A great gun debate rages in Oregon surrounding the interpretation of the second amendment to the United States Constitution.
Constitutional Literalist will debate as to the intent and meaning of the document, as demonstrated through the variations of the document presented and ratified by the Continental Congress, and then later the Colonies (states) of the newly formed Federal Union.
Oregon pro-gun rights advocates state with conviction that the second amendment is very clear and leaves no room for interpretation.
As clarified and “ruled on” by the United States Supreme Court in a landmark 2010 decision: Individuals do fall under the amendments mandate of “ right to bear arms,” and that the right is not limited to “ a well regulated militia.”
None the less, a handful of individual legislators in Oregon continue their ongoing campaign to disarm the public of its modern firearms. According to the A.P., O.B.3200 sponsor State Senator Ginny Burdick D-Portland, has reported to Portland news affiliate K.A.T.U. that her office continues to receive thousands of threatening emails and phone calls from pro-gun rights activist.
As further reported by the A.P... As of Wednesday, March 6, Burdick has cancelled her town meeting schedule; this, in reaction to a UTUBE video showing her at home.
Burdick is clearly threatened by the radical arm of Oregon pro-gun rights advocates.
In earlier articles it was noted that Burdick folded to public reaction by “compromising” the initial bill, limiting its intent and purpose to school grounds and campuses. Not good enough for Kevin Starrett of O.F.F...
For “no compromise” groups such as Oregon Firearms Alliance, breaching what they consider to be the foundation of the Constitutional Bill of Rights is not acceptable. The group has adamantly stated that they will not accept any encroachment on, or modification of the second amendment. None!
In reading Oregon House Bill 3200, one could argue with little reservation that it is the most radical attempt (to date) to disarm or subsequently criminalize an otherwise law abiding gun owning public. The bill contains provisions that if enacted would make Obama sponsored gun safety legislation look like child’s play.
Despite the radical antics, public display of weapons and threats to disrupt government by protesting gun owners, in reading O.B.3200 Conservatives and Liberals a like, may find themselves siding with pro-gun activist as to the defeat of this sweeping disregard for constitutionally mandated citizens’ rights.
As to the interpretation of the 2nd amendment: The glitch in the document is one of punctuation. In the interpretation of written contract law, the placement of a coma or a period in the structure of a sentence, can dictate or change the initial intended meaning and subsequent directive of that document.
Such is the case with the legal interpretation of the second amendment to the Constitution. Due to a transcribed error of a copy of the original document; signed by the federation of states and duplicated for distribution and ratification by individual state representatives not present at the initial signing. The debate as to the documents interpretation continues on to this date.
Note: Asked by this Examiner for an interview, Oregon Firearms Alliance opted not to comment at this time due to a schedule over-load. As stated by Executive Officer Kevin Starrett “things are a bit crazy right now.” Indeed they are sir!
Oregon State Senator Burdick is unavailable for comment at his time. She too as they say remains “under the gun!”
Comments