Oregon is one of the states that has stubbornly refused to grant reciprocity to concealed carry permits from other states, even though many of those states recognize the Oregon permit when Oregon residents visit them. The map above, from usacarry.com, show that Oregon does not recognize a single other state.
The map below shows that 20 states allow Oregon residents to carry in their state, with an Oregon permit. Vermont does not require a permit. The blue states recognize the Oregon permit. Michigan only recognizes Oregon permits for Oregon residents.
Now that Michael Bloomberg's organizations have purchased a repressive gun control bill, misleadingly labeled as "Universal Background Checks", Oregon legislators are scrambling for some cover from angry constituents. From oregonlive.com:
The strong support for the concealed handgun license bill may also reflect the desire of many legislators to offset their support for the controversial bill on background checks by voting for something sought by guns-rights activists.I have not been able to find any rational reason why Oregon would refuse to recognize other states permits. Permit holders are far more law abiding than the average citizen, more law abiding than the average police officer, and effectively provide for greater public security at no cost to the state.
"It wouldn't surprise me" if that happened, says Rep. Bill Post, R-Keizer, chief sponsor of the concealed handgun bill. "There were some people who had to take a 'yes' vote on [background checks] and it's not going to be good for them in their districts."
Post's measure, House Bill 3093, opens the door to allowing concealed handgun licensees from many states to also carry in Oregon. Currently, at least 18 states honor Oregon licenses, potentially allowing their licensees to carry here if HB 3093 becomes law.
The bill passed the House, 57-1. Only one representative verbally objected to the measure. While the Oregonlive.com article says that it was voted out of the Senate committee, that is not shown on the legislative website. It appears to have failed to be passed out of committee in the Senate, 11-17.
While not dead yet, chances for passage do not look good. The constituents are unlikely to see a vote for a failed bill as a way to make up for the passage of the bill funded by Bloomberg money. They have seen too many play this game, where they claim that a vote doomed to fail, was a sincere effort to pass legislation.
©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch
Posts
1 comment:
This article and the one just below bring out more of the evidence and issues that too many people ignore. Who in Oregon has the power to deny any ones federally guaranteed right to carry. The article just below brings up the issue of BIAS In LAWS. When the framers wrote the constitution they took bias very seriously and it all goes back to how the kings magistrates administered the law in the colonies. They knew how well those magistrate imposed their biases and decided to terminate the possibility of bias and personal opinion in administering the law So they insisted on taking those powers away from the positions of judges they created with the constitution and how LAW would be administered in the new republic. In the constitution the judge were limited to enforcing only the words that were actually written in the law. That stopped bias and opinions cold and by doing so it totally prevented interpretation of law. It took a lot of reading and research over several years to come up with the facts about these issues. going back to the beginning of this new republic created by the changes to what had been accepted in the colonies to what would not be tolerated in the new republic was a shock to the judicial profession and they felt they had been demoted from the high level of respect they had come accustom to. Several of the earliest ruling by the United States supreme Court violated the constitutional structure of the new less powers of the judicial branch and the court through its rulings attempted to restore some of that power. The fact is according to law judges have no power to interpret the law. Not in the supreme court and not in traffic court or any court in between. Judges are mandated to enforce the law as written until the legislature changes that law. One of the checks and balances, not known to many is one of the instructions judges very rarely ever give to jurors If it is a bad or unjust law the judges are still required to enforce it if the legislature will not change it but a jury has the authority to nullify a laws and find the defendant not guilty because the law is a bad law or because the law is being misapplied. And who decided judges do not have to give full and complete instructions to they jury, the supreme court of course. Look at what has happened many times in recent years, the supreme court has refused to hear many appeals from lower courts. They simply do not have the authority to deny any hearing on appeal from a lower court. that is an unconstitutional denial of due process of law the case is not over until you have had the right to exercise your last appeal at the supreme court. If you take the time to study the constitutional violations of the mandates in the constitution you can understand how the supreme court has abused it's power going back to Marbury v Madison. Look at what we see today in the supreme court rulings. we get this judges opinion and that judges opinion and what is wrong with that? answer the judges are forbidden to have an opinion, all they can do is enforce the law as written. Instead of writing lengthy opiniosn using up valuable time. it is an up or down vote situation. It is as simple as this if the law says you have to turn left and you turn right, you violated the law, If you turned at a diagonal you broke the law. If it was not a right angle left turn you broke the law, they do not even get to suggest it was an 85 degree turn or a 100 degree turn. Now if the physical lay out of the actual turn prevented a turn at 90 degrees then you are not guilty. that is placing the facts of your defense before the court. It is that simple and judges hate not being able to have a greater say. Their job is to enforce the law to the letter without bias, opinion or interpretation. And that is why our court system is so screwed up.
Post a Comment