If you have kids, you understand what it feels like to feel concerned or scared for them. It’s part of being a parent.
But another part of being a good parent is being rational enough to understand what is really going on and taking actions that may not be comfortable but are in the best interest of your child and of everyone else.
Anti-gunners simply do not have this rational understanding, and, unfortunately, politicians in Oregon have this same cluelessness.
Fortunately, though, some parents in Portland, Oregon are fighting back. The staff at KATU write (hat tip to here for the lead):
Four pro-2nd Amendment parents are suing Portland Public Schools (PPS) over gun control rallies.
Their lawyer, Multnomah County GOP chair James Buchal, says the district violated parents’ and students’ First Amendment rights by promoting gun control following last year’s school shooting in Parkland, Florida.
“It’s wrong for the schools to essentially hijack public resources to push one side of a controversial issue and to misuse children as puppets in their exercise,” said Buchal.
He also said PPS used district resources to coordinate with outside activists, helped plan political activity, including walkouts, and claims the schools “indoctrinated” students in the classroom.
“It’s a giant scheme of manipulation and it’s not what people want their education dollars spent on,” said Buchal.
Good for these parents for doing the right thing. Unsurprisingly, the school district spokesperson said that the “lawsuit is baseless.”
But you don’t have to be a genius (you just have to be honest) to realize that public schools (especially on the West Coast, New England, and large cities) typically lean anti-gun in everything that they do. It’s outrageous, and our tax dollars are paying for this propaganda.
Hopefully, these Portland parents will get the hearing that they deserve and the schools in that area will stop pushing their anti-gun propaganda.
Please tell people,. about South Carolina,US Senator Lindsey Graham (R) and the other State Republican Congressmen and Senators are busy working to disarm Responsible Citizens.
Can you give us some information to verify that?
Republican Senator Rick Scott -Former Republican governor of Florida! Signed into law the most GUN CONTROL/CONFISCATION LEGISLATION IN 50 YEARS!
GOOD ! hope the parents win !!
Gun control will never solve your problem .Its truly sad that people claim to be intelligent and blames an inanement object on the reason a person is murdered. You people will never solve the problem because the people committing these murders have an alibi it’s called Liberals. True traitors.
These ppl don’t have a snowballs chance in hell of winning this case with the anti-gun loonies that will be on the jury in this case in liberal land where everyone loves everyone and everyone poops on the sidewalk!
The pooping is in San Fransissy.
As a retired guy from Law Enforcement, I agree 100%
My wife, who is also retired from the USAF, and I
both have Concealed Carry, and we encourage
our friends to do so.
People that think they are, safe are really stupid! There is no defense, there is controll of there lives, not agency to choose freedom or slavery! It does not mean white, black, red, yellow or brown it means we all are free to choose if we want to be controlled or have our agency to choose freedomfrom terany!!!
Logic is not in the thinking pattern of any Democrat as far a I can discern. It is not logical to think denying American citizens the right to bear arms will have anything to do with reducing gun deaths. The 2nd amendment hols strong and ture. The people who kill with guns are generally mentally disturbed, religious fanatics, illegals, or gangsters of all varieties. I think being willing to kill anyone without provocation is insane. Get those the people who provoke and do illegals acts such as killing with guns and who are insane religious fanatics out of the community. Incarcerate them and send them back to their original homelands if they hurt others and hang them if they kill. Don’t put up with this nonsense anymore. Be intolerant.
People had better encourage & vote for more republicans to run for offices in 2020 & cut out federal funds to the school districts that support antigun crap and only let the ones that support gun safety courses being taught in the schools receive federal funds. and any antigun states should not get any federal funds for anything anti gun related.
NOT WITH THE 9TH …
You know, when I see a gathering of Democrats, especially in the Kalifornia legislature, I’m reminded of an old saying: “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.”
I am also reminded of the quote by John Wayne. “Life is tough. It’s even tougher when you’re stupid!”
The sensible, and logical way to combat Gun violence is to pass a law that requires responsible citizens to possess, and know how to use and care for guns. If the renegade shooters, and other criminals who would commit murder knew almost everyone was armed, and they could be the one who got shot, they would not be so quick to go on murderous sprees. Also loosen, and simplify the laws, so s citizen cannot be so easily be the one found in the wrong when he or she fires a weapon in defense of themselves, their family, or a potential victim.
I am a retired master gunny sgt USMC 30years as a scout sniper. People kill they pull the trigger. People kill people not guns.Semper Fi
You really think Oregon is anti-gun? LOL
If the anti gun crowd is fortunate enough the have a home invasion robbery some night, they can put into practice their pacifist theory. In the mean time, being a retired law enforcement officer I will have my guns close at all times. If someone/ or more want to invade my home they will have to do it through a hail of bullets. Guess which one of us will have the better chance to survive and protect our family?
All gun rules, regulations, policies and laws are unconstitutional and MUST be removed! Regarding the governments ability to impose “Reasonable Restraint” which has now become the mantra of our liberal influenced government.
Supporters of the bill of rights claim they have a constitutional or Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Opponents counter even if it were the case, the government was granted the general power to place restraints on the right. Both of these assertions are based on a misconception concerning the intent of the document known as the Bill of Rights.
When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it was prefaced with a preamble. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, did not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the government any power over individual rights; they placed additional restraints and qualifications on the powers of the government concerning the rights enumerated in the Amendments.
By advancing the myth Amendments grant the American people their individual rights, the government has illegally converted enumerated restraints and qualifications on its power into legislative, executive, judicial and administrative power over individual rights. The government claims it was granted the constitutional authority to determine the extent of the individual rights enumerated in the Amendments and/or impose “reasonable restraints” on those rights. This assertion is absurd. The government does not have the constitutional authority to ignore, circumvent, modify, negate or remove constitutional restraints placed on its power by the Amendments or convert them into a power over the individual right enumerated in the particular restraint.
A denial of power or an enumerated restraint on the exercise of power is not subject to interpretation or modification by the entity the restraint is being imposed upon. The restraints imposed by the Amendments, which were adopted 4 years after the Constitution was ratified, override the legislative, executive, judicial or administrative powers of the government. If this were not the case, then the restraints would be meaningless because the government could simply circumvent, modify or remove them. Why would the States have requested and adopted enumerated restraints on government power, subsequent to their ratification of the Constitution, if the government possessed the authority to nullify them?
When the government infringes on one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights it is not violating anyone’s constitutional rights; it is violating the additional restraint or qualification placed on its power by the particular Amendment where the right is enumerated. The distinction between rights and restraints is critical. [The right is not given by the Government. Our rights are given by God and are inalienable. Therefore, they can’t be limited or taken away.]
As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the American people have unalienable rights that come from a higher source than government or a written document. By acknowledging people have natural rights, which are bestowed by a creator, the Founders laid the foundation for the principle the government does not have the lawful authority to take away or infringe on those rights. This principle was incorporated into the preamble and structure of the Amendments to secure individual rights from government encroachment; that is why they were designed and imposed as restraints on the exercise of power.
If the individual rights of the people had been created by the Constitution or an amendment to the document, then they would cease to be unalienable because the right would depend on the existence of a document. If the document or a provision of the document disappeared, so would the right. The belief individual rights were created by a written document has opened the door for the government to claim the power to define the extent of any right enumerated in an Amendment. This has transformed constitutional restraints placed on governmental power into subjective determinations of individual rights by the institutions of government. By failing to understand the difference between amendments that create rights and amendments that impose restraints on government, the American people are watching their individual rights vanish as they are reduced to the status of privileges bestowed by government because the constitutional restraints placed on governmental power are being replaced by government decree.
Opponents of the Amendments always try to diminish the right enumerated in the Amendments by asserting rights are not absolute. This is just another straw man argument because the Amendment is about imposing a restraint of the powers of the government concerning a right: not granting a right or defining the extent of a right. In addition, a review of the Second Amendment shows the restraint imposed by the Amendment does not contain any exceptions.
Legal precedence supporting constitution and bill of rights.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”
S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.
Looks like you have really done your homework on this one. congrats.. s.c.
God bless you. I will find a way to make copies for my lawyer and all my friends. I would really like to contact you and share research as I am going to try and make a case for jury nullification on a bogus gun charge. Please, allow me to make use of your considerable insight. Thank you, my friend.
FredK…So, any State that curtails the SA, is in fact violating the SA. If I am right here, Where is the SCOTUS? Are the States such as NYand NJ and a few others immune the the Supreme Law of the United States? Are we rwally a “United States”?
The criminals and crazies will still have their guns. The decent, honest citizens will be defenseless. The people who advocate gun control have dung for brains!
MANIPULATION Of AUTHORITY. Nothing new. Just they know most will sit on their can. Or fall in and accept what they imposed on them. Instead of keeping the people off the streets Because they are that bad. We will impose the 68 GUN CONTROL ACT on them and say that felons cannot own guns. Another words if you messed up you will pay for the rest of your life. Even though it was said by our founding fathers that Every FREE MAN shall NOT be debarred the use of arms. And every one of you so called chest beating patriots are at risk. I absolutely love the I’M NOT A FELON. Not today you’re not. Pray diligently it doesn’t happen. In the police state we live in today it does not take much. Everyone today is a sitting duck. What I strongly recommend is to witness what goes on in these political offices. Cop shops. So called court houses. I know here in Okanogan County Washington State. The corruption is so thick you choke on it. Been trying to expose them as others have. But so far they have managed to stay a step ahead. So called Detective KREG SLOAN makes sure he rapes the people of this county and does his best to keep them ignorant. Or just forces it on them. He is like his whimp so called prosecutor brother a anti gunner. And will do everything to take them by making sure you are guilty. Even if you are not. And the people? They see it. But do nothing. Except gripe. Well. if I’m the only one I am going to try. I pray you all stay safe. After all. You’re in the middle.
I find it confusing that liberals always go after guns. When someone runs over people it is the drivers fault. When someone stabs somebody it is the perpetrators fault. Yet when someone uses a gun it becomes the guns fault. It is time to wake up America. The liberals are afraid that the guns Americans have will be used to defend our rights against the liberal mob. And they could be right if they keep pushing their tyrannical radical agenda. Civil war did occur once before in this country and if we don’t remember the lesson we are doomed to repeat it. Maybe the solution is to outlaw the liberal party and start arresting those that violate the constitution of the United States. Every liberal states that they have the right of freedom of speech. It is ironic that the very amendment they so dearly love is the only one that has never Been ratified by the country.
i was just censored -comment not posted!
prime example of former NRA rated A+ republican, Senator Rick Scott
FredK.. Rick Scott is a turncoat. I am sorry I had to vote for him. He speaks with forked tongue.
Comments are closed.