Jeff Merkley on 2nd Amendment Rights

The campaign for Jeff Merkley, Oregon Democratic Candidate for Senate, has sent out the following statement on Merkley's views on gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment. It is published here without edits.

For more information, please visit www.jeffmerkley.com.

------------------------------

Jeff Merkley on the 2nd Amendment

Jeff Merkley believes in increasing personal freedom by keeping government out of people's bedrooms and out of their gun cabinets.

Merkley believes government works best when it is promoting personal freedom and responsibility, not trying to impede by getting involved in people's personal lives.

Merkley is a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and as Oregon's next US Senator he will work to protect the right of individuals to own guns.

He believes we need to focus our efforts on enforcing the laws we already have on the books. And we need to close loopholes that allow guns to get into the hands of criminals. This is why he strongly supports a national law requiring back ground checks at gun shows.


(End of Statement)

Steve Novick for Senate - Statement on Firearms and the 2nd Amendment

Oregon Democratic Senate Candidate, Steve Novick, sends us the following statement regarding his views on the 2nd Amendment. It is printed here without editing.

For more information, please view Novick for U.S. Senate.

----------------------------------------

NOVICK FOR SENATE - Statement on Firearms and the 2nd Amendment

"Growing up in rural Oregon, I have a deep appreciation of the importance of firearm ownership for many Americans. It is my pledge as Oregon’s next senator to support sensible gun safety measures, while preserving the rights of lawful Americans to possess and use firearms. In addition, it is my pledge to always provide an open door for Oregonians to register their concerns and priorities and that pledge extends to all firearm owners.

Generally, I think that Clinton-era federal laws struck the right balance between the constitutional rights of firearm owners and concerns about public safety regarding the dangerous or illegal use of firearms. I believe that the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights guarantees the right of individuals to own and use firearms. As I have said frequently on the campaign trail, progressives can’t pick and choose what part of the Constitution they support. If you stand up for the First, Fourth or Fifth Amendments, you need to stand up for the Second too.

My campaign is founded on upholding consistent principles and being honest with voters about the issues and choices we face as a nation. I know from personal experience that the vast majority of firearm owners are responsible, law-abiding citizens who pose no threat to others and regard guns as an important part of their daily life – either for protection or recreation. In my mind, it is also basic common sense to recognize that the realities of firearm ownership are very different for those living in rural communities to those living in our urban areas – yet absolutists on both sides of the issue fail to recognize this distinction. It is my commitment to offer sensible, fair representation of Oregonians when it comes to gun safety and gun rights issues in the Senate."

(End of Statement)

Obama, Clinton Positions on Firearms - In their own words

I've been cruising YouTube and found a couple interesting videos showing the two remaining Democratic presidential candidate's positions on gun control.

First, here's Obama, in his own words:


And here's Clinton, Obama, and Edwards (what the heck) answering a gun rights question at a pre-Nevada joint interview:


These videos are both worth watching in full.

Unfortunately, I didn't hear much about holding criminals responsible for breaking gun laws, unless the oft-mentioned "rogue gun dealers" are included. A recent post on this blog (see "Lock em up!") quoted a Portland shooting suspect as saying guns on the street are coming from break-ins, not "rogue dealers" or the so-called "gun show loophole." I think that's probably the case. If you see one of the candidates, try to mention that. My feeling is simply that neither of our candidates knows much about guns (none seem to know the difference between semi- and full-auto fire), and the best thing that can happen for the party is a strong decision from the Supreme Court in D.C. vs. Heller--a ruling strong enough to make political attacks on gun rights a hopeless waste of political capital by anyone.

Keeping my fingers crossed at this point, but if you do get a candidate's ear, please try to educate. Health care reform, a balanced budget, a way out of Iraq and restoration of our national standing and reputation, equal rights, economic justice, and all the rest of the main Democratic agenda are too important to lose over a lack of understanding or appreciation of basic constitutional rights.

Molon labe.

They may know firearms law, but do they know firearms?

The DC vs Heller 2nd-Amendment case, which has the potential to completely change the powers of local, state, and national government to regulate or even ban firearms, was heard before SCOTUS yesterday.

For an interesting perspective on the proceedings and qualifications of both the lawyers who argued the case and the justices who heard it, see this link at the Oregon Firearms Federation, which ponders the question of what kind of gun laws we'd have if the 2nd Amendment were interpreted by those who actually know something about firearms.

On the positive side, this excerpt by Justice Scalia is worth noting:

"[But] why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "

Molon labe.

Hot Rod Re-loads For Vaquero .45 Colt and Ruger No1 45-70

****Despite the title, some of you are coming in from searches for entirely other firearms. These are specialized firearms and this data is completely dangerous in other firearms****

Hot rodding loads is a very iffy proposition taken from the pressure capabilities of a firearm and the published load data pressures. Due to liability concerns both numbers are safe and reliable along with a built in safety margin. A good condition firearm loaded to the published maximum load table for that firearm is safe, well within a margin of minor loading errors and temperature effects. Exceeding load table data is something to be done with great care, if at all. I do not recommend doing it and anyone who does so should be aware of the risks, starting with a damaged firearm and going to serious injury and death. If that does not scare you...

I have a Ruger Bisley Vaquero in .45 Colt with 5.5 inch barrel, a new and very nicely put together revolver. A local company, Oregon Trail Bullet Co makes Lazer Cast bullets, these particular cast bullets are .452 diameter 360 grain gas checked with copper base semi-wad cutters. Gas checking is accomplished with o-rings and the lead is silver alloyed to increase hardness without brittleness. The load tables call for a max load of 22.5 grains H110 with a velocity of 1221 fps. Brass was once fired PMC +P and CCI Magnum Pistol Primers. This round is a handful and I have very strong and tough hands. I have a hammer bite mark on the back of my hand just off the side of my thumb, I shoot single handed. These are very intense rounds, at twenty five yards the round went through the tread face of a steel belted semi tire (10-22) and out the tread on the opposing side at the max diameter (approx 40 inches), tearing a half-dollar sized hole. That might be enough.

I moved the loads up by 0.5 grains to a total of 24 grains. I built each of those 0.5 grain increases and fired them by one round loads each firing from the first increase and checked each round carefully for case condition, bulged primer or case or any signs of cracking and during extraction whether there was any sticking. The cases showed no sign of damage although the extractor rod was required for removal on the 23.5 & 24 grain loads, the push required was minimal. Let me be very clear, this revolver is in known new condition and was checked with each firing and temperatures were just below 40F. These rounds are a very intense shooting experience, the Bisley design makes ordinary heavy load recoil much more manageable than other designs, at the max table load barrel climb is extreme, note the hammer bite. The two upper over loads result in not only that extreme muzzle climb but also in the revolver winding up turned on its side from barrel twist rate. This makes a second shot time consuming and difficult. Note that I shoot single handed, though I am doubtful a two handed grip would make any appreciable difference. I don't think the overloads are needed, the penetration demonstrated by the max loads is sufficient for anything short of grizzly or Alaskan Browns, unless as a last measure. The bullet manufacturer tested this round at its max load and achieved 26 inches penetration in a ballistic gel block. ****Please note this is a new model Ruger Bisley Vaquero**** the only other make strong enough is a Thompson Contender. If you own another .45 Colt it is important to plainly mark each individual round, I used black permanent magic marker on the primer base, these rounds will damage or destroy most models with very serious injury probable.

The Ruger No1 in 45-70 is a light rifle for its caliber and though short achieves that through the absence of a bolt mechanism, it is a breech loader falling block. This rifle is capable of high pressures, 50K CUP is the published data. The bullet is .458 diameter and the bullets I used are 500 grain Speer jacketed soft round nose. Per Lyman reloaders handbook for Ruger No 1 & 3 -ONLY - using IMR 4895 the max load is 57 grains generating 39K CUP and 1897 fps. I moved the load up to 58 grains, fired one and checked for case damage. The case ejected easily and showed no sign of any damage. The damage was all mine, scuffs on the back of my fingers from the lever and a nice sized knot on my right cheek from the stock, my shoulder only mildly tender. My reaction - Holy Mackerel. I was shooting from a bench so my position was not optimal for this heavy round's recoil. I was shooting at a 100yd target on a 200 yd range position, the backstop for 200yds is approx 240 yds, the bullets threw fist sized dirt clods and left holes in the ground plainly visible to the naked eye. These are not target shooting rounds beyond what is needed to zero them. I set windage and approximate elevation with standard 400 grain "any rifle" factory rounds, these are soft slow rounds, going about 1000 fps, they are quite capable of taking a deer. The hot rod 500 grains will kill anything in North America, the draw back is that this is a single shot rifle, requiring a breech reload after having the snot knocked out of you. Because even at a pushed velocity the rounds will not exceed 2000 fps the drop at 200 yards is considerable which puts dangerous game into fairly close proximity. An enraged Alaskan Brown bear can cover 100 yds very quickly, lacking a second shot would be bad. This is a beautiful powerful rifle but it has limits. The 45-70 is the oldest commonly used cartridge, a straight tapered rimmed cartridge which means that for resizing the cases should be lubricated, even with carbide dies, or crushing is possible. The penetration capability of a 500 grain round nose bullet is extraordinary and bullet carry after target strike is a real consideration, what is on the other side of the biggest bull elk is at risk with this sort of round.

If you will insist on trying these hot rods, be aware that they were tested in known new firearms of high quality manufacture and with CUP ratings vastly superior to other more common ones. Use of this loading in any other firearm or one of these in poor condition is a recipe for disaster. Best practice is to follow loading data from reputable loading books.

Lock em up!

My morning edition of the Portland Oregonian metro section had coverage of another drive-by shooting yesterday in our fair city. Nothing remarkable about that, alas. But the article is worth a close read:

"A car pulled over for speeding and squealing tires on a North Portland street Tuesday night turned out to have been involved in a drive-by shooting moments before . . . Two handguns were recovered from the backseat floorboard; one was reported stolen from Vancouver . . . At least three cars were involved in what police described as a gang-related "running gun battle" with nearly a dozen shots fired between the vehicles in the 8000 and 9000 blocks of North St. Louis . . . Remarkably, police said, no one was hit. "

The only good news about this would be the inference that gang-bangers don't have many opportunities to practice firing their stolen guns, and hence have less than perfect aim (though I won't claim I'd do better firing blindly from a speeding Chrysler Sebring.)

But the bad news is that break-ins and other thefts continue to provide criminals with guns. Here's another quote from the article:

"All guns on the street are stolen," [alleged shooting suspect Gary Lonell] Black told police, the affidavit says."

So there you have it from the horse's mouth--not the NRA, not the GOA, not the OFF--but from a shooting suspect himself: "All guns on the street are stolen." Please note that Mr. Black did NOT say that guns are flooding the streets because of any "gun show loophole."

The take-home message here is clear. As firearms owners it is our responsibility to keep our guns out of the hands of criminals. I do not support laws that mandate keeping your guns under lock and key, even when you're not home. When you are home, whether you lock up your guns or keep them "at the ready" is a personal decision you have to make by balancing your need for security from intruders with your own housing and family situation, (i.e. young children + loaded guns in bedside tables = bad idea.)

But when you aren't home it's only common sense that an unsecured gun isn't going to do you any good. You're only leaving it around for a burglar to find and then sell to someone like Mr. Black. And by doing so you help perpetuate gun crime and the anti-gun crusaders.

Do us all a favor: when you're not around, lock them up. If you can afford guns, you can afford a gun safe. If you can't afford a safe and only have a single firearm for protection; then I recommend you get a concealed carry permit and take it with you when you're not at home. Again, what you do depends on your own situation, but an once of prevention can hold off a lot of anti-gun extremists thinking more legislation is the "cure."

Montana Sec. of State Declares the 2nd Amendment is a Contract with the States

In an interesting development regarding the pending U.S. Supreme Court Case of DC v. Heller, the Secretary of State of Montana has effectively threatened succession if the court sides with the District of Columbia in declaring the 2nd Amendment to be only a collective rather than an individual right:

Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson declares, "urged the Supreme Court to uphold an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, rather than a collective interpretation, as best in keeping with Montana’s Compact with the United States."

This isn't a conspiracy or exaggeration--the statement is found on the Montana SOS's home page.


Here's the complete text of the letter:

Second Amendment as individual right:

"The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court's decision will have an impact far beyond the District ("Promises breached," Op-Ed, Thursday).

The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the "collective rights" theory.

A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right.

There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms.

As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states.

Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It's posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract.

BRAD JOHNSON
Montana secretary of state
Helena, Mont."

Once more it is worth noting that the Democratic Party of Oregon has already declared that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right.

Stay tuned and get your passport ready for that trip to Glacier Park.