Oregon Gov. Strips Gun Rights

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown on Monday signed a Democrat-backed measure to close the “Intimate Partner Loophole,” voiding gun rights in more domestic violence and stalking situations.

The legislation, HB 4145, expands Oregon’s current definition of a domestic abuser. Backed by Brown for years, the new law updates the definition to include those not married and add persons convicted of misdemeanor stalking to those barred from possessing firearms. The measure passed without a single Republican vote in the Senate and only swayed three GOP votes in the House, driven by Dems from the blue Portland-Salem-Eugene corridor.

“Today marks an important milestone, but we know we have more to do,” Brown said in a statement. “It’s long past time we hold the White House and Congress accountable. Now’s the time to enact real change and federal gun safety legislation.”

The legislation, a project of the Governor’s for the past several years, prohibits dating partners under protective orders in a domestic abuse situation from having guns. As part of this, it expands the definition of an “intimate partner” under Oregon law to include any couple that has had a sexual encounter — even if they never lived together — as well as any two people that have cohabitated at any time.

The law also deletes the Second Amendment rights of those with misdemeanor stalking convictions and requires the state to inform local law enforcement within 24 hours when a prohibited firearms possessor attempts to buy a gun.

Both local and national gun control groups were pleased with the bill’s passage into law. “Today Oregon became a safer place to live,” said former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. “Guns and domestic violence are a deadly, tragic mix, something that Oregonians know all too well.”

Second Amendment advocates argue the new law is not designed to expand protections for women but instead creates “new and dangerous tools” for possibly vindictive people to erase the right to keep and bear arms from someone they may have a grudge against.

“This was done to create a larger universe of people whose gun rights can be taken if someone requests a protective order against them,” said the Oregon Firearms Federation in an alert.

Brown signed the legislation before a crowd organized by gun control advocates from Ceasefire Oregon and Mom’s Demand Action. The latter group is backed by billionaire former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who contributed $250,000 to Brown’s 2016 election campaign.

source: guns.com

  • willis fath

    Gun laws are not gonna fix this problem! A criminal can buy a gun probley stolen gun with serial numbers scratched off from some jackass out of the back of his caddy the black market! Come on dumbass government you don’t even know what your doing here!

    • Terry Butts

      So far criminals have been caught with guns

      1) They Manufactured themselves.

      2) Smuggled across the UNGUARDED US border having been manufactured in a FOREIGN nation.

      3) Stolen from the police.

      4) stolen from the military.

      5) Stolen from law abiding citizens who were allowed them. (Aided by a newspaper that printed all the addresses of legal owners as part of their anti gun push in one state.)

      The list can go on for pages the fact is laws only stop those who OBEY THE LAW criminals are defined as people who VIOLATE the law therefore no law will stop them only determine what punishment they will receive when they are caught if they live through whatever crime they commit or try to commit.

      • Rick Wagner

        Sounds like smart gun tech would prevent all those issues but nra is against that. Madness no sense. We have driverless cars, I think we can do smart guns. Even if they w work perfect they were are against them because they don’t want to admit a smart gun could be safer then normal gun. They don’t ever want to admit a gun is ever dangerous but even the most careful gun owner can have accident so I wish we all could just be honest

        • Terry Butts

          You mean the FICTIONAL nonsense from Hollywood they keep trying to create and failing that politicians demand be used on guns.

          So far they have TRIED and failed to make.

          1) guns that only recognize the purchaser.




          2) MICRO-STAMPING serial numbers on shells giving the FALSE sense that it would solve crimes.

          In reality it fails because criminals can
          1) COLLECT their shells numerous technology exist to catch spent shell casing.
          2) Leave casing they collected somewhere else throwing any LAZY investigation onto the wrong track.
          3) Can EASILY REMOVE the technology from guns.
          4) Make their own guns that never had any of this easy to defeat tech in them.
          5) RELY ON THE CRIMINAL LEGALLY OWNING THE GUN in the first place as it has been irrefutably proven 90% of guns criminals use are either HOMEMADE or STOLEN so all this does it put HARDSHIP and INFRINGEMENT upon the rights of LAW ABIDING citizens.


          Those so called smart guns are easy to DISABLE something as simple as an emp that can be created using something as simple as a modified cell phone and CRIMINALS can easily BYPASS the nonsense.

          The instructions for such a simple device is easily found on the net forcing people to have a COMPUTER controlling if they can fire their gun or not makes it easy for CRIMINALS to disarm their victims DEFEATING the main purpose of having a gun in the first place.

          Remember this NONSENSE came from Hollywood fiction like “Judge dredd” where the gun actually STAMPED THE DNA of the person who fired it on the bullet and it MAGICALLY survived to be read from the extracted bullet.

          “We have driverless cars,”

          Considering how many people those cars have killed that argument FAILS miserably as an argument to put computers in control of gun use.

          UNLIKE A GUN that actually requires a PERSON TO PULL ITS TRIGGER these cars do not require a person the newer models DO NOT EVEN HAVE A STEERING WHEEL making it impossible for the PASSENGERS to avoid any accident that HUMANS could have easily avoided if they had control of those cars.



          driver-less cars do not WORK like a person does if a light turns green it GOES regardless of if the path is clear or not there is a LARGE list of common colors used for vehicles and clothes are INVISIBLE to them.

          To put it bluntly would you want DRIVER-LESS car technology operating PEOPLE-LESS guns guarding banks?

          Because that is ALSO from the same Hollywood fiction this other nonsense came from and before you spout it will never happen remember THE MILITARY already has that tech guarding prohibited entry zones.

          Remember insurance pays millions of dollars a year because LIGHTNING causes an emp and only need hit within around a block of a vehicle to FRY ITS COMPUTER and the TECH in a SMART GUN is the same technology simply applied to a different lock system.

          IF that SMART GUN technology becomes REQUIRED by law we will see what we have already seen in POLICE DEPARTMENTS that adopted that tech already on the false belief it would protect officers.

          1) Guns that can only be used in ONE HAND if injured the officer can not simply use their other hand to fire teh weapon to protect themselves.

          2) Guns that refused to work in a LIFE AND DEATH situation it was needed because the COMPUTER MALFUNCTIONED. (it may be a mere inconvenience to have to reboot your home pc due to an error but when that computer controls the ability to protect oneself a computer error means death)

          I have been in the field of electronics since the 80s there is no MAGIC NEVER FAILS electronics and that is what would have to be created before the FANTASY of a gun that will RELIABLY fire for just the owner can exist.

          The politicians pushing this nonsense either have stock in the companies making the tech thus PROFITING if it becomes a legal requirement or are under the FALSE BELIEF that guns are just for SPORTING activities where a DELAY in use is not fatal.

  • jetmagnet

    Too many guns in this country and No laws to stop nutjobs from killing people. As a gun enthusiast , we need more laws on the books. I’m tired of gun lobby excuses! Why? because if your a law abiding citizen, you can get a permit for anything. It’s these losers and people want everything to be easily accessible are the problem.

    • Ronald Hagler

      Jetmagnet, you are missing the point and I do not believe you to be a “gun enthusiast”. We have enough laws to deter crime and reduce the incidents that have plagued us this last decade, but liberal interpretations of these laws have produced a series of crimes so severe that people are screaming for “more laws”! We have no need for more laws. We simply need to enforce the ones already in the books. This law is dangerous because it is so vague that liberal interpretation can lead to innocent, law-abiding citizens being stripped of their Constitutional Right to firearms ownership.

      A gun owner meets a suitable candidate for a loving relationship and pursues the person. Perhaps they get together and all seems well. Perhaps they do not. Maybe the person deemed suitable is an anti-gunner and stems the advances of his/her suitor because of these political views. Perhaps the person who stemmed the advances of the gun owning suitor decides to take his/her cause further and has a restraining order issued against the clueless suitor: claiming fear for their safety because the spurned suitor owns guns and may be a threat. Can you not see the flaw in this type of legislation?

      While it may be true that the suitor can redeem his/her self, eventually, the same can be said that the redemption may never occur. This person may be denied their constitutional rights based on a lie and this is never acceptable to any sensible person. If professionals in this nation do their job diligently, thoroughly investigating each person who is reported to be a threat and recording all that is pertinent to the person having been investigated, background checks will better ferret any dangerous traits known to exist. Presumed dangers from someone should never be acceptable as a means to deny anyone their constitutional rights.

      I cannot support this law because of its vagueness and the ease of which a venomous person can use this vagueness to discredit a law-abiding citizen simply because of opposing political views. This law should be “set aside” by the Supreme Court, should it be challenged in court, as being unconstitutional.

      • JudsonM

        This nation is under a massive attack right now by a group of 5th Colom entity’s! Operating in unison, all benevolent dictatorships such as the Clintons, Obamas, and others want the best for there subjects! Just look at Russia under our good Bolshevik- million people killed when they took control of Russia, then, the name had to be changed to Communist- (we have changed), and another name changed…Socialist government’s and how defenseless and long suffering those people have been.
        There is one point we are missing. As a former documentarian I interviewed people who had cases where the pharmacy manufactures and doctors prescribed drugs had worse or deserterest effects on people and they had no where to turn to. We helped them with complaint’s to the FDA and over 20 years still these mind altering drugs which cause people to hear voices in some, while others go totally out of there mind and have no idea of the violence they engage in, killing there selves or others. At one time in Dallas Texas it was discovered that 100% of the schools had all there students on one or more drugs! We also decovered that for every child the school got on Riddlen, or Prozac, Lithtem the school received $200. dollars from the state. Can you emagen how much profit the drug manufactures have realized from all this with the help of school nurses and Psychologists. Also schools were forcing parent to agree to have there children placed on drugs or be reported to Child Protective Services. You have the government you deserve. Watch TV, sleep and do nothing! Or start writing demanding your Traders, so called repersenitives investigate the drug company’s, media they get massive amounts of money from the Drug Company’s so they don’t want that profit lost do they? This in only one of 2 or 3 country’s which allow Mind altering drugs to be marketed over the TV’s.

        • Ronald Hagler

          Having often said that doctors are too quick to prescribe drugs instead of actually seeking the cause for the illness and seeking a qualified solution, I share your point of view on drugs. Unfortunately that does nothing to stem the tide of liberals seeking to destroy the Constitution, at least the parts they disagree with. We would be better served if Congress would address the issue of prescription drug abuse as often as they argue over firearms ownership. We have been exposed to firearms for as long as we have been here: it is not until recently that we have had such carnage launched against our schools, our churches and our society.

          • JudsonM

            I agree with you, in effect, the swamp will have to be drained! Years ago I heard of a small book- None Dare Call It Conspiracy, I could not believe such a conspiracy could be worked here in this country. However I stayed open and went out and got the book, still have it! After reading it. I understood how such wealthy and thus powerful people could become so such threat to any government or nation that they could over throw it.
            However how many Americans read any lounger? How many have read Charlotte T. Iserbyt book The Deliberate Dumbing Down Of America. This women was the head of Education under Reagan until he found out she was the source behind the scene’s going around the government bureaucracy exposing the sabotage of our school’s education system thought the united States. Then he fired her! Every parent should have a copy of this book and read it, even school kids! How about William Engdahl book Gods of Money Wall Street and the Death of the American Century or his Target China. You should be asking how these small time War Lords in these dust bowl country’s get there training to attack oil rich country’s just starting to pull there selves up from there stone age. Only to be toss into a civil war. And with the UNITED STATES (this spelling is a corporation), suddenly pushing for its intervention along with NATO to help stop the blood shed. Only ask who trained these criminal’s and equipped them with American made weapon’s in the first place? CIA don’t you know! Why? What better way to take over the world that to set up a internal war behind the seen and pretend your coming in to save the day!

      • David German

        They just want to grab all guns. Governments are very inefficient and they don’t want to be attacked by the people in any way. The Government doesn’t trust the people, should we?

        • shirley doughty

          I trust a whole lot more of the gun OWNERS than I do those in government. I Trust Trump and what HE is trying to do, but not the department of justice or the FBI or the CIA or ANYONE who has worked in the Obama administration, and I sure don’t trust Obama and Clintons either and they are working behind the scene UNDERMINING Anything that Trump is trying to work out for us. The news media and the congress are all on Obama’s side yet,. They like all the millions and billions they have brought in for their own pocketbooks and don’t want to lose it either. We, the people need to stand up against those who are trying to lead us to the one world government, but half of the voters are too stupid or too naïve to realize what their congress person is doing instead working for all of us. And about half of the rest just don’t care. They want to live their own happy lives and ignore what’s goin on around them.

  • Richard Row

    I own 28 guns, so I am not a grabber. I could reluctantly support this, even with the fact that anyone could make a claim and the accused loses his guns. What I have a problem with is it will probably require thousands of dollars and months to get them back with attorney fee, court costs, likely physician statements, etc. It would have been nice to have a clause in there that would place all of the recovery costs on the accuser if the charges are found to be false.

    • David German

      If someone has a grudge against you, and lie about your actions, we will see how you feel. If you support this Law your supporting a Trap to many innocent men, that may not have the money to pay for a Lawyer!

      • pics fixer

        I have not read this law and I’m sure all the legalese will make it difficult to understand for a non-lawyer. In general it’s a law worth supporting if a claim is made, looked into and found not so that anything confiscated be returned promptly, with no cost to the person it came from. Also, that if it it found that there was malice in the complaint, there be a stuff punishment to the person who made that complaint. Then I’d support it.

        • Terry Butts

          Tell that to the FALSELY accused collector who a few years ago lost well over $2 million dollars in LEGALLY owned collectables over the FALSE accusation he had a machine gun without the required permit.

          He was a RETIRED MILITARY OFFICER some ANTI GUN ACTIVIST found out he LEGALLY owned numerous military collectible weapons and made a false accusation.

          On that false accusation the ATF raided his place took his weapons with NO resistance from him because he knew all his guns were legal and he had all the paperwork proving it so he knew the confiscated items would be returned after they reviewed the paperwork in accordance with the law.

          Despite the ATF not finding a single ILLEGAL weapon among his collection they PROCEEDED to take him to court where a judge ILLEGALLY declared that just owning the guns made him a threat and without one cent in compensation CONFISCATED his entire legally owned collection over a FALSE accusation that was PROVEN false before it even went to court but all the judge and ATF cared about was TAKING away his LEGALLY owned guns not what the LAW actually said in the matter.

          So you continue to believe that you will get back whatever they take under a false accusation if you wish but history shows this to be a false belief especially when POLITICAL agendas and ACTIVIST judges are involved.

          • pics fixer

            I do not know how that happened to that person. Was that someone you actually knew? Did you read it on some site or distributed Email? Even after PRVING he was on the up and up that person got treated in such a reprehensible way. It sounds like something is missing in that story.

            The accuser was wrong, the arresting officers were wrong and that judge was wrong. Where id this happen so we all can look into this and sent the powers to be our feelings about it.There is more to this. Let us know.

          • Terry Butts

            It was all over the news years back they made a big media spectacle of removing the “UGLY GUNS” from the guys house acting as if it was illegal for him to even have the weapons because of their LOOK despite the fact that while highly restricted it was legal and he had all the paperwork that took a background check that 90% of congress would never pass to legally own them. If I could remember his name there might be information able to found on the internet about the case if any media source archived it on the net as the internet was not widely used at the time We had to rely on newspapers and TV for the news.

            It may have been while Bill Clinton was in office or even just before. The ARREST was front page news the verdict was buried because it did not support the claims made when the confiscation occurred.

            That is not the only case of ILLEGAL confiscation from people who broke no laws.


            They have been trying since they first passed the NFA to disarm all but those who are directly responsible for the security of POLITICIANS.

            Remember police used to be trained to asses the situation before reacting now it seems they have been trained to just summery execute whoever is being pointed at when someone yells gun regardless of the situation.

            This REACTIONARY response to the sight of gun even when holstered has resulted in the deaths of numerous off duty or under cover officers by fellow police who REACTED as if just possessing a gun regardless of what one was doing made them a threat.

            This type of training needs to be changed to one that shows RESPECT for the fact that people have the right to have a gun in their possession that unless they are actually threatening someone INNOCENT, not holding a criminal for police or just carrying the gun safely holstered.

            So far this improper training based on the GUN being the criminal has resulted in numerous innocent deaths. From the child who had a REMOTE CONTROL in his hand when he answered the door when police OVERREACTED thinking just because it was in his hand it was a gun to the GRANDMOTHER who HAD TOLD THEM she would be holding the car thief at gun point for them to take into custody to the long list of as already mentioned PLAIN CLOTHES officers shot for no other reason than the responding officer felt THREATENED by the mere presence of a gun regardless of what the person was doing.

            Even when their paranoia about guns had them seeing items from PENS to REMOTES as guns simply because someone had them in their hand they remain unpunished for their overreaction even when as a CIVILIAN who is not working as a police officer the same situation would result in being prosecuted for shooting an UNARMED person even if they thought the PEN being waved was a gun.

          • pics fixer

            I can’t find the story you are talking about. I looked hard and spent some time on it. Came up with nothing.

            As for your link, that also came up without much. That writer seems to be finding ghosts and I come to that buy reading other things he wrote. That outlet, WND, has allot of that sort of those type of stories so, I usually don’t give allot of credence to such outlets. I do like Newsmax. They are conservative to say the least but they do their homework. That gives you an idea where I’m at.

            As for removing guns in New Orleans after Katrina: The authorities HAD TO GET THOSE PEOPLE OUT OF THERE !! It was life and death and disease control. There were people who didn’t want to leave and they had to. Under such conditions you can’t have guns in the hands of civilians bent on staying even if they had to shoot any law enforcement people. It was an emergency and in that case many rights we have get suspended. It has happened before and will happen again. I live on the side I hope it’s never needed.

            No right is absolute under any and all circumstances. eg: My right to Free Speech stops at the point if I lie and knowingly cause harm.

          • Terry Butts

            “Under such conditions you can’t have guns in the hands of civilians bent

            on staying even if they had to shoot any law enforcement people.”

            The SOURCES the linked story cited are valid there are even YouTube videos of the police taking peoples guns prior to the hurricane including areas it was NEVER going to effect and there were lawsuits over the violent way they treated several of the ELDERLY who refused to comply with the illegal order to give up their guns when they were NOT in the area it was going to land much less where the evacuation order had been issued.





            To my knowledge there is no LAW that says the government can FORCE an evacuation over bad weather they can ADVISE the people of the danger and tell them they should evacuate IF they are in the area it will land but they have no authority to DISARM everyone within 100 miles of where it will land or use VIOLENCE to force them off their own property where they may already have a protective shelter to safely wait out the storm. Especially when the excuse given to many was their FEAR OF LOOTERS being armed.


            According to information they still have not returned some of the legally owned guns they took because they demand PAPERWORK other than a receipt from the ones that took the firearms as proof they owned them in order to get them back. Proof that if their property was destroyed in the hurricane is gone.

            To DISARM people on the grounds the AUTHORITIES fear they will defend themselves from looters is utter nonsense it is not something the government has the authority to do.

            As I stated the military officer that had his weapons stolen through color of law was an incident that happened PRE INTERNET it will be hard to find anything outside of court records if someone could remember his name and what state it happened in it was on TV and NEWSPAPER reports during the time which is not something that can be linked to a forum post even if I had the foresight to keep the newspapers.

            The government is not interested in protecting the people these laws are about protecting themselves and oppressing the people here is a SHORT history.

            1) They disarmed the native Americans told them they had no need to HUNT their own food anymore the government would take care of them. They were disarmed and put on reservations. After hundreds starved because the government DID NOT keep their promise they made weapons and began to hunt their own food and were ATTACKED for violating the agreement the government had already violated by not providing the promised food. Most of them were still disarmed.

            2) When slavery was abolished hate groups like the KKK tried to oppress the former slaves using violence they met ARMED RESISTANCE the government BANNED FORMER SLAVES from owning guns. ask yourself who did that restriction protect?

            3) In an event sometimes referred to as “the coal wars” workers fed up with being paid with what amounts to coupons only good at the store the company they worked for owned stopped working demanding LEGAL tender be paid for their labor the companies sent in armed goons to force them back to work they met armed resistance. The governments response they passed the NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT that imposed a $200 “TAX” on all guns effectively saying they wanted the workers disarmed because they could not afford the “TAX” while allowing the companies who could to arm their goons. It took lawsuits and years to restore even basic gun rights that it had infringed upon.

            4) There was a school shooting at a school that imposed a no weapons policy the police BOTCHED saving anyone even telling people who were trying to exit windows that “EVERYTHING IS UNDER CONTROL STAY THERE” when they had nothing under control and the victims could have escaped before the shooter even reached them. After that there was three reported FAILED ATTEMPTS that were stopped by nearby armed private citizens. The governments response MAKE GUN FREE ZONES that disarmed all nearby law abiding citizens effectively PROTECTING future shooters.

            5) When the attack occurred on 9/11 two planes hit their target the third was brought down by passengers using NAIL CLIPPERS saving who knows how many lives at the intended target. The governments response BAN NAIL CLIPPERS from flights. Even claiming that it would have STOPPED the hijackings when all it would have done was allow the third plane to have reached its target.

            It goes on like that throughout history and not just in this nation. These same gun control people have succeeded in getting their agenda imposed in many nations. Most followed by GOVERNMENT organized mass murders.

            Other nations that followed the bans are now focusing on KNIFE CONTROL because they attacked the inanimate object the killers used instead of addressing the actual issue so they have moved on to bombings and mass stabbings in those nations if they are unable to MAKE their own guns or SMUGGLE them into the country like those that attacked in France did.

            “No right is absolute under any and all circumstances. eg: My right to
            Free Speech stops at the point if I lie and knowingly cause harm.”

            Just as ones right to swing their arms ends where another persons nose begins. What we are discussing however is government that wants to gag and tie the people out of FEAR they will lie to cause harm or hit someone in the nose with no proof that they have any plans to do such outside of an unproven accusation.

            The fact is that something like a right that is as BENIGN as owning or possessing a gun requires DUE PROCESS OF LAW proving a person is a threat to TAKE away that right if the person is actually a threat there are EXISTING laws that can be used to detain them while the evidence is presented to a judge to get a court order to do so as well as the fact they can charge them under numerous existing laws just for making threats and place them in jail. What the politicians are after is a vague law that lets them deny the right until the person can afford a lawyer and PROVE they were innocent of the accusation.

            The issue here is that no one is in danger or harmed by people simply OWNING guns or POSSESSING them.

            A few people so paranoid that one actually wrote in social media that when they saw someone LAWFULLY carrying a holstered gun they were “TERRIFIED” they just knew the gun would “JUMP OUT AND ATTACK HER CHILD ANY SECOND” as if the inanimate object would act on its own without human intervention and felt its mere presence was a threat is the issue. Along with the politicians who go along with their PARANOID FEAR of an inanimate object.

            The criminals in all these cases made actual actionable under existing law threats that were ignored.

            In fact many of the victims in the school shooting were only victims because they were LOCKED in the building with the shooter unable to flee because of the LOCK DOWN policy imposed supposedly to protect them. In reality it traps the unarmed victims in the building with the shooter who would have no trouble breaking out when done.

            They have already ABOLISHED free speech in pubic between PERMITS being required and their new policy of REVOKING them if some hate group threatens violence if they are allowed to give their speech or hold their parade. While hypocritically only enforcing it if the speech is in support of ones rights or the constitution.

          • pics fixer

            I’ll keep this simple: First, the 2nd is there, so I believe it’s a foundational law of our society. Over time [actually in modern times] it get distorted to cover what it was not intended to cover, by its’ own words. The founders never wanted America to have a standing army so the 2nd resolved that with the ability of assembling an army from citizens as needed for national defense and the required that you need to own a gun and take it with you when called. It just got bent out of shape to the point where in some states, like Florida, where you could shoot somebody if you “feel” threatened.

            The idea of ‘gun free zones’ gets hyped up by some people who think that the folks who set that up really think that will keep nut cases away who have a gun. I never saw a sign do that and neither did the people who put them up. Depending on the local laws, all they do is give a little more power to the authorities to keep the guns out of such places. Perhaps with things like ‘stop and search’. It allows the cops to be more proactive in those zones. A sign stops nobody. Banks are ‘no robbery zones’ you know. Drive me nuts when that is used to show how law by itself doesn’t work so everybody needs a gun.

            While the government does and should have the right to more vigorously protect the people in times of emergency the way it went down in New Orleans was chaotic because of very bad preparedness by all governmental authorities starting with the Feds. It was a botched up job by a botched up poorly run government without a real plan. Nobody argues with that. In the case of the NOPD and the powers to be, it was poorly done like everything else during Katrina which is why so many people lost their lives. Less to do about guns than it is about governmental malfeasance.

            None of our amendments were designed to be absolute or totally literal. They do have limits and require responsible use. The amendments to the Constitution were designed to be to be changed or added on or eliminated. The founders understood that as time went on that would be necessary. They created a difficult mechanism to do that so it won’t be subject to any momentary whims. That includes the 2nd which was added for a specific purpose in the late 1700’s. The conditions of that time are different now. The founders did believe in gun control and oddly enough, enforced ‘no gun’ zones like collage campuses [schools].

            Lastly, you’ll always have whacky judges making making rulings based on I don’t know what. That’s why we have the type of system we have so that rulings can be challenged. Even the Supreme Court makes rulings that defy logic like money is free speech and corporations are people for example. No place in the Constitution does it say that government [the one we elect] cannot place conditions on gun ownership [age, mental state, type of gun, when to use, etc.]. The guns of today were not within the imagination of the founders. If you had an AR15 in the 1770’s and wore protective equipment you could hold off a British are battalion. They couldn’t get close enough to shoot at you.

            The last time I checked I still had Free Speech, privacy, etc but none of them are totally absolute. You can say what you like but you can’t harm a persons reputation without cost or, as they say, yell fire in a movie theater when there is none. We lose rights when they are used irresponsibly. The founders expected us to be responsible citizens so they didn’t put it in writing because it was understood.

            This is it. I’ll never believe other than what I’ve been saying. All our rights do have conditions on them including the 2nd. None are absolute. We do have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. As times change, what that means changes. The founders didn’t closely define that intentionally.

          • Terry Butts

            “Over time [actually in modern times] it get distorted to cover what it was not intended to cover, by its’ own words.”

            Only by those who use modern definitions and who never read the other writings by the founders to those of us who use the definitions as they existed in the times of the founders and the other words they wrote concerning it we understand it is about THE PEOPLE being able to protect themselves from tyranny regardless of source it is not just about the GOVERNMENT having an army available to do its bidding.

            It was put in the constitution do to the actions of the FORMER tyrannical government that was just kicked out of the nation before it was written. In fact the battle at Lexington was over the GOVERNMENT trying to disarm the citizens and ARREST people who had spoke out against its tyrannical actions that violated even the few restrictions on governmental power that existed at that time.

            “While the government does and should have the right to more vigorously
            protect the people in times of emergency the way it went down in New
            Orleans was chaotic because of very bad preparedness by all governmental
            authorities starting with the Feds.”

            The governments only right to defend the people has to do with FOREIGN INVASION not bad weather.

            The actions went exactly as they planned as the intent had nothing to do with protecting anyone and courts have REPEATEDLY ruled in law suits that it is NOT THE JOB OF GOVERNMENT OR POLICE to protect individual citizens. The politician that gave the illegal order was an anti gun activist the intent was to use the emergency declaration to take as many weapons as possible and never return them at all. Noted by the LACK of any receipt from those taking them that could be used to retrieve the weapon within hours of the EMERGENCY being lifted not YEARS later only after LAWSUITS if they can produce the bill of sale even if the guns were ANTIQUE family heirlooms that never had a bill sale as it was not common in the 1800s – 1950s even later in some areas to get a receipt for all purchases. In fact until recent DRIVE OFF thefts at the pump someone getting a receipt for a fuel purchase used to only be people who needed it for expense reimbursement or tax purposes.

            “None of our amendments were designed to be absolute or totally literal.
            They do have limits and require responsible use. The amendments to the
            Constitution were designed to be to be changed or added on or

            The founders stated the exact opposite that the rights are GOD GIVEN and no man can take them away they gave explicit instructions in the constitution about the DUE PROCESS OF LAW meaning someone had to INDIVIDUALLY BREAK a law and go before a judge to have any right taken away for the duration of such punishment as that law states it does not cover TAKING that right away from MILLIONS over the actions of a few.

            The founders stated in other writings that the reason they left the Constitution open to amending was to be able to EXPAND the rights of the people (such as the one to abolish slavery and the women’s right to vote) that NO EXISTING right could be removed from It. Short of a constitutional convention where the entire constitution is rewritten. Even then they gave explicit instructions on the LIMITS to what can be done.

            “The last time I checked I still had Free Speech, privacy, etc but none
            of them are totally absolute. You can say what you like but you can’t
            harm a persons reputation without cost or, as they say, yell fire in a
            movie theater when there is none. We lose rights when they are used

            Then I suggest you do a better job of checking how about stand outside a court house and simply read the LAW about jurors powers because they ARRESTED one man for nothing more than TELLING people what the law says the powers of a juror are, something the COURT is supposed to do before a trial even starts but has REFUSED to do for years because judges hate that they are not the all powerful dictator of the courtroom they want people to believe (like the one who illegally ordered the defense attorney be bound and gagged so they could do nothing to defend their client during the trial). The have REPEATEDLY invited conservative speakers to collages only to PULL their invitation because LIBERALS threatened to commit acts of violence if any DISCUSSION was allowed that did not just restate their incorrect beliefs on the issues.

            In fact on holocaust survivor that was to speak was CANCELED because they refused to CENSOR their speech to remove all references to how they survived the horror because of their faith in god. That was AFTER the speech had already been read and approved by the school after ANTI RELIGIOUS activists got involved wanting the GOVERNMENT to impose their lack of beliefs upon everyone even at the expense of the TRUTH about the murders a GOVERNMENT that disarmed the people before hand had done.

            “The guns of today were not within the imagination of the founders. If
            you had an AR15 in the 1770’s and wore protective equipment you could
            hold off a British are battalion. They couldn’t get close enough to
            shoot at you.”

            That is SPECIFICALLY why they worded the amendment the way they did to ensure that the citizens of this nation were not going up against an AR15 with muskets. Look up the PUCKLE GUN or Da Vinci’s designs such rapid fire weapons did exist.

            Criminals are not restricted by laws they are only their to punish them after they break them so when they make a GUN FREE ZONE after an ARMED CITIZEN uses a gun to stop a criminal ONLY AN IDIOT would believe it was about stopping the criminal and THAT IS WHAT THE POLITICIANS CLAIMED AS THE EXCUSE TO MAKE THEM the openly stated that it would DISARM THE CRIMINALS and ensure the schools were safe and there was enough people acting on EMOTION instead of logic for them to get the zones imposed. Now that its been proven to only protect the criminals they demand the ENTIRE NATION be made one ignoring things like FRANCE that already was when the theater attack occurred.

            “This is it. I’ll never believe other than what I’ve been saying. All our
            rights do have conditions on them including the 2nd. None are absolute.
            We do have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. As
            times change, what that means changes. The founders didn’t closely
            define that intentionally.”

            IF you read their other writings and get a 1770s dictionary there are EXPLICIT definitions for that statement it is not some vague concept open to the interpretation of government.

            The only limit to the 2nd amendment is if someone MURDERS someone else they were to be imprisoned or executed not EXCUSED by the media or politicians as they whine about what tool they used. The BOX cutters used by the 9 11 hijackers were not declared ASSAULT knives yet the improper use of them resulted in THOUSANDS dying that day. No one proposed a LIMIT to fuel planes are allowed forcing more refueling stops to limit future deaths should it happen again. No one demanded the ASSAULT planes be restricted or banned. Until people get it through their heads IT IS NOT THE GUN NO MATTER WHAT TYPE that is responsible it is the CRIMINALS.

            When the NFA was imposed to PROTECT RICH CORPORATIONS trying to keep the “COMPANY STORE” slave system they used the gangsters of the 20s as an excuse despite the fact that even in their own writings these criminals stated that they got their weapons by STEALING THEM from police stations and MILITARY bases so NO CIVILIAN gun law would have stopped them.

            Today criminals that are determine to harm someone can do so with anything even MAKE their own guns with nothing more than a set of hand metal working tools like have been used for hundreds of years just like that group national geographic showed back in the late 70s early 80s who HAND MADE M16 so accurately with such tools the parts could be interchanged with assembly line manufactured ones and in that nation the government had a SHOOT ON SIGHT law for anyone not authorized by them seen with a gun so NO RESTRICTION will disarm criminals.

            So when those of us who KNOW HISTORY hear politicians spouting the same lines that ALL TYRANTS have spouted about disarming people for their own safety we see the same future they gave the ones dumb enough to believe them that of the MILLIONS OF DEAD killed by their own governments after they had no defense against them.

            The UN itself stated the goal of their ANTI GUN law referred to as the small arms treaty is about ensuring that NO CIVILIAN can put up any form of armed resistance. They neglect to say what they plan to do they feel people will feel the need to RESIST much less take up arms to protect themselves from.

            Read the FULL text for yourself this is the document that many if not all of the ANTI GUN politicians want imposed in America and have proposed many parts of it as the FIX for these SUSPICIOUSLY timed shootings.


            This comes straight from


            The official UN website.

            Remember the politicians that think this is a GOOD idea are the same ones that felt LOCKING the students in the building with the shooter would protect them and that DISARMING all nearby citizens thus protecting the criminals after several were STOPPED by ARMED CIVILIANS.

            When the NFA was passed you could not even get a pistol without the $200 dollar tax it took NUMEROUS LAWSUITS and JUDICIAL rulings against that infringement just to get the rights of the people restored to the limited level of today and using these crimes that COULD JUST AS EASILY BEEN DONE WITH A BOMB OR KNIFE when the victims are unarmed they are trying to RETURN to the days where the peoples rights were REVOKED unless they were WEALTHY or a DIRECT SUPPORTER of politicians that could get them the paperwork saying they have the governments permission to be armed.

            In case you still do not understand look up the those nations that COMPLIED with the anti gun activists and now have in an effort to stop the BOMBINGS and MASS STABBINGS that replaced the FEW shootings they had now due to the MASSIVELY higher casualty rates they have began proposing KNIFE CONTROL (bombs are already restricted to governments essentially world wide so nothing more can be done to restrict them). That one mass stabbing on a TRAIN killed more than the one at that school and church combined and HE WOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED if existing laws were enforced.

            You need look no further than these to see the deaths are not because of GUNS or the FIREPOWER they have it is because of the CRIMINALS and nothing is being done to address them just ATTACKS on the 2nd amendment by people who are totally ignorant about what the founders said and wrote about it at the time they were creating it as well as people who’s only apparent knowledge about them comes from Hollywood fiction.



            Also remember things like the GATLING gun, MULTI BARREL, MULTI SHOT guns were in fact in the works when the founders existed.


            Even before America existed such ASSAULT weapons had been designed.


            In fact there was an experimental model similar to the METAL STORM system today where they stacked bullets for multi firing the only thing keeping them out of production was the poor technology of the day that required igniting the powder with a spark from a flint that made them cumbersome and dangerous if they fired the bullets in the wrong sequence or one failed to ignite before the one behind it.




            So the ARGUMENT the founders could not imagine such guns fails. If the founders felt the need to PREVENT civilians from having MULTI barrel MULTI SHOT weapons or ANY WEAPON that could compete with any army and that could stop ANY ATTACK they would have stated such restriction in the constitution, remember ARMS is any weapon capable of being used to defend this nation from tyranny the founders never intended for the government to have a standing army that was more powerful than the individual citizens of this nation because they already LIVED THROUGH THE HORROR of such a tyrannical government that did.

            One of the first things DESTROYED by the anti gun activist in modern times was a program put in place by a president so UPSET that the army called forth did not even know what end of a gun the bullet came out of that he set up a program where CHILDREN would be taught the proper use of guns and the government PAID for the ammunition. NOT ONE CASE of a mass shooter was ever connected in anyway to that program yet they SCREAMED that it was training the mass shooters by simply TEACHING GUN SAFETY and how guns work so if called for military service they would be ready and not shoot themselves because they were so ignorant they did not know what end the bullet came out of or like that one politician who argued that the magazines would run empty and be tossed thinking they were unable to be reloaded in a failed attempt to restrict ammo capacity to below any available magazine for even a common pistol.

    • Terry Butts

      Try years or longer if the state has ANTI gun people in charge of the process. Remember that one shooter passed his background check by default when the protection against pigeonholing the check to deny someone the purchase kicked in allowing the sale to go through.

      Then there was the case a few years back of the COLLECTOR who was a retired military officer who NEVER got his back despite being found innocent of the accusation the JUDGE declared that just OWNING the guns made him a danger and confiscated nearly if not more than $2 million dollars worth of antique military collectables that he LEGALLY owned and had all the paperwork for the false accusation made by some ANTI GUN ACTIVIST was that he had an ILLEGAL machine gun this was proven false in a matter of hours when the ATF took all of them and went through them and his paperwork yet they still proceeded with a trial where the judge made the UNFOUNDED declaration and ILLEGAL confiscation of property without compensation despite him being found INNOCENT of the crime.

      This is just a GATEWAY for the anti gun activists who will now make thousands or more false accusations clog up the legal system with trials that are unfounded and hope to get a judge like that one who thinks just owning a gun makes someone a threat to push their agenda through COLOR OF LAW enforcement of vague laws making it guilty upon accusation where you have to prove your innocent and still can lose your property if a liberal judge ignores the constitution and law to impose their personal agenda.

  • Kenj

    I hate to say it this way but, it depends on what she/they mean by “misdemeanor stalking”. You have to remember how politicians talk and what they’re really trying for here. Case in point, someone walks around and looks in shop windows (it may make some nervous, I’m sure), and another person tells the authorities about it and then they visit his/her house and confiscate all guns (just happened in Wash. state). No, I’m not a gun owner, but my point is, if the government wants the guns, go after the illegal ones, namely those in the gangs. In the 60’s when I lived in Chicago, a street gang stole a truck and knocked off the armory, taking about 30 REAL automatic weapons. Mostly M14’s I heard, but still this is where the real illegal weapons are. Wanna find em? Go downtown Denver and walk up to a black guy wearing blue or red hold your hands in an upward position and say, “whats up?” You see it all the time how a pert killed someone and threw the gun in a dumpster. You ask why? Because in 10 minutes, he will have gotten another one! How do you stop that?(rhetorical Q) Another “red flag” is where she got her backing. Be it good or bad, anyone affiliated with Soros or any of the other anti-Americans may have other intentions and can’t be trusted. If we want to REALLY want to stop these school killings, then someone in DC should come up with a solution instead of crying about it. While we’re crying about it, another “whack job” is getting ready to shoot or bomb another school. I know Trump said arm the teachers but (and I give him credit for at least coming up with a solution), teachers can become over powered or even “lose it” themselves. Maybe a solution like having all doors locked by a certain time (8:05am) and a teacher with a class room nearest that door actually watches and checks to make sure it’s locked. All other entry is via the main doors with an armed monitor there. Maybe also having metal detection at the doors too, although that may not stop bombing but it is a start. By disarming those who the government chooses (they can make up a charge), anyone is a target for the government just like in 1930’s Berlin, Germany or even Moscow, Russia with Stalin. This is how THEY started, and you can’t trust the government these days.

    • Terry Butts

      The majority of criminals never legally acquired the weapons they use in fact many of the gangsters who’s actions were falsely used to pass the original NFA openly admitted either through journals or outright confession to have stolen the weapons they used from police stations or the military. That did not stop them from passing it to disarm the workers who refused to work for “coupons” only good at the company store any longer while allowing the wealthy companies who could afford the “TAX” to still be able to arm their enforcers that tried to force them back to work during that time period.

      Some cases of “misdemeanor stalking” were nothing more than people who were falsely accused by someone PARANOID about someone who happened to frequent the same places they did and simply FELT they were being stalked brought before a judge that acted based on PC beliefs rather than actual evidence against the person.

      I recall one judge that destroyed the life of a grandmother with a false conviction of child porn. All she did was take normal photos of her grandchildren playing and took it to the wrong photo processing place the one PROCESSING the film felt STIMULATED by the photos and reported them as child porn the judge himself stated there was NOTHING pornographic about the pictures but still declared her guilty because he felt the law was not about the photos content (the only thing it could actually be about) but rather about how it MIGHT make a pedophile feel when looking at it. In other words ANY photo containing children could be called child porn under that judges definition.

      We will see the same kind of STRETCHING the laws intent with laws such as this one to suit the agenda of politicians and judges personal opinions.

      As with any VAGUE statement or law it can be twisted to include pretty much anyone that is ACCUSED.

      Locking the door was a solution tried by a principal years ago to keep the gangs and drug dealers from getting into the school THE STATE fired him because of the complaints from the DRUG DEALERS and GANG MEMBERS who could no longer come and go as they please. In simple terms the SCHOOL district was more concerned about lawsuits from criminals for the lost access to their victims than the safety of the children.

  • David German

    What Oregon is doing should be striked out by the Supreme Court, we will see if the new law is Constitutional!

    • metheoldsarge

      It is unconstitutional. Since when have liberals let a little thing like the Constitution get in their way?

  • Roger

    File suit. Take it to the Supreme Court.

  • isaiah

    Jetmagnet, you are missing the point and I do not believe you to be a “gun enthusiast”. We have enough laws to deter crime and reduce the incidents that have plagued us this last decade, but liberal interpretations of these laws have produced a series of crimes so severe that people are screaming for “more laws”! We have no need for more laws

  • TPM4

    giffords in her mental state has been their puppet for years she has no concept as to what they are using her for. she is a mental gob that is allowing herself to be used by the same people that should be passing legislature to shut down the mentally unstable from having access to guns and early warning on these mentally disturbed that lean toward mass killings or shootings. punish law enforcement, schools and all others that have the ability to report and stop this bs before it actually happens but don’t!. all the demonrats want is our guns so they can control us IT WILL NEVER WORK WE THE PEOPLE WILL NEVER ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN!!!

    • ExGOP

      IT MUST happen. The second Amendment has got to go.

  • pics fixer

    All that is happening here is that Oregon is making language changes to keep with the times. I could support that if: If a claim is made, looked into and found not true and that anything confiscated should be returned promptly, with no cost to the person it came from with a written apology [that does have good use in any other related court proceedings like a divorce]. Also, that if it it found that there was malice in the complaint, there should be a very stiff punishment to the person who made that complaint. Then I’d support it.

    Like it or not, stalkers are crazy and in a domestic partnership [hell, any partnership] anger allowed to stew will and does make people do terrible things. In either case, guns make a bad ingredient. Guns are awesome things that can create unfixable harm and require steady minded, responsible people. When that is lost, guns, at least temporarily, do not belong. I get Oregon’s idea. However, the devil is in the details, which are not in the article.

    • Terry Butts

      “Oregon is making language changes to keep with the times.”


      The law already allows them to arrest people who make threats and to present those threats as evidence to a judge to get protective orders, jail the criminal, order mental evaluations etc. these changes ARE NOT about keeping up with the times they are about REVERSING burden of proof from the accuser to the ACCUSED making them PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE before getting their RIGHTS and PROPERTY returned to them instead of the STATE/accuser proving their accusations are true before TAKING away their rights and property. This can and will lead to people JAILED/PUNISHED for years with no DUE PROCESS OF LAW just like it was under the KING and was the reason the FOUNDERS STATED in the constitution that NO RIGHT CAN BE TAKEN AWAY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

      Meaning the INDIVIDUAL accused of breaking the law goes to trial and is convicted based on actual evidence. Not just BLINDLY punished upon ACCUSATION.

      Remember numerous jurisdictions have been caught using FALSE claims of ANONYMOUS complaints to harass people for nothing more than exercising other rights that OFFENDED politicians that feel they have a right to MICROMANAGE private property just because its within up to three miles of the city limits there is no logical reason to believe such a VAGUE guilty until you prove your innocence law will not be abused the same way.

      • pics fixer

        You did not read what I said. To be jailed by simply having somebody pointing a finger at you can NEVER be allowed. Read the first paragraph perhaps a little slower this time. Also, this whole thing was about domestic violence, stalkers that get arrested for doing that, etc and whether or not guns should be removed from their possession. There are many states who has that in their statutes if not most. Do I support that? Yes, as long as certain conditions are met. Those Conditions are in that first paragraph.

        As for the 2nd amendment, no right in the Constitution with the exception of two, “Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” and Freedom of speech, are absolute [and even the 1st has some limits like you can’t lie]. That according to our founders. What that means is regulations and limits can be made to the 2nd and they are, age, type of weapon you can have, etc. That means removing weapons from persons deemed to be dangerous until adjudicated. If innocent, they get them back.

        The rest of what you are writing about is not about the story I was commenting about so I am a bit confused, which is quite easy for me to get.

        • Terry Butts

          “To be jailed by simply having somebody pointing a finger at you can NEVER be allowed.”

          While this statement is true you seem to not understand that TAKING AWAY ones rights based on someone pointing a finger at them is EXACTLY THE SAME they may still be FREE to move about but their ability to protect themselves is gone because someone falsely accused them and they are IMMEDIATELY disarmed pending the DUE PROCESS OF LAW where they have to PROVE the accusation to be FALSE in order to RESTORE their RIGHTS and property.

          This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of how the founders intended the JUSTICE system operate and an actual RETURN to the tyranny they fought to kick out under the former government that would jail people and TAKE their property until they were PROVEN innocent.

          What I wrote is ENTIRELY about this story as the so called “language changes to keep with the times.” is about REVERSING the current law that says they have to go through DUE PROCESS BEFORE taking someones property or RESTRICTING THEIR RIGHTS.

          The current law before this change made them have look into the accusation BEFORE taking ones property as that was ENDANGERING their life if they were actually the victim and disarmed over a false accusation that they were the perpetrator.

          The very phrase “looked into and found not true and that anything confiscated should be returned promptly” proves you understood the intent was to CONFISCATE before due process based on accusation otherwise they would have TAKEN NOTHING because it was found to be not true BEFORE they took the property in the first place.

          Under the existing laws before this change that was the process there was nothing to RETURN because they LOOKED into the accusation and the INNOCENT never had it taken from them in the first place.

          In the new law upon ACCUSATION they take the persons guns until they go to court and PROVE they are not a stalker or domestic abuser.

          It is a HISTORICAL fact that many times the authorities mistakenly have aided the abusers by believing them instead of those who simply protected themselves.

          This will make it even worse as they now have the authority to WITHOUT A COURT RULING disarm the one they think is the abuser/stalker. Leaving the victim defenseless if they believe the wrong persons story.

          ” [and even the 1st has some limits like you can’t lie].”

          Guess the politicians and congress were never told this as they do it all the time.

          The fact is NO RIGHT can be INFRINGED or TAKEN AWAY without due process demanding PRE APPROVAL of speeches, sermons, etc. is an infringement and done all the time now that PERMITS are required. They even arrest people for nothing more than READING RIGHT OUT OF LAW BOOKS in public accusing them of trying to INFLUENCE trials or POLITICS by simply informing people what they SHOULD ALREADY KNOW or be TOLD BY THE COURT before a trial.

          To expand upon your claim and compare this law to a FREE SPEECH issue if this law was about free speech and lies they would DENY your right to speech on the accusation you were going to lie until you PROVED you were innocent of the accusation that you were GOING TO LIE when you speak.

          Until a JUDGE reviews the evidence issuing a ruling based on that evidence for EACH CASE it is not due process a judge can not issue a blanket ruling in one case and apply it to all the people as if they had been the one on trial.

          Barring an actual witnessed violent act against the victim it is just a “HE SAID, SHE SAID” argument at best and the police can separate them even make an arrest if evidence warrants it but they can not claim that its safe to leave the person free but TO DANGEROUS for them to have a gun especially if they leave them their hands (most domestic violence victims are beaten or strangled), KNIVES, HAMMERS, AUTOMOBILE, etc. the full list of everyday items or tools MISUSED to harm others would take pages to list to focus on GUNS alone is proof the law is not about protecting anyone that is in actual danger but rather another VAGUE law to allow infringement upon ones constitutional rights.

          In fact READ IT FOR YOURSELF


  • Terry Butts

    “Second Amendment advocates argue the new law is not designed to expand
    protections for women but instead creates “new and dangerous tools” for
    possibly vindictive people to erase the right to keep and bear arms from
    someone they may have a grudge against.”

    This is fact especially if the police BELIEVE the wrong person in the dispute and DISARM the one that is actually in danger. Add in that now that ACCUSATION equals guilt until you prove you are innocent a criminal targeting someone can make a false accusation and USE THE GOVERNMENT as a tool to disarm their intended victims.

    We have already seen the results when CRIMINALS choose to use the new protocols about ACTIVE SHOOTERS to target people with false reports many because the accuser is an ANTI GUN ACTIVIST who hopes the responding officers will only pay attention to what they said about the situation instead of LOOKING at what is actually going on when they respond. Unfortunately far to many times that is exactly what those responding have done reacting to the sight of anything in someones hand as if it was a gun or a SAFELY HOLSTERED legally carried gun as if someone was in immediate danger or under attack.

    From the drunk man holding a hose nozzle in a back yard that was gunned down by HIDDEN officers who never even identified themselves or let the individual know they were there (they felt THREATENED when the HARMLESS nozzle was pointed towards the BUSH they were hiding behind) to the man who did nothing but was gunned down as he left a store because of the FALSE report filed by an ANTI GUN ACTIVIST That knew he had a CC permit and many others all these restrictions and thoughtless REACTIONARY responses to a SMALL NUMBER of criminals are fast heading to the point of having killed more innocent people than the crimes they were imposed on the false promise of stopping have done. Then there is the untold number of children who were doing nothing but playing with OBVIOUS to anyone that knows what a gun is toys some not even remotely shaped like a gun or even close to the color of any gun on the market. In one case while they managed to not shoot the children they still treated them as if they were criminals just for PLAYING with squirt guns in their own yard their school even ILLEGALLY suspended them over the incident that DID NOT happen during school hours or on school property.

    Their playing had nothing to with the school it was not a THREAT to anyone and The school has NO AUTHORITY outside of its own property during school hours or school functions THEY HAVE STATED THIS MANY TIMES themselves when people reported BULLIES for actual violations of school police (even crimes) they committed against students outside of school grounds (sometimes even on school grounds).

  • Kenj

    I found this on “How the Nazis used gun control”. It sounds a little like the democrats.

    “The perennial gun-control debate in America
    did not begin here. The same arguments for and against were made in the
    1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun
    registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the
    Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not.
    In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in
    which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their
    guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner
    Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the
    government authorized the registration of all firearms and the
    confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior
    minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any
    extremist group.” And, for those individuals who didn’t get proper education in school,

    “In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized
    power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political
    opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass
    searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued.
    Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not
    “politically reliable.”

    During the five years of repression that followed, society was
    “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in
    camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship
    were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and
    arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive
    to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.

    In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many “enemies
    of the state” had been removed from society, some restrictions could be
    slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were
    prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber
    hollow-point ammunition was banned.

    The time had come to launch a decisive blow to the Jewish community,
    to render it defenseless so that its “ill-gotten” property could be
    redistributed as an entitlement to the German “Volk.” The German Jews
    were ordered to surrender all their weapons, and the police had the
    records on all who had registered them. Even those who gave up their
    weapons voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo.

    This took place in the weeks before what became known as the Night of
    the Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht, occurred in November 1938. That the
    Jews were disarmed before it, minimizing any risk of resistance, is the
    strongest evidence that the pogrom was planned in advance. An incident
    was needed to justify unleashing the attack.

    That incident would be the shooting of a German diplomat in Paris by a
    teenage Polish Jew. Hitler directed propaganda minister Josef Goebbels
    to orchestrate the Night of the Broken Glass. This massive operation,
    allegedly conducted as a search for weapons, entailed the ransacking of
    homes and businesses, and the arson of synagogues.

    SS chief Heinrich Himmler decreed that 20 years be served in a
    concentration camp by any Jew possessing a firearm. Rusty revolvers and
    bayonets from the Great War were confiscated from Jewish veterans who
    had served with distinction. Twenty thousand Jewish men were thrown into
    concentration camps, and had to pay ransoms to get released.

    The U.S. media covered the above events. And when France fell to Nazi invasion in 1940, the New York Times reported
    that the French were deprived of rights such as free speech and firearm
    possession just as the Germans had been. Frenchmen who failed to
    surrender their firearms within 24 hours were subject to the death

    No wonder that in 1941, just days before the Pearl Harbor attack,
    Congress reaffirmed Second Amendment rights and prohibited gun
    registration. In 1968, bills to register guns were debated, with
    opponents recalling the Nazi experience and supporters denying that the
    Nazis ever used registration records to confiscate guns. The bills were
    defeated, as every such proposal has been ever since, including recent
    “universal background check” bills.

    As in Weimar Germany, some well-meaning people today advocate severe
    restrictions, including bans and registration, on gun ownership by
    law-abiding persons. Such proponents are in no sense “Nazis,” any more
    than were the Weimar officials who promoted similar restrictions. And it
    would be a travesty to compare today’s situation to the horrors of Nazi

    “Still, as history teaches, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” When or where has there been ANY good intentions coming from DC? At times they seem more corrupt than our enemies.

  • Lee Potter

    One does NOT have to be intelligent to be Governor, hell, look at California as an example. They have come up with more rectal-cavities than other states. New York is another state that confounds intelligence. The sad part is these are only two prime examples.

  • sammy smith

    This is B.S. ……. you want the state to notify local enforcement within 24 hrs…… but refuses to notify ICE when they arrest a illegal……………………. CAN YOU SAY DOUBLE STANDARDS………….. YOU CANT CHANGE THE LAWS AS YOU GO……… ALL YOUR GOING TO DO IS RUN PEOPLE OUT OF YOUR LIBITURD STATE…..


  • Larry Hunner

    This GOV. Brown dose not have a clew as to what she is doing except to disarm the American People and that is a shame, and there suppose to be AMERICAN’S Home of the Brave ,Land of the FREE, not with idiots like this in charge,this make’s me sick to see this happen. FUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK.