Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Oregon Firearms Federation outmaneuvers the opposition

. . . And the opposition is crying like a baby whose candy has been stolen.

David Codrea has been writing about a an Oregon bill, SB 1008, that as originally introduced, would have nullified a 2009 law allowing some felons to petition for the restoration of their gun rights. His first article about it was "Is 'gun group' giving cover for Oregon gun control?"--about a supposed "gun rights group," Oregon Gun Owners--that really isn't all that pro-gun, and that group's support for SB 1008.

SB 1008 was so poorly written that it had to be re-drafted, this time as SB 1064, so it could even be understood. David then discussed the bully-boy tactics used to ram SB 1064's passage through the Senate.

Things were looking bad, but then the Oregon Firearms Federation (a real gun rights advocacy group) made some moves to get SB 1064 amended into something dramatically different.

Happily, those efforts paid off, and a hugely improved bill passed both houses without a single "No" vote.

Here's the best part. The people who don't like how things have turned out are raising some truly amusing objections to the bill they ended up passing.

"Anyone -- a rapist, a murderer -- can petition the court for the right to possess a firearm," said Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene.

[ . . . ]

"They can literally be in prison and make an application," he said.
Notice something there? The felon has to petition the court for restoration of his gun rights. The law doesn't require that his rights be restored, just provides a mechanism for doing so, if the court deems such a restoration appropriate.

The vote put gun control supporters in a bind. Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, an outspoken gun control advocate, said she voted for the bill with the intention of delving into the issue again when the Legislature convenes next year.

"This bill does not go nearly far enough in keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous felons," Burdick said.
In other words, anything short of outright barring the courts from restoring gun rights, "does not go nearly far enough in keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous felons."

Methinks Ginny wants the both legislative and judicial powers--and I wouldn't rule out her executive ambitions, either. There's a word for that.

It starts with "t," and ends with "yranny."

3 comments:

W W Woodward said...

I’m still trying to find just where in the Constitution federal or state governments are given the authority to deny the right to keep and bear arms to anyone, for any reason. The 2nd Amendment says, “…shall not be infringed.” The 14th Amendment forbids state governments from denying privileges and immunities of American citizens.

I agree with David Codrea when he says that anyone who cannot be entrusted to exercise his rights in a legal manner shouldn’t be allowed out of jail.

[W-III]

45superman said...

I agree with David Codrea when he says that anyone who cannot be entrusted to exercise his rights in a legal manner shouldn’t be allowed out of jail.

You and I both.

viagra online said...

I can't believe opposition is crying like a baby, by the guy I think the petition is out of sense, because imagine allowing restoration of their gun rights I think that's not the best option.m10m