Re: What does Oregon Measure 114 require of gun buyers, gun owners?

On 11/22/22 10:09 AM, nickname unavailable wrote:
> On 11/22/2022 4:48 AM, -hh wrote:
>> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 8:33:56 PM UTC-5, nickname unavailable 
>> wrote:
>>> On 11/21/2022 4:17 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 10:47:17 AM UTC-5, nickname 
>>>> unavailable wrote:
>>>>> On 11/21/2022 4:32 AM, -hh wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 5:40:33 AM UTC-5, BeamMeUpScotty 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/20/22 1:15 PM, John Dillinger wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <http://oregonlive.com>
>>>>>>>> What does Oregon Measure 114 require of gun buyers, gun owners?
>>>>>>>> Published: Nov. 20, 2022, 8:27 a.m.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oregon's Ballot Measure 114, passed narrowly in the November 
>>>>>>>> election,
>>>>>>>> will be one of the nation's strictest when and if it goes into 
>>>>>>>> effect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lawsuit filed to stop Measure 114 from going into effect
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The measure is a so-called permit-to-purchase gun law. Under 
>>>>>>>> Measure
>>>>>>>> 114, anyone who wants to buy a gun would have to obtain a 
>>>>>>>> permit, pay
>>>>>>>> an anticipated fee of $65, complete an approved firearms safety 
>>>>>>>> course
>>>>>>>> at their own expense, submit a photo ID, be fingerprinted and 
>>>>>>>> pass a
>>>>>>>> criminal background check.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (ahem): "A **well regulated** militia ..."
>>>>>
>>>>> Scalia held in Heller that participation in any militia is *not* a 
>>>>> condition for
>>>>> owning guns. In Scalia's words, the prefatory clause of the amendment
>>>>> "announces a purpose" for the *amendment*. It does not in any way 
>>>>> restrict
>>>>> the right secured in the operative clause. That is the law of the 
>>>>> land.
>>>>
>>>> I didn’t emphasize “militia”, but “well regulated”. The SCOTUS has 
>>>> upheld
>>>> regulations on firearm, which is all that’s needed to show that the 
>>>> “shall not
>>>> be infringed” isn’t anywhere near as unlimited as the 2A fanboys try 
>>>> to claim.
>>>
>>> I've always pointed out that one cannot buy just any gun one wishes 
>>> to own, but
>>> that is *not* based on anything to do with regulating the militia. 
>>> You could
>>> omit the prefatory clause of the amendment altogether, and that would 
>>> not in any
>>> way change what limits are allowed on guns.
>>
>> Understood.  Pragmatically, the legalisms don't really matter, because 
>> all that
>> matters is that SCOTUS ruled that firearms can be regulated.
> 
> There actually isn't any such ruling.  The *implication* of court 
> rulings is that 

REGULATING "arms" as which cane be owned and carried is unconstituinal 
because it's outside the jurisdiction of the Courts to make those 
decisions that they were never delegated the power to REGULATE.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, 
or to the people.

This sets the JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT...  and it specifically 
says that *any power NOT delegated to the U.S. Government* (including 
the U.S. Supreme Court) is NOT within their jurisdiction. And anything 
NOT in their jurisdiction leaves only one response they can make.

That response is that *they have no jurisdiction to hear the case* .

> firearms can be regulated (and restricted), because 
> courts, including the Supreme Court, have said that some regulations and 
> restrictions that have been challenged on constitutional grounds are, in 
> fact, constitutional.

Possibly under some other delegated power that isn't NULLIFIED BY THE 
2nd Amendment where it clearly point out that it's a RIGHT OF THE 
PEOPLE.  And NO power is delegated to obstruct that RIGHT of the 
people... which means it would be other people's RIGHTS being infringed 
by the right to keep and bear arms.... but that only happens when 
someone draws or uses a those arms in a way to violate others rights.

As in murder or taking a hostage or using the gun as a club to beat 
them... and that's NOT a case for a ban it's an individual NOT the gun 
so no gun ban can be applied to reduce crime, you have to target the 
criminal.


Rights aren't based on probability, allowing you to have them or parts 
of the RIGHTS depending on statistics and probability... to begin with 
there is no jurisdiction to hear a case against keeping or bearing the 
gun.   And that is the right.  SO banning the gun or arms as they are 
known, is NOT constitutional.

>   We can then infer that firearms can be regulated 
> and restricted, but the courts have never expressly said that, because 
> they wouldn't.  The types of regulations and restrictions that are 
> allowed are going to be determined on a case by case basis.

That is NOT "regulation" it's a criminal act of the violent person being 
the issue NOT the gun. Still no Constitutional jurisdiction to ban a gun 
based on it's preference by a single or by multiple criminals.  There is 
no jurisdiction over the gun itself.  Ban the car they shot from or the 
pants it was hidden in because they aren't protected by the RIGHT to 
keep and bear arms.  Lock up the violent criminal, but the gun is immune 
from U.S. Jurisdiction.  They have no power delegated to enact laws 
preventing the gun to be kept and carried.  And the USSC can't rule on 
it any more then they can deny or allow the U.S. Government to choose 
your religion and/or tell you when and/or how to exercise your religious 
beliefs.

> 
> What is clear is that, contrary to the gun fondlers' belief, one may not 
> have just whatever gun one wishes.
> 

Anything that is part of the term "arms" is covered by the RIGHT to keep 
and bear them.

And the U.S. Government has defined "guns" as "arms" and they issue arms 
to the FEDERAL workers and the Military soldiers. And those arms are all 
covered by the RIGHT of the people to KEEP AND BEAR arms.

-- 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-That's Karma-

*IF YOU'RE READING THIS YOU ARE A SURVIVOR*
*The first rule of SURVIVAL CLUB* is we talk about it, we hate 
censorship. Never trust what Democrats or Marxists tell you. Make them 
prove it with actual verifiable facts and science. And if you didn't 
find the duplicitous lies in what the Marxist-Democrats told you then 
you didn't dig deep enough. The *Gruber* *Doctrine* is the 
Marxist-Democrat plan that says it's "to the Democrats advantage to have 
a lack of transparency and then lie about everything".
https://rumble.com/vkt8ld-call-it-the-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-or-whatever.-how-libs-exploit-t.html

*The next rule of SURVIVAL CLUB* is
187 - People need the RIGHT to keep and bear arms for the same reasons 
they need a RIGHT to vote.