Infringement of the 2nd amendment nullified by Ballot measure

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Denny Crane said:
Cars are licensed, guns aren't. Guns are much easier to conceal as well.

The onus here is on the gun owner to be responsible gun owners. With the privilege of owning a gun, you have to assure it is used in a legit manner and it is protected appropriately from theft (so the bad guys don't get them). Keep them in a safe or whatever.
Click to expand...
Holding a gun owner responsible would require some sort of license to own. At least you would be required to register the gun someway to document you own that gun.
 
Denny Crane said:
Retailers aren't gun owners they're gun purveyors. They're already under fairly strict licensing and other regulation.

I'm not sure what the State Patrol has to do with anything.

If anyone is arrested and is carrying or using a gun at a crime scene, throw the book at him. If the gun is someone else's, that other person is responsible, too.
Click to expand...
Looks like I edited my comment as you were responding. I changed it to seller -- (person to person was my intent). But, my point is that if the County Sherriff isn't going to enforce the law, it doesn't stop State Patrol or some other State Enforcement Arm from enforcing the law (i.e. prosecuting those who violated state law by not doing a background check in a private person to person sale) , does it? It might be a false sense of security. Or am I missing something here.
 
magnifier661 said:
Holding a gun owner responsible would require some sort of license to own. At least you would be required to register the gun someway to document you own that gun.
Click to expand...

The store registers the gun's serial number with the government. The store keeps track of who bought the gun.

If you sell your gun to someone else, you need to tell the store or the government about the change of possession.

I don't want to discourage people from owning guns. I want to hold them responsible for violence committed using guns.
 
Sedatedfork said:
Looks like I edited my comment as you were responding. I changed it to seller -- (person to person was my intent). But, my point is that if the County Sherriff isn't going to enforce the law, it doesn't stop State Patrol or some other State Enforcement Arm from enforcing the law (i.e. prosecuting those who violated state law by not doing a background check in a private person to person sale) , does it? It might be a false sense of security. Or am I missing something here.
Click to expand...

The sheriff doesn't enforce the law. They only take possession of the gun and the attorney general or district attorney traces the gun via the store that sold it.

I don't care about background checks. I don't think anyone buying a gun should be reported to the state in any way. Only after a gun is misused should the state seek to trace it and there's no central repository of who owns what guns.

See my previous post.
 
Denny Crane said:
The store registers the gun's serial number with the government. The store keeps track of who bought the gun.

If you sell your gun to someone else, you need to tell the store or the government about the change of possession.

I don't want to discourage people from owning guns. I want to hold them responsible for violence committed using guns.
Click to expand...
It's an interesting concept, but 20 years??? Wtf is that craziness????
 
Got it. I will be the first to admit I am pretty ignorant about guns and gun laws. I don't use guns and have never had a reason to have to encounter any of the laws restricting gun sales, etc.
 
Sedatedfork said:
Got it. I will be the first to admit I am pretty ignorant about guns and gun laws. I don't use guns and have never had a reason to have to encounter any of the laws restricting gun sales, etc.
Click to expand...
It's pretty strict where I live in SoCal. It's almost impossible for me to have a conceal carry in LA county.

It's an infringement IMO.
 
I remember sitting on a jury on a criminal case. It was an unlawful use of a firearm case -- I won't go into the details. But the jury foreperson was a woman who was a pretty nice folksy lady and had a CHL. This was back in 2002, so quite a while ago. I remember her telling me that she used her CHL quite a bit when she was travelling across the country. I asked her, oh, so your CHL is valid when you travel down to California? She goes, "Oh, never really thought about that." I don't whether she was technically violating any laws, but her reaction was kind of interesting. Here is a law abiding citizen, good lady, who may have unwittingly violated many gun laws numerous times.
 
Sedatedfork said:
I remember sitting on a jury on a criminal case. It was an unlawful use of a firearm case -- I won't go into the details. But the jury foreperson was a woman who was a pretty nice folksy lady and had a CHL. This was back in 2002, so quite a while ago. I remember her telling me that she used her CHL quite a bit when she was travelling across the country. I asked her, oh, so your CHL is valid when you travel down to California? She goes, "Oh, never really thought about that." I don't whether she was technically violating any laws, but her reaction was kind of interesting. Here is a law abiding citizen, good lady, who may have unwittingly violated many gun laws numerous times.
Click to expand...

Yeah, her CHL was NOT good in California. Her class that she took could qualify her for a CHL in other states, but she still has to apply. There isn't a defacto CHL that allows you to carry in multiple states. For example, the NRA class in Oregon would also qualify for a CHL in Washington, but I would have to apply for that license. The Utah CHL class actually opens the door for many different states... but again, you have to apply for each state's license.
 
Denny Crane said:
I say you're still responsible for your stolen gun being used in a crime.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

For example, you lock up your guns in your safe. You go on vacation. Someone breaks into your house, steals your safe, cracks it at their house, and then uses the gun in a crime in the future. You would want that original gun owner responsible, even though they did the appropriate thing by locking up their guns?
 
blue32 said:
I disagree.

For example, you lock up your guns in your safe. You go on vacation. Someone breaks into your house, steals your safe, cracks it at their house, and then uses the gun in a crime in the future. You would want that original gun owner responsible, even though they did the appropriate thing by locking up their guns?
Click to expand...

You are responsible.. You left your guns in a manner they could be stolen. The onus is on you to assure they don't end up in the wrong persons' hands.

And for mags, the 20 years is for the person committing the crime. The person whose gun is used might get a lesser sentence, but a sentence nonetheless.
 
Wow! Coos County voters get it, no organized push required! It passed with overwhelming support, 61% of the vote.

Funny, how none of the papers reporting this actually stated correctly what the objectionable law does;

"person-to-person gun sales"

It isn't restricted to sales, the law requires a back ground check on the "transfer" of any weapon from the current owner to another person.




 
Summary of Coos County gun-rights measure

A yes vote adopts and makes part of the Coos County Code the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance. If approved the ordinance requires:

• Any law or regulation in violation of the U.S. or Oregon Constitution pertaining to the right to bear arms to be deemed as unconstitutional and void.


Welcome to Coos County, where felons and illegals are allowed to own guns.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Summary of Coos County gun-rights measure

A yes vote adopts and makes part of the Coos County Code the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance. If approved the ordinance requires:

• Any law or regulation in violation of the U.S. or Oregon Constitution pertaining to the right to bear arms to be deemed as unconstitutional and void.


Welcome to Coos County, where felons and illegals are allowed to own guns.
Click to expand...

And should they not own guns, MarAzul will provide them with guns.

barfo
 
Only the ignorant would be in favor of a law that falls into this category; (See above ^^^)

• Any law or regulation in violation of the U.S. or Oregon Constitution pertaining to the right to bear arms
 
MarAzul said:
Only the ignorant would be in favor of a law that falls into this category; (See above ^^^)

• Any law or regulation in violation of the U.S. or Oregon Constitution pertaining to the right to bear arms
Click to expand...
But again, the Constitution also states that the judicial branch of the government is the entity tasked with determining the constitutionality of laws passed by the populace or electorate. Any measure allocating that power to any other entity is, in and of itself, unconstitutional.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
But again, the Constitution also states that the judicial branch of the government is the entity tasked with determining the constitutionality of laws passed by the populace or electorate. Any measure allocating that power to any other entity is, in and of itself, unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. Many people have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, most Sheriffs and Police Chiefs and even ordinary people like myself. in doing so, we are all expected to interpret what the Constitutions means, indeed it is the duty of every citizen. Like one Chief said, his duty, is to the Constitution first and everything else in the line of duty next.

This new law simply directs the Sheriff to use the judgement he is required to use in any case, and forgo enforcing a gun law that he deems infringes on Constitutional rights. If you folks in Portland want to force him into enforcing laws he doesn't think is Constitutional, then you all need to get the Court involved, perhaps even the Supreme Court. Three Counties now have taken this path.
perhaps it should have been implemented in the counties where the residents agree to submit to the infringement of their right. Stuffing it on those that do not agree is egregious, forcing them to enforce the egregious is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
SlyPokerDog said:
He doesn't know that. If he were to sell his guns for $1 and do a background check he would know that.
Click to expand...

He would know nothing. And he'd be $100 or so poorer, if he even had the "extra" money lying around.

Criminals do not buy guns.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
They can now in Coos County.
Click to expand...

Anyone can buy guns anywhere in the world, and always could.

Laws don't stop criminal activity, and they certainly don't prevent it.

Apprehension, prosecution, and confinement does prevent future crimes by the criminal.

Armed citizens stop crimes in progress and/or prevent crimes being considered.

Armed police can usually only fill the role of after the crime apprehension, and gathering of evidence and statements from the living victims, if any.
 
MarAzul said:
Not true at all. Many people have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, most Sheriffs and Police Chiefs and even ordinary people like myself. in doing so, we are all expected to interpret what the Constitutions means, indeed it is the duty of every citizen. Like one Chief said, his duty, is to the Constitution first and everything else in the line of duty next.

This new law simply directs the Sheriff to use the judgement he is required to use in any case, and forgo enforcing a gun law that he deems infringes on Constitutional rights. If you folks in Portland want to force him into enforcing laws he doesn't think is Constitutional, then you all need to get the Court involved, perhaps even the Supreme Court. Three Counties now have taken this path.
perhaps it should have been implemented in the counties where the residents agree to submit to the infringement of their right. Stuffing it on those that do not agree is egregious, forcing them to enforce the egregious is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
And so begins the next American Revolution against "tyranny"........
 
MARIS61 said:
Anyone can buy guns anywhere in the world, and always could.

Laws don't stop criminal activity, and they certainly don't prevent it.

Apprehension, prosecution, and confinement does prevent future crimes by the criminal.

Armed citizens stop crimes in progress and/or prevent crimes being considered.

Armed police can usually only fill the role of after the crime apprehension, and gathering of evidence and statements from the living victims, if any.
Click to expand...

You're talking about things that have nothing to do with the law that Marazul is upset over.

I do think that it's awesome that you want to travel around the world and buy guns. Enjoy the trip.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
You're talking about things that have nothing to do with the law that Marazul is upset over.

I do think that it's awesome that you want to travel around the world and buy guns. Enjoy the trip.
Click to expand...

You're a dog, so I can't hold you to the same standards of reading comprehension that I would for a cat, as an example.

My entire post refers specifically to the laws in Coos County, OR., those who write them, those who violate them, and those who enforce them.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
the law that Marazul is upset over.
Click to expand...

Oh no, not upset at all. Pleased actually, the appropriate counter action was voted in to action by a large majority of my neighbors.
I am even more pleased that they recognized their rights being incrementally taken by an ill informed ignorant pocket of the state.
 
MarAzul said:
Oh no, not upset at all. Pleased actually, the appropriate counter action was voted in to action by a large majority of my neighbors.
I am even more pleased that they recognized their rights being incrementally taken by an ill informed ignorant pocket of the state.
Click to expand...

Looks like you're going to need to run for sheriff.

Coos County Sheriff Craig Zanni, who would get the task of figuring out what gun laws are constitutional, describes himself as a strong supporter of gun rights.


But Zanni said in an interview this week that he has "some concerns about the wording" of the ballot measure, particularly the notion that the sheriff should scrutinize the constitutionality of laws.

and

Zanni said he doesn't go out looking for violations of the new background check law, but he said he wasn't ruling out that someone in Coos County could face prosecution if they violated the law.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Zanni said he doesn't go out looking for violations of the new background check law, but he said he wasn't ruling out that someone in Coos County could face prosecution
Click to expand...

Ha! I am quite sure he understands, Sheriffs are elected. Or not!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top