Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Because in Portland, you need your guns

Multnomah County Judicial Race Information

A Message From OFFPAC

James E. Leuenberger is running for Judge of the Circuit Court, 4th District, Position 28 in Multnomah County.

While OFFPAC rarely makes suggestions or endorsements in judicial races, we are happy to do so in this case.Jim is a dedicated and passionate defender of Second Amendment rights and we believe he would make an excellent Judge.

Primary Info

If you live in Multnomah County, we urge you to cast your ballot for Jim Leuenberger.


OR Gun Free said...

I'll be sure to vote against him if he is partial to machine gun toting Republican douchbags that aren't sworn police officers. And will encourage others to do the same. Thanks!

Daniel said...

You don't "vote against" someone you vote for their opponent. At least, that's what normal people do.

bjdorr said...

The last time I checked, it is a right for the people to keep and bear arms. This judge is just upholding the people's rights per The United States Constitution. Not like some of the other whacked up judges who twist the First Amendment to kick God out of this country.

Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Kristopher said...

Hey, gun free ...

Show the world you hate guns.

Put up a sign in front of your house to show the world your domicile is firearms free. Using a burglar's uncertainty that your household may be armed to prevent a violent home invasion is just hypocritical ... don't be a hypocrite.

Tim said...

Say "Gun free"

Sounds like you believe no one has a right to self-defense, a right to own a gun unless you're a "Sworn police officer" Sorry I missed that part in the Constitution. But then again, I'm getting the impression that you've never read it.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, I'll be sure to vote for his opponent.


Sounds like this Candidate for Mult. Co Judge already has his mind made up on how he would rule on cases regarding firearms. Having a concealed weapon's permit and believing in the right to bare arms myself, I will vote for Judge Kistler, Mr. Leuenberger's opponent. The reason I will do that is because having a fair minded and independent court is much better than one slanted by political ideology. Even if that ideology is one I happen to agree with.

Kristopher said...

If you followed your libertarian principles completely, you would sit out the election.

Voting, ultimately, is an initiation of the use of force. The Majority forcing its notions on the minority, and authorizing the State to use deadly force to back it up.

As for judges pre-judging cases ... I damned well should hope a judge would state an intent to put the Bill of Rights first ... a position that any sane person could not find fault with.

Your "logic" is insane ... you would vote against a judge who has stated an intent to uphold the BoR because he has made such a statement?

No wonder Libertarians never win elections ...

RINO $axton 4 GOV said...

I don't have a concealed weapons permit, but I own 2 rifles and 1 shotgun. I believe MCLibertarian has a point. Defending the BoR is one thing, but pre-judging is prejudice. If the guy has such strong views against gun control, then go to work for the NRA.

Bryan Saxton said...

"As for judges pre-judging cases ... I damned well should hope a judge would state an intent to put the Bill of Rights first ... a position that any sane person could not find fault with.

Although the bill of rights is a part of one of the most incredible political documents, it is also incredibly vague. For example, where does freedom of speech stop? What is cruel and unusual punishment? Issues such as these require looking far beyond the constitution. As a state judge, I would sure hope that he would uphold the bill of rights, but I would be wary that he would be unfairly biased in favor of gun owners in cases concerning gun ownership.

But ultimately, there is only one way to find out.

Kristopher said...

That's a pretty tired tactic ... claiming that owning a few long arms and claiming to be a fuddite legitimizes your stand against the second amendment as an individual right. Sorry, dude, but the second amendment is not about duck hunting.

Here's a clue ... in the BoR, "the people" means us individuals. Not the state.

I expect judges to support the BoR as written ... not to make PC sounding crap up about "government rights".

Only some socialist goof would worry about upholding the second amendment as an indication of judicial prejudice. I suppose we should also drum out judges that publicly support free speech as well, using that logic?