If you aren't on this ping list and are interested
in articles about Oregon, please FReepmail me.
Posted on 02/23/2013 8:10:26 AM PST by EXCH54FE
With the outrage over the Newtown massacre fading, gun-grabbers are hastening their efforts at the state level. The Oregon Firearms Federation (hat tip: Gateway Pundit) reports:
Two days after Senate Democrats claimed they would not seek a ban on modern firearms and feeding devices, Democrats in the Oregon House introduced just that.
Seven Senators joined with eight House Reps to introduce a sweeping ban on virtually all modern firearms. Among the Senators is, of course, Ginny Burdick, who claimed on Wednesday "that she is backing off an attempt to push through a bill on gun clips that she drafted following the December shootings at the Clackamas Mall." (snip)
HB 3200 not only bans most modern guns and magazines, it allows warrantless searches of your home, requires background checks and registration for a firearm you already own and as-of-yet undefined storage requirements. We say "a firearm" because even if you comply with the restrictions in this bill you may still only own one.
(Of course the bill does not apply to "government employees".)
The bill combines the most extreme and irrational elements of other bills that have been introduced across the country. For example, one of the firearms banned under this bill would be a pistol with a "folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock." No, that is not a misprint. (snip)
The bill bans such deadly features as "pistol grips" and "barrel shrouds" because clearly they add to the lethality of any firearm. These people are so full of hatred for gun owners they don't even understand what they are banning.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Sieg heil comrades!!!
Something about unlawful search and seizure comes to mind.
More deliberate disregard for the Constitution.
These warrantless searches will be the spark that sets the whole country on fire.
Either the Supreme Court recognizes the immense danger of such activities and moves quickly to quash them, or all hell is gonna break loose. Those of us who can read know exactly what the plain language of the Fourth Amendment says.
The local constabulary is going to attempt to search the wrong house and the welcome they receive will make news around the world.
Warrantless searches have been introduced three times in Washington state. It was yanked from new legislation just this week. As Rush pointed out, they continue to float the this trial balloon until it starts to gain momentun. It took 40 years for “gay rights” to be mainstreamed...they are taking the same long view on destruction of the Fourth Amendment. They are really going after the First, Second and Fourth now. With Obama’s massive downsizing of the military, there’s no need to go after the Third.
Any law enforcement office or other government agent that enters your home without a warrant or without your permission is a legitimate target.
Any law enforcement office or other government agent that enters your home without a warrant or without your permission is a legitimate target.
Did you see this gem from the article?
Of course the bill does not apply to “government employees”.
I hate Oregon Nazis.
The Constitution? No, you see they are drafting this in tiny paragraphs so it doesn’t conflict with the Constitution. (Think Joe’s Garage)
The mask is really starting to come off.
The warrentless searches especially concern me, if I were an American. Conceivably, they could enter my home when I am not home and just totally ransack the place.
You, literally, could come home to a completely destroyed house and there would be nothing you could do about it. You wouldn’t even know whom was in your house and it likely wouldn’t be covered by insurance.
Of course the bill does not apply to “government employees”.
Can you say RULING CLASS?
As far as warrantless searches go, the Fourth Amendment protects homes from unreasonable searches generally requiring a warrant for such a search. Current law is that warrantless searches of a home are allowed only for certain exceptions: “exigent” circumstances (must have probable cause that a crime has been committed and that harm or escape will occur w/o immediate entry), consent, and certain limited applications of searches incident to arrest and “plain view” search.
Given their recent ruling which further eviscerates the 4th Amendment, it's quite likely that they would uphold this sort of legislation as well.
Are there any sane persons who’d want to be the policemen or sheriffs assigned to try to forcibly enter people’s homes and steal their guns?
Well, it would be interesting to see what language is in this proposed bill for warrantless searches of someone's home.
Current constitutional case law recognizes that the Fourth Amendment protects “houses” (homes) from “unreasonable searches” generally requiring a warrant for such a search. Warrantless searches of a home are allowed only for certain exceptions: 1)“exigent” circumstances (must have probable cause that a crime has been committed and that harm or escape will occur w/o immediate entry), 2)consent, and 3)certain limited applications of searches incident to arrest and “plain view” search.
“wouldn’t be covered by insurance”
I have my imsurance coverage by Ruger, Springfield and Smith & Wesson.
Its about time that we start collecting information about these marxist libtards so that when the time comes we will know where we can go to “talk” to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.