Kate Brown Doubling Down on Oregon Infringements Leaves Gun Owners Choice to Obey or Defy

Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool? Totalitarian wannabe oath breaker Kate Brown channels her inner PaulBegala to subvert the true “supreme Law of the Land.” [Governor Kate Brown / Facebook photos]

Secure in a position won with substantial financial support from Michael Bloomberg, Oregon Governor Kate Brown has kicked off 2017 by adding to gun owner control priorities announced last year as goals.

In July, Brown outlined plans to, among other legislative objectives, “strengthen … tools to track and analyze gun transactions,” to “study” and “report” on “domestic” and “gun violence” for the purpose of offering new policies, and to work with the legislature to enact three priorities: Deny firearm transfers to anyone authorities take longer than three days to approve (the so-called “Charleston loophole”); expand relationships that qualify for due process-denying “domestic violence” gun prohibitions (the so-called “boyfriend loophole”); and ban standard capacity magazines (the should-be-called “freedom loophole”).

Those are just what she proposed to begin working on – her further desires, announced at a press conference under the armed protection of police outnumbering reporters – include for “Congress to ban assault weapons [sic] and strengthen anti-terrorist legislation by passing the common sense ‘No Fly, No Buy’ ban.”

The transfer ban legislation was introduced in November. With “private transfers” essentially outlawed in 2015, and with no limit on how long government can take to complete its check. Per Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF):

There is NO limit on how long the Oregon State Police can take to complete a check. There are people who have waited two years. If the State Police claim they need information from another state, and that state simply refuses to cooperate, a perfectly qualified person can be “delayed” on a purchase forever. (See further OFF analysis.)

Along with that bill, two other efforts meriting scrutiny have been announced for introduction when the legislature reconvenes in February: a bill to have dealers accept and store guns owned by people with mental issues (and how a family member could take it from the owner without making that an illegal transfer is unclear), and a bill requiring gun dealers to display and provide “educational” suicide prevention materials, which, per OFF, must include “Multiple versions … to reflect the different local values and cultures within this state.”

Adding to the infringements:

“The Department of Administrative Services, at the direction of Governor Kate Brown, has adopted a policy prohibiting all state employees from having a licensed firearm for self defense on ‘all property and facilities owned, leased, rented or otherwise occupied by the Oregon state government including grounds, buildings, parking structures and lots, vehicles and other equipment and any site where an employee enters on behalf of the employee’s employment with Oregon state government’ … This policy extends to ‘All employees, including limited duration and temporary employees, board and commission members, volunteers, and others working in an agency…’”

“The policy explicitly forbids employees who have a concealed carry permit from having their firearms while on the job unless it’s part of their ‘assigned duties in the course and scope of the employee’s employment,’” Firearms Policy Coalition notes. “In addition to firearms, a laundry list of weapons is included in the ban. But thankfully, employees can still defend themselves with serving utensils – if they happen to be attacked while they’re on a meal break.”

“Oregon OATH KEEPERS is asking all other Patriots to write, call or e-mail the Oregon Governor and State House to let them know that we will be heard and ‘WE WILL NOT CONFORM TO THIS ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK ON OUR GUN RIGHTS!’” Oregon State Coordinator Rob Price urged in an email alert, calling for help “to derail this ‘socialist March’ on our Constitution.”

The time-honored American tradition of civil disobedience against injustice exemplified in the “I will not comply” movement is entirely consistent with established Oath Keepers responses to infringements that have occurred in other states.

The New York State Chapter in its “Open Letter to All Law Enforcement Officers…,” reiterated a refusal to obey citizen disarmament orders, noting:

Unfortunately for the socialist politicians currently in power, most law-abiding gun owners in New York “WILL NOT COMPLY” with the latest unconstitutional gun grab. The vast majority of gun owners will not register themselves or their guns. We know from experience that registration is the prerequisite to confiscation, which is the prerequisite to dictatorship. We will NOT be treated like convicted sex-offenders just for owning semi-automatic rifles. To comply with this unconstitutional “law” would, in itself, be an act of surrender and submission.

The Oath Keepers’ “Molon Labe Pledge” further promises:

We will never disarm. We will never surrender our military pattern, semi-automatic rifles and the full capacity magazines, parts, and ammunition that go with them … We will not allow our children to be disarmed. We will pass on those military pattern rifles, magazines, and ammunition to our children and our children’s children … We will not register ourselves or our arms … We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people or compel registration [and] We will interpose ourselves between the people and the oath breakers and traitors who try to disarm them.

What’s wrong with this picture? [Ali Zifan/CC BY-SA 4.0]

There’s no doubt Brown and her fellow gun-grabbing collectivists will stay on their present course, passing in-your-face infringements because the “progressive” blue counties from which they gain their political power are more heavily populated. They would do well to note the total map, and to ask themselves if they’re really prepared to issue a “Resistance is futile. Prepare to be assimilated” Borg mandate to the rest of the state.

They won’t of course. They’re too arrogant, and too sure that their function in this world is to dictate what they will allow those they rule and what they won’t. Anyone who doesn’t like it will be ignored, or, depending on the level of inconvenience they offer, smeared as an “anti-government extremist”, or ultimately, destroyed.

You will respect my authoritah! [Oregon Firearms Federation]

Deaf to – and contemptuous of – any sentiment that doesn’t mirror their own, they can’t conceive that some Americans are fed up, will not disarm, will not comply, and will not back down. So when they’re met with mass noncompliance they don‘t have the resources to enforce against, as we see happening in states like New York, California and Connecticut, they resort to the typical “progressive” tactic of denying reality and passing yet more meaningless edicts.

“Oregon OATH KEEPERS, members of the Oregon Sheriff’s Association, and other pro-2A groups have already stood up in defiance and said ‘We will not comply!’” Price advises. “Republican State Senators, Congressmen and County Commissioners in a majority of Oregon Counties have also taken a stand. Many Counties have already passed pro 2A amendments and others are getting ready to approve them as we speak.

“These measures are formalities, but they do send a clear message from gun owners, LEO’s, and elected officials that even if we are the minority in this State, we will fight to defend our Constitutional Rights and our GOD given rights to self protection,” he elaborates. “Oregon OATH KEEPERS have been and continue to be out front in this fight. We are continuing to build political capital with elected officials and LE agencies within the State.”

What would Benjamin Franklin counsel?

Until such time as that bears fruit – or the Trump administration and national Republican majority changes things at the federal level, including via Constitutionalist court appointments, individuals will still be at terrible risk from “progressive” state and local official psychopaths, frustrated and furious that people they hold in contempt refuse to obey them.

Does anyone who values the right of the people to keep and bear arms think the infringements will stop without assuming personal risks, and with some of us paying the price of defiance?

Also see:

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.   You can donate HERE.

About Author

David Codrea

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Comments

  1. Chip 27 January, 2017, 12:22

    Maybe Cal, or Edwin, or Elias can help me out here. If the Fed can trump local gubiment on the “Sanctuary Cities” issue, why can’t they play the same card in dealing with un-constitutional gun laws imposed by the same wackadoos?

    Reply this comment
    • Fred Marsico 27 January, 2017, 17:05

      Shall not be infringed applies to federal and state governments. All gun laws must be nullified and/or repealed.

      Reply this comment
      • Tinker Unique 27 January, 2017, 17:51

        Look up the “Efficiency of Militia” bill (1902), and the “Dick Act” (1909), to find the TRUE meaning of the word “militia”, and the amount of guns a citizen CAN have… “The people” and “unlimited” are comparable> find out the FACTS about American law. Gun CONTROL is leaving ‘soft targets” targets for crooks. IF an armed intruder breaks in, a kitchen fork is NO GOOD.

        Reply this comment
    • Cal 27 January, 2017, 18:43

      President Trump is keeping his Oath in regard to “Sanctuary Cities” because they are not lawful and go against our immigration laws – his duty is to enforce our laws for as long as he serves as president.

      Since there was never delegated any authority over the people having, carrying, etc weapons – matter of fact, the US Constitution requires the American people to be armed and trained – he can probably take action, but, it really is our duty to do so as the trained and constitutionally educated Militia per the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15.

      What would be more in keeping with President Trump’s Oath and duties is if he asked the Congress to call forth the Militia, along with the doing the other duties constitutionally required of them, so that he can use them to…
      — Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
      — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
      — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
      — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

      George Washington: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government…, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” (“Sentiments on a Peace Establishment”, letter to Alexander Hamilton; “The Writings of George Washington”)

      St John Tucker: “The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;…”

      Color of law: The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

      The Bill of Rights lists SOME of the things that are NOT under the authority of either government – state or federal. Those were retained by the people, never delegated. It is also important to know that our governments were created to PROTECT the people’s natural rights. Because it is important to start recognizing legislation that is used against the people when it is “color of law” so that the enforcers will refuse, so that the people will not bow to the unlawfulness being foisted upon them.

      Read the Preambles – to your own state’s Constitution, to the US Constitution, and do not forget to read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.

      Preamble to the US Constitution: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      Preamble to the Bill of Rights: Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
      THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

      Misconstrue: be confused, be in error, be missed, be wrong, blunder, confuse, construe wrongly, … understand improperly. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/misconstrue)

      Declaratory: One enacted for the purpose of removing doubts or putting an end to
      conflicting decisions in regard to what the law is in relation to a particular matter. (http://thelawdictionary.org/declaratory-statute/ )

      Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

      Article 6, Clause 2: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, ANYTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING.” (notice that it says that included is state constitutions and laws.)

      Alexander Hamilton: “Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

      Richard Henry Lee, First Senate: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

      James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434: “The right of the people to keep and bear… arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…”

      Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed” and “everyone who is able may have a gun.” (Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,… taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805 (Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386))

      Thomas Jefferson: “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

      James Madison, The Federalist Papers: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

      Alexander Hamilton (concerning the supremacy clause), Federalist 33: “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines the supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution.”

      Alexander Hamilton: “There is no position which depends on clearer principles that that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

      Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788: “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people”. (The reason that he said “The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government,” is because it is in writing that those who serve within our governments are REQUIRED to use the Militia.)

      Joel Barlow, “Advice to the Privileged Orders”: “The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the *government*, not to *society*; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage.”

      Hope this helps.

      God Bless All, and Stay Safe!

      Cal
      If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

      Chief Tecumseh: “When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.”

      Reply this comment
      • Chip 28 January, 2017, 07:44

        “What would be more in keeping with President Trump’s Oath and duties is if he asked the Congress to call forth the Militia, along with the doing the other duties constitutionally required of them, so that he can use them to…
        — Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
        — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
        — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
        — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.” ~ Guaranteed to make the globalist head explode! And after watching him in action this week, I would not be surprised to seem him take such bold action.

        Reply this comment
        • Nick 30 January, 2017, 09:44

          I am composing a letter to the president explaining in part the how, what, and need for him to call it forth the “Militia of the several States” “to execute the Laws of the Union”. I will send a copy to the governor, and e-mail every legislator in my state. The problem is force of numbers. I’ve been working for years to convince the supposed pro-2nd community where I live that the 2nd amendment has 27 words, and that it is only a part of the Constitution, and state statutes that recognize, and elucidate the functions, powers, and duties of militia. They’ve been sold on the individual right, the ridiculous “unorganized” militia, and the National Guard. I’ve had limited success convincing a few, and even a few police see the benefit of militia, but most can’t be, and some are even downright terrified to speak the word militia. I was actually warned against doing so by a member of this organization.
          You can have Edwin Vieira compose a letter for us to send off to POTUS, but how many do you think will take the time to do so, or will even consider that it is the proper course in law?
          The NRA, and GOA have some 5 MILLION members, but you can’t convince their leadership move one inch on the issue of militia. Too much money in memberships, and contributions if you ask me.
          The reality is that when all is said and done, the demise will be, in great part, as much our own fault as it is of those who work against us. History teaches us this in great detail, but I wonder who is listening.

          Reply this comment
    • Bob 28 January, 2017, 06:32

      The Federal Courts can rule on the merits of individual laws if challenged by someone with “standing” having been affected by said statute. The problem we face with most state laws is that the Supreme Court has found that State and Local govts can “Reasonably Regulate” the use of firearms! This has simply been used to ABUSE our RIGHTS!!

      Reply this comment
      • Cal 29 January, 2017, 08:04

        The courts were NOT assigned those duties.

        They, too, must obey the US Constitution as the contract that they are under, Oath bound to.

        “Article 3, Section 1: The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

        Section 2: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;
        –to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;
        –to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;
        –to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;
        –to controversies between two or more states;
        –between a state and citizens of another state;
        –between citizens of different states;
        –between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

        In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

        The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.”

        Article 6: “…
        This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

        The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, AND ALL EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS, BOTH OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

        James Madison: “But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort; …”

        Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps… The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

        Judges have no more authority then the US Constitution and the state Constitutions give them. Usurpations are not only done by those who serve within the legislative and executive branches, but also by those who serve within the judicial branch. That does not make it correct. law, or even binding on the American people beyond that of which the enforcer of corruption color of laws use weapons and force.

        Basically, judges can go, and have gone, against the US Constitution; breaking their Oaths and refusing to do the duties as contractually given to them in writing. That is not using the constitutionally required “good Behaviour” while in office. That is the tool with which those in our past removed them by trial juries (before and after the US Constitution was created), and should be done so today when deserved. This was the way the PEOPLE removed judges lawfully, with charges and a jury trial.

        One thing that most here should have noticed over the years, it always comes down to the enforcers, which is why the framers required those who serve within our governments to use the people as the trained and armed Militia. That way they could never be used against the people except in a manner consistent with the US Constitution. There were Sheriffs, but they were chosen by the PEOPLE, not those who serve within our governments. When assistance was needed, it came from the people. That stops democide, police states, martial law, etc. It made our nation stronger and more able to retain our freedom. But we, our fathers and mothers, threw it all away by believing in the honesty and goodness of those who serve/served within our governments. That is an action that we must be careful to never allow to happen again.

        Reply this comment
      • Cal 29 January, 2017, 08:31

        “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356

        Understand that only those powers delegated in writing from the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution are the lawful powers of those who serve within our governments. Any other they give to themselves or to each other are usurpations, crimes, breaking of the contract and breaking the Oath they are under.

        The ONLY legislation that those who serve within our governments can make are those that are within the scope of the written powers, nothing else.

        “What is a constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established.” Van Horne v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304.

        “A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority.” Ellingham v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250.

        “The basic purpose of a written constitution has a two-fold aspect, first securing [not granting] to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined spheres.” Du Pont v. Du Pont, 85 A 724.

        “Legislators have their authority measured by the Constitution, they are chosen to do what it permits, and NOTHING MORE, and they take solemn oath to obey and support it. . . To pass an act when they are in doubt whether it does or does not violate the Constitution is to treat as of no force the most imperative obligations any person can assume.” Judge Thomas M. Cooley

        Reply this comment
      • Hotrod 30 January, 2017, 08:13

        Good point Bob. One must rise above the state level to get anything done about such matters. That would mean filing a federal action against Kate Brown, the attorney general, and whomever else passed these laws that violate civil rights. If someone would file a federal action the state laws would be stopped due to them violating your civil rights. Under “Prayer for Relief” it should state: Plaintiff respectfully requests and order and judgement: Declaring that the challenged laws and statutes violate the U.S. Constitution on its face…..Permanently enjoining Defendants, (et.al) from enforcing the challenged laws or statutes. Striking down the challenged laws or statutes ENTIRELY…”

        Reply this comment
    • Ron 28 January, 2017, 23:44

      Once a law is passed, constitutional or not, it remains law until repealed or ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Given the length of the process to have a court declare a law unconstitutional and the speed the anti-gun crowd can shove through new laws, they have the edge. Easier to pass a law than get rid of it. Especially in today’s political climate. The only option is to stop these crazy ideas before they become law.

      Reply this comment
  2. MadMagyar 27 January, 2017, 12:30

    I wonder how these bluebabies are going to feel when they lose 2/3 of the Oregon counties to the State of Jefferson?

    Reply this comment
    • WGP 27 January, 2017, 13:04

      Better yet, they go to jail. There is more of you than there are of them. Action trumps everything.

      Reply this comment
  3. Asadrew 27 January, 2017, 13:21

    Oregon has a constitutional exception from any state law for counties that file for “exempt status.” Last time l counted there were seven counties that have that status. This would be one issue each of those counties could assert their “exemption” from.

    Reply this comment
  4. dugtrux 27 January, 2017, 13:54

    Why dosent she just tell the de-ranged, and terrorists to STRIKE HERE>>>>

    Reply this comment
  5. WGP 27 January, 2017, 13:57

    I read somewhere by looking at the county map shown above, the blue counties are surrounded by red counties. The red counties would own all over land access I-84, US-97, I-5 and US-101 etc in Oregon. The north is their only way in or out, until they get to Lewis and Pacific counties which are red counties. East on US-14 is no option through more red counties. The Columbia River to the Pacific could easily be blocked at the Astoria bridge and bridges east. Food would have to be flown in. Power would be cut off and fossil fuels cut off. I read there are plenty of aircraft owned by red county resident patriots to own the skies.

    Reply this comment
    • Greg K 29 January, 2017, 11:40

      The Columbia River is “Corps of Engineers” controlled. Washington is essentially Conservative all the way down the river, although, we have been seriously compromised by conservationists and Land Use agreements from across the river. Possibly most important, there are conservative corridors from the ocean into the red counties all the way from North of San Fran to almost Olympia. An example would be Coos Bay or Gray’s Harbor, which is turning hard Republican.

      We have access, so long as all three State’s portions of the conservative halves, group up to become one new state. It might be time to petition our State’s legislatures and all of congress to grant the separation. I believe that’s the Constitutional Procedure……

      Reply this comment
  6. WGP 27 January, 2017, 13:59

    She is still complicate in the murder of LeVoy Finicum.

    Reply this comment
  7. Tuaca 27 January, 2017, 15:25

    That Bloomberg law is unenforceable. Brown is just using the cops as a shield to keep people from getting guns. She knows full well the “law is unenforceable.

    Reply this comment
    • Tinker Unique 27 January, 2017, 17:55

      IF gun CONTROL works so well, how do crooks and thugs STILL get guns “ON THE STREET” like they do drugs ? ANY cop knows this. THAT may be why most Sheriffs DO NOT agree with gun CONTROL.

      Reply this comment
    • Bart 28 January, 2017, 03:11

      Democrats are loosing Governors to Republicans ever year, hopeful Kate Brown will be next to go.

      Reply this comment
  8. Woody W Woodward 27 January, 2017, 16:01

    Is the Tyrant willing to sign an affidavit in which she agrees to accept full responsibility and liability for any injuries or deaths that may occur as a result of disarming her employees thereby rendering them defenseless? Rhetorical question … I think we already know the answer.
    [W3]

    Reply this comment
  9. Tinker Unique 27 January, 2017, 17:39

    Colorado state had a similia problem. The citizens signed petitions that required a special “recall election”, and had the “elected elite” removed from office. The 3d “elite’ person resigned to keep her pension before the election happened. THAT can happen in Oregon IF enough people care enough to get it done.

    Reply this comment
  10. Arch Stanton 27 January, 2017, 18:35

    JURY NULLIFICATION!!!!! If juries will vote “Not Guilty” these laws will crumble. Juries are the LAST check that the People have against tyrannical governments and laws….as long as we still have trial by jury. A judge may tell the jury that they cannot judge a law…..BULLSH*T!…….the jury is well within its right to judge against BAD LAW. Just because a law is passed does not mean it is good or beneficial. A juror answer to NO ONE but God.

    Reply this comment
    • Stewart Rhodes 27 January, 2017, 18:48

      Amen to that! Already saw a recent example with the acquittal of the Malheur defendants.

      Reply this comment
    • Brian 28 January, 2017, 15:59

      Right on Arch Stanton! Jan 26, 2017 Nullify Chapter 15: Nevada Beats D.C. by Turning off their Water

      Can states legally – and successfully – shut off water to a federal agency? Absolutely, it’s already been done, “The validity of Western states’ groundwater rights and the right to regulate water in the public interest is not a right to be taken lightly, nor is it a right that can cavalierly be ignored or violated by a federal agency.”

      https://youtu.be/gQeWS2GvqJ8

      Reply this comment
  11. aebe 28 January, 2017, 01:44

    President Trump and Congress need to take gun laws in hand and nullify them . Make it plain that Constitutional Carry is the law , and no state or other government has a right to defy it .
    Idiot progressives still read “well regulated” as an excuse to shred the Constitution .

    Validate your 2nd Amendment Rights … Carry

    Reply this comment
    • Charlie BROWN 28 January, 2017, 18:46

      aebe,the petitions are up and going up,at the white house petition board. Unfortunately there is a saying that nice guys finish last,and in this case I am afraid it is so.The radical left also have petitions up, and their signatures far out number ours. I would suggest that all Oath Keepers with a little nudging buy the management get on over to the white house petition board and start signing where appropriate.Or start your own for each state that is being infringed upon.My state right next door to Oregon is going for round two after last year.They are not going to stop, they are well funded,well organized and madder than a rabid pit bull.You can bet that if they get all of the coastal areas they will start working inland. President Trump needs to realize that he needs to watch our back and we his.

      Reply this comment
  12. Geoff 28 January, 2017, 08:48

    Contact your Congress Critters and insist they convince President Trump to have his DoJ sue those State infringing on the 2nd Amendment.

    Reply this comment
  13. JonW 28 January, 2017, 09:56

    I was considering a hunting trip to Oregon, looking for Elk, and I was prepared to pay the exceptionally high “Non-Resident” license and tag fees to to the state. But with this dingbat in charge, I think I’ll go elsewhere, to a state with same people operating the state government. The actions she’s committing to, have nothing to do with public safety, this is dictatorial political control of the state’s populace, nothing more.

    Reply this comment
  14. Trueman 28 January, 2017, 19:21

    I might move to Oregon just to join the army against her.

    Reply this comment
    • SheepDog 29 January, 2017, 08:51

      What army? We Oregonians can’t even muster what, three Oath Keeper chapters in the entire state? We can’t muster enough voters to elect oath keeping politicians? Pretty pathetic.This state will go as Ca and Wa have because not enough Oregonians care about their liberties.
      In spite of that, I will not comply.

      Reply this comment
  15. freedomson 29 January, 2017, 06:02

    ill spread the word to not visit Oregon to all my friends and family! There’s other states that will appreciate our money!

    Reply this comment
  16. Pete 29 January, 2017, 21:58

    All state employees? Does this include the Stat Police and Oregon Highway Patrol,

    Reply this comment
  17. Rick 30 January, 2017, 06:58

    Sounds like oregon just wants to be northern commiefornia. Let’s all pray for one of two things to happen. Either (1) when the big one hits commiefornia, it is big enough to take both states to the bottom of the ocean or (2) if commiefornia secedes from the U.S., oregon joins them, and then we ban travel from the entire left coast by declaring all left coast residents undesirables in the U.S.

    Reply this comment
  18. Mike 30 January, 2017, 07:31

    My greatest sympathy for the residents of a beautiful state. I consider myself one of the lucky ones having had the opportunity to leave at retirement and relocate to the great State of Idaho. We enjoy legal open carry and little if any heartache acquiring ccw permits.

    Reply this comment
    • Charlie BROWN 30 January, 2017, 19:40

      I was thinking that myself from time to time Mike,but if we want to keep the country in tact seems to me we have to put our feet down and fight for the whole country.Sounds nice to retire to a nice fishin hole and live the good life, and believe me in the condition I am in I can no longer run and gun.But they take the North East, CA.,OR.,and WA, Then with all of the people that they take they keep driving in and it is over.Although I am not a dues paying member that was one of the things that I heard (giving no quarter) that kept me coming back.So now what? Retire and get run over? Looks like maybe with this new administration we may be able to offer our services and expert advice (DR.Vierra,etc) we may be able to turn this back toward the Republic it is intended to be.

      Reply this comment
  19. Phillip_In_TX 30 January, 2017, 07:31

    Provide “suicide prevention material?” Doesn’t Oregon have “doctor assisted suicide?”

    Reply this comment
  20. AmericanGP 30 January, 2017, 07:56

    She is Marxist/ communist trying to destroy Oregon with her it’s the communist agenda !!! Time to kick her and the like out.

    Reply this comment
  21. Bisley 30 January, 2017, 09:26

    There’s a great deal of talk here about what’s right, legal, constitutional, etc. None of that matters when the leftist state government ignores the Constitution, and neither Congress, nor the federal courts are going to force Oregon to change their policy.

    If Congress were to pass some statute nullifying their laws (which they won’t), Oregon would challenge it in court, and probably win. It must be remembered that Obama has appointed 40% of federal judges, and that there are still a great many of Clinton’s appointees on the bench — which means that half, or more of sitting federal judges are leftist political hacks, and will not uphold the Constitution against leftist anti-gun policy.

    The Supreme Court isn’t any better. Unless Trump appoints two, or three really good justices (and can force the Senate to confirm them), the Constitution will not be upheld there. There are presently four rock-solid leftist votes on the court; Kennedy is flaky and unpredictable, liable to vote any way at all on whatever comes before him; Roberts has already caved to pressure and trashed the Constitution (Obamacare), and can be expected to do so again — leaving us with two solid constitutionalists against four leftists (who need turn only one vote to prevail).

    Unless there is a practical possibility of voting out the governor and/or taking control of the state legislature, Oregon is become California, and it’s time to think seriously about leaving — rather than comply, or risk prison for not complying, and pay taxes to support the policy either way. It’s time for some serious politicking, or packing.

    Reply this comment
  22. JohnQ1 30 January, 2017, 09:33

    Oregon is just following suit with Washington and both dream of being California. The Washington AG is promising to ban AR’s, magazine capacity limits, and wanting registration. We already got background checks shoved down our throats because of the socialist city of seattle and king county, along with a couple other counties. When you look at the maps showing how people vote you can see that every county with a college votes blue while the rest of the state is red.

    Reply this comment
  23. moby 30 January, 2017, 10:14

    These people that use there elected offices to go after the constitution and the 2nd. amendment should be held accountable for the oath they have taken. The 2nd. amendment is the only one that has the words SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.Do they know what these words mean? It seems are founding fathers have had to deal with this problem in the past.

    Reply this comment
  24. Ed 30 January, 2017, 11:08

    If they should disarm all the liberals out there our gun problems would drop to almost zero look at who have committed all the mass shootings and idiots running around threatening folks including our President they sure are not Republicans without us this country will go into mass hysteria.

    Reply this comment
  25. santa6642 30 January, 2017, 11:22

    That’s why I don’t comply.

    Reply this comment
  26. Ron 30 January, 2017, 15:08

    The Willamette Valley, from Eugene to Portland is full of transplanted Californians and their descendants. They are mostly liberal. They make most of the decisions for the rest of the state. I live in South Central Oregon. Eastern Oregon mostly votes conservative. The Commies up there put Kate Brown in office and this is the result of their voting. We will see 4 more years of anti-gun legislation put out by these Democrats, (commies, liberals, socialists, whatever you want to call them) who control the whole government in this state. We are surrounded by Washington and California and we will never be able to get away from their influence. We can only hope that Trump and his new court appointees will be able to do something about these Communists.

    Reply this comment
  27. AndrewT. 30 January, 2017, 15:39

    These libtards are just-ah belly ache-n for a beating.

    Reply this comment
  28. WILLIAM 30 January, 2017, 18:19

    THANK YOU FOR CALLING THEM FOR WHAT THEY REALLY ARE ## COMMUNIST## .

    Reply this comment
  29. Doug 1 February, 2017, 10:10

    I live in Oregon, and I can say that “most” of the population of Oregon, “will not comply”. First of all Gov. Brown was “First” put into office, when the previous governor was “recalled” because of some serious issues in his personal life. Brown was Sec of State, so she “stepped into” the job of Governor. “Real” Oregon citizens never wanted her in the first place. Of course, when the election rolled around, the “bulk” of Oregon’s population, is in the Willamette Valley, which holds a huge majority of Democrats and Liberals. As always, in Oregon, the “bulk” of the population continues it’s “rule” on the rest of Oregon, whether we like it or not. Brown got elected, against the wish of the “bulk” of the State, and now starts on her Non-Constitutional, tirade against guns, the right to own them, the right to “give them to your children (without their background check), or the right to buy and sell privately, without doing a background check, among others. Suffice to say that ‘NOBODY: does any of that, AND we aren’t going to.

    Reply this comment
  30. Green Giant 2 February, 2017, 09:44

    Waiting for the first shooting on government grounds that kills a person who had a CCW and could not carry. That will certainly be grounds for a suit of massive proportions. Make it person. Sue the cutesy governor.
    And by the way. This child is going in the way of Katie Couric. Cutesy does not mean intelligent. Here it means, their brains are not functioning and they have swallowed Anti-American ideas that will certainly have “unintended consequences.”.
    Note that the standard demographics are in play. A very few, high population centers of liberal thinking and control prevail over the rest of the people.
    Note. Oregon is NOT known for being a Christian center. It is known for being radically liberal, complete with euphanasia, abortion, socialism, disregard for laws, and drug use.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*