If you only listened to the mainstream legacy news media and their bosses, anti-2A politicians, then, it would be easy to think that all of the news about gun control laws is about how those laws are being passed and implemented. Certainly, that is happening in some cases. But not all.
In fact, a recent decision by a court in a very anti-2A state (at least on the state level, if not the local level) has put a halt to a measure that passed there, at least temporarily. And that is good news. Samanta Flom writes,
An Oregon state judge granted a temporary restraining order on Dec. 6 against all provisions of the state’s Ballot Measure 114, which requires a permit to purchase firearms and institutes a ban on “large-capacity” magazines.
The measure, which was passed by 50.7 percent of voters on Nov. 8, was scheduled to take effect on Dec. 8.
“Pending the hearing on the motion for the preliminary injunction, Defendants and Defendants Agents are temporarily restrained from enforcing Ballot Measure 114 as of 12:01 AM on December 8, 2022,” Circuit Court Judge Robert S. Raschio wrote in issuing the order.
The new law would require residents to complete a background check to obtain a permit to purchase a gun, and would prohibit the manufacture, sale, use, and purchase of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition and allow a shooter “to keep firing without having to pause to reload.”
Holding that the measure would violate Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution, which enumerates the right to bear arms, the judge added, “Deprivation of fundamental constitutional rights for any period constitutes irreparable harm.”
To be frank, this is a temporary ruling preventing the law from going into effect until it can have a more thorough day in court, but this is a big win for the law-abiding people of Oregon on the way to having this ridiculous law (all gun control laws are ridiculous) thrown out completely.
Now, the people of Oregon have work to do to make sure that anti-2A zealots don’t steal their gun rights from them.
When will the “supreme” court take up defining the Second Amendment as it is written?
First off we need a SUPREME COURT that reads the Constitution and all its Amendments because that is one of the things it is suppose to rule on .
Knowing what the Constitution says can also tell them whither a law is Constitutional or not .
What EVERY gun owner, gunsmith, retailer, and person who can even spell “gun” needs to do: FIRST: Read the Preamble of the Constitution, paying particular attention to the last part, “….do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”, ans zeroing in on those words, “ordain” and “establish”. Now, look up the definitions for those two words, starting with our good old liberal friend, GOOGLE. Then, go to any dictionary you choose, and look up those words again. You will have noticed that, “ordain”, after mentioning the creation of a priest or minister, uses words like to decree, appoint or predestine, irrevocably. To order establish or enact with authority.In any other dictionary you will find the same language; definitely an order, rather than a list of suggestions. Remember, the people of Canada and Australia are now the subjects of their government. They are owned by their governments instead of the other wyt around.
What don’t these legislator’s get the US Constitution says, 2nd. Amendment ” Shall not be Infringed ” and the 10th. Amendment ” 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. ” “” nor prohibited by it to the States, “”… Sure sounds like the Constitution PROHIBITS a lot …
Comments are closed.