Suzuki SV650 Riders Forum banner

Fight For Our Rights

4K views 43 replies 13 participants last post by  golden chicken 
#1 ·
Well, a new legislative session is starting here and once again we are looking at a fight to preserve our freedoms and rights. With a slight up of increasing some others in different areas.

I wanted to start this thread dedicated to gun rights. However, I know that those are not the only rights and freedoms that are in trouble of being eroded not only on a State level, but also on the Federal as well. So, I decided to open it up to speak out against these actions in the hope that we see each other as allies verses enemies. That we can unit to stand together in preserving our choices for all, rather than remain separated. We have a common interest that we share, so I hope to use this to build on.

I know that this can get sensitive. I ask people to post on their best behavior. My intent here is to start banding together, not furthering a divide. So please post accordingly.

So, I will start.

With the unfortunate victory of gun laws in California, we can expect similar restrictions to be placed in Oregon. This should be stopped and the choice and rights to own guns should remain with the citizen and not the choice of the Government to take. These unreasonable regulations only seek to control others, the extreme majority of whom are not the "supposed target" but will be lumped in to them because of ease. So I do hope fellow Oregonians, as well as others, take note and start standing up.

What we need is reasonable solutions that target the problem. Not ones that impose another view on people. Sometimes this means the solution itself needs to be ditched. Others it means we simply need to implement it differently. But to do this, we need to view our fellow gun owning citizens as equals and not the potential criminals. We need real solutions, not blame and controlling of others.

I don't have specific laws yet. But I will update this when specific legislation comes up.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I feel as an American Citizen that ANY law that infringes on my Constitutionally protected Rights is invalid and will be ignored. Register my firearms? Fat chance of that. Surrender them? OK! I'll give you all of the ammo first...one bullet at a time, then if I'm still alive *not likely* you can do what you want with the guns.

Back before the turn of the Century, California was requiring registration of 'assault weapons'. Oh NO...we don't want to confiscate them...just want to know where they are and who owns them. Sure...we believe you. Then on Jan 1 2000 the edict was put out that all must be turned in and the Gov started shopping around trying to find an Agency to do the enforcement. State Police? Heck no they said...knowing full well that many would object violently to this action. And so it went through all the Agencies with NONE willing to go door to door to enforce what they all believed was an unlawful action. This is good! They need to believe (and rightfully so) that we won't put up with such things without violence that will leave many of them injured or worse.

Here in PA we have a LONG history of rabble-rousing against the Gov...and aren't likely to stop anytime soon. Must be the water.:) I can see from my house where George Washington started the French and Indian War....good old George. Hopefully things will start to turn in the direction of Americans with this coming change of Government leadership. Fingers crossed.
 
#4 ·
Here in PA we have a LONG history of rabble-rousing against the Gov...and aren't likely to stop anytime soon. Must be the water.:) I can see from my house where George Washington started the French and Indian War....good old George. Hopefully things will start to turn in the direction of Americans with this coming change of Government leadership. Fingers crossed.
Speaking of good old George, how'd that Whiskey Rebellion work out for ya?
 
#7 ·
The big thing with national reciprocity is that responsible gun owners won't have to worry about getting hit with a felony because they accidentally crossed into the wrong state and forgot to put away their concealed weapon.

With my state's concealed carry license I can't carry in two of my neighboring states.
 
#8 ·
At least you can get a concealed carry. I cannot unless I can prove there is a legitimate threat to my life either personally or through business (carrying large amounts of cash) and they evaluate that threat regularly so different people may decide it is not really a threat and take it away one year randomly. I wouldn't actually carry regularly at all but I would like the option to in case I ever felt the need to (traveling through a bad part of Baltimore late one night, for example). With all this in mind, I still think we need reasonable gun laws in place to go along with removing the unreasonable ones. We should all be working towards the same goal of removing guns from people who want to do harm. It is not a simple problem and therefore, not a simple solution but neither arm everyone nor take guns from everyone are good solutions IMO.
 
#9 ·
To the OP, you sound like a reasonable individual. Unfortunately, these issues are never decided by reasonable people because the reasonable is never represented. There's only Pro-gun vs Anti-gun, no room in the middle. Yet the only possible and reasonable solution lies somewhere in the middle.

Whenever these topics start its never long before someone promises hot lead for anyone who tries no infringe on their rights. Now that we've checked that box, soon someone will be here to tell us that no one should be allowed to own a firearm of any kind.

Digasi I commend you for doing your part and being vocal. As you can tell, I am far less optimistic that we ever strike an effective balance between the rights of the people and the safety of the public. But I ALWAYS support open dialogue.
 
#13 ·
I agree. Talking on both sides we agree on the ultimate goal. Where we differ is just on the solutions to reach that goal. Even in some cases it isn't the solution that we get stuck on, but simply how we implement that solution.

The biggest sticking point in this discussion is control. We humans have a habit of wanting to control what we can't tolerate, what we hate and/or what we fear. This is true with the subject of guns. The more control we want to force because of this will only serve for the need for more resistance.

I feel if we can remove the drive for control it will reduce the need to resist and allow us to actually meet in the middle. It will allow us to change how we implement solutions we agree on to work for everyone. Look for other solutions that work. So so long as one sides answer is control, the other side answer can only be resistance. In that scenario, we all loose.
 
#14 ·
On a positive note, here is one gun law that is being brought up in Oregon. https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Measures/Overview/SB232

Early in the stage I know. But an example of something good. It calls for asking if firearms are involved for a restraining order and procedure for when the order is given. For some laws are wrong not because of what they want to do, but how they go about it. This ones seems to keep the protection for all parties in place.

Compared to this:
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Measures/Overview/HB2237

Where there is no protection. This just allows the door to be open for the state to deny a right simply by not giving an answer. While I get the point, this is an example of what they are trying to do is wrong because of how they go about it.

If the state is going to require one to get this permission, then they must be required to give the correct answer. If they can't give an answer, then they loose the right to that requirement. The ideal way is to simply demand the state fix the system. Or at least penalize the state for when it fails its part of the deal. But to leave open a door in which the state can deny a right should not be knowingly or intentionally left open.
 
#16 ·
Good point. I often use the analogy of someone coming into your house declaring he was going to rape your wife and daughter....and you offer the compromise of just raping the wife. This makes the Liberal Types go nuts but I think it's about the same thing with Constitutional Rights...no compromise on them is to be given or they will be gone. Once you give up some of your Right, the opposition will never be satisfied with that and then will want you to compromise farther on the remaining portion until it's completely gone. Stand your ground...no compromise.
 
#23 ·
If you consider the extreme amount of violence that we find in urban centers, I, for one, am actually curious to see what, if anything, changes over the next 4 to 8 years.

Fundamentally, I'm not sure anything can change. I think people need to want to change to do it. I don't believe it can be mandated.

I think, part of making a positive change, however, also comes from not making intentional negative changes. Which I firmly believe has been the intent of government for a long time.
 
#24 ·
I don't expect any real change. In incoming party really has no interest or at least hasn't shown any to solving this. The other side is to busy using it as a tool to remove choices of others, so no real drive to look beyond the gun.

I don't think we can mandate our way out of this problem either. I think the best way is to make it easier for people to choose to get out of it and getting tougher on those that are the problem.

Which I guess is probably the hardest part of this problem is how do we get off this mode of trying to blame and control others and onto one of moving to a solution?
 
#25 ·
The gun control people do seem adamant that SOMEONE do something about what they perceive as the problem...while the other side (who carry daily) belive that it is OUR responsibility to insure our own personal safety. I don't need a Policeman to be nearby, if a goblin tries to do me harm....it's up to ME to defend against them.

It comes down to personal responsibility where the Pro Gun folks gladly accept it while the Anti's seem to be afraid and want others to do this for them. The old adage 'when seconds count help is only minutes away' still applies so being armed and able to defend yourself is the best way to insure your own personal safety.

I lived in FL when they first started offering Carry Permits and was in the very first batch to receive one. You had to prove competency which isn't a bad idea at all...and in the first year violent crime went down dramatically. We now have 'Shall Issue' here and those willing to get a concealed permit have proven to be the most reliable citizens with the lowest crime rate of all that can be categorized. The Anti's seem to believe that if you are carrying a firearm that you'll just shoot anyone that bothers you...which couldn't be farther from the truth. But truth is not what is they're about, they want to use fear to get the control that they crave. Good discussion folks.:)
 
#27 ·
RecoilRob said:
The Anti's seem to believe that if you are carrying a firearm that you'll just shoot anyone that bothers you...which couldn't be farther from the truth. But truth is not what is they're about, they want to use fear to get the control that they crave. Good discussion folks.
There were some very high profile examples of people carrying either initiating or overreacting with gunfire in situations that never needed to occur. Several notable ones in Florida. It may be that the blowback from those events served to remind the less-stable carrying population that over-reacting can never be Plan A.
 
#28 ·
It may be that the blowback from those events served to remind the less-stable carrying population that over-reacting can never be Plan A.
And that is how the media controls the narrative, very rarely (compared to the rate) reporting when those legally carrying thwart crimes. If they don't actually kill the criminal, it isn't reported. Why not? Because where is the sensation in a threat deterred if no shot was fired, which is how it goes down the majority of the time.
 
#30 ·
It is not about those incidents representing the majority. It is about minimizing those incidents to the level possible. The reasonable gun control people want to ensure guns are not in the hands of people that want to do harm. The reasonable non-gun control people seek alternatives to solving that problem. Note that I did not mention either extreme because they are both beyond reason. If we could get these two groups to recognize they are seeking the same results and to work together, we may actually make progress but the extremes seem to drive the narrative.
 
#35 ·
An en banc panel (all of the judges, not just the three appointed usually to hear a particular case) of the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering the states of Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina ) just decided that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear is not as absolute as gun rights advocates had assumed the Supreme Court ruling in Heller made it. Interestingly, for years the Fourth Circuit has had a reputation for being fairly conservative.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Here is the kernel of the Court's opinion:
We conclude — contrary to the now vacated
decision of our prior panel — that the banned assault
weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the
Second Amendment. That is, we are convinced that the banned
assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those
arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most
useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out
as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach.
See 554 U.S. at
627 (rejecting the notion that the Second Amendment safeguards
“M-16 rifles and the like”)


Stay tuned for further outrage.
 
#37 ·
Originally Posted by Fatass SVS View Post
There were some very high profile examples of people carrying either initiating or overreacting with gunfire in situations that never needed to occur. Several notable ones in Florida. It may be that the blowback from those events served to remind the less-stable carrying population that over-reacting can never be Plan A.
It's always amazing how often the left makes this assertion yet ignores that it almost never actually happens.

The incidents of someone "initiating or overreacting" to a threat and causing harm are barely a statistical anomaly.

I do find it interesting how the inverse is argued for Refugees and terrorism.
 
#38 ·
Hypocrisy on both sides. Honestly, the action of the right going after refugees and terrorism and the left going after gun owners are basically the same wrong action. Its all blaming and controlling a group based on intolerance, fear and hate in order to gain more political power. We would be a better society if we oppose both these actions. Sadly we approve the action when it suites us and then oppose the very same action when others do it.
 
#39 ·
If you ever find consistency in politics, please let me know. One party wants smaller government but wants to control personal choices they don't agree with. One screams tolerance but wants to silence opposing views from the public realm. Both only seem to care about the parts of the constitution they agree with and then either ignore or try to alter the meaning of parts they don't agree with. Both claim to be for the American people and helping the common man yet pass legislation that lines the pockets of wealthy campaign donors instead. We hold none of them accountable because party has become more important in politics than anything else.
 
#40 ·
So...what does this mean for all of you gun owners in MD? Is it now illegal to own these rifles and magazines? Or is it just they prohibit future sales? If they try to do what they did other places and make you register or turn them in.....resist. It's the Constitutional thing to do.:) If things get ugly and the Gov gets oppressive on you....rest assured you have friends here in PA that will cross the border to lend a hand.
 
#42 ·
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top