Connect with us


America’s Toughest Gun Law Heads To Court Next Week

America's Toughest Gun Law Heads To Court Next Week

( – The “most extreme” gun control law in the U.S., an Oregon law, will come on trial next week in a case that has attracted the attention of both proponents and opponents of firearms.

“I have never seen this many people so interested in a legal proceeding,” said attorney Tony Aiello Jr. on Fox News.

Aiello, defending a couple of gun owners from Harney County contesting initiative 114 under the Oregon Constitution, continued, “This case is about a bare majority of voters adopting a poorly-written ballot initiative that erodes, and I would argue erases a constitutional right.”

Measure 114 was approved by Oregonians in November with 50.65% of the vote, despite only six of the state’s 36 counties having voted in favor of it.

The legislation, which organizations like the legislative branch of the NRA called “the nation’s most extreme gun control Initiative,” makes it necessary to obtain a firearm permit and outlaws the sale of magazines that can store more than 10 rounds.

However, the law has not yet come into force due to recent federal and state-level legal challenges.

According to a ruling made in July by federal judge Karin Immergut, Oregon’s law adheres to a tradition in the United States of “regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing the plaintiffs’ appeal of Immergut’s decision.

For gun owners Joseph Arnold and Cliff Asmussen from Harney County, Aiello will appear in court on Monday and make the case that Measure 114 is unconstitutional under the Oregon Constitution because it would serve as an outright ban.

The initiative was created by the interfaith organization Lift Every Voice Oregon. It gathered over 130,000 signatures to get it on the ballot last autumn.

According to the group, a permit-to-purchase system will lessen shootings, suicides, and other violent crimes.

“When our neighbors are bleeding, we cannot stand idly by,” Rev. Mark Knutson, one of the chief petitioners for the measure, previously told The Oregonian. “We had an imperative to act.”

Emails asking for interviews with Lift Every Voice Oregon representatives went unanswered.

After the law was implemented late last year, there was an increase in gun sales, and Oregon State Police received hundreds of new requests for background checks every day.

Bryan Fitzgerald, owner of a pawn store in Salem, told Fox News that he had difficulty keeping guns on the shelves for an extended period.

He thinks firearms sales, which once comprised around 30% of his business at Elite Buyers N.W., now comprise between 50% and 60% of total sales.

“Ballot Measure 114 really just made everything just absolutely crazy,” he added.

Fitzgerald is keeping a careful eye on the legal battles around the measure. Still, he acknowledges that he is in a better position than many gun dealers because his pawn store includes various items, including tools, jewelry, and electronics.

“If we were just a gun shop, I would be really, really scared,” he said. “I wish the people that were making laws about firearms weren’t anti-firearm.”

The permit system is the focal point of much of the criticism of the measure.

Measure 114 imposes much stricter requirements than what is currently needed to even obtain a concealed handgun license in Oregon, requiring prospective gun buyers to complete an “in-person demonstration of the applicant’s ability to lock, load, unload, fire and store a firearm before an instructor certified by a law enforcement agency.”

“No training programs in the state satisfy all permission requirements,” according to police and sheriffs’ statements from December.

Fitzgerald said he has regular communication with law enforcement, who have assured him that nothing has changed.

However, Oregon State Police did not answer whether similar programs had been introduced since then.

However, Aiello won’t be allowed to bring up that fact in court.

Circuit Judge Robert S. Raschio granted the state’s request to exclude claims that if Measure 114 is approved, police could not process permits swiftly because they would be based solely on conjecture.

The state added that the measure “provides a clear, speedy remedy” if Oregonians have delayed or denied permits.

The vote item language states that individuals who have their permit applications rejected or not processed within 30 days may file a petition with their local circuit court.

“I’m just not going to guess what the program is going to look like,” Raschio said, according to The Oregonian.

“I find it persuasive that the case law says that you can’t speculate how a law is going to be applied,” he added, “and this law has never been applied to anyone.”

Raschio, however, also won the gun owners by accepting their requests to bar testimony about the destructiveness of high-capacity magazines, the success of other states’ permit-to-purchase schemes in lowering shootings, or affidavits from victims about the death of loved ones in shootings.

The trial is anticipated to go until the following Friday. Regardless of the result, Aiello asserted that both sides in the controversy expected the matter to eventually go before the Oregon Supreme Court.

Copyright 2023.

Continue Reading


Democrat Mayor Welcomes Illegals to Denver


During a recent interview with CNBC, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston’s comments regarding the city’s approach to immigration underscore a troubling trend of prioritizing the interests of migrants over the well-being of American citizens.

Johnston’s admission that Denver is grappling with an influx of migrants is a damning indictment of the city’s failed open-door policies. Rather than acknowledging the inherent risks and challenges associated with unchecked migration, Johnston attempts to portray Denver’s approach as a delicate balancing act between compassion and pragmatism. However, his words betray a dangerous naivety that threatens to undermine the safety and prosperity of Denverites.

By championing an ideology of unlimited hospitality, Denver has effectively placed the burden of its misguided altruism squarely on the shoulders of its own citizens. Johnston’s assertion that the city is proud of its ability to manage the migrant crisis is not only arrogant but also deeply troubling. Instead of celebrating the city’s failure to control its borders, Denver should be prioritizing the needs and concerns of its own residents.

Johnston’s plea for federal assistance serves as a thinly veiled attempt to absolve Denver of its responsibility for the consequences of its reckless immigration policies. It is outrageous that hardworking taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for the city’s misguided generosity. Denverites should not be forced to accept cuts to city budgets and services in order to accommodate migrants who enter the country illegally.

Furthermore, Johnston’s insistence on portraying migrants as victims deserving of unwavering support only serves to exacerbate the problem. By perpetuating the myth of the noble migrant in need of rescue, Johnston glosses over the very real dangers and disruptions caused by uncontrolled immigration. Denverites deserve better than a mayor who prioritizes virtue signaling over their safety and prosperity.

It is time for Johnston and other proponents of open borders to face the harsh reality of their policies. Unrestricted immigration poses serious threats to national security, public safety, and economic stability. Denver cannot continue down this reckless path without risking irreparable harm to its own citizens.

In light of these challenges, it is imperative that Denver enact sensible immigration policies that prioritize the needs and interests of American citizens. This includes strengthening border security, enforcing immigration laws, and implementing measures to deter illegal immigration. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust placed in Johnston by the people of Denver.


Illegals Get the VIP Treatment from Biden's DHS!

POLL: Should American cities welcome illegals?


Continue Reading


Texas Dem. Rep: No Taxes For Black Americans


In a recent episode of the “Black Lawyers Podcast,” Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a Democrat from Texas, ignited a firestorm of controversy with her proposal to exempt Black Americans from paying taxes as a form of reparations. This suggestion has triggered widespread outrage among conservatives, who see it as yet another attempt to further racialize American politics and deepen divisions within society.

Crockett’s proposition, which she herself admitted may not be successful due to the fact that many within the Black community are already struggling financially and may not be paying taxes, has been met with condemnation from conservative voices across the country. Critics argue that such a plan would not only be ineffective in addressing the underlying issues faced by Black Americans but would also exacerbate racial tensions and perpetuate a victimhood narrative.

By singling out one racial group for special treatment through tax exemptions, Crockett’s proposal threatens to further polarize an already divided nation along racial lines. Conservatives view this as yet another example of the left’s obsession with identity politics, where race takes precedence over individual merit and personal responsibility.

Moreover, Crockett’s suggestion of tax exemptions as a form of reparations is seen as deeply misguided and unfair. Conservatives argue that reparations, if they are to be considered at all, should be based on need and merit, rather than race. By proposing blanket tax exemptions based solely on race, Crockett fails to address the complex socioeconomic factors that contribute to inequality and disadvantage in America.

Conservatives also express concern about the lack of consistency and coordination between federal and state approaches to reparations. Crockett’s call for tax exemptions at the federal level raises questions about how such measures would interact with existing state-level initiatives, potentially leading to confusion and inequity in the distribution of resources.

As the debate over reparations continues to intensify, conservatives are calling for a more thoughtful and inclusive approach that focuses on addressing the root causes of inequality and promoting economic opportunity for all Americans, regardless of race. Crockett’s proposal, they argue, only serves to further entrench racial divisions and undermine efforts to achieve genuine unity and progress in the United States.



POLL: Should the federal government exempt black Americans from taxes?

Continue Reading


Whoopi Goldberg Claims Conservatives Want to “Bring Back Slavery”


In a recent episode of ABC’s “The View,” Whoopi Goldberg stirred controversy with her startling claim that some Republicans are inclined to “bring slavery back.” The comment, made during a discussion about the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to reinstate an 1864 abortion ban, has sparked widespread condemnation, with critics lambasting Goldberg for her inflammatory and unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Goldberg’s assertion, delivered in the heat of the panel discussion, has been roundly denounced as not only inflammatory but also deeply irresponsible. By equating Republican policies on abortion with a desire to resurrect one of the darkest chapters in American history, Goldberg not only demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the issues at hand but also showcased a troubling disregard for reasoned discourse.

Conservative voices have been particularly vocal in their condemnation of Goldberg’s remarks, highlighting the egregious nature of her comparison and the harm it does to meaningful dialogue. They argue that such hyperbolic and baseless accusations only serve to further polarize an already divided political landscape, making it increasingly difficult to find common ground on important issues.

Moreover, critics have pointed out the dangerous precedent set by Goldberg’s rhetoric, warning of the potential consequences of allowing such inflammatory statements to go unchallenged. They argue that by indulging in sensationalism and distortion, Goldberg not only does a disservice to the public discourse but also undermines the credibility of her own platform.

In the wake of the controversy, Goldberg has faced mounting pressure to retract or clarify her remarks, with many calling on her to apologize for the offense caused. However, as of yet, Goldberg has remained steadfast in her position, offering no indication of contrition or acknowledgment of the harm caused by her words.

Goldberg’s comments are part of a greater problem in American media and politics: One where conservative Americans are routinely demonized for their beliefs without consequence. This rhetoric should alarm all patriotic Americans interested in the free and honest discussion of ideas and politics.


POLL: Do you think conservatives want to bring back slavery?


Continue Reading