OREGON narrowly passed Measure 114...

P

Pathfinder45

New member
Here's a link: https://www.kgw.com/article/news/po...trol/283-cf1a7067-30de-43b1-b7ab-eecf4bc200f1
I get it that the candidate with the most votes wins the office, but this is different. How can a Constitutionally guaranteed and spelled-out right be so easily infringed upon just because half the voters plus a very few others think it's a good idea? What if 50.1 percent of the voters voted to ban your automobile and all others because cars kill too many people?
Anyway, just to let everyone know, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, just got flagrantly infringed upon in the State of Oregon.
 
L

ligonierbill

New member
It's fashionable today for electorates or legislators to pass "message" laws. They know it will be overturned, but for a time it will make their opponents uncomfortable. Doesn’t happen only with 2nd Amendment issues, and it's not exclusive to the left.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
There is more to the law than just magazine limits. A lot more.

Things like requiring a training class, which does not yet exist, to get a permit, which does not yet exist, in order to purchase a firearm.

And stating the Oregon sheriffs will provide these, without giving them any money or resources, or specific direction how to do that.

It is possible that the law could be interpreted so as to prevent ANY firearm sales until those things are complied with.

Something similar was passed in WA a few years ago. All the WA Sherriff's (save the one in King County -Seattle) AND the state patrol all stated they would not enforce it, absent further, explicit instruction from the state. So far, that clarification has not happened.

It is under challenge in court, but the virtual shutdown due to covid has added years of delay to the process.

The people passing these laws seem to care nothing for what actual effects they have, a common problem today, and not only in the field of firearms laws.
 
S

shafter

New member
They'll just keep squeezing and squeezing until everything is banned and gun ownership becomes more of a hassle and even risk than most people will be willing to contend with. They don't have to confiscate. They just gotta keep squeezing.

Think about it like this. Most gun owners believe its unconstitutional to prohibit fully automatic weapons, yet nearly all of us won't own one illegally because its not worth the penalty. When the same penalties are applied to owning everything else people won't want them in their homes anymore. Honestly I would be the same way.
 
P

Pathfinder45

New member
Yes, as 44AMP pointed out, magazine limits is the least of the bad features of the measure. I get that some of the people that come up with this stuff probably mean well, but others seem to adversaries of freedom, and are intentionally misguiding the rest of them to erode the right to keep and bear arms. They take whatever they can get right now, and what they can't take now, they will try for again later. As it stands under measure 114, no one will have a right to purchase a firearm. We will only have the right to ask for permission and we will have to pay for a permit, extra background check, qualification courses, and whatever other infringements are deemed necessary by the measure to hinder anyone from actually purchasing a firearm. I expect that gunstores whose primary sales are from firearms will not be able to remain in business.
 
L

LeverGunFan

New member
Koda94 said:
the new law also creates a public registry of any gun owners.


I find it interesting how the media there is calling it when the votes are still not fully counted. Currently yes 50.74% , no 49.26% with only 64% of the total votes counted yet.

https://results.oregonvotes.gov/resultsSW.aspx?type=MEASURE&map=CTY
Click to expand...
It looks like the 64% is the voter turnout, not the percentage of votes counted. However, the Oregon Secretary of State does list the results as unofficial.
 
M

Metal god

New member
In Bruen we trust . Speaking of that case didn’t the SCOTUS strike down permits being needed to simply purchase a firearm in Bruen ? If so that’s not going to stand at all . That part if challenged will likely get a preliminary injunction right away .
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
Speaking of that case didn’t the SCOTUS strike down permits being needed to simply purchase a firearm in Bruen ?
Click to expand...

I do not believe so. Not specifically, and specifically is what matters.

Note that while Bruen did strike down PART of the NY requirements for concealed pistol permit, it did NOT strike down the permit system as unconstitutional.

In NY, you need a permit to buy or POSSESS a pistol. Open carry is allowed, but concealed carry needed a special approval permit and NY law required providing a "need" (special circumstances) for concealed permit approval. It was the requirement to provide special need circumstances to the state of NY that Bruen struck down, NOT the permit system or the other longstanding requirements of it.

SO, in the case of Oregon, now requiring a permit to purchase (any??)firearm I think that under Bruen's requirement to consider the historical laws, it will fail to pass muster and be declared invalid, EVENTUALLY.

THe way our system works, the law has to go into effect, and then someone with "standing" has to bring suit because the law harms them (Or potentially harms them), then we get court rulings.....

I do applaud the honesty and integrity of those Sherriffs and other LEOs who clearly state they will not enforce laws they believe unconstitutional.

HOWEVER, I also think while that save individuals from harm, (always a good thing) I do think we need SOMEONE to actually be harmed (prosecuted) under the bad law, in order to give the challenge something more than just
"potential harm". And, no, I'm not volunteering, :rolleyes:, just saying that while we can, and are challenging these laws under the legal rules, our efforts are enhanced when there actually is a test case with actual harm done to someone.
 
H

heyjoe

New member
Metal god said:
In Bruen we trust . Speaking of that case didn’t the SCOTUS strike down permits being needed to simply purchase a firearm in Bruen ? If so that’s not going to stand at all . That part if challenged will likely get a preliminary injunction right away .
Click to expand...
that was in massachusetts. the supreme court vacated a decision of the first circuit court of appeals that found a massachusets gun control law constitutional, which requires a permit to purchase and possess a firearm and has a lifetime bans on those convicted of a non violent misdeameanor

https://www.foxnews.com/us/supreme-court-vacates-controversial-massachusetts-gun-control-law
 
P

Pathfinder45

New member
It looks like a lawsuit has already begun over this.
Here's a link: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/11/19/oregon-gun-measure-lawsuit-second-amendment/
One of the things that concerns me most is the requirement to ask for a permit, (and possibly be denied), to access your constitutional rights. It also looks to me to be in fact a registry of gun owners. This could become a handy tool for future confiscation. Futhermore, as a public record, it could be used by thieves to know which homes might be likely to yield guns in a burglary.
Should the people be required to have a permit to:
  • Attend a place of worship?
  • Speak their opinion in public?
  • Start a news letter?
  • Display a flag?
Of course not! It would be an infringement that wouldn't likely be tolerated in America; yet half the voters in Oregon apparently think it's a good thing to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, inspite of the Constitution....
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
yet half the voters in Oregon apparently think it's a good thing to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, inspite of the Constitution...
Click to expand...

I'd say "apparently" is probably more true then just as a stock phrase. I'm not certain, of course, since I wasn't in OR to see/hear the ads, but I am confident that the majority of the people who did vote for this were mislead, lied to, and not given full explanations of what the law was and what it would do.

They did that in WA a couple years ago. I saw some of those. Ads targeted and shown on the west side of the state, in the metro I-5 corridor, telling the people there that the law was needed to keep domestic abusers from getting guns, among other things...

Totally ignoring the fact that FEDERAL law has prohibited that for DECADES, and not informing the public of anywhere near everything that was in the proposed law, only hammering on how important it was that it be passed for our safety.

I'm sure the OR voters got a version of that same thing, being mislead, lied to, and deliberatly under informed, so I'd be cautious about believing "more than half" of OR voters felt it was good thing, I think it much more likely that while SOME did, I think most voted for what they were TOLD the law would be, NOT what was written in it,
 
P

Pathfinder45

New member
Certainly, there was a great deal of misleading involved in this. And ignorance too. People voting emotionally while ignoring the facts and what the true results will be.
 
J

jdscholer

New member
This bill is an abomination, and none of the system required to obtain training and permits to purchase a firearm even exist. Nor have they been funded. If this thing stands, there simply will be no legal gun sales in Oregon for the foreseeable future. AND -- if we are patient, and get past the "foreseeable future", gun sales and possession will be very expensive, time consuming, restrictive, and simply impractical for many folks.

AND -- if this bill stands, it's coming for y'all. How many states have become mirrors of Oregon, with a few metropolitan areas bristling with libtards who easily out-vote the great percentage of the conservative counties in your state.

This vote, (if it was valid) is an example of the definition of democracy where two wolves and a sheep are debating what is being served for dinner. jd
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
Do note that the ban on POSSESSION of "high capacity" magazines was NOT something advertised before passage of the law. It was buried inside the text, and not something made common public knowledge until AFTER the law passed.

Several states have passed magazine capacity limits, and include bans on sale, purchase and transfer of them, but allow current owners to keep them.

According to the linked lawsuit, the Oregon law DOES NOT. Literally as of the effective date of the law, ALL magazines holding over 10 rnds would have to be surrendered (or removed from the state, I assume) WITHOUT COMPENSATION of any kind.

I see some of the news reports about the law stating that it allows continued possession of magazines by those who already own them, but the lawsuit filed states the law does NOT allow that.

SO, it appears, once again, either by intent or carelessness, we, the public are not getting full and accurate information from the news media. Imagine that! :rolleyes:.....

I do have a couple questions, for those who have read the Oregon law, is the magazine ban LIMITED to semi autos? Or only to detachable magazines??

Does it cover fixed magazines holding more than 10 rounds??? such as tubular magazines in .22LR? or how about a lever action that holds 10rnds of ammo, or more??

Am curious....
 
P

Pathfinder45

New member
I thought that tubular, and other fixed magazines, were excepted.... But ya know, reading through all this, ...this,.... stuff, is kinda like reading through some scriptures; if you've read it once, you might think you know what it says,.... I'm gonna have to read it all again. I find all of it unacceptable,but the magazine capacity is the least of it. The permitting requirements along with finger-printing, etc., is alarming. It's kind of like equating gun ownership with some inherent criminality, like convicted sex-offenders that must register every where they live. No one can convince me that this isn't a back-door into gun registration. Well, maybe front door.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top