Gun control advocates have found a backdoor way to advance their cause without having an honest debate on the issue.
An Oregon lawmaker has shepherded a bill through the House and Senate that mirrors similar measures in other states by trying to wrap it in the guise of protecting individuals from what they consider “extreme risk.”
Already approved by the Senate, it passed the House by a 31-28 vote and now goes to Governor Kate Brown for signature.
Gun rights advocates see the Oregon measure as just another subterfuge to get around the Second Amendment right to carry arms. The Oregon bill was patterned after a California law that was enacted in 2014.
The bill’s co-sponsor, Republican Senator Brian Boquist of Dallas, Oregon, denies the law is designed to confiscate weapons. But the design of the legislation clearly circumvents an individual’s right to due process before having to turn over the firearm.
Find out just how the new law works and the devious manner in which is being portrayed to the public. The story unfolds on the next page.
Not Legal, arrest the criminal who did this.
sanctions and federal funding cut off if they continue
Great move all the Muslims that O let in go to Oregon !
Where’s the ACLU?
If they take your guns only criminals and refugees will have them
Can’t do that! Liberal morons! Nothing but corruption and hate!
The fucking Democrats have been murdering us since the Lincoln assassination, and are hell bent on taking away all that protects us from them.
Here’s the problem for the state of Oregon, and their idiot governor, their liberal legislative and judiciary branches. Where State and Federal laws conflict, federal law prevails–EVERY TIME! And the United States Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter!
2ND AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION–A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
On June 26, 2008 the United States Supreme Court HELD: Delivered by Scalia; joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms.”
I want you to focus on this part of this 2008 Supreme Court ruling, “The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms.” The Supreme Court Justices clearly viewed that disarming citizens is still a vaible threat, this is why they include this statement in their ruling!
On a side note, and to finally put to rest this idiotic claim that the 2nd Amendment refers to muskets only! Many progressive liberals pose this flawed argument: “Because muskets were the weapons of the day when the Constitution was written, the 2nd Amendment refers to muskets only!” You’ll notice that the framers didn’t use the term, “Muskets.” Whether, by accident, or intention, the framers used the term “Arms.” And that term allows the 2nd Amendment, to the United States Constitution, the ability to advance with technology.
Now, to address your rediculous claim that the term, “Well regulated” somehow refers to the Federal government’s power to regulate firearms. Let’s narrow our focus on this statement, “The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms.” The word “Abridge” is defined–“to curtail.” “Curtail” is defined–“reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on.” In other words, “regulate!” Which means that, Congress, the legislative branch–the law makers–our law makers, were denied the power to regulate the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
However, the term “Well regulated” applies to the militia–“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” refers to a well disciplined, well organized, well trained, and well armed citizens’ militia. Militia in defined– “A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. A military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army. All able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.”
Furthermore, why would the framers write a contract (the United States Constitution) limiting the power of the federal government, only to give the federal government an avenue to seize more power, or complete power to rule? That’s like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop–doesn’t make sense! And, if it doesn’t make sense, it isn’t true! The Supreme Court decision is clear!
As the United States Constitution is equally clear and is the law of the land. Article V of the United States Constitution outlines the Amendment process and is the only legal process to ammend our Constitution! Any legislation to ammend the United States Constitution passed by any other means would violate the Constitution and would therefore be illegal!
ARTICLE V OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION–The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Now to address those who’ll claim that the United States Constitution is a contract between the People and the federal government and, therefore, does not apply to the states. Oregon legislators, and you liberal bench sitting so call judges appling libtard-logic instead of applicable law, this is where you should probably pay attention! Mechanisms in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that States must too abide by our Constitution!
14th AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION–All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
Any questions?
Its an ILLEGAL move it won’t hold up in court ask yourself does hold up to the Constitution? If not than it ain’t going nowhere
The dictatorship of communist Kate must be removed from power. This is unconstitutional. What’s next arresting people for owning knives.