Once again... Oregon voters said NO... but the state said yes.

RubberFrog

Rear Admiral
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
4,268
Re: Once again... Oregon voters said NO... but the state said yes.

Originally posted by Kalian:<br /> Now, somewhere, I'm sure it's happened, but is it such a threat to society that you have to ban the sale of a gun that hasn't been drop tested?<br />
I am 100% pro-gun. However, I don't understand why you think it is unreasonable to require a drop test. OF COURSE they should require a drop test. What possible excuse could a manufacturer have for not doing a drop test?
 

jtexas

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Messages
8,646
Re: Once again... Oregon voters said NO... but the state said yes.

Help me understand the situation there, sounds like the judge has an issue with property sold after zoning regs are passed, but it's not clear - here's an example:<br /><br />Say you own multifamily-zoned land worth $500, but then a zoning reg is passed prohibiting further multi-family development. Value of your property drops to $300.<br /><br />Scenario 1:<br />You end up selling for $300 & take a $200 loss. Now along comes this new law - if it applies to the new owner same as it would have applied to you, then he gets unfairly enriched. You suffered the loss, he should not be compsenated for it...it's just your tough luck.<br /><br />Scenario B:<br />You hold on to your undeveloped property until after this new law is passed. Now you're entitled to $200 in compensation else a zoning variance. To save the hassle of applying you sell now; you get $490 ($500 FMV less the hassle and time dealing with zoning board). New owner pays $490 (or whatever) for property worth $300 plus the right to apply for $200 compensation or zoning variance.<br /><br />Two different situations: if the new law prohibits new owner from collecting under scenario 1, judge made a mistake, but if we're talkin about scenario B, it's a flawed law, IMHO.<br /><br />Not knowing the state constitution, so I can't opine about whether it's an unconstitutional law or not. If it is, then he done the right thing.<br /><br />Why should a judge be able to overturn a voter-passed law? Because, the constitution is there to prevent the majority from taking unfair advantage of the minority.
 

jtexas

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Messages
8,646
Re: Once again... Oregon voters said NO... but the state said yes.

Originally posted by Kalian:<br /> Who gives a f... if it goes off when you drop it! Don't drop it! How many millions and billions of people are killed when they drop their gun and it goes off anyway?
I agree with your advice, "Don't drop it!" but here's a couple interesting related stories.<br /><br />My fiance (now my wife of 23 years) had a long drive on deserted highways to get to school everyday so her stepdad gave her a little .25 automatic to carry in her car. Don't remember the brand. It was still in there when I borrowed her car for the last week or so before the wedding, so I took it out & kept it in my apartment. I was loading up to go home (couple hundred miles away) a few days before the wedding, I had this little pistol in a holster on top of a stack of books under my arm. I bent over to get something off the floor and ... BANG! It slipped out of the holster, landed on the grip & discharged a round into the ceiling above my head! Couldn't have missed by more than a few inches. The force of hitting the ground had knocked it off safety. The bullet barely penetrated the ceiling plaster; I covered it over with toothpaste. I knew it was loaded, but wasn't aware that just inserting the clip automatically put a round in the chamber. Upstairs neighbor was home - she ran down to see what happened. Luckily she saw the humor in the situation. <br /><br />Had a tax client I only saw once a year usually the week of April 15th. One year I noticed him limping & asked about it. "I shot myself in the butt." He waited for me to get control of my laughter to tell me what happened. "I had been golfing." He always carries a .38 automatic in his golf bag (in case of mad rabbit encounters I guess??). He was getting his clubs out of the trunk one day & accidently tilted the top of the bag down a little, clubs started sliding out, so he was trying to catch 'em, juggling the bag & whatever else he had in his hands. His .38 slid out, hit the driveway & discharged a round into his butt! Dam I'm glad that didn't happen to me!<br /><br /> :D
 

PW2

Commander
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,719
Re: Once again... Oregon voters said NO... but the state said yes.

The real reason California went broke is their incomprehensible deregulation of the energy industry (passed under Wilson(R)). The terms of this deregulation allowed folks like Enron to manipulate the energy market to the detriment of California rate payers.<br /><br />So rate payers struck back with yet another initiative to put a cap on retail energy rates. The local Edison Cos said whoa, we can't pay the new rates and have a cap on what we can charge, so we will buy only what we can afford---which of course led to undersupply, and blackouts.<br /><br />Enter Gov Davis, who realized the state needed the power, regardless of what it cost, and entered into long term Enron inflated contracts. Voila, California owns a whole bunch of power at a ridiculous cost, that by initiative, can't pass the increases on to the ratepayers.<br /><br />Now you can say what you want about state legislatures, and how they fund things you don't like, and all that may be true, but the worst possible way to fix this is with the initiative process, that attempts to fix a symptom of the problem without addressing the underlying problem.<br /><br />it simply leads to chaos.
 

Kalian

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
598
Re: Once again... Oregon voters said NO... but the state said yes.

Rubber frog,<br />It's the banning of the particular gun because it wasn't "drop tested" that gets me. How can that be a reasonable action? I mean come on, how safe do you guys want to be? You can't be 100% safe and 100% free, you gotta give somewhere. I can think of a lot of things that are purely recreational that aren't safe and aren't banned. Although JTexas gave 2 examples of guns going off when they're dropped, it's uncommon, and to be injured or killed from it is even more uncommon. Much more uncommon than to be injured while riding a dirtbike or atv, or fooling around on ski's or snowmobiling, and on and on. I think they were banned because it's one more gun control law to enforce. I bet you more people are killed or injured cleaning their shotgun, or reloading bullets than from a dropped gun. So the whole point is, is banning a gun because it hasn't been drop tested a reasonable action? Isn't that a little bit excessive? I don't want to belabor the point, it's the law here, so I have to live with it. But I think it's a bunch of crap.
 

Boomyal

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Aug 16, 2003
Messages
12,072
Re: Once again... Oregon voters said NO... but the state said yes.

Originally posted by jtexas:<br /> Why should a judge be able to overturn a voter-passed law? Because, the constitution is there to prevent the majority from taking unfair advantage of the minority.
WRONG jtexas! I don't know what school you went to but Constitutions are there to establish the principles of the governments. Courts are there to uphold the constitutions. Absolutely no where is there any mention of protecting minorities from the majority. If 'the minority's interest is within the scope of the law then he will be protected along with everyone else. That is a pure case of liberals inserting meanings that were never intended.<br /><br />Also for your information, the Oregon initiative was clearly written as your #1 scenario.
 

jtexas

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Messages
8,646
Re: Once again... Oregon voters said NO... but the state said yes.

Originally posted by Boomyal:<br /> I don't know what school you went to but Constitutions are there to establish the principles of the governments. Courts are there to uphold the constitutions. Absolutely no where is there any mention of protecting minorities from the majority.
I'm thinking (in general terms, since I'm not familiar with Oregon's constitution in particular) that constitutions provide guidelines to governments, like you said "establish the principles," such that a law which is contrary to those principles can't be enforced even if a majority of voters favor it. <br /><br />Here's an extreme example: say you have a law that passes with 80% approval allowing summary execution of anyone caught going more than 25mph over the speed limit - the constitution guarantees the right to a trial for the speeders regardless of the wishes of the non-speeding majority.<br /><br />I believe that's how a constitution operates, in general, and I think judges are supposed to make judgement calls like that. Of course, judges are supposed to use good judgement which they don't always.
 
Top