
Another thing I saw in 1289, don't remember which part but we are still talking gun activities, but it went something like, this activity is ok, "with the property owners permission" If the activity requires the "property owner's permission" then the property owner must already have the right himself, if he can give premission.
So, back to 1289 again...another thing that really bothers me, and you really need to fix....you cannot legally give a pistol to a person under the age of 18 for the purposes of target practice????? Now we know why there has never been a RFP or even a slow fire pistol contender for the Olympics...the kids cannot practice...that is just stupid. Secondly, you can enter the militarty at 17 with your parents permission...so Army guys, you have to wait until your 18 to go through basic training if you are doing basic in OK....
