quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
Ok, I'll be talking to my state senator at 4 PM Pacific time.

We'll see how this goes.

I'm trying to prep as best I can, and sadly, I get the feeling he's not on our side right now, since his assistant told me that he's for "common sense gun laws".

ANY HELP ON WHAT TO SAY WOULD BE MUCH APPRECIATED.

[I am seeing two 978s, one is about studying firearms crimes and the other appears to be about regulating gun owners with safe storage etc]

Good talking points here:

https://www.oregonfirearms.org...78-the-felon-factory

Strict liability for crimes committed with your firearms is a big problem and possibly unconstitutional (due process).

It's an extreme case of victim blaming.

There are no other areas where society finds it acceptable to blame the victim for an unforeseeable criminal act.

*If you park your car, unlocked and running (in the winter, to warm up, as many do), should you be liable if it is stolen and someone gets run over?

*If someone steals your dog, and kills the dog, are you liable for animal abuse?

*If a father allows his daughter out of the house wearing skimpy clothes, should he be liable if she is sexually assaulted? (liberals hate this one, but it's true: they would never blame the woman or the woman's family for not "safe storing" her)

*If you leave your wallet on a bench by accident, should you be held liable if someone takes your money, buys drugs and overdoses?

Here's the point: in all other aspects of society, we expect members of society to refrain from criminal behavior. We do not punish the victims for being victims of criminal behavior.

What kind of society would we live in if we started doing that? When you punish the victim instead of the perpetrator two things happen:

1) You create a justification for the perpetrator's criminal act. We go from a society of laws, to a society where you get to keep what you can kill. I.e. if I can get away with victimizing you in said crime, then the crime is more your fault than mine.

2) You double victimize the victim. First they lose their personal property, second, they lose their liberty, all for a crime they did not commit.

Well, that sucked. Had the call. I feel it had little impact.

He said there will be a new gun law this session because according to him, "We have to do something, and there's too much attention on the issue"

I was told by him that there are too many guns around, and some people feel very uncomfortable knowing that someone near them may be armed (such as in schools, college campuses, the state capitol building, the Airport, etc) and this is why they want to restrict where CHL people can carry. It doesn't matter that these people are background checked people who went through the effort to get a CHL. Some people are not comfortable, so that's that.

He said he plans to vote yes on the bill, and its up to the courts to decide if it's against the Oregon constitution or 2A.

I'm off to bang my head against the wall for a while.

quote:

Some people are not comfortable, so that's that.

Comfort > Constitution. This is the very definition of mob rule.

Did you tell him that you feel uncomfortable with him in office?

quote:

Did you tell him that you feel uncomfortable with him in office?

You were not going to change his mind.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:

quote:

Did you tell him that you feel uncomfortable with him in office?

You were not going to change his mind.

I feel most uncomfortable with him directly telling me that they would pass laws that may be unconstitutional, and then it's the court's job to decide if it is constitutional or not. seems like malpractice to me. or at least arrogance.

No wonder there are some states that make it illegal for legislatures to introduce new gun legislation. Now I see why.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
These liberal extremists are making progress with their anti-self defense bills. However once RBG is out of commission, I suspect the SCOTUS will start taking 2A cases and deciding in the favor of the constitution.

And the left will continue to ignore the rulings.

So true. At some point they will come out openly saying the SCOTUS is completely irrelevant and defunct, increasingly so with each decision upholding Constitutional rights.

We won!!!

Where's the dancing banana gif?

We won for now. I suppose next year it's going to be the same crap over again, since my state senator told me that there will be a law, since there's so much attention on the issue. But for now, we won.

Thanks to all the state level Republicans for their walkout.

^^^congrats. That is a BIG win.