turkeestalker
New member
If you would like to go to an FFL holder and pay him a fee in order to sell your personal firearm to a private individual... nothing is stopping you. What's so terrible?
Oregon Initiative 43 passes first step; complete ban on all modern guns...
- Thread starter Koda94
- Start date
turkeestalker
New member
You're not compromising, you're surrendering.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
When you talk about "regulating" private sales, I assume you're talking about universal background checks. As it stands, background checks are a requirement placed on federally licensed firearms dealers, and not, actually, on gun buyers. I'm fine with the idea that the feds can regulate people they license; the purpose of the current background check system is to prevent licensees from selling to prohibited persons, and I have no problem with that, or at least not much of one. Buyers can opt out of that system by buying guns privately, and that's as it should be. There are risks attendant on either choice, and buyers can decide for themselves which ones they prefer to take.rpenmanparker said:
But that system stops being OK if it's applied to all gun buyers, because then one has a system under which all gun buyers are assumed guilty -- ineligible to own a gun -- until they prove their innocence by submitting to significant violations of their right to privacy.
The general standard for depriving people of their rights is that doing so requires due process. This means that a judicial agency, usually a court, must hear arguments from both sides, and that the rights of the accused are protected in a variety of ways. One fundamental principle is that actions, not character, and certainly not intentions or "capacity," are all that it's permissible to judge. A person must be accused of doing something wrong, not of thinking about it or even (most of the time) talking about it.
Proposals for universal, intrusive "background" checks, and universal gun registries, turn the presumption of innocence on its head. Moreover, calling them "background checks" is a misnomer when it includes something as something as nebulous as a "mental health evaluation" -- now what is being checked is in fact what people used to call "moral character," not a person's background in the sense of previous conduct.
I'm a responsible adult, and I expect to be treated like one until I show by my actions that I'm not. It isn't something I should be expected to prove in order to exercise my basic constitutional rights.
(Voter ID laws are off-topic for this discussion, but just for the record, in my opinion they are every bit as unconstitutional as universal background checks, if not more so. The actual intent of such laws is blatantly discriminatory and can easily be shown to be so.)
turkeestalker
New member
Y'know, IF you believe that as gun owners we truly are in a minority, wouldn't it make sense to remember that old phrase, "We're all in this together"?
Maybe set aside smaller differences between ourselves in order to stand together in the face of the real opposition?
United we stand, divided we fall?
Maybe set aside smaller differences between ourselves in order to stand together in the face of the real opposition?
United we stand, divided we fall?
rpenmanparker
New member
Should applicants for a driver’s license not have to take a test? They are just presumed to be qualified until they run over a baby carriage and prove otherwise? Testing them or heaven forbid, checking their legal history, would be intrusive and an assumption of guilt?
Evan Thomas
Inactive
One does not have to have a license to drive or own a car, nor does the car have to be registered or insured, as long as the car stays on private property. Private and public conduct are two very different things, and owning guns is in the realm of the private. Carrying one for defense is a different matter, but that is not the subject of this thread, and we're not going to go there.
turkeestalker
New member
Driving is not a right guaranteed by our constitution.
They check legal history in order to obtain a drivers license?
I don't believe I even had a legal history when I got my drivers license.
They check legal history in order to obtain a drivers license?
I don't believe I even had a legal history when I got my drivers license.
My apologies if earlier in this thread my comments came across wrong, was not the intention and I will use better judgment from now on...
but this entire thread has gone off topic in all kinds of directions on subjects that we've discussed already in detail elsewhere in this forum. I'll admit there is probably not as much to talk about with Oregon's Initiative 43 until they collect enough signatures.
The problem with this analogy is that nobody is trying to take away our cars. Or even a class of cars.
yet the entire gun control agenda is based on complete prohibition. I suspect that even the most ardent gun rights supporters would be more open to ideas of licenses and training and universal background checks etc. that seem harmless up front if not for the prohibition agenda attached to them.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
Yes, it has gone off-topic, and I've done my bit.
Let's drop all this other stuff and return to the original subject, the proposed changes to Oregon law.
Koda94, it's your thread -- you can ask for it to be closed if you'd rather.
turkeestalker
New member
My apologies.
Were 3 pages deep of off topic discussion, I don't see a point in locking the thread to preserve the OP at this point the subject is buried too deep we took the bait a long time agoYes, it has gone off-topic, and I've done my bit.
Let's drop all this other stuff and return to the original subject, the proposed changes to Oregon law.
Koda94, it's your thread -- you can ask for it to be closed if you'd rather.
The proposed outlandish bill has a pretty broad umbrella, so I’d expect any thread on the subject could go just as broad. The law involves stripping of rights from people who have done nothing wrong as well as attempting to elimate, in some form or other, most modern firearms that most gun owning Oregonians actually own. Some of these firearms have probably been in families for a couple of generations. As far as Oregon goes, it’s west of the cascades versus the east.
but thats what all "common sense" gun laws are doing right now. It makes me wonder just how much more lawful gun owners are willing to put up with before they get up and vote... which if I understand this correctly is part of the problem.
Anti gun supporters have literally attacked gun rights to the point where now there is no arguing anymore the constitutionality of their legislation and they wonder why Trump got elected. Was talking with a friend about this initiative and he brought up an interesting point that this initiative is so overreaching that it could backfire on them by actually waking up conservatives to vote.
armoredman
New member
I certainly hope Oregon can pull this chestnut out of the fire. Are there any legislators in OR that are fighting against this, or trying to defang it?
It has worked VERY well in Arizona.
turkeestalker
New member
I hope your friend is right, it's past time for some real common sense.
carguychris
New member
Please?
Can I steer this thread back on topic for a minute?
Can someone answer the questions I posed in my earlier post?
Can I steer this thread back on topic for a minute?
Can someone answer the questions I posed in my earlier post?
Lohman said:
That protected class framework doesn't get you far in a state arms ban, since the ban will impair everyone's ability to exercise the right.
Viewed through the lense of states rights however, federal control of state voting criteria are an interesting analogy where the subject is universal background checks (as opposed to purchases from a federal licensee) which Oregon law does require.
If before you cast a vote, you were required to have your personal information, not just a simple ID, run through a government data base, and have your right denied for no stated reason, the outcry would be deafening.
Now view the converse. If all one had to do in Oregon to transfer possession of an arm were to show some kind of ID, that would be a considerable expansion of the right for oregonians, and it seems unlikely that anyone would allege with plausibility that the ID requirement is unfairly discriminatory.
carguychris said:
The ballot initiative should show up in the next election after it has cleared the hurdles to getting on the ballot, i.e. enough valid signatures. The ballot initiative is a direct process in which the initiate changes the state's law; the legislature is cut out. That is why people love it or hate it.
Sometimes Ballots pass because the ballot language sounds like a great idea to normal people, but the ballot language never got a lot of scrutiny from the sort of people who would later seek to overturn it in court. That can be one advantage of the legislative process that a ballot initiative doesn't always get.
The initiative language cited by Koda94 doesn't look novel to me; it reads like the sort of wish list we've seen several times over the last decade from legislative sources.
Last edited:
I suspect a lot of the love/hate for the ballot initiative depends upon whether you think your elected representative generally has your interest as a priority when they propose/vote on laws.
I think the loser(s) of whatever bill passes will frequently challenge that law in court regardless of how much scrutiny they gave the bill before it became a law.
Ballot initiatives here are interesting because, as others noted, they can go around the legislator.
Even if this battle is won the "war" is not over. A recent ballot initiative in MI (not firearm related) was soundly defeated. Within six months the legislature had passed it through anyways.
Even if this battle is won the "war" is not over. A recent ballot initiative in MI (not firearm related) was soundly defeated. Within six months the legislature had passed it through anyways.