Official Statement of the Oregon Republican Party Regarding Your 2nd Amendment Rights

[KarenD]

OFFICIAL NEWS RELEASE

Statement of the Oregon Republican Party in
Opposition to Oregon Senate Bills 347, 699, 700 and 796

Wilsonville, OR – On April 4th, 2013, the six Executive Officers of the Oregon Republican Party voted unanimously to oppose Oregon Senate Bills 347, 699, 700 and 796 for the following reasons:

• The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees each law-abiding American citizen the right to keep and bear arms of his choice

• The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States clearly says “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

• Firearms known as “Assault Weapons” are also protected by the Second Amendment as part of a “well-regulated militia”

• Firearms are used for the defense of person, family, and property more than one million times each year

• More than 99.8 percent of all lawfully-owned firearms in America will not be used in crime in any given year

• The criminal misuse of firearms by those in the criminal element is not a reason to deny the constitutional right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens

• Several local, state, and federal lawmakers continue to propose measures aimed at restricting all firearms and ammunition, including bans, taxation, waiting periods, registration, licensing, and even confiscation

• Such laws assume the guilt of all firearms owners without addressing those who have mental issues, misuse and criminally abuse firearms, contrary to our legal justice system which assumes innocence until proven guilty

• National Institute of Justice studies have shown that restrictive "gun control"
laws are ineffective against violent criminals, who show contempt for all laws

• The effect of restrictive gun laws has been the exact opposite of that which was promised, as evidenced by high violent crime rates

Therefore, the Oregon Republican Party recommends the rejection of further restrictive firearms or ammunition regulation laws that only serve to limit law-abiding citizens in the exercise of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights while having no effect on the activities of the criminal element in our society.

Further, the Oregon Republican Party recommends that the scarce resources of the law enforcement and criminal justice systems be focused upon uniform, consistent, and just sentencing, speedy trials, and increased punishment and incarceration for those who commit violent crime.

The Executive Officers of the Oregon Republican Party,

Suzanne Gallagher, Chair
Bill Currier, Vice Chair
Chris Barreto, Secretary
Ken Taylor, Treasurer
Solomon Yue, National Committeeman
Donna Cain, National Committeewoman

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[KarenD]

Democrats are introducing ALL anti-gun legislation and there are NO Independents or Libertarians in the Legislature, making the Republicans the lawmakers standing between you and gun-grabbing Democrats. You really need to join us. Seriously.

 

[KarenD]

Tomorrow at 8:30 am there is a Senate Judiciary Public Hearing at the capitol. If you are in Oregon, I urge you to attend, even to the point of sacrifice. Here is a letter written by one constitutionalist to be presented to the committee:

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing
Oregon State Capital
Room HR50

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!”

Chair Prozanski, members of the committee:
My name is Jason Schmidt. I’m an Oregonian, small business owner, and a concealed handgun license holder. I am opposing all of the anti-gun bills being heard today.
CHL Holders must:
- Not have any outstanding warrants or be free on any form of pre-trial release
- Never have been convicted of a felony
- Not have been convicted of a misdemeanor in the last four years
- Not be a registered sex offender
- Not have a stalking or restraining order against them
- Pass a background check
- Provide written documentation that demonstrates they have taken a handgun safety course
- Among other requirements
As you can see, We CHL holders are law abiding citizens that have the right to protect ourselves and our families. Where ever that may be, like at home, on the road, in a school, or public building or property. These bills being heard today are only going to punish us law abiding citizens. They will NOT affect criminals at all.

Looking at shooting tragedies in the last decade, you can find two common traits among the killers.
1. They all were on or recently off of psychotropic drugs suchs as Prozac, Paxil, or Ritalin.
2. NONE of them were CHL holders.

Stop punishing law abiding citizens.

Oh, and like Steve Jobs used to say, just one more thing…

That claim about 40% of gun sales lack background checks is a lie. It’s a 20 year old survey that targeted the years 1993 and 1994. If you remember, 1994 was the year the Brady Act requirements for background checks went into effect. This survey only sampled 251 people, with a response rate of 50% which is 125 people. Out of that response, 35.7% of them said they acquired a gun without a background check. Somehow 35.7% can be rounded up to 40%. Once they added in the account that some of these guns were from family inheritance, that percentage dropped to 26.4%, which equates to just 33 people out of 251.

How can 33 people surveyed 20 years ago be used as a national statistic? If not to only further a gun control agenda fueled by ignorance and hate.
Vote no on Senate Bills 347, 699, 700, 796.

God Bless America.
Sincerely,
Jason Schmidt

 

[-Taz-]

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state....."

The key words being "a well regulated millita". I read that as; band together, organise and you can have your guns, but individuals running around with their toys is not what we want (or what Madison and Mason wanted).

Thoughts?

 

[releventchair]

Militia is a individual as well as a group. Supreme court has defined the second amendment as an individual right. Why do you look for another interpretation?.

 

[KarenD]

Militia is a individual as well as a group. Supreme court has defined the second amendment as an individual right. Why do you look for another interpretation?.

I am Militia.

 

[XLTer]

The key words being "a well regulated millita". I read that as; band together, organise and you can have your guns, but individuals running around with their toys is not what we want (or what Madison and Mason wanted).

Thoughts?

The Right of the ( PEOPLE = CITIZENS ) to KEEP and BEAR arms shall ( NOT ) be infringed .

Kind of self explanatory would'nt you say ?

 

[2screwed]

The key words being "a well regulated millita". I read that as; band together, organise and you can have your guns, but individuals running around with their toys is not what we want (or what Madison and Mason wanted).

Thoughts?

Firearms were not then and are not now considered toys. At least not by anyone with an ounce of common sense.

 

[0121stockpicker]

The Right of the ( PEOPLE = CITIZENS ) to KEEP and BEAR arms shall ( NOT ) be infringed .

Kind of self explanatory would'nt you say ?

Not at all. Where in those words does it say a felon can not own a fire arm??

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Not at all. Where in those words does it say a felon can not own a fire arm??

YEP! One of TWO "gray areas"...

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

The key words being "a well regulated millita". I read that as; band together, organise and you can have your guns, but individuals running around with their toys is not what we want (or what Madison and Mason wanted).

Thoughts?

It also says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

At the time it was written the militia
Was made up of local armed citizens with little to no training who banded together for mutual defense..

If you read our forefathers writings they make it abundantly clear what they meant which is why they put in the statement "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[bevo]

A militia is formed by the PEOPLE.

 

[0121stockpicker]

It also says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

At the time it was written the militia
Was made up of local armed citizens with little to no training who banded together for mutual defense..

If you read our forefathers writings they make it abundantly clear what they meant which is why they put in the statement "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Forefathers writing also said that Washington should be called king along with a million other crazy thoughts. If its not in the const or BofRs than it is meaningless. I think you have stated that numerous time havnt you??

 

[Chadeaux]

The problem is, with all the socialism in today's schools, they are continually distorting the meanings of words.

K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Stupid was a popular saying when I was a young man.

You have to see it from the perspective in which it was written. Wartime. Every able bodied man should be ready to defend their homeland. This required that each one OWN a weapon - read GUN - of modern vintage. One capable of defending not only his home but that of his neighbor and his nation.

 

[Chadeaux]

YEP! One of TWO "gray areas"...

Sorry, try again. Being a felon STRIPS YOU OF CERTAIN RIGHTS. One of those is ownership of a firearm. Why?

You have already proven yourself to be a danger to society. Why should you also be armed? So you can be more of a threat?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

The key words being "a well regulated millita". I read that as; band together, organise and you can have your guns, but individuals running around with their toys is not what we want (or what Madison and Mason wanted).

Thoughts?

I am curious who is the we in your statement? " individuals running around with their toys is not what we want (or what Madison and Mason wanted).

Your in Norway so how do you fit in the "we", are you an American national living abroad or is Norway our 51 state?



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Dave44]

I believe violent criminals did not need a gun after their first offense until maybe 50 years ago? Course I do not think they needed food either? Maybe there is a break in the logic somewhere in here as far as some are concerned,, or at least a couple.

 

[KarenD]

Your in Norway

Taz is in Norway? If that's the case, , he doesn't count.

 

[Dave44]

Taz is in Norway? If that's the case, , he doesn't count.

Durn, it is hard to argue That! Another countries citizen trying to make us bend to his will. In my opinion I think Norway should require everyone to carry bazookas.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Forefathers writing also said that Washington should be called king along with a million other crazy thoughts. If its not in the const or BofRs than it is meaningless. I think you have stated that numerous time havnt you??

No I have not..but I have stated the 2nd amendment is an established right in the Bill of Rights and is not open for debate on this forum.

Purpose of this forum is to keep members apprised of the current attacks being conducted against the 2nd amendment hence the title, 2nd Amendment Watchdog".

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2