The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
The following resolution passed overwhelmingly at the quarterly meeting of the Democratic Party of Oregon in Medford this last weekend. Speaking for myself, it was a great relief that this passed, as the perception of the Democratic Party being "anti-gun" is one of the most prevelent false beliefs stated by those that have left the Democratic Party to vote elsewhere.
Special thanks to Chuck Butcher of Baker County for working the process of the Platform and Resolutions Committee at several meetings over a several month period to get this done.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party has long been dedicated to the preservation of civil liberties; and
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party has long been dedicated to the preservation of freedom and social justice.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. To recognize and support the right to keep and bear arms in Article 1 Section 27 of the Oregon State Constitution and the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America as an individual right not granted by the government, but rather guaranteed by the government.
Section 2. In recognition of the tremendous personal responsibility engendered by the right to keep and bear arms, the Democratic Party of Oregon further advocates severe penalties and their enforcement for criminal use or misuse of the right.
ADOPTED by the Democratic Party of Oregon on the 16th day of July, 2005.
Resolution submitted by Charles H Butcher III, Baker County.
|
July 17, 2005 |
Steve Bucknum
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Bert Lowry | Jul 18, 2005 6:00:15 AM
Resolution 2005-008 is a great first step. Now we have to do two things:
1.) make sure every hunter in every county hears about it.
2.) keep moving on this issue.
In Montana, the Democrats have taken control of the guns/hunting issue. In fact,last year, the Montana Republicans had a special "how to talk about guns" meeting to try to take the issue back.
How did the MT Dems manage to do it? They ran credible sportsman candidates like Gov. Brian Schweitzer. They started a Hunters and Outdoor Sports Roundtable. And they added a gun ownership plank to their party platform.
The result? Democrats control the governor's office, the state Senate, and have a tie in the state House. Not bad for a state that voted for Bush 59% to 39%.
Posted by: Doug | Jul 18, 2005 9:00:19 AM
I'm sure glad the Dems finally got this vital issue out of the way. Lord knows it has been keeping me up nights. Maybe now they can devote some attention to lesser important issues affecting this state like health care and education. If you need me, I'll be mounting a Gatling gun to my front porch. Not because I need one, but because it's my inalienable right.
How come when people talk about personal freedom they only want to protect their gun collection or divert my social security to private accounts? How about the personal freedom to end my life or marry my boyfriend? (Note to Reader: At this time, I and neither dying of a terminal disease nor gay)
From what I hear, they don't call it "Methford" for nothing. How about discussing your agenda regarding that in a meeting or post a story about that on the best progressive blog in the nation? (Kari, can I get some swag now?)
So my hat is off to the Medford Dems' "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach to battling the GOP.
Stop the planet, I want to get off.
D
Posted by: Dan Estes | Jul 18, 2005 9:21:04 AM
I'm not sure who they are trying to impress. The proof is in the pudding, folks. I still remember the picture of John Kerry striding in from the Ohio hunting fields with his shotgun in the last days of the campaign, trying desperately to look like a guy who wouldn't surgically remove the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights if given half a chance and some political cover. Didn't work so well, did it? Democrats simply have zero credibility on this issue. That's not to say there aren't many Democrats who enjoy hunting and the shooting sports - I hunt with many of them myself. However, they are not the ones who will be working the halls of congress to go after everyone's firearms. Face it, this posting didn't get past the first reply before someone talked about not needing an automatic rifle to go hunting. This tells me the move to look more gun-friendly is simply a ploy to lure voters. THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING! It is about freedom, plain and simple. It is about understanding the role and limitations of government (and I bet that really gives some BlueOregonians heartburn). Until I hear Democrats acknowledge that fact, I doubt you will see hordes of sportsmen change their party registration. You are trying to hoodwink a group of people who are very adept at distinguishing between elk droppings and bull****.
Posted by: Steve Bucknum | Jul 18, 2005 9:24:22 AM
Doug - had a good laugh, but seriously -
The meeting in Medford was not the "Medford Dem's", it was the quarterly meeting of the Democratic Party of Oregon attended by Democrats from every corner of Oregon. About 80% of the delegates to the Democratic Party (also called members of the State Central Committee) were present.
I and all true Democrats agree with your concerns about education, health care, social security, etc. However, to make progress on this issue, we have to elect Democrats in positions now filled by Republicans. In the Second Congressional District, we have to be clear that we are not an anti-gun Party if we want to replace Greg Walden. In the Oregon House, if we want to get to majority status, we will have to win seats in rural districts where there is a general perception that the Democratic Party is anti-gun (nurtured by the Republicans by the way), and we lose races based on this one point.
At the meeting in Medford, we heard from our liaison to Labor that one of the main reasons we are losing some of the young labor vote to Republicans (about 35% of labor votes Republican) is that there is a perception that the Democrats are anti-gun.
So, Doug, the road to health care, keeping social security, and making sense out of Education in Oregon has at least one starting point in the "gun" issue as strange as that may seem. Look at Bert's comments about Montana seen above.
And lastly Doug, we as Democrats do support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Oregon last time I checked.
Posted by: Dan Estes | Jul 18, 2005 9:48:05 AM
Steve,
Thanks for supporting my assertion that a roomful of Democrats pledging their support for the Second Amendment is simply an election ploy to retain and attract pro-gun voters, and not an ideological shift. You guys should really just stick to the drug legalization, anti-war, pro-abortion, assisted suicide, tree-hugging script. It smacks of desperation when you try to act on a topic that Democrats largely don't understand, and for which the party base has no stomach for.
Posted by: Steve Bucknum | Jul 18, 2005 10:22:29 AM
Dan,
Don't you love a good old-fashioned "gotcha"! Darn, those Democratics are expressing beliefs because it will do them political good! Wow!
Dah. As I listen to TV this morning and hear Karl Rove elevated to Saintly status, I can only respond to Dan by saying wake up and smell the coffee!
Yes it will do us political good, and the false statements made about Democrat's and the stance the Democrats have about gun laws is what motivated us to deal with this resolution at this time. That does not demean in any way the credibility of our stance.
Democrats have NEVER been against gun ownership in any official party stance, platform statement, or other official document. There have been times when it was Democratic Policy/Platform to do things like registration, etc., but NEVER to take guns away from people unless they were criminals. Generally the laws about gun ownership supported officially by the Democratic Party have been supported and passed in a bi-partisan manner with Republican support. Having said that, there are a few individual Democrats who speak for themselves and not the Party that say all kinds of crazy things. Same goes for Republicans. There are Republicans that are anti-gun - ever hear of Brady?
So, the Democrats in the discussion about this resolution never talked about hunting. A couple of people who spoke against the resolution were afraid we were throwing open the gates to completely unregulated gun ownership that would get more guns into the hands of criminals. It was pointed out that the second section of the resolution addressed this. When the time for the vote came, it passed overwhelmingly. Urban Democrats and rural Democrats alike passed the resolution.
So, this is serious. You can no longer legitimately say that we were kidding, not serious, that it was a smoke screen, or in any way demean what the Democrats have passed. We reaffirmed our real and long standing position to support the Constitutions of the US and Oregon. We reaffirmed our belief that gun ownership is a "guaranteed" right. There is no weasel room there. It is unconditional.
So, will I see you soon at a gathering of good Democrats?
Posted by: Bert Lowry | Jul 18, 2005 10:27:06 AM
Dan:
Your rational centrist facade is starting to slip. I suspect this resolution makes you nervous.
As long as the Republicans could (falsely) claim that Democrats are anti-gun, they could scare voters into voting for Republicans. If Oregon Democrats are clear that we support the 2nd Amendment, your job becomes harder.
Thanks for trying to tell us what our issues are. But I think we can decide those for ourselves.
Posted by: T | Jul 18, 2005 10:30:51 AM
Dan,
I fear you may still be suffering from right-wing "indoctrinitice" on this subject. I have been pretty left since Nam and having so many of my childhood friends come home in boxes for no good reason.
That said, I am not a hunter. I shot competative in College and have been a gun owner for over 40 years and have had a carry permit for much of that. It is about time the country realized that yes, there is a small faction of Dems that are "anti-gun" but the vast majority are not. Responsible is the key word.
Perhaps we need more bumperstickers to let the world know we are out here. Perhaps "I'm liberal and I'm armed" or "Do you want the conservatives to be the only ones with guns?". ;-).
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jul 18, 2005 10:31:45 AM
Geeze Dan,
Looks like you can't get one sentence in to a response before you deviate from the topic and go back to bashing in your usual style.
I was down in Medford too with an eye toward participating in the Rural Caucus, even though I'm not a delegate. There are, of course a lot of people in both parties that haven't been raised around guns and don't understand all of the terminology and details of "gun talk", but the fact is that Democrats have a long and honorable history of defending individual rights.
I'm real clear that the second amendment is not about the "right to kill Bambi". As you (almost sorta) pointed out, gun ownership was visualized by the founders as a check on a potentially overbearing government. I own handguns, rifles, and a shotgun and I haven't hunted for over 25 years.
************
To Doug:
I'm a gun owner, a supporter of Social Security, a supporter of gay rights, an opponent of the USAPATRIOT Act's provisions that allow government action against individuals that in any way violates the Bill of Rights. I'm also a supporter of publicly financed elections, affordable health care, and access to public education.
I've been out there fighting for these issues, working with various advocacy groups, writing to my legislators in support of SB1000 and other worthy initiatives, and putting my money where my mouth is. I hope that you can say the same.
**************
When you guys are building lefty or righty pigeonholes, don't imagine that all or even most of us fit your preprogrammed biases.
Posted by: Dan Estes | Jul 18, 2005 10:52:47 AM
"a gathering of good Democrats"? Despite my immediate curiousity if such a group could possibly exist in nature, I would probably have to decline. (Just kidding. Sometimes when you pitch up a softball...) I am curious, however, that you believe this resolution is so ironclad, so involate, so unconditional...and yet what will happen when your candidates can't support it? Will you denounce them publicly? Will you deny them funds? Face it, this resolution doesn't mean crap, or else you would have put some teeth into it. I think the Marion County Democrats passed a resolution to recall President Bush. Great chunk of red meat for the base, but doesn't really do much.
Also, I must give credit. Your resolution has two distinct parts: first, it declares the unconditional support for the Second Amendment. Next, it supports criminal penalties for the mis-use of the right to bear arms. Soooo...Steve....who will determine what "misuse" is? Ginny Burdick wants to ban CHL holders from carrying on school property. Is she violating the first part of the resolution, or is she merely upholding the second part about potential "misuse"?
"There have been times when it was Democratic Policy/Platform to do things like registration, etc., but NEVER to take guns away from people unless they were criminals."
I believe that you believe that. And when people like Schumer and Feinstein try to define what makes a "criminal"...well, you can understand my natural cynicism and total mistrust of Democrats on this issue.
Posted by: Doug | Jul 18, 2005 11:13:50 AM
I had no idea I was building a lefty pigeonhole. Or that I had pre-programmed biases. A thread has many uses, evidently, including self-discovery. For the record, before a label is applied, let me make it clear that I don't give two sh*ts whether people own a gun or lots 'o guns. And I realize that guns aren't just for hunting.
Maybe I'm just amazed that the 'Dems want to take away your guns' agument still resonates and a collective 'I knew it!' erupts from the GOPers. When, if ever, did a Dem try to take away a gun? There was the Brady Bill, but wait a minute, he was a GOP. Maybe he was just upset that he'll never walk again.
Yes, there have been limitations regarding automatic weapons. If this is the slippery slope that makes you break out into a cold sweat, well, so be it. I don't feel the need to own one, but if someone does, who am I to say 'no'. Ah, that's that personal freedom thing again. I will not impose my values upon you if you return the favor. You can have the freedom to own as many guns as you wish and I have the freedom to not have someone's religious dogma forced upon me in my schools and government and not have my home searched in the middle of the night by gov't agents.
And to Anonymous: I am thankful for your activism. I am in total agreement with your positions. As for me putting my money where my mouth is, I guess I have done that with my monetary contributions to school board, state, county and local gov't campaigns or with my time spent going door to door and phone banking for candidates in the last election with the Oregon Bus Project, advocating my elected officials on behalf of my college through my alumni association and planning informative, civic-oriented events through the City Club of Portland. Is that almost the same as you?
And Steve: 'we as Democrats do support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Oregon last time I checked.'
I hope I didn't give the impression that we all didn't support it.
Posted by: salvador | Jul 18, 2005 11:22:12 AM
Thanks for supporting my assertion that a roomful of Democrats pledging their support for the Second Amendment is simply an election ploy to retain and attract pro-gun voters, and not an ideological shift.
Dan, I don't want to speak for Chuck Butcher who put this resolution forward. I don't know Chuck all that well, but having spoken with him about this, there is no question in my mind that he is an ardent, even zealous supporter of the second amendment.
I personally do not support the second amendment for the purposes of maintaining a militia. I think that it is a much worse model for resisting tyranny than active, non-violent resistance. And I do not regard gun-ownership to be an inalienable right. But guess what? We voted on it in Oregon, and my opinion was in the minority in Oregon's Democratic Party.
What this indicates to me is that rural democrats, who are the primary backers of this gun-rights proposal, have sufficient political muscle within the Democratic Party in Oregon to pass a resolution for gun ownership that could have come straight out of the NRA's playbook.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 18, 2005 11:40:45 AM
Salvador... Would you care to share what portions of the text you objected to?
Section 1. To recognize and support the right to keep and bear arms in Article 1 Section 27 of the Oregon State Constitution and the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America as an individual right not granted by the government, but rather guaranteed by the government.Section 2. In recognition of the tremendous personal responsibility engendered by the right to keep and bear arms, the Democratic Party of Oregon further advocates severe penalties and their enforcement for criminal use or misuse of the right.
Posted by: Salvador | Jul 18, 2005 12:15:18 PM
Hi Kari,
This might be a fine point, but the notion that gun-rights are rights "guaranteed by government" rather than "granted by government" implies that these are inalienable rights derived from God, Natural Law, etc., and that it is necessary to the preservation of the union.
It's not really a big deal to me either way. My main point is that though I don't agree with any rationale for gun ownership that goes beyond hunting, legitimate self defense, and target practise, I deeply resent Dan's suggestion that the people who stood in support of that measure were somehow insincere in their support.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jul 18, 2005 12:22:22 PM
Sal,
Too right, and "about time" that the "rural Dems" are finally asserting themselves within the Party. Chuck's resolution passed by 79% of eligible Cent Comm voters, including many from the heart of the People's Republic of Portland. My thanks in particular to the Urban Dems who understand that the whole Big Tent concept includes the libertarian wing of the Dem Party.
I have the greatest respect for many of the initiatives that you've taken on a broad range of issues, and I hope that you personally, will in time be less free with the vilification of the pre-Ayn Rand libertarian Dems who count among our ancestors men like John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and many more of the Enlightenment's pioneering thinkers.
I hope that you will come to see that advocating personal responsibility as the duty of free citizens is not the same as ignoring those among us that cannot compete in the Hobbsian lassez faire society promoted by extremists.
Speaking only for myself, I think that we should demand personal accountability from everyone, and when people need help from gummint the attaching string and goal will still be the realization of a fully developed personally responsible citizen.
Posted by: RKBA | Jul 18, 2005 12:28:34 PM
As long as Democrats believe the Second Amendment to the US Constitution has something to do with killing deer or cops, they will be blatantly ignored as defenders of liberty and their shams to garner votes from gun owners will be fruitless. Molon Labe.
Posted by: BRoberts | Jul 18, 2005 1:34:11 PM
I am glad to hear of this news myself; though I remain a bit skeptical. As a gunowner, I definitely want more choices than just those offered by the Republicans; but the Second Amendment is a very important issue to me and the Democrats have yet to show they are serious about defending it. I hope this is a good first step towards Democrats changing their policy and not just trying to change the perception.
Also Steve, you suggest that Democrats have never tried to take people's guns away; and while that may be true for Oregon Democrats; Democrats in other parties have advocated seizing firearms from lawful owners - you can see examples in California and New York (California seized registered SKS rifles after extending the deadline on registration, New York City seized registered semi-auto rifles, and the city of San Francisco is currently considering banning and seizing handguns within its city limits). Combine this with support for policies that many gun owners oppose, even if they aren't blatant outright gun grabs and I would suggest that the Democrats have gotten their reputation the old fashioned way - they earned it. Here is to hoping this soon becomes a thing of the past though...
Posted by: Boats | Jul 18, 2005 2:07:33 PM
As a former Dem who left the party in 1994, I'll give my thoughts:
1) If this resolution had actually cost anyone in Portland their precious ability to meddle with gun owners, it would have been buried. The next time Ginny Burdick proposes a law that criminalizes the conduct of fully legal and totally vetted concealed carry license holders, will she be shouted down? Don't count on it.
2) When Portland gets around to their next generational attempt to exempt themselves from the statewide uniformity of the criminal code on firearms, is the state party apparatus going to tell them where they can take that proposal for a quick and noisy death? I seriously doubt it.
3) Where was the Party when the Oregon House passed a bar on lawsuits against gun makers when the actual wrongdoer engaged in criminal conduct? Silence. . . .
4) Will the party get behind an effort to make it totally legal for the law abiding citizen with nothing more than the odd traffic violation to carry a firearm concealed without paperwork or fees to the state? Not likely. Blue state Vermont has no concealed carry laws whatsoever. Want to steal the GOP's thunder? I'll bet not.
So let's get this straight. Words mean little. Actions speak volumes. Saying you support this and that, whilst proposing legislation that belies the comforting burbles means exactly nothing. They are getting away with a 2A reposturing in Montana because there isn't really a home grown gun control movement in that state pelting the legislative chamber with half-wit gun bills, whereas here in Oregon we have a rather noisy wannabe Chuck Schumer who is prominent in the State Democratic Party and holds a Senate seat.
You don't need Republicans "creating false impressions" about your party's gun bona fides. The GOP never proposes legislation to limit the rights of gun owners that one could tell the seasons by. That is wholly a Democratic penchant.
If the Democratic Party actually helped to pass pro-gun bills I might be impressed. All that has been accomplished thus far is a pretty pitching warm-up with all of the impact that the pregame tosses actually have on the outcome when the tosser's ability to throw strikes in the real game simply isn't there.
Just keep balking on getting realistic about the gun issue since you can't find the strike zone with an instruction manual.
Hunting? Seriously? About 80% of all gun owners don't hunt anything.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Jul 18, 2005 4:03:38 PM
I think we need some consistency on this issue. If the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the US and Oregon constitutions, then the right to bear ALL arms is guaranteed. If I have the god-given right to a Winchester 30-06, then I have the right to a Browning .50 caliber machine gun or an RPG-7. If a weapon is not outlawed by international treaty, an American should have the right to bear it. No?
Posted by: Brian | Jul 18, 2005 4:29:30 PM
Democrats have NEVER been against gun ownership in any official party stance, platform statement, or other official document. There have been times when it was Democratic Policy/Platform to do things like registration, etc., but NEVER to take guns away from people unless they were criminals. Generally the laws about gun ownership supported officially by the Democratic Party have been supported and passed in a bi-partisan manner with Republican support. Having said that, there are a few individual Democrats who speak for themselves and not the Party that say all kinds of crazy things.
HMM, seems someone forgot the AWB, Fienstien, schumer, kerry, kennedy, and all the ANTI fun legislation passed and presented to be law.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jul 18, 2005 5:02:55 PM
Right on Tom!!! I have a limited yield thermonuclear device mounted on an (extremely) short range missle in my back yard, just in case the neighbor's dogs crap on my lawn. So far, deterrence seems to be working.......
Posted by: Aaron | Jul 18, 2005 5:30:41 PM
Pat,
themselves within the Party. Chuck's resolution passed by 79% of eligible Cent Comm. voters, including many from the heart of the People's Republic of Portland
I as a part of the Mult Dems Exec Committee as SD24 organizer and co-Leader of HD 47, it passed unanimously at last Thursday meeting. It was a no brainier that this was a great resolution; and if the county of Multnomah would have voted it down, then there was going to be no chance of us as part of the Democratic Party of Oregon to gain anything in the rural counties in Oregon.
Now we need to ask Mr Butcher to run against Rep Tom Butler!!!!
Posted by: Steve Bucknum | Jul 18, 2005 5:32:49 PM
Brian has a point, I think I did overstate when I said the Democrats never supported anti-gun legislation.
Democrats did support Republican Brady's handgun registration laws. Democrats did join with Republicans to ban some assault weapons, but that law has now expired. Outside of Oregon, other States have done this or that that I cannot account for since I don't live there.
In other words, the Democrats have never really been an anti-gun party, which is what I meant to say. Some reasonable restrictions have passed. I for one had a concealed weapon permit for awhile, and I thought it was okay to have that law. - Which was a bi-partisan law. Democrats and Republicans have joined together in the past to pass reasonable laws regarding guns - doesn't mean Democrats or Republicans are "anti-gun". Really, for every "gun" law there is that has passed, it took bi-partisan support. So, if the NRA will kindly now go talk to the GOP, the Dem's have passed their resolution.
Posted by: Hal | Jul 18, 2005 5:44:41 PM
As someone who stopped voting for Dems in 1994 I would like to make it clear that actions are what counts - not resolutions or words. Kerry with a shot gun only fooled those that were already going to vote Demo to begin with. Did he really think gun owners were dumb enough to know that his record one very anti-gun? Until Demos stop insulting gun owners with that type of rubish and start to support the 2nd Amendment by passing concrete legislation that supports the rights of gun owners they will continue to be viewed as anti-gun. It will take decades of active support for the 2nd Amendment for the Demos to reverse the damage done by the anti-gun wing of the party. Passing this resolution does not even begin that process. So please get real.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Jul 18, 2005 5:46:52 PM
Pat,
"a limited yield thermonuclear device mounted on an (extremely) short range missle" might be an unfortunate combination, but my comment was not meant in jest. The mention of gun rights in the Bill of Rights was probably not aimed at hunters, but rather at the need for the populace [state militias, in reality] to be able to resist federal tyranny. Though muskets may have been useful for that purpose in 1787, hunting rifles would not fit the bill today. We vigilant citizens would need to deal with armed helicopters and tanks if the feds go bad, and so would require arms equal to the task.
Nukes might be overkill, but then, a constitutional right is a constitutional right.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 18, 2005 11:05:18 PM
Tom & Pat... I think Tom is right on here. Once we acknowledge that the government has the power to take away my personal tactical nuke, then the conversation about gun control is no longer about a constitutional absolute, but rather about a threshold at which a particular weapon ("arm") is too dangerous for society. Given that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact", I think it's clear that the question of gun control is a political one with gray areas, not a constitutionally absolute one.
So, while I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment is absolute, I don't believe the government should restrict gun ownership as much as it probably could under the Constitution.
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Jul 19, 2005 2:57:20 AM
Well, since I seem to have stirred things up a little, I'd like to make myself real clear.
I hunt, I shoot competitively, I have self defense weapons, and I have weapons with military purpose. I have absolutely no doubt why the 2nd was considered neccesary to Ratification, as a counter balance to a standing army. And since some of you scoffers weren't around to hear it, that particular piece of information was provided to the floor before the vote. The DPO did not vote in ignorance.
I am not responsible for, nor represented by Schumer, et al, I am an Oregonian. In any large group there are going to be policy disagreements and disagreements about principles. Do I disagree with Sal Peralta that an armed uprising is something abhorent? Absolutely not. Do I agree that free speech and press are far preferrable methods, absolutely. Do I believe that it's possible that future generations may have a use for the militia aspect of the 2nd, legislative activities from Rico on say yes. Do I think the folks the Republicans really represent are most likely to be that threat? Gee, I'm a Democrat, and guess what, pretty far left for a Dem. I believe that the DPO can take a principled stand on the entire Bill of Rights, including repair to damage already incurred and begin to return the Democratic Party to its position as a protector and enhancer of civil liberites. You want to do something more useful about that than scoffing, then quit bustin' my chops and give me a hand. I've talked to a bunch of DPOs and you guys don't know what you're talking about. But we don't throw out the people we don't completely agree with, "yes men" are useless for keeping you on track. The R's are starting to pay for that.
Does the DPO have the ability to control legislators? Certainly not in the respect that RNC has to spank them, that also creates some curious lock step nonsense like the Terry Schiavo business. But how does anyone expect legislators to know what the DPO's thinking is, if we don't tell them? And how do you expect to have legislators in sync with DPO if it doesn't create policy, develop candidates, and support them? DPO leadership is working hard to see that Rural Oregon has some muscle in the Party, and to move the Party agenda of social and economic justice forward, rural Dems have to be able to win, and when they do, guess who's talking in the Legislative bodies. Steve Bucknum has been doing some heavy lifting for us.
Aaron, I have no desire to be bankrupted by serving in the Oregon House, that's another issue that needs to be addressed. There are a lot of rural people who are impressed with Multnomah right now, and there'll be more as news spreads.
Posted by: Tim | Jul 19, 2005 11:01:51 AM
I found these replies to be very telling. Several of the posters here have made statements like,
"Democrats have NEVER been against gun ownership in any official party stance, platform statement, or other official document. There have been times when it was Democratic Policy/Platform to do things like registration, etc., but NEVER to take guns away from people unless they were criminals."
...which, of course, is pure propaganda. Gun banning, registration and confiscation have been a steady drumbeat in the Democratic Party for decades. Why can I not own an AK-47 in Califrnia? -because it is illegal there. Laws. Passed by Democrats.
80% of gun owners do not hunt. I doubt we will start voting Democrat until they start repealing these laws. Simple proclaimations won't do it.
P.S. I am aghast at the actions of our present administration. I do not support them. Yet I will not vote for a gun-control advocating canidate because I hold my liberty dear. Yes, it is THAT important!
Posted by: Boats | Jul 19, 2005 1:04:07 PM
The entire "tactical nuke" discussion here is indicative of why serious gun owners will not be breaking from an NRA friendly posture any time soon despite any Democratic assertions that they are now RKBA friendly.
A cursory historical examination of the term "arms" in the context of "bearing" them would in no way imply ownership of an area effect weapon like a nuke. In any event, no one need go that far to prove that the 2A is not as absolute as the most ardent supporters imagine it. It has long been the case that prisoners were debarred the use of weapons and generally it has been the case that mental incompetents have had their confiscated for the general security of society.
"Arms" means man-portable personal weapons, i.e. knives, clubs, swords, axes, pistols, rifles, submachineguns, shotguns, etc., which in the infamous U.S. v. Miller were said to be useful in the common defense. Pointedly, the Miller decision was not decided on whether the defendants had standing as militia members to bring a case under the Second Amendment. The only black letter law that is plausibly derived from that case is that a sawed off shotgun, absent further evidence on remand (which was never conducted as the defendants disappeared or died), was not useful as a militia weapon. That's it. That's all.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed by an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 was more of the same. In both instances, the rights of Americans to buy weapons without interference from the Federal government were sharply curtailed. That is the legacy of your party, one which continues today despite the latest resolution.
No one is either tacitly or explictly calling upon the DPO to throw gun controlling legislators out of the Party. However, in order to be taken seriously in this supposed effort to shift perception, a shift in policy also needs to be pursued in a rather high profile way. What that means to me is that Ginny Burdick can propose anything she wants, but if Democrats are serious about honoring their resolution, they would kill Burdick's proposals in committee or, at worst, the floor of the Senate, not relying on House Republicans or voters to kill off the more stupid proposals.
I just don't see things playing out like that in future Democratic caucuses and therefore I predict you will continue to have no collective credibility on this issue.
Your best bet would be to just leave the status quo in Oregon as it is rather than kick a sleeping dog. Guns aren't an issue here of late, but certain Democrats just can't help themselves from trying to get their rural compadres electorally martyred on the issue. The urban gun controllers never pay the price for their infatuation with useless public policy, do they?
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Jul 19, 2005 11:55:09 PM
Ah Boats,
You'd like to leave sleeping dogs lie, I prefer to kick them. The reason is simple, Democrats are far more likely to get off the gun control band-wagon than Republicans are to abandon their crony capitalism. No, I don't budge on the 2nd, or the 4th or the 1st or any of the rest of BOR. You can't kill proposals if you aren't elected, and if you care about simple things like social and economic justice, you have no voice at all with the Republicans. Your solution is that I single issue vote for Republicans while they kick everything else I care about into the toilet, well I'd rather elect a 2nd A Democrat. So, knock yourself out scoffing while I do the work.
Tim, you're aghast??? Wellllll...
Posted by: Boats | Jul 20, 2005 7:25:16 AM
I scoff only because talk is cheap. The inexpensive nature of the bluster here is revealed in the continual ducking of the true nature of your real perceptual problem concerning gun rights. You keep ducking how you "rural Democrats" would actually rein in Ginny Burdick or other Portland area gun control fetishists. Isn't the current Senate split 18-12 Dem-Rep? Just how many seats do you need to protect gun owners from your own party if the new 2A stance has nearly 80% party support?
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jul 20, 2005 11:22:45 AM
I'm with Chuck on this one. Both Chuck and I are gun owners who actually understand what the second A addresses. I am also not content to sit around cleaning my guns and whining about Ginny Burdick while the Republicans work on every other front to take money out of the pockets of my neighbors and I to give it away to large corporate interests, while the entire state government falls apart.
Who is the real threat to government of the people, for the people, and by the people? Hint: It's not a couple of misguided liberals from Portland.
Posted by: jj ark | Jul 20, 2005 11:41:59 AM
Kari writes:
"In short, I think it's critical that Democrats find a way to explain a simple idea: a one-size-fits-all gun policy isn't appropriate - guns are a problem in urban areas, and are less of a problem in rural areas. Sure, there might be some areas of agreement (no one needs an automatic rifle to kill a deer; and cop-killer bullets are, well, killing cops) but the gray areas are worth emphasizing."
Kari: I have to step in (and you know that I was out there...somewhere):
"Automatic Rifles" were outlawed in the 1930's. National Firearms Act of 1934, if memory serves. What you are trying to talk about is a "SEMI-auto rifle that looks menacing." For the record, a 30.06 has FAR more power than that same "semi-auto rifle that looks menacing." Further, that AR15 (civilian NON-auto version of the military M16) is a good choice to take hunting for the same exact reasons it is good for the battlefield: it is rugged--takes a licking and keeps on ticking, and it is accurate--can't have wounded deer, can we?
"Cop Killer Bullets" aren't legally available either: except that most hunting rounds (see 30.06 above) will blast through all but class3 ceramic body armour, essentially making them "Cop Killer" bullets. Unless we are out to ban all hunting as well as personal defense, this will be a sticking point. for a look at the levels of bodyarmour and calibers of cartidges they are designed to defend against, please see this. Futher food for thought is that a measly little .22 caliber (6$ at wallyworld for a brick of 525 rounds) can, and does kill when it comes up against a head, or medical treatment is denied or unavailable. Those are also cop killers.
Just a few clarifications.
Posted by: jj ark | Jul 20, 2005 11:47:46 AM
Doug writes:
>So my hat is off to the Medford Dems' "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach to battling the GOP. Stop the planet, I want to get off.
Be my guest, don't let Antarctica hit you on the way out.
Seriously, this isn't a BEAT EM issue. This is a BEAT US issue. The actions of some in our party ran contrary to the CONSTITUTION. The republicans are pinning us into the ground on this one issue. Say what you want about the NRA, but they are fast, huge, and effective. At the height of the elections, no less than 9 emails were going out every single day to millions of US citizens*, most of them voters. Every single one of those emails was on message (kerry will take your guns) and every single one of them were utterly redundant. How many...oh, maybe 100's of voters were swayed in every single state. How much did Kerry lose by????
*I am not now, nor will I every be, a member of the NRA
Posted by: jj ark | Jul 20, 2005 11:58:25 AM
Salvador wrote:
"I personally do not support the second amendment for the purposes of maintaining a militia. I think that it is a much worse model for resisting tyranny than active, non-violent resistance. And I do not regard gun-ownership to be an inalienable right. But guess what? We voted on it in Oregon, and my opinion was in the minority in Oregon's Democratic Party."
That is UNalienable, not INalienable. There is a historical difference.
Most likely, you already meet the governments definition of being in a Militia, and you didn't even know it, Salvador.
"This might be a fine point, but the notion that gun-rights are rights "guaranteed by government" rather than "granted by government" implies that these are inalienable rights derived from God, Natural Law, etc., and that it is necessary to the preservation of the union. "
Ummm...they are. Rights are derived from God (Insert Supreme Being of your Choice) --even Jefferson, a diest agrees. Please refer to Federalist Papers and the historical documents regarding the Bill of Rights and the creation.
So sorry that you don't agree with the Consititution.
Posted by: jj ark | Jul 20, 2005 12:03:13 PM
Tom writes:
"I think we need some consistency on this issue. If the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the US and Oregon constitutions, then the right to bear ALL arms is guaranteed. If I have the god-given right to a Winchester 30-06, then I have the right to a Browning .50 caliber machine gun or an RPG-7. If a weapon is not outlawed by international treaty, an American should have the right to bear it. No?"
Please look at US v. Miller. It is a very strange decision...but it is the only case law. Internal to the US, there are no small arms treaties that effect us.
Posted by: jj ark | Jul 20, 2005 12:07:13 PM
Pat writes:
"Right on Tom!!! I have a limited yield thermonuclear device mounted on an (extremely) short range missle in my back yard, just in case the neighbor's dogs crap on my lawn. So far, deterrence seems to be working......."
Don't you think a caliber weapon would be better suited to keep the poop off your lawn?
Seriously, tho, we aren't talking about the ability of folks to own thermonuclear weapons. The faster you realize that, the faster this conversation will go.
OTOH, If you REALLY want one, go ahead and build it. Or buy it. Feel free. *I* don't want the responsibility of maintaining a thermonuclear device, but you might be up for the expense.
Posted by: jj ark | Jul 20, 2005 12:14:08 PM
Tom writes:
"Though muskets may have been useful for that purpose in 1787, hunting rifles would not fit the bill today. We vigilant citizens would need to deal with armed helicopters and tanks if the feds go bad, and so would require arms equal to the task."
Hmmm...IED, anyone? How can a small populace possibly hold at bay the might of the US Armed Forces??? How could that POSSIBLY be the case? Is there any precedent? Lets see ONE example how a nation of 250
million with as many guns as people could stand up against our military, and hold them at bay:
Iraq
Viet Nam (French Attempt)
Viet Nam (American Attempt)
Somolia
Afghanistan (Russian attempt)
Afghanistan (British attempt)
Oops...guess its not as difficult as I thought.
No nukes needed.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 20, 2005 12:29:15 PM
Good discussion. This is an issue that Dems need to take seriously and find a position they can (mostly) all live with. The two extreme positions are clearly defined, and the GOP hews far closer to one extreme than the Dems do to the other. Tests for purity have taken the GOP to that extreme position, and Dems should avoid purity tests in setting their own agenda. It's an issue where you do have to balance safety and freedom.
Politically, it's a powerful issue. Dems could steal a large portion of the GOP constituency by taking a clear, reasonable stand on guns. For guys like Pat Ryan (and my dad), guns only become a deal-breaker when Dems go to the fringes. Partnering with hunters and cops to craft reasonable policy should be part of the Democratic mission in any case; but in terms of guns, it could begin to build a lot of trust among reasonable people who own guns.
Democrats should pass resolutions like Steve posted, but more importantly, they should be actively getting used to the idea that guns aren't innately bad, and in any case, they're constitutionally protected. Until we get clear on that point, we keep handing cans of gasoline to idiots like Michael Savage to pour gas on the cultural war.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 20, 2005 12:30:48 PM
That last sentence was gibberish, but you get the point. Damn uneditable comments!
Posted by: LT | Jul 20, 2005 12:55:02 PM
People forget how many gun owners were elected as Democrats--Mike Kopetski comes to mind. When asked where he stood on guns, he said he grew up hunting like all other young men in Pendleton. When asked why he didn't oppose the NRA, he gave basically the same reason. He was elected a state rep. and later defeated Denny Smith for Congress.
But the opposite is also true. Who defeated Jim Bunn, who had nasty NRA type attacks as a main part of his campaigns?
Darlene Hooley was a "3fer" when first elected--first woman to serve in Congress from the 5th District, first from Clackamas County, first not to have any connection to the NRA of all the members from the creation of the 5th District.
My point is this--most people are in the middle. As long as the Democratic Party is big enough for both Mike and Darlene, the party should be OK. But they are both friends I have known for many years. And I get as angry at those who assumed Mike agreed with them on guns without asking him (how DARE he think for himself!)and thus were hostile, as I get with those who say the only way a Democrat will ever win another election is for all registered Democrats to join the NRA. That's a little extreme.
Are our US Senators Wyden and Smith active NRA members? Or do they see other issues as more important? If Wyden isn't a member, how did he do so well across the state in last year's election?
Just something to think about.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jul 20, 2005 1:58:22 PM
LT,
There's a difference between supporting the NRA and supporting the second amendment. The NRA may not thinks so, but I'm pretty clear on the point, and I'm sure that many other progressive gun owners are too.
Posted by: Boats | Jul 20, 2005 2:16:01 PM
How'd Wyden do so well? Seriously? The DPO's problem is not in electing statewide candidates to any post. It is building anything resembling a durable majority in the legislature, which is defined in smaller districts than the federal offices are.
Hooley only beat Bunn because the latter couldn't keep it in his pants and put his girlfriend on the DC payroll. The NRA couldn't save Bunn, then again no one could.
I find it odd that some here think that moderating the DPO stance on guns is going to attract voters lost over the issue.
Like it or not, most of the people who vote their guns take a rather absolutist stance on the topic, so puffery like "reasonable" and "common sense" and "gun safety" coupled with the word "legislation" instantly translates as "gun control."
Most gun owners, even many of the Democratic leaning ones I know, absolutely despise being lectured on the topic by someone who can't even demonstrate basic understanding about what firearms are, and are not, capable of. Of course some dunderheads thought it would be a great idea to ban private party sales between non-dealers whilst at gun shows but then didn't ban the same private sales through personal contact elsewhere or via the classifieds. Such a move speaks directly to the cluelessness of the gun control activists. They heard about a so-called "gun show loophole" and by golly they "corrected" something that wasn't a problem and then failed to "correct" it completely. Is it any wonder that such activists are beneath contempt to the law-abiding gun owner? Yet you give them safe harbor.
Every gun owner I know is a law abiding citizen who doesn't appreciate being the left's whipping boy for every criminal misuse of a firearm. Sen. Burdick wanted to criminalize concealed carry at schools. Of course there is a total absence of evidence that legal carriers of firearms are a problem anywhere in the state. She of course held all of her hearings on the matter in Portland. How many more decades of being non-problematic are required to avoid demonization and outright undermining of the US and Oregon constitutions?
Again I ask you--how many state Senate seats do you require to protect us law abiding gun owners from yourselves?
Posted by: jj ark | Jul 20, 2005 2:54:14 PM
I will go ahead and name the elephant(s) in the room.
You know what we need to do?
Dump some politicos that can't seem to respect the constitution, and are actively trying to disarm law-abiding people:
Ginny Burdick
Bill Morrisette
Avel Gordly
and though it pains me to say this as she is a member of my "Tribe", Kate Brown.
these are the folks that bring up anti gun bills over and over and over. Whenever Oregon Firearms Federation sends out an update, it is the same names in the body. These folks are driving this issue, and are managing to turn thousands of voters AWAY from our cause.
When these folks are dumped we will actually get somewhere in our claims of being pro-2nd Ammendment.
Until then, I fear it is all window dressing.
Posted by: Steve Bucknum | Jul 20, 2005 4:31:32 PM
JJ Ark's comments certainly don't reflect my views, and I doubt that they reflect the views of the Democrats that passed the Second Amendment resolution last Saturday.
The resolution was not meant to be an internal wedge issue for Democrats, rather a statement of belief by the Party. We are not now nor were we ever an "anti-gun" Party. Underline Party. Elected officials have every right to their views. I would hope that mostly their views would reflect the position of their Party, but they have latitude for independent thought - after all we aren't Republicans! If a Democrat is not "Democratic enough" for our Party, then they are certainly eligible for being beat in a primary election race.
So, JJ Ark whoever you are, we are not making lists and counting votes about this issue. We are committed as a PARTY to supporting Second Amendment Rights.
Posted by: Boats | Jul 20, 2005 4:57:14 PM
You are the anti-gun PARTY! Why are you so afraid to admit it? A political PARTY is no more than the sum of its membership, and some of your more prominent membership is so virulently anti-gun that they are your public face on the topic despite your protestations to the contrary.
The resolution was not meant to be an internal wedge issue for Democrats, rather a statement of belief by the Party.
That much has been abundantly clear. A resolution with no force to it amounts to lipstick on a pig in this case.
Elected officials have every right to their views.
They are also members of a supposedly organized political party with a defined leadership and platform structure. It seems that in regards to your resolution, the only one of the committed gun grabbers in your PARTY who has any hope of "getting it" is Floyd Prozanski(sp?) down in Eugene. He voted against Burdick's boneheaded move to criminalize the ability of CHL holders to carry whilst visiting schools. He was quoted in May in the Salem SJ that he voted against moving Burdick's pet bill out of committee to avoid a "fractious debate" in the Dem Senate Caucus. For a gun grabber, he at least has a smidgen of sense.
I would hope that mostly their views would reflect the position of their Party, but they have latitude for independent thought - after all we aren't Republicans!
LOL! Your PARTY'S senate leadership's groupthink on gun control is no mean evidence of independence, let alone thought.
If your resolution isn't meant to do anything concrete, why all of the triumphalism about it?
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Jul 20, 2005 5:25:41 PM
jj ark wrote:
"Please look at US v. Miller. It is a very strange decision...but it is the only case law. Internal to the US, there are no small arms treaties that effect us."
I'm familiar with Miller, and it is a quite lame decision. It is clear that the Supreme Court has ducked an issue that determines how many people vote in state and federal elections. I think a clear, well-informed, and wide-ranging decision by the Supremes would be useful, whatever that decision. We need to settle:
- Do individuals have a constitutional right to own and bear weapons?
- What types of weapons?
- For what purpose?
Definitive answers to these would make things much simpler. We could get back to arguing about abortion.
Posted by: JJ Ark | Jul 20, 2005 6:15:20 PM
Steve writes:
"The resolution was not meant to be an internal wedge issue for Democrats, rather a statement of belief by the Party."
Which Party? The Party of Burdick or the Party of Prozanski?
The party of gun bill meetings held away from the capitol or the party of respect for ALL the Amendments to the Constitution?
The party that actually *enforces* its statements or the party that says one thing on paper, holding that paper to the light of day as an example of beliefs but then turns around and we have yet *another* OFF alert.
"We are not now nor were we ever an "anti-gun" Party. Underline Party."
As always, the first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem, and dangit...you are playing semantics, Steve. We have a problem in OUR Party, and that problem is the very one you claim we don't have as a Party.
"Elected officials have every right to their views."
That there resolution you are touting is welcome news to MY ears, but from your furious backpedalling here, it is clear that we are gonna keep up our grand losing streak, not to mention dig up some serious holes in the dirt. If someone is a member of a PARTY, they generally agree with the PARTY line. The reason I am not a republican is that I don't like to treat people like chattell (the 'pub PARTY line). I want this PARTY to WIN, but with Burdick and her ilk doing the same old, same old, and our PARTY line running in direct opposition to legislation they are pushing in the name of our PARTY, we will continue to lose.
"If a Democrat is not "Democratic enough" for our Party, then they are certainly eligible for being beat in a primary election race."
Not if the Party gives the incumbent all their weight.
"So, JJ Ark whoever you are"
I am JJ Ark. that is my name. Plain and simple. *I* am the voted y'all have to keep voting for the Party. My granddad would roll over in his grave to know I gave up on the Dems...but dangit...we are paying lip service to the Constitution, treating with less respect that a good fortune on a slip of paper from inside a cookie.
Having said the above, I would be happy to buy you a cuppa coffee and tell you how the other side thinks on this issue.
"we are not making lists and counting votes about this issue."
wow...umm...why don't you make a list and count a few votes...you would be unhappily surprised at what you found. The numbers bear out my arguements a heck of a lot more then they bear out yours (yeah, I know: lies, damned lies and statistics).
We are committed as a PARTY to supporting Second Amendment Rights."
Then we might want to reign in the relatively few folks endorsed by the PARTY who don't.
Posted by: Steve Bucknum | Jul 20, 2005 7:32:38 PM
There is a thread in this thread I find intriging. Apparently some right wingers are so used to telling Democrats who they are, they just can't stop.
Dan Estes who works for the Marion County Commission (all Republican) must have used all his break times at work to tell us Democrats what we believe. RKBA whose full email address is RKBA@demssuck.com (really it's "DEMS SUCK"!) wants to tell us what to think. And both "Boats" and JJ Ark appear to be very upset that Democrats would dare to say what Democrats believe, and each has come back to write a long posts to show that he/she knows better than Democrats what Democrats think - to the point of telling us what to do with our elected officials. Don't you just love the "Spin zone"?
Well folks, the day of the externally defined Democrat is dying. We are now in the process of getting very clear about who we are and who we are not. The Second Amendment resolution is one example. But it isn't the only one.
So far this year, the Democratic Party of Oregon has adopted a total of nine resolutions that either state our beliefs as a Party, or based upon our beliefs call for action.
Three resolutions deal with the election problems. One calls for adoption of secure election standards, one to strengthen the right to vote, and one makes further statements on election standards and calls for the appointment of an elections liaison within the Democratic Party of Oregon.
There are three environmental resolutions. One calls for the protection of the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, one for a national responsible energy policy, and one for a State responsible energy policy.
Here's one the Republicans really can't say much about: The Oregon Democratic Party has called for an investigation of the so called Downing Street memos that could lead to the impeachment of President Bush for treason. We have also called for a plan to bring the troops home from Iraq.
And of course, we passed the Second Amendment resolution.
For those who read this that care about the Democratic Party, we are also moving in the Platform and Resolutions Committee to change the Platform's Legislative agenda from a laundry list or wish list to a statement of principals and values as a way to more clearly state who we are as Democrats.
So, Dan, RKBA, Boats and JJ Ark - try all you want, we Democrats are defining ourselves now.
About a month or so ago, Kari put out a list of Republican blogs you can go to. You might work on them for awhile - - -
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 17, 2005 11:11:16 PM
Thanks, Steve.
I suspect that as the GOPers become more and more shrill on this issue ("more guns! more bullets! bigger clips! faster firepower! armor-piercing bullets! tactical nukes for everyone!") that we'll find the Democrats sounding more and more reasonable to Jane and John Q Voter.
In short, I think it's critical that Democrats find a way to explain a simple idea: a one-size-fits-all gun policy isn't appropriate - guns are a problem in urban areas, and are less of a problem in rural areas. Sure, there might be some areas of agreement (no one needs an automatic rifle to kill a deer; and cop-killer bullets are, well, killing cops) but the gray areas are worth emphasizing.
When it comes to guns, the Democrats are the party of personal responsibility and common-sense.
Incidentally, this issue is hugely important toward growing a majority here in the West. Hunters are natural allies for environmentalists.