|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
OR: Initiative Filed to Restrict Self-Defense
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
On July 18th, Initiative Petition 40 was filed in Oregon to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law abiding adults by imposing a broad, one-size-fits-all method of storing firearms. This egregious attack on our freedoms uses virtually the same language as the failed Initiative Petition 44 from 2018 as well as the same provisions from Senate Bill 978 that did not pass during the 2019 legislative session. Anti-gun proponents will stop at nothing to restrict self-defense rights in Oregon, and will be using this initiative petition in an attempt to coerce legislators to pass gun control during the 2020 short session. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(7/20/2019)
|
| The new agenda for humanity requires that no one will have the capacity to fight back. Socialism requires that everyone be disarmed. This Tyrannical Super State demands that you obey... |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
