United Liberty
Oregon legislators ignore Fourth Amendment to target gun owners
Tue, 02/26/2013 - 11:30am | posted by Jason Pye
If state legislators in Oregon have their way, certain gun owners will be subject to warrantless searches by police. That’s right, legislators in these two states have proposed bills that would rob these individuals of their rights simply because they happen to own an “assault weapon.”
Last week, I noted that legislators in Washington had proposed a bill that would allow for warrantless searches of gun owners who happen to own an “assault weapon.” That specific part was eventually removed after it was pointed out to the bill’s backers, who had apparently not taken it upon themsevles to read what they were proposing.
In Oregon, a group of Democrats have proposed new regulations (SB 3200) that limits the number of “assault weapons” a person may own and requires registration of these aribtrarily defined firearms within 120 days of the law going into effect. What’s more, the legislation states in Section 5 that the Department of State Police “may conduct inspections of registered owners of assault weapons and large capacity magazines to ensure compliance with the storage requirements of Section 4.” Those “storage requirements,” however, aren’t made clear.
That’s pretty concerning. Gun owners in the Beaver State would be targets for warrantless searches, which are explicity prohibited under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.
Even if these legislators manage to get this bill passed, the impact will be limited. According to a recently leaked memo from the Department of Justice explained that a ban on assault weapons is “unlikely to have an impact on gun violence.” Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped these Oregon Democrats, who are needlessly pandering to their anti-gun base, from treating law-abiding citizens like criminals.
I recently sent the following to the Rhode Island House committee considering the matter:
To the following representatives in the Rhode Island state legislature:
Representative Edith H. Ajello Chairperson
Representative Joseph S. Almeida
Representative Christopher R. Blazejewski
Representative Doreen Marie Costa
Representative Robert E. Craven, Sr.
Representative John J. DeSimone Vice Chairperson
Representative Donald J. Lally Jr.
Representative Charlene Lima
Representative Michael J. Marcello
Representative Peter F. Martin Secretary
Representative J. Patrick O’Neill
Representative K. Joseph Shekarchi
Representative Donna M. Walsh
Re. 1: House Bill 5573 (http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/billtext13/housetext13/h5573.pdf)
Re. 2: McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1521)
To the honorable above mentioned,
The Re.1 bill is, in its intent, both unConstitutional, and violative of several precedents in settled law.
For your edification, I offer you the following quotes:
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution…. The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down… a person cannot be compelled ‘to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the Constitution.’ ”
~ Murdock V. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942)
“The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.”
- People vs. Zerillo,[219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]
“When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and NO ONE is bound to obey it.”
- State v. Sutton,[Source: 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630]
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
- Miranda vs. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491,(1966)
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights.”
- Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.
“We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.”
- Simmons v. U.S.,[390 US 389 (1968)]
“The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
-John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802
Finally, there’s the most recent McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) (Re.2 above) which comes down firmly against any such act as you apparently think you may engage.
Now, if you desire to leave yourselves open to both civil and criminal charges by enacting your thoroughly traitorous legislation, then be my guest. But what you engage in is nothing short of high treason, inasmuch as all of you have sworn an oath of office to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, and the Constitution of the state of Rhode Island. You proposed bill blatantly violates that oath.
If you mean to change your state’s Constitution, then there is the amendment process. But your proposed measure is nothing short of a baldfaced attempt to bypass your state’s constitution with an extremely questionable law, and hope that nobody is smart enough to see right straight through just exactly what it is that you’re up to.
Most Sincerely,
I recently sent the following to the Rhode Island House committee considering the matter:
To the following representatives in the Rhode Island state legislature:
Representative Edith H. Ajello Chairperson
Representative Joseph S. Almeida
Representative Christopher R. Blazejewski
Representative Doreen Marie Costa
Representative Robert E. Craven, Sr.
Representative John J. DeSimone Vice Chairperson
Representative Donald J. Lally Jr.
Representative Charlene Lima
Representative Michael J. Marcello
Representative Peter F. Martin Secretary
Representative J. Patrick O’Neill
Representative K. Joseph Shekarchi
Representative Donna M. Walsh
Re. 1: House Bill 5573 (http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/billtext13/housetext13/h5573.pdf)
Re. 2: McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1521)
To the honorable above mentioned,
The Re.1 bill is, in its intent, both unConstitutional, and violative of several precedents in settled law.
For your edification, I offer you the following quotes:
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution…. The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down… a person cannot be compelled ‘to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the Constitution.’ ”
~ Murdock V. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942)
“The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.”
- People vs. Zerillo,[219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]
“When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and NO ONE is bound to obey it.”
- State v. Sutton,[Source: 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630]
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
- Miranda vs. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491,(1966)
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights.”
- Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.
“We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.”
- Simmons v. U.S.,[390 US 389 (1968)]
“The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
-John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802
Finally, there’s the most recent McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) (Re.2 above) which comes down firmly against any such act as you apparently think you may engage.
Now, if you desire to leave yourselves open to both civil and criminal charges by enacting your thoroughly traitorous legislation, then be my guest. But what you engage in is nothing short of high treason, inasmuch as all of you have sworn an oath of office to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, and the Constitution of the state of Rhode Island. You proposed bill blatantly violates that oath.
If you mean to change your state’s Constitution, then there is the amendment process. But your proposed measure is nothing short of a baldfaced attempt to bypass your state’s constitution with an extremely questionable law, and hope that nobody is smart enough to see right straight through just exactly what it is that you’re up to.
Most Sincerely,
Protect your 4th Amendment right by using this Android Application
“GV Secure” a new revolutionary Android Application that lets you protect all your information even the most sensitive information (text messages, pictures and videos) with complete security and confidence, in knowing that your private communication will not be compromised. We take great pride in ensuring that your personal experience is as private as you want it to be.
The application is available as a trial with limited functionality on any Android device; however, the sender and receiver both need to have the service. To learn more about keeping your text messages secure go to http://bit.ly/WjYW64
Who picked the photo for this article? It appears to be a collection of rifles NOT included in the assault weapon bans. Rather, they appear to be actual machine guns which are covered under an entirely different ban. Thanks for continuing the media misinformation campaign.
Post new comment