Test case? State's voters to decide on nation's strictest gun control Weapon purchase would require permit, magazines over 10 rounds banned

wnd.com ^ | 7/21/2022 1949 hrs edt | wnd news service

[rktman]

Oregon voters will decide this fall on a proposal that would require a permit for gun purchases and ban magazines higher than 10 rounds, except for current owners, law enforcement and the military.

Initiative 17, the Reduction of Gun Violence Act, has surpassed the minimum number of signatures required, 112,080, Oregon Secretary of State Shemia Fagan's elections division said Monday, Fox News reported.

If approved, an applicant for a gun permit would be required to complete an approved firearm safety course, pay a fee, provide personal information, submit to fingerprinting and photographing and pass a criminal background check.

The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action condemned the initiative, saying on its website that "these anti-gun citizens are coming after YOU, the law-abiding firearm owners of Oregon, and YOUR guns."

[gundog]

It’ll fail, miserably.

[HamiltonJay]

Unconstitutional

You do not require a permit from the government to exercise your constitutional rights.

[Bob434]

I would,think it would be a constitutional issue

[OKSooner]

Oh, it will stand just fine after the dems have packed the court.

[gundog]

By my reading, it violates the Oregon constitution. I think it would go through there before SCOTUS got a shot at it.

State Right to Bear Arms in Oregon Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution states: "The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]"

[Bob434]

Ah ok- yep, the sc likely won’t hear until the state rules on It first. My thought though is that the right is a national (actually, a world wide right) inalienable right given by God, not by the states. State and federal laws should just verify that right, much like the inalienable right to eat and drink. A govenrment shoukd not be able to set laws thst deny that God given right to self preservation.

[gundog]

I hear ya. But it’s a process, here on Earth. And in Oregon, the most secular State in the Union, this move is being led by clergy. This initiative is the tattered remains of what failed to pass in 2020.

2020 Initiatives.

[gundog]

...and that was a fine tuning of their failures in 2018.

[Bob434]

Wow- pretty sad that “faith leaders” want socialist laws like gun laws that deprive individuals of their right to self preservation. Most pastors that I know are for the 2nd amendment. I woild question any so called faith leader who supports repeal of our God given rights to adequate self defence

[gundog]

In Oregon, and the Portland area in particular, I generally connect clergy with access to minors. Take that for what it’s worth.

There’s also this crap...Lake Oswego is an Uber-lib wealthy suburb of Portland. This tool of a State Rep’s daughter is one of these kids.

10 point plan for gun control.

[Bob434]

Yeah there certainly is a high % there that do that. They will answer to God inmthe end, but unfortunately they create a lot of victims which unfortunately is a result of the fallen nature of mankind after he rejected God and ate of the tree he was told not to. Its been evil vs good ever since, and it’s so,hard to keep beleiving In The good when so much evil persists, bUT we must hold onto the good and truth, and resist the evil where we can if society is to stand a chance.

[thirst4truth]

I know about Sheriff Hanlan because about 8 or so years ago, the Tea Party of Douglas County paid for him to go to the Constitutional Sheriffs Convention. He went and he has said only a couple of times, he will not enforce un Constitutional gun laws that Salem passes.

The newest one just approved to be on the ballet will restrict all of us from ever purchasing another gun again in this state.

[mrmeyer]

Democracy is tyranny. The founders knew this.

[itsahoot]

I don’t see how this can stand if passed given the recent SCOTUS ruling.

Have you noticed how many states immediately began to institute policies executive orders emergency powers to subvert the decision. New York has been called down by the Supremes several times, New York just ignores them and passes more laws, rules, lower court decisions....Rinse and repeat.

[MileHi]

Yes, so now they need to be sued until it hurts.

[itsahoot]

"Voters" will decide nothing.

Bingo! Secret elections, which mail in elections are can say anything they want them too. Same with voting machines, why anyone thinks they aren't or can't be rigged is beyond me.

[itsahoot]

Its because these elitists don’t listen or read what the SCOTUS says.

They listen and understand, they don't care. no need to worry they just invent reasons to get around the decision and continue with their unconstitutional behavior because there is no penalty for their criminality.

[itsahoot]

Constitutionally protected rights are not decided by majority votes.

Constitutionally protected rights are not protected at all by rogue courts and corrupt politicians.

[from occupied ga]

Constitutional rights are protected by the Second Anendment which is of course why tyrants always want to nullify it.

[itsahoot]

Constitutional rights are protected by the Second Anendment which is of course why tyrants always want to nullify it.

That was the intention to bad it didn't work.