Infringement of the 2nd amendment nullified by Ballot measure

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

MarAzul

LongShip
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
21,370
Likes
7,281
Points
113
I just receive my ballot today. I thought I would check and see how the Sheriff and the Police Chief feel about this. I am happy to say, both are completely in agreement with ballot measure.

I asked the Chief, since you need to enforce, Federal law, State law, County law, and City laws, how can you pick and choose when they are in conflict? He had a very good answer at the ready, I took an oath to uphold the constitution and that is what I am going to do. Thank you Chief!

http://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/3622805-151/ballot-measure-in-coos-county-seeks-to-nullify#
 
I just receive my ballot today. I thought I would check and see how the Sheriff and the Police Chief feel about this. I am happy to say, both are completely in agreement with ballot measure.

I asked the Chief, since you need to enforce, Federal law, State law, County law, and City laws, how can you pick and choose when they are in conflict? He had a very good answer at the ready, I took an oath to uphold the constitution and that is what I am going to do. Thank you Chief!

http://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/3622805-151/ballot-measure-in-coos-county-seeks-to-nullify#

Sadly, that's clearly the wrong answer for a cop to give. It's not a cop's job to interpret the constitution. That's way above his pay grade.

barfo
 
Sadly, that's clearly the wrong answer for a cop to give. It's not a cop's job to interpret the constitution. That's way above his pay grade.

barfo

The Chief took an oath to up hold the Constitution. So did I. But we all need to understand the Constitution, not just oath takers.
It is written in English barfo, try it.

The Chief's answer was perfect.
 
The Chief took an oath to up hold the Constitution. So did I. But we all need to understand the Constitution, not just oath takers.
It is written in English barfo, try it.

The Chief's answer was perfect.

Sure, in isolation. But if he's implying by that he's going to ignore laws, which he appears to mean, then it's the wrong answer, as he's putting his own interpretation of the constitution above that of entities that rank higher than him.

barfo
 
Sure, in isolation. But if he's implying by that he's going to ignore laws, which he appears to mean, then it's the wrong answer, as he's putting his own interpretation of the constitution above that of entities that rank higher than him.

barfo

No not at all. He will obey the authority immediately superior to him, County law and the law on the top rung, the Constitution. Right now it appears the State law might have been ill advised,
passed by North Willamette valley people but ultimately rejected by the vast regions (counties) of Oregon.
 
No not at all. He will obey the authority immediately superior to him, County law and the law on the top rung, the Constitution. Right now it appears the State law might have been ill advised,
passed by North Willamette valley people but ultimately rejected by the vast regions (counties) of Oregon.

Guess what, counties don't have the authority to reject state law.

It's very weird to hear "conservatives" make the argument that it's fine to ignore whatever laws you don't like.

barfo
 
I thought the constitution says you have the right to bear arms, not the right to sell them to criminals. Actually it doesn't say anything about the right to sell them at all. This is actually a very good compromise, you can buy guns but you can't sell them.
 
you can buy guns but you can't sell them

I guess the residents most of the counties would probably disagree. In this county, like most counties, we hire and pay the law enforcement people. We are just taking control of which laws will be enforced.

This latest law passed by the Democrats, not one representative from my county or an adjacent county voted for it, I find completely ridiculous, since I can not even transfer my weapons to family members for safe keeping when I go sailing without them needing to get a back ground check for each weapon. I don't think I agree with your definition of criminals.

It is interesting to note, that not one resident of this county opposed this ballot measure that primarily prohibits the county law enforcement from enforcing any law that would infringe on the 2nd amendment. My family will not be arrested by law enforcement for processing weapons I left with them. Prospective buyers can look at a gun in a gun store, even see if it fits the hand, before
needing a background check. Seem very reasonable to me.
 
. In this county, like most counties, we hire and pay the law enforcement people. We are just taking control of which laws will be enforced.

Should we limit it to just counties? Why not neighborhoods? Houses? I'm really starting to like this. Laws should be what you've voted them to be in your house. I think I'm going to have a house election and become president.
 
SB 941 requires background checks for most gun transactions involving private parties to prevent sales to people legally prohibited from owning firearms, including felons and those committed for mental health treatment. The measure includes several exemptions, including for transfers among family members and for people who lend guns for hunting and for use at firing ranges.

This seems reasonable and does nothing to violate the 2nd amendment.
 
I guess the residents most of the counties would probably disagree. In this county, like most counties, we hire and pay the law enforcement people.

Didn't we (the state) have to bail you out recently because you refused to pay for your own law enforcement? Or was that the county next to you?

barfo
 
Should we limit it to just counties? Why not neighborhoods? Houses? I'm really starting to like this. Laws should be what you've voted them to be in your house. I think I'm going to have a house election and become president.

It is a stupid law, passed by Portland, the majority of the States residents in a huge geographic area, disagree with it. Their needs are entirely different and since they hire and pay their law enforcement, it seems like reasonable solution. The Democrats that push this thing could have listened but that didn't server their agenda. Perhaps they crafted a fix for Multnomah county but forcing the same on the other counties of the State was ignorant as well as being against the rights ( the right to arms) of most citizens.
 
Their needs are entirely different

What are these needs exactly? Why do you and your neighbors need to sell guns without any sort of background check? That law does nothing to limit gun ownership. It only makes it harder for the people who shouldn't own a gun to buy one.
 
It is a stupid law, passed by Portland, the majority of the States residents in a huge geographic area, disagree with it. Their needs are entirely different and since they hire and pay their law enforcement, it seems like reasonable solution. The Democrats that push this thing could have listened but that didn't server their agenda. Perhaps they crafted a fix for Multnomah county but forcing the same on the other counties of the State was ignorant as well as being against the rights ( the right to arms) of most citizens.

strange how majority rules, aint it?
 
The good thing about the Constitution is, the requirement for a super majority to rule.

My point was that the rest of the state of Oregon bitches about how the tri-counties "ru(i)ns" everything in the state.

Well, they have the population and the $$. So if they want to start paying for their own shit, go ahead and try to run the rest of the state without the 3 biggest counties $$. Good luck with that.
 
What are these needs exactly? Why do you and your neighbors need to sell guns without any sort of background check? That law does nothing to limit gun ownership. It only makes it harder for the people who shouldn't own a gun to buy one.

Well Sly, thinking back in time, I can remember several time where I would be in violation of this law.

This is not about selling guns, it is about transferring a weapon.

When I worked in Portland, I took four guys, all city boys, hunting. I supplied the rifles for them to practice with and use on the hunt. They had them about a week I would not have known
whether they would be prohibited from processing a firearm. As their employer, I am not even sure you are permitted to gather that information. I would be afraid to do it under this law.

Another time, my next door neighbor lady came over crying, afraid of her guy. I knew him to be a complete ass especially when he was drunk. She was going to get a restraining order the next day, but that night was a problem. So I loaned her a gun, and told her to lock her doors and call the cops if he came around that night. Call me right after you call the cops. I probably would be in trouble under this latest by the Democrats and I don't think that would be right.

About 5 years ago, we had a mountain lion roaming our neighborhood. Sighted by several older ladies that walk alone in the area regularly. Near as I could tell from the tracks, it was indeed a big cat.
But very unusual behavior, stalking humans is not their style. Probably and old one that was look for some easier targets. So I armed a couple ladies as well as my wife and suggested they walk together and always be armed. A neighbor guy got the cat a couple weeks later, a big old male lion with a bad leg, He had take a couple dogs, but no ladies. Again I might be in trouble with this law, hell I can't see what good it does.

We had burglaries in the neighborhood a few years back, again I armed my neighbor that had none but willing to help. As it turned out, we pieced together the info, it was a follow up hit team that followed a landscaping crew. We told the Sheriff what we knew and bang he nailed them. No ams needed but again, I transferred a weapon temporarily to a neighbor so he could help.

I have more but enough...

You know, things have been nice and peaceful around here, perhaps this place doesn't look like an easy mark. Yeah,we have a Neighborhood Watch too.

And then I think adding cost to acquiring arms is an infringement, the main point actually of this friggin law.
 
Last edited:
Well Sly, thinking back in time, I can remember several time where I would be in violation of this law.

This is not about selling guns, it is about transferring a weapon.

When I worked in Portland, I took four guys, all city boys, hunting. I supplied the rifles for them to practice with and use on the hunt. They had them about a week I would not have known
whether they would be prohibited from processing a firearm. As their employer, I am not even sure you are permitted to gather that information. I would be afraid to do it under this law.

Another time, my next door neighbor lady came over crying, afraid of her guy. I knew him to be a complete ass especially when he was drunk. She was going to get a restraining order the next day, but that night was a problem. So I loaned her a gun, and told her to lock her doors and call the cops if he came around that night. Call me right after you call the cops. I probably would be in trouble under this latest by the Democrats and I don't think that would be right.

About 5 years ago, we had a mountain lion roaming our neighborhood. Sighted by several older ladies that walk alone in the area regularly. Near as I could tell from the tracks, it was indeed a big cat.
But very unusual behavior, stalking humans is not their style. Probably and old one that was look for some easier targets. So I armed a couple ladies as well as my wife and suggested they walk together and always be armed. A neighbor guy got the cat a couple weeks later, a big old male lion with a bad leg, He had take a couple dogs, but no ladies. Again I might be in trouble with this law, hell I can't see what good it does.

We had burglaries in the neighborhood a few years back, again I armed my neighbor that had none but willing to help. As it turned out, we pieced together the info, it was a follow up hit team that followed a landscaping crew. We told the Sheriff what we knew and bang he nailed them. No ams needed but again, I transferred a weapon temporarily to a neighbor so he could help.

I have more but enough...

You know, things have been nice and peaceful around here, perhaps this place doesn't look like an easy mark. Yeah,we have a Neighborhood Watch too.

And then I think adding cost to acquiring arms is an infringement, the main point actually of this friggin law.

You have no rights to arm your friends and neighbors. If they need guns they need to get them legally. I own guns, I keep very tight control of them. That doesn't sound like something you want to do. Owning something yet not wanting to take any responsibility for it sounds likes something a liberal would believe in.

And not wanting to give law enforcement the tools (in this case money) to uphold and enforce the law? Again, sounds like something liberals are advocating for.

But hey, sounds like an interesting fight. I personally think it will set a horrible precedent and if it does pass I'm willing to bet the cost to fight it in court will far exceed the cost to enforce the law but it will be great drama. I actually hope this does pass.
 
You have no rights to arm your friends and neighbors. If they need guns they need to get them legally.

And not wanting to give law enforcement the tools

I personally think it will set a horrible precedent

Oh it was legal when I did it. I am sorry you don't like it, but I do help my neighbors.

The law enforcement here does agree with this measure. Just spoke with them today, they are making no effort to defeat the measure.

It is a horrible precedent to stuff this sort of shit on the whole state by a completely Democrat issue that only has favor in a small area.
 
Oh it was legal when I did it. I am sorry you don't like it, but I do help my neighbors.

The law enforcement here does agree with this measure. Just spoke with them today, they are making no effort to defeat the measure.

It is a horrible precedent to stuff this sort of shit on the whole state by a completely Democrat issue that only has favor in a small area.

Keeping guns from criminals is not a Democrat issue.
 
Keeping guns from criminals is not a Democrat issue.
This law was passed entirely by Democrats. Criminals do not care what laws you and the Democrats like. I doubt they even read the fucking things.
So go preach your tripe to someone else, you sound like another fucking fool to me.
 
Then we have this! GFY!

You don't. There is no such thing as a gun fairy or gun easter bunny and no matter how fun or cool it might sound you have no right to hop up and down the neighborhood and hand out guns. If your neighbors want to own guns you can drive them down to the local gun shop, fill out the background check for them and give them the money to buy it. Then it's their gun and their responsibility.
 
You don't. There is no such thing as a gun fairy or gun easter bunny and no matter how fun or cool it might sound you have no right to hop up and down the neighborhood and hand out guns. If your neighbors want to own guns you can drive them down to the local gun shop, fill out the background check for them and give them the money to buy it. Then it's their gun and their responsibility.

Ha! Kiss my ass! I broke no law and I don't ever want your permission.
 
This law was passed entirely by Democrats. Criminals do not care what laws you and the Democrats like. I doubt they even read the fucking things.
So go preach your tripe to someone else, you sound like another fucking fool to me.

Fool? I know where my guns are. By your own admission you don't know where yours are or how they are or aren't being used. Why you want to be so liberal with your guns is what is foolish.
 
Ha! Kiss my ass! I broke no law and I don't ever want your permission.

You're just not getting it. I have no interest in giving you or anyone else permission on how they use their guns. Sounds like you're the one wanting to give permission to use a gun how you see fit.
 
Spot on Sly. When I need to do so, I will use my judgement.

Awesome! We agree on this! Common ground.

Where you and I seem to differ is you also want the ability to judge who can use your guns outside of your family. Your family is your family, my family is my family. You don't want me telling your family how to use my guns and I don't want you telling my family how to use yours. All I'm asking for is to you to keep your guns to yourself.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top