This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 12/08/2022 6:40:55 AM PST by Navy Patriot
An Oregon judge suspended the state's voter-approved gun control measure hours after a federal court judge agreed that a ban on the sale and transfer of high-capacity magazines could soon take effect.
The Tuesday ruling from Harney County Judge Robert Raschio essentially puts the Thursday implementation of Measure 114 on hold.
However, that could be a short-term decision after Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum pledged to take the matter to the state Supreme Court.
"What's next? We will petition to the Oregon Supreme Court ASAP, seeking to align the result in our state courts with the federal court's well-reasoned and thoughtful decision," Rosenblum tweeted on Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Oregon’s new gun laws remain blocked, won’t go into effect early Thursday
:: state’s voter-approved gun control measure ::
All the voter approved resolutions in history cannot nullify my GOD GIVEN right to protect heart and home as well as provide for my family.
In short, they cannot nullify the 2nd Amendment and are therefore null and void.
They may be disregarded.
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Correct - BUT...
This case presents a somewhat different argument than most of the previous anti-gun measures in the past. The Constitution begins the Bill of Rights (1st Amendment) with:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
That opening phrase “Congress shall make no law...” has been applied in the interpretation of the following Amendments all the way to the 10th, which then relegates all other authority and power to the states (too bad that one has functionally been erased - until the recent overtun of Roe).
But in this particular Oregon case - the VOTERS were the idiots who voted away their 2nd amendment. So the courts will ultimately decide: while the constitution prohibits the CONGRESS (aka - the government) from deleting the rights listed - does that actually prohibit the people from voluntarily deleting their own rights?
Which of course, opens up a whole other can of worms: What if 51% want to ban al guns and make it illegal to possess even a single firearm? They can vote to take away MY guns? To delete MY rights?
A proper understanding of “rights”, as you put it “GOD GIVEN” - means that no man should be able to delete my rights. None.
BUT - that isn’t the court’s history... so we shall see. This really is a far more important case than many realize.
You cannot willingly become a slave.
You cannot willingly give up rights.
I tip my hat to you!
The simple answer is that the rights in question are not GIVEN to the People by the Constitution. The “voter-approved” measure presumes that rights are granted by the Constitution.
What was received as a result of being born cannot be nullified by any one person or any group of people acting in any capacity.
Should the measure be upheld using the argument provided, every citizen can bring action under 18CFR242, and they can NAME not only the judges and elected officials (”in their personal actions”) but also every person who signed the original generating petition.
[[GOD GIVEN right]]
Exactly. The constitution just affirms that we have inalienable rights, it doesn’t grant us those rights.
The fight is far from over. This was just a TRO until the district court could hear arguments on issuing an injunction, which would be in force until a trial on the merits.
Ultimately, the magazine ban portion of Oregon Measure 114 should be struck down in light of the Bruen decision, but that will probably not happen until the California case Duncan v. Bonta is decided.
The training portion of Measure 114 will probably be upheld and the injunction lifted when the state has the training requirements in place.
Thanks again, Yo-Yo.
Rights are not subject to vote.
However, the Rules don't apply to the Socialist Left Democrat Government, they told me so.
The 2nd Amendment, nor any other amendment doesn’t have a clause about “Congress shall make no law”, therefore it does not apply. It does sat “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Your argument would be equivalent to saying the people of each state have the right to vote away the right to a jury trial or the right to a speedy trial.
I would argue that point (at least the slave part). Historically, one could voluntarily become a bond slave to pay a debt they otherwise could not pay. It is the terminology Paul used in reference to himself.
In fact - this is a practice still going on today around the world - and yes, even in the USA - though we use somewhat different terminology.
And you can give up rights - simply renounce your US Citizenship -and technically, you give up your rights AS a US Citizen.
And to make it a bit more specific in illustration - if I were to voluntarily move myself to, say the UK - I would be, by my move, giving up my right to keep and bear arms.
Now - if we want to talk on a much higher “God-given rights” perspective/ natural rights - sure. But that and a $5 bill won’t even buy a late in London where I also cannot carry my handgun.
Correct - but therein lies the rub: The courts (and probably the SCOUTS) gets to make that determination - no matter our ideology and understanding of “rights”.
Ain’t Democracy wonderful?
I don’t even know if that portion will be upheld because no other right forces you to prove you have the ability to exercise it properly. Training in the proper use of firearms is always a god idea, and if the left interpreted the 2nd the way they do the 1st, the state would give that all citizens receive free training on the use of various firearms in common use to form its “well regulated militia”, but it would not mandate it.
The People act in fear of court tyranny and fiat, then.
I refuse.
But...I live in Michigan.
In a peaceful community.
My weapons are sufficient for me to protect hearth and home as well as provide for my family.
As time progresses, I may have to supplement them with something that will protect my God-given rights from such tyranny as above.
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.