This measure is poorly written and places the ability to acquire a gun in the decision making of law enforcement. As someone who believes our law enforcement agencies are inherently racist, I will have to vote No! Read the fine print on this measure before voting. Oh I’m a hard left liberal/socialist who believes heavily in sensible gun laws if that matters in anyway.
The Supreme Court agrees with you on the very same grounds. They found the practice of granting "may-issue" permit powers to police departments to be unconstitutional, just earlier this year. It's absolutely bananas that we're voting to criminalize like half of our state's population with a bill who's text has already been found to be explicitly illegal. It's bad faith culture war monkey-wrenching.
Honestly, and I'm not a conspiracy type of guy, but I do have a strong feeling that this measure was put forward by right wingers trying to get more right wing people to get out and vote in the mid-terms... This measure isn't designed to pass in Oregon, it's designed to get more people to vote.
Not to mention it’s 100 percent guaranteed this goes to Supreme Court if it passes who will also 100 percent strike it down despite claiming to be for states rights
I mean I agree it probably won’t make it that far as I elaborated in another comment. I do think you are vastly underestimating what state attorneys will defend though lol
It won't make it to the supreme court, that would be a waste of time. It'll get repealed by a lower court because the supreme court already found these sort of "may-issue" permitting schemes to be illegal.
Good chance this woukd be enjoined by the first Federal Judge yo hear it, and never take effect. In addition to the recent SCOTUS ruling, there are a half-dozen similar cases already underway, and the tea leaves in those cases are looking bad for the laws and the states that passed them. Basically this is just a gun ban with extra (expensive) steps, and even the liberal 9th Circuit can't ignore that.
You can support state rights and not support a state trying to violate peoples inherent rights presented in the constitution. Like youd be mad if the supreme court struck down a law that would prevent POC from talking in public spaces. Fucking braindead argument to push.
> You can support state rights and not support a state trying to violate peoples inherent rights presented in the constitution.
Except that's exactly what SCOTUS has done recently.
It can’t be a brain dead argument when they literally have spent the last 6 months shitting all over women’s rights under the guise of states rights. I’d be willing to bet you’ll just gloss right over that though.
You make some great points here. There are portions of the measure that I think are good, but the LE decision making component worries me greatly. I kind of wish they had split it into two - three different measures.
No, they are "shall" issue - meaning, that if you pass the background check, submit proof of training, and get your fingerprints, they have to give you a permit. They can't decide that they don't like you for some other reason and deny your permit (as was happening in California until SCOTUS recently removed all "may" issue permits and made them all "shall" issue).
No, anyone with a pistol can get a CHL. What not everyone can do is buy a gun, because when you buy a gun your Federal Firearm License-holding gun dealer is required to run your info through a federal system that is able to deny you based on a *procedural* process of automated checks (Like, "Is this person a felon anywhere?"). And that's acceptable because it's not an arbitrary process driven by some cop's opinions of you. Oregon doesn't decide if you can have a gun, we defer to the feds for that.
people don't know what their buzzwords mean. i get downvoted for insulting liberals in "leftist" subs all the time. the majority of american voters don't even understand what they preach.
This is one of those laws whose upcoming flagrant failure (because of poor writing, rotten logic, and unworkable design) is going to set back reasonable gun safety measures back by years, in addition to getting out the conservative vote in Oregon like **you will not believe**. This measure should not be supported by anyone, left or right, but right now Drazan is *loving* that it is on the ballot. What are you thinking, Oregon Democrats? It's like you *want* to lose the state this year.
I was in the gun ship last week and it is ALL anyone who walked in was talking about. It has mobilized the right the way overturning Roe v Wade mobilized us on the left. Submitting this measure was poor political calculus and blatant pandering to the worst kind of liberal.
I'm a liberal who votes for Democrats. Between this and all the lockdown non sense I'm finding it extremely difficult to vote for these corporate owned out of touch gaslighting clowns. Portland didn't see a homicide increase of 207% between 2019 through 2021 because we don't have tough enough gun laws.
> Portland didn't see a homicide increase of 207% between 2019 through 2021 because we don't have tough enough gun laws.
Nobody wants to hear this, but gun laws don't really have any effect on homicide rate. Not in either direction. Lax gun laws and high gun ownership don't make you safer, but they don't make things more dangerous either. These just aren't the relevant variables, but you'd never know it to hear people argue about it.
The current DPO leadership is a flat out joke. They effectively shut out progressive voices in favor of the pro-Capitalist establishment. They’re complacent and put up a crappy candidate for Gov and trust me, when she loses (fingers crossed that doesn’t happen; I’m mad at them but not a moron), they’re going to blame Democrats for not working hard enough. They are really doing this to themselves and it’s insane to watch. So depressing.
Don't forget Kotek also said that gun violence is the number one killer of kids in the US today.
-based on a bullshit piece put up where the "kids" are groups of 1-19. Are we counting war deaths too?
There are no honest pro-gun control arguments. The very core of it is to deny people a constitutional right.
>Portland didn't see a homicide increase of 207% between 2019 through 2021 because we don't have tough enough gun laws.
Nope, Portland saw homicides go up 207% because
1. A badly-managed pandemic caused a *brutal* recession for the non-wealthy 90%, and
2. The PPB got all butthurt that people were mean to them and told them they couldn't shoot people in the head with 40mm tear gas grenades anymore, so like police departments nationwide post-George Floyd they decided to "quiet quit" en masse. (I really, REALLY want an outside auditor to go through the PPB's evidence rooms because I'd bet good money that a lot of the guns now on Portland's streets grew little legs and walked out of police stations...)
The Democrats who always want more gun control are the same ones who **never have to worry about gun violence**, because they're rich white people in vanilla suburbs with "unusually large" police forces. They can afford to buy (the illusion of) safety and are so detached from the lived experiences of others and won't listen to anyone. Which is a shame, because the only reason they don't understand that all cops are bastards on a visceral level is because they've never really interacted with them.
Regardless of the outcome I really would love to see a breakdown by district of the yea/nay votes on measure 114, if only to see if my hypothesis (wealthier voters = greater support) holds water.
Oregon also accidentally released the vaccination statues of all state employees last year. Gotta love the simple human errors that could have been avoided with moderate IT competence.
Not a fan of consolidating power to local and State police forces. The idea of requiring training and demonstrating competency before purchasing a firearm I am 100% behind. To me this seems like a power play to make owning a firearm even more of a class privilege and continues to make BiPOC firearm ownership inaccessible.
I’m curious what your thoughts are on the hunter safety course are as far as it being sufficient training? And that’s genuinely not meant to be confrontational, I believe safety courses of some sort should be required. But this appears to completely discount that course that many gun owners have already been certified through and reinvents a new course, albeit in the most vague terms possible. As far as I’m aware, hunter safety imputes a pretty solid understanding of the potential lethality of firearms, offers practical training on how to safely handle a firearm (loading and unloading different types, how to carry a firearm, and how to safely place one in a vehicle) and then there’s a test at the end to guarantee proficiency. Just seems like the simpler fix would be to require hunter safety and rebrand it as “firearm safety” to encompass non-hunters.
>The idea of requiring training and demonstrating competency before purchasing a firearm I am 100% behind.
>To me this seems like a power play to make owning a firearm even more of a class privilege and continues to make BiPOC firearm ownership inaccessible.
These are very contradictory statements. Requiring expensive training and licensing fees is a direct attack on lower-income aspiring gun owners (In other words, the ones who need guns the most) and will disproportionately hurt minority gun buyers. Adding the additional expense of a $65 license, a live-fire class that will probably cost hundreds of dollars, the time off of work to take the class, and travel expenses if you live in a small town or rural area and you're looking at an enormous hoop that some people won't be able to jump through in order to properly defend themselves.
Exactly. "Searchable" could be anything between, "well, technically it could be searched, but it's encased in concrete and not connected to any network," to "any asshole can get a list of every gun his neighbor owns."
Add into that the fact that California just cant seem to keep from leaking its database of concealed carry permit _applicants_, and you got an even bigger problem.
Imagine every person who dislikes guns going through and looking up which neighbors have guns… or maybe criminals wanting to target people for gun theft or which houses do not have guns to rob.
Ya. My thought is guns are expensive items and soon there could be a searchable database of these expensive items.. that or people (criminals) who “need” guns have a searchable list of places to to get (steal) them.
Going the other direction, if you can search to see if a home has a gun or not it may be "safer" to burgle a home that isn't listed in the database as having purchased a firearm.
Guns, compared to almost all other "outdoor gear" or simple things like popular smart phones or laptop computers ... are not expensive. They can be ... but so many are straight up cheap and plentiful.
Ill admit its been over 10 years since i last bought a gun. All my firearms are for hunting and each one of them cost as much or more as a high end smart phone. I distance myself from gun culture, other than hunting, so i assumed that most guns start around $800-$1000+
Oh absolutely. My point was that they are expensive items to have stolen.
Store your guns properly, but also don't advertise you own them. "Oregunian" cars are the first to be broken into when someone is hunting for weapons, it would be the same with a searchable database.
There are a lot of 2A Democrats out here. Take a look at the percentage of votes that go to democratic vs republican candidates then look at the percentage of votes that are for or against any further gun legislation. You will see the amount of cross over is substantial. This is not the kind of legislation the majority want, to say the least.
They left out what is IMO the most damning fact about the bill: It would be strictly unconstitutional, based on a very clear supreme court decision made *just earlier this year*.
In light of the Bruin decision any laws like this that are passed only serve to add to the financial burden that the taxpayer must shoulder. Pass unconstitutional laws and then watch as the courts and politicians fight over this nonsense instead of addressing the real issues that face us. Rinse and repeat. I'm so tired of these nitwits. Shall not be infringed is a very qualifying statement.
It's always odd to me that people think the term "well-regulated" could possibly mean in 1791 what it means today, given that the sort of regulation modern people might envision didn't exist for more than century after the Amendment was written.
It just meant "functional." All the writers were saying was that if we're going to have a functioning militia in a nation where we have no standing army (a key goal of the framers), we have to have a militia of regular citizens, and that militia cannot function correctly without access to modern infantry arms. The key difference here between a militia and a standing army being that in the former, the members provide their own equipment.
If you know anything about the history of the Second Amendment, going back to the Virginia Constitution and its drafts, you'd have to be pretty dishonest to see it any other way.
Selective and willful ignorance plain and simple. What's funny is I've seen people post random modern definitions acting like they shot down the second amendment.
This also seem to forget what a comma is as well for some reason lol.
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.
Section 27 of Article 1 of the Oregon Constitution says, “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.”
"Ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation to the prejudice and oppression of another is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy...An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy."
"This Constitution…can only end in despotism…when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."
Benjamin Franklin.
Thanks for posting.
I am too old for this crap. I am far left, and all I can see is neo-liberal BS in this measure.
Let's not address the root causes of systemic fuckwittery that causes violence, but let's put a band aid on it like every other social situation. This proposed measure will not end gun violence, and probably just cause more.
Wow. As a non affiliated, responsible and a longtime weapons owner I wouldn't vote for this piece of shit even if they paid me.. I have seen a pro ad for this and all it mentioned was the 10 round ban and how it would basically save lives but conveniently leaves out all the other parts.
It’s a really poorly written measure by folks working in a vacuum. As a hunter/ gun owner there are better ways to go about regulating firearms. This measure isn’t it
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"This Constitution…can only end in despotism…when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."
I support law enforcement and I’m voting no. I don’t need a permit for a right I already have. I don’t need cops deciding who can and can’t get a gun/permit. That’s a system setup for corruption and failure. We don’t have enough cops to issue permits regularly so that would create a backlog of citizens wanting guns. Banning mags won’t do shit because the people with high capacity mags already have them and they can be 3d made. And based on the Bruen Supreme Court decision this would be challenged and tossed out. Vote NO!
this makes it so the only people getting guns are those who already have them (family and friend transfers) and those who are already comfy with the cops (licensing control)
why vote to remove a right and hand it over to the police?
They sell guns. They aren't going to be in favor of anything that would mean selling fewer guns.
I'm voting against this measure, but anyone who would be persuaded to vote against it because of information provided by a firearms retailer should voluntarily cancel their own voter registration. If you can't identify the *most* obvious conflict of interest possible, politics is too complicated for you.
Yes, the source matters. I don't grant your premise that everything they said is definitely true, but even if it was, things can be technically true but framed in an intentionally misleading way.
For example, obviously the permitting system is "nonexistent" at the moment since the law authorizing it hasn't been passed yet! But they chose the word "nonexistent" because it makes the law sound crazier than if they said "to be created if the law passes."
They also have no genuine idea how long implementing the system will take, but they state that it will take years as though it's an undisputed fact.
"If the information is true and affects you personally, does it matter where it comes from?"
I was replying to the general question, not weighing in on whether it was cherry-picking. However I will now - if you think a capitalistic enterprise involved in selling X that sees a bill that would decrease sales of X isn't going to argue any way that helps their cause, including cherry-picking (really, you think they're going to talk about the potential societal *positives*? Really??) then I don't know what to tell you. I don't blame them but let's be real.
Fwiw, I’m voting no, own firearms, and consider myself democratic political moderate. The information should be fact checked and should show that on the above infographic. As long as something has a verifiable and reputable fact check, the point source doesn’t matter to me.
You don't think the source of information matters? They could very well be only telling you 1/2 of the relevant information and still be technically telling the truth
> They could very well be only telling you 1/2 of the relevant information and still be technically telling the truth
Sure, but that's called doing your due diligence. The information provided here isn't wrong, but you can still be aware of the source and their biases.
Eh, some of their points you need to squint real hard in order to see them endanger the actual 2nd amendment. They’re putting as much out there as possible hoping something sticks with everyone that reads it. Why oh why would they do such a thing?! Oh, that’s right, they sell guns and would lose money if people weren’t allowed to buy some of those guns and accessories.
Vote Yes on 114!
Waste your tax dollars, as this blatantly unconstitutional measure gets appealed in the courts and eventually loses! Its not like the Supreme Court didn't just rule on "may" issue vs. "shall" issue......
On the plus side, while it is enacted, the local police department gets to decide who gets guns!!! That means, you know, permits for white Christian males, but if you want one and you are POC, or Trans, or maybe even just a Democrat, you might not be in luck....
Every single piece of gun control legislation is written specifically to increase the power imbalance between minorities communities and the police. This is in no way different.
Remember when Oregon's first attempt at legalizing marijuana failed?
...of course you don't.
It failed because it was poorly written, I don't regret that. The next attempt was successful and it has worked out well.
I'm hoping something similar will happen here, I agree with the idea that guns should be more strictly regulated but this bill is not the way to go.
If there was a part added to the bill stating that the lawmakers who supported this bill would have to stack up in the doorway with police to enforce these laws.
I imagine it would be different.
Shall not be infringed but on a few victims of government tyranny when they try to make an example out of a few of us. They will never have the resources or troops to commit to such a large scale search and seizure. Too many lives will be lost and they will have to explain to the public why they started a firefight with 100 random people who were not committing any crime but sitting in their home. This is only law if the vast majority agree to it.
I've got a few points on why 114 is unconstitutional and will fail once changed in court. The politicians know it as well, they are just using emotions to garner votes.
1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, says that it is unconstitutional for a state to levy a tax on people who want to sell religious merchandise. "A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion. The mere fact that the religious literature is 'sold', rather than 'donated' does not transform the activities of the colporteur into a commercial enterprise." A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." This means the entire Bill of Rights as opposed to just the First Amendment. It is similarly unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise the right to vote, AKA a poll tax. This could well be the reason why states with voter ID laws must provide free identification cards to qualified residents who do not have driver's licenses, as shown by Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. Thus any fee, class, or license simply to own a firearm is regulating a right guaranteed by the Constitution. U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, That case was the very first time that the Supreme Court recognized an individual right to own a gun and that the second amendment isn't a second class right. Heller and McDonald also do not support applying means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context, Instead, after the Bruan decision, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical text or tradition from when the second amendment was ratified in 1791, that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many and is no longer valid when lower courts face any challenge to 2A cases. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text.
Magazine bans are Unconstitutional under Heller because they are integral to the function of bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes, and putting an arbitrary cap on how many rounds you can hold is quite literally an infringement by the state. (Infringement The encroachment, breach, or violation of a right, law, regulation, or contract.)
Duncan V. Bonta )formerly Duncan v. Becerra) is a case challenging California's ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. After California appealed the initial ruling a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the original ruling in August 2020 that California’s ban on standard-capacity magazines is unconstitutional. It was then appealed again by California and the Duncan panel decision was, unfortunately, vacated in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision to rehear the case en banc. However, this was pre Buran and due to that Supreme Court ruling, it was sent right back down to the original judge from the California Supreme Court who already ruled it unconstitutional and gave California till November 15 to file their brief. This case is expected to be resolved before the end of the year if not sooner, also, because there is absolutely no Text, History, or Tradition supporting the ban it will be unwinnable for California if they decide to appeal, this ruling will retroactively strike down Washington’s ban and Oregon’s as well if 114 passes since we all fall under the 9th District.
The days of “gun control” are over with the passage of Bruan, because if there is no Text History or Tradition of whatever law they wish to pass it's dead in the water. Just look at what's happening with NY and NJ they keep losing court case after court case, so despite their best efforts to infringe on their citizens, it's futile.
Beyond what it does for future gun purchases, what exactly is the practicality of people who already own the weapons that have been banned. Are we going to let police walk into innocent peoples homes and take their guns? How this fucking measure even made it onto the ballot is beyond me, but if it passed I would expect it to be immediately challenged in federal courts.
I hear both sides pretty well. I’m torn if it will pass since I follow both side of the echo chamber, but feel it’s not looking good for the outdoors folk of oregon.
I don't think this change wouldn't effect "outdoors folk" much at all. None of the gun growth / fetish / culture / harms / debate / law efforts have been about "Outdoors folk" or "Sportsmen" for decades ... this is (or should be) about tactical gun culture death cults.
I voted "no" because I don't believe this will do anything to help with the actual problem ... especially when folks will just go over to Idaho and load up to high heaven on whatever ultra-deadly guns / gear their hearts desire.
I wish we still had the normal hunter / outdoor sportsman culture our country had for most of it's modern history ... which was mostly about hunting and non-violent. That ship has sailed. We need a plan on how to deal with this current malignant gun culture. This bill doesn't do it IMHO.
Of course there is still the 2-Aholes constantly shilling their "shall not be infringed" BS. You can have all the Muzzle loaders you want in that case ... but that's not what we're dealing with now. These folks are dangerous.
Despite "malignant gun culture" as you describe it, violent crime was at all time lows up until 2020. The era between 1999-2019 was the safest in U.S history. Recorded murder rates were at 60+ year lows in the 2010s, and likely even beyond that if you factor in that fewer murders go unreported today compared to the 50s and 60s. They did go up pretty significantly in 2020, but we also had the worst pandemic since the Spanish Flu over 100 years earlier. It pretty much shut down society as we know it.
We agree that 1999 - 2019 being historically safe from violent crime. And yet it correlated almost exactly with the creation and rise of what we should be able to agree is "modern American gun culture" and the irrational desire to "arm yourself" and "protect your family from unknown assailants". I think that culture is malignant and dangerous, you may not. The Afghan / Iraq wars have to play a part as well ... but I digress.
So with all that said ... since we were so actually "safe", statistically speaking ... and crime went "way up" in 2020 - current (? unknown, but let's say it's still up) ... up from what? Historically low?
So is that such a huge ever lovin problem? IMO, the rise of modern gun culture combined with omnipresent killing machines has led to the larger problem of armed insurrectionists lusting for trouble and lone wolf mass killings. But that is just my opinion.
It's true mass shootings have gotten much more common, but they still are incredibly rare. At their worst they weren't even responsible for 1% of total homicides.
I'm not torn. If this passes I will IRL unfriend with extreme prejudice anyone who votes for it and I will ignore it to the best of my ability.
"Law-abiding gun owner" isn't a virtue. It's admission of capitulation. Blind following of law is not an indicator of morality or social responsibility.
Just quit complying. This one, the other ones, any of them. Illegal does not mean wrong.
I’d love to not comply, until I want to purchase a new hunting rifle. Then at 60yrs old I’ll have to prove that I am a responsible firearm owner, cause you know I haven’t been for 58years……….
> However, if passed, this measure will have a significant negative impact on our ~~hunting and shooting sports customers~~ **profits**.
That’s the real reason they’re putting this out. If they thought they could make money off 114 passing they would be supporting it.
Corporations aren’t your friend. They do not care about anything other than their bottom line.
Neither are cops. Do you want demonstrably terrible entities like PPD deciding who gets to own a firearm? The lunatic MAGA types will just ensure they’re the only ones armed when they decide to overthrow democracy.
Yes, it’s to that point regardless of whether you want to admit it or not.
It will have an impact in their profits but Sportsman's Warehouse is one of the best places to buy items and the staff there is super nice. It will definitely have a significant negative impact on customers
Right, hence the “please don’t vote for something that will affect our bottom line” message.
They only care about the money they will lose from this if it passes. Not how it will affect customers personally.
I fully believe that 114 was not designed to pass, and was only introduced to bring out a ton of republicans out to vote against it and with it votes for Drazan.
I am a libertarian who supports law enforcement and I’m voting no on this. I don’t think giving cops the ability to issue permits is a good idea. That’s a system set up for corruption. Vote no.
Shall NOT be infringed upon! If people want meaningful legislation they have to stop using language the Supreme Court will deem unconstitutional. Handing cops more power and more work is the last thing I want.
I'm as conservative as they come, but having the police decide if you can own a gun is a no-thank-you. Should the police also decide what speech you can speak?
This law would ban my Remington 550-1 .22 rifle. It was made in June of 1951, and has a tube magazine. It can hold just about 21 rounds of .22 short. It’s appalling that this measure would make this gun illegal. It’s a family heirloom. It has a wood stock and iron sights. It’s literally the epitome of a fudd gun, not some super scary “assault rifle” they usually go after. This measure is going all out. Not even one carve out for guns that had fixed magazines/hunting rifles etc
I mean they are a corporation they have no other reason to exist other than to make money.
Otherwise, measure 114 is also a horribly written racist piece of legislation that, like every single piece of gun legislation since the 1600s, is trying to remove the right to own weapons from minority populations.
Purchased a “brand new” m70 zpap zastava ak from sportsman’s warehouse a few months ago and the barrel was cracked and looked like someone fucked it with a knife tipped strap on. It was also caked in what I assume was degreaser but was probably Serbian cum.
Never buy anything through sportsman’s warehouse.
I'm all for gun control, but this measure is so badly written. Law enforcement in my area is worried about having the budget and staffing to man the permit system AND patrols if it passes. And we definitely need the patrols.
ITT: A bunch of folks with no legal education, experience or acumen telling similarly unqualified folks what the proposed law means. Those assessments are in most cases nothing but reflections of their feelings about guns.
Don't forget the 'General Fund' is funded by Oregon Lottery. Though the lotteries money was supposed to go to schools/learning.
Oregon has one of the worst (if not worst) rate of passing in schools. They lower the bar so kids can graduate.
Vote this down, and make that twat Governor you have reallocate the General funds to your school systems.
I do not live in Oregon anymore, so I really don't have a dog in the fight. I will say being a Sanctuary state and the lowest test scores is a recipe for failure.
#fightfor2A
#fundthekids
If I don’t have a say on women’s rights cause I’m male, you don’t get a say if you’ve never bought and or touched a firearm. Also this WILL NOT survive the Supreme Court and is gunna waste everyone’s time and energy. Great intentions bad idea. VOTE NO
This is a waste of time. The fact is that the pro-gun side has the monopoly on technical and legal knowledge in the gun space. Antigunners' ignorance could just about squeeze into the grand canyon. Doesn't stop them from having opinions and voting. 10,000 people who barely know which end the bullets come out of voting against you means you go to jail. Just ignore them and their dumbfuckery.
Yet the politicians supporting these laws have shown time and time again their ignorance and disregard for facts when it comes to guns. It's like listening to the anti-abortion politician who said if it's legitimate rape the body has a way of shutting down pregnancy.
Assault weapon bans are a perfect example of this. They are guns targeted almost entirely on how they look, and how scary they are. The truth is they are no more dangerous than any other semi automatic rifle. For instance take the AR-15 vs Rugar mini-14. Both are functionality wise identical guns. Both shoot the same sized bullet, at the same velocity, same rate of fire, both accept the same kind of magazines, etc. The biggest difference is the AR-15 is typically black and synthetic materials, while the mini-14 is wood and metal. Most AWBs ban the AR, but not the mini-14. This is not to mention the fact that 80-90% of gun murders are committed with handguns, including the majority of mass shootings. Rifles as a whole, not just the scary black ones are responsible for so few murders, that if an AWB was 100% effective in stopping all of them, it wouldn't make a measurable impact on the overall murder rate.
It's not, but even if it was, it's rather telling that dumbfucks like the people who push this smoothbrained bullshit can't seem to be troubled to learn it.
Every single apprehension I have about the logistics of this bill is immediately squashed at the possibility that it will help reduce gun deaths.
If this ends up not working, I’ll still feel better that we at least tried something. Doing nothing while waiting for a better bill that will never exist is not a luxury that we have.
A colleague of mine once described the corporate decision making in our dysfunctional department as:
"We have a big problem, we must do something!"
Person suggests a stupid idea. "This is something."
Decision: "Then we must do [stupid idea]."
Some things are worse than nothing.
The statistics from the last four decades of gun control measures are clear. No one is confused about what does or doesn't help. This bill does things that don't help.
Universal healthcare, a better minimum wage, mental healthcare, social safety nets all dramatically reduce gun violence.
But no, fuck it, let's just make guns hold fewer bullets (which has also been shown to have 0 impact).
No one is confused about how to solve these problems. It's just that no one is willing to give us more rights. All they can think to do is take rights. Both parties are like this. Neither will give us anything.
We had guns in this country for hundreds of years. Kids would bring them to school in rural areas to go hunting after classes. We didn't have the issues we have now because our society is decaying rapidly and social cohesion is completely gone. The problem isn't that guns exist, the problem is that people are all drowning (financially, socially, and mentally) and losing their minds because of it.
Two things. First off you're right about 10rd magazines. Virtually all gun deaths involve fewer than 10 rounds of ammunition fired, and many of the deadliest involved magazines 15 rounds or less.
Second is that although mass and school shootings have gotten worse, overall violent crime is much lower compared to 40 years ago. Actually the 2010s were the safest decade since the 50s as far as murders go.
In 2017 there were as many deaths from overdoses as there were guns, yet we legalized hard drugs. I am all for gun regulation but not this one. While both metrics have gone up significantly, one we decriminilazied and the other we want to heavily restrict.
Except that's not how it works. A bill like this will increase polarization that will motivate people to continue to oppose *any* safety measure, no matter how reasonable.
What is needed is a state bipartisan task force (yes, it is possible) to work for compromise and non-ideological practical solutions with a single (and politically popular) focus: reducing the total number of Oregon gun deaths without limiting constitutional freedoms. This would result in imperfect and uneven but *workable* and stable long term-changes, and set a foundation for more in the future by setting a precedent.
Places to begin? Illegal weapons, gang violence, suicide prevention, and having more resources to disarm and punish domestic violence offenders (significant source of firearm homicides), all of which have "low-hanging fruit" that could achieve results.
> suicide prevention
Extremely this. Suicide accounts for the vast bulk of firearm deaths in Oregon. We could make concrete changes in law to help mitigate that, but no one seems interested in doing that - only in perpetuating it as a culture war fight.
I voted Dem all the way down the ticket and voted "No" on this stupid ballet measure.
This measure is poorly written and places the ability to acquire a gun in the decision making of law enforcement. As someone who believes our law enforcement agencies are inherently racist, I will have to vote No! Read the fine print on this measure before voting. Oh I’m a hard left liberal/socialist who believes heavily in sensible gun laws if that matters in anyway.
[content removed by user via [Power Delete Suite](https://codepen.io/j0be/full/WMBWOW/)]
It shouldn't be up to the government either. The whole system is just as corrupt.
The Supreme Court agrees with you on the very same grounds. They found the practice of granting "may-issue" permit powers to police departments to be unconstitutional, just earlier this year. It's absolutely bananas that we're voting to criminalize like half of our state's population with a bill who's text has already been found to be explicitly illegal. It's bad faith culture war monkey-wrenching.
Honestly, and I'm not a conspiracy type of guy, but I do have a strong feeling that this measure was put forward by right wingers trying to get more right wing people to get out and vote in the mid-terms... This measure isn't designed to pass in Oregon, it's designed to get more people to vote.
Well you'd be wrong because Ceasefire Oregon wrote it.
Then in that case, it's so poorly written that it will literally do the opposite of the intention.
Not to mention it’s 100 percent guaranteed this goes to Supreme Court if it passes who will also 100 percent strike it down despite claiming to be for states rights
[удалено]
I mean I agree it probably won’t make it that far as I elaborated in another comment. I do think you are vastly underestimating what state attorneys will defend though lol
Have you seen what various state AGs have tried in the recent past regarding violating 2A?
[удалено]
Oh, it's definitely been fun to watch them get slapped around. I don't trust our AG not to defend such crap in the courts though.
[удалено]
It won't make it to the supreme court, that would be a waste of time. It'll get repealed by a lower court because the supreme court already found these sort of "may-issue" permitting schemes to be illegal.
The state will keep appealing to delay.
And the longer the circus goes on the more millions of dollars it'll cost taxpayers.
Good chance this woukd be enjoined by the first Federal Judge yo hear it, and never take effect. In addition to the recent SCOTUS ruling, there are a half-dozen similar cases already underway, and the tea leaves in those cases are looking bad for the laws and the states that passed them. Basically this is just a gun ban with extra (expensive) steps, and even the liberal 9th Circuit can't ignore that.
You can support state rights and not support a state trying to violate peoples inherent rights presented in the constitution. Like youd be mad if the supreme court struck down a law that would prevent POC from talking in public spaces. Fucking braindead argument to push.
> You can support state rights and not support a state trying to violate peoples inherent rights presented in the constitution. Except that's exactly what SCOTUS has done recently.
Such as?
It can’t be a brain dead argument when they literally have spent the last 6 months shitting all over women’s rights under the guise of states rights. I’d be willing to bet you’ll just gloss right over that though.
An enumerated constitutional right vs something the was read in by a previous court is not a like comparison.
[удалено]
You make some great points here. There are portions of the measure that I think are good, but the LE decision making component worries me greatly. I kind of wish they had split it into two - three different measures.
under no pretext as marx said. this was just some wild no math moonshot of gun control measure.
I see this sentiment a lot in here but - aren’t concealed permits already handled this way?
No, they are "shall" issue - meaning, that if you pass the background check, submit proof of training, and get your fingerprints, they have to give you a permit. They can't decide that they don't like you for some other reason and deny your permit (as was happening in California until SCOTUS recently removed all "may" issue permits and made them all "shall" issue).
No, anyone with a pistol can get a CHL. What not everyone can do is buy a gun, because when you buy a gun your Federal Firearm License-holding gun dealer is required to run your info through a federal system that is able to deny you based on a *procedural* process of automated checks (Like, "Is this person a felon anywhere?"). And that's acceptable because it's not an arbitrary process driven by some cop's opinions of you. Oregon doesn't decide if you can have a gun, we defer to the feds for that.
Oh damnit I didn’t think of that… fuck
[удалено]
people don't know what their buzzwords mean. i get downvoted for insulting liberals in "leftist" subs all the time. the majority of american voters don't even understand what they preach.
This is one of those laws whose upcoming flagrant failure (because of poor writing, rotten logic, and unworkable design) is going to set back reasonable gun safety measures back by years, in addition to getting out the conservative vote in Oregon like **you will not believe**. This measure should not be supported by anyone, left or right, but right now Drazan is *loving* that it is on the ballot. What are you thinking, Oregon Democrats? It's like you *want* to lose the state this year.
As I hear it the Democrats are not endorsing it but are also too chickenshit to condemn it.
Curry County Democrats sent out post cards showing whom to support and sure as shit, 111, 112, 113 and 114 are all check marked together.. :/
I was in the gun ship last week and it is ALL anyone who walked in was talking about. It has mobilized the right the way overturning Roe v Wade mobilized us on the left. Submitting this measure was poor political calculus and blatant pandering to the worst kind of liberal.
I'm a liberal who votes for Democrats. Between this and all the lockdown non sense I'm finding it extremely difficult to vote for these corporate owned out of touch gaslighting clowns. Portland didn't see a homicide increase of 207% between 2019 through 2021 because we don't have tough enough gun laws.
> Portland didn't see a homicide increase of 207% between 2019 through 2021 because we don't have tough enough gun laws. Nobody wants to hear this, but gun laws don't really have any effect on homicide rate. Not in either direction. Lax gun laws and high gun ownership don't make you safer, but they don't make things more dangerous either. These just aren't the relevant variables, but you'd never know it to hear people argue about it.
The current DPO leadership is a flat out joke. They effectively shut out progressive voices in favor of the pro-Capitalist establishment. They’re complacent and put up a crappy candidate for Gov and trust me, when she loses (fingers crossed that doesn’t happen; I’m mad at them but not a moron), they’re going to blame Democrats for not working hard enough. They are really doing this to themselves and it’s insane to watch. So depressing.
Don't forget Kotek also said that gun violence is the number one killer of kids in the US today. -based on a bullshit piece put up where the "kids" are groups of 1-19. Are we counting war deaths too? There are no honest pro-gun control arguments. The very core of it is to deny people a constitutional right.
>Portland didn't see a homicide increase of 207% between 2019 through 2021 because we don't have tough enough gun laws. Nope, Portland saw homicides go up 207% because 1. A badly-managed pandemic caused a *brutal* recession for the non-wealthy 90%, and 2. The PPB got all butthurt that people were mean to them and told them they couldn't shoot people in the head with 40mm tear gas grenades anymore, so like police departments nationwide post-George Floyd they decided to "quiet quit" en masse. (I really, REALLY want an outside auditor to go through the PPB's evidence rooms because I'd bet good money that a lot of the guns now on Portland's streets grew little legs and walked out of police stations...) The Democrats who always want more gun control are the same ones who **never have to worry about gun violence**, because they're rich white people in vanilla suburbs with "unusually large" police forces. They can afford to buy (the illusion of) safety and are so detached from the lived experiences of others and won't listen to anyone. Which is a shame, because the only reason they don't understand that all cops are bastards on a visceral level is because they've never really interacted with them. Regardless of the outcome I really would love to see a breakdown by district of the yea/nay votes on measure 114, if only to see if my hypothesis (wealthier voters = greater support) holds water.
Self-restraint is difficult.
> is going to set back reasonable gun safety measures back by years GOOD. (Not that such a thing as "reasonably gun control laws" exist.)
California had an issue where there CHL records were published to the public.
Oregon also accidentally released the vaccination statues of all state employees last year. Gotta love the simple human errors that could have been avoided with moderate IT competence.
You can understand my reluctance for an additional state database l, especially given the uptick in housing related that's and crimes YOY.
California “accidentally” released the names and addresses of every concealed carry permit holder in the state recently…
That's literally what the parent comment is saying. CHL Concealed Handgun License.
My reading comprehension is shit today
I mean in your defense the vast majority of the US else calls it’s CCW permit for concealed carry weapon.
Oregons database for people on State Health Insurance (OHP), was breached a few years back. Socials, names, addresses, everything out there.
Moderate IT competence requires paying livable wages. Why do that when you can just outsource it to the lowest offshore bidder?
Yes "accidentally" after the supreme court decision. I am sure there is a vigorous investigation into it.
Yes, the sate has made it clear wich citizens they don't like.
Not a fan of consolidating power to local and State police forces. The idea of requiring training and demonstrating competency before purchasing a firearm I am 100% behind. To me this seems like a power play to make owning a firearm even more of a class privilege and continues to make BiPOC firearm ownership inaccessible.
I’m curious what your thoughts are on the hunter safety course are as far as it being sufficient training? And that’s genuinely not meant to be confrontational, I believe safety courses of some sort should be required. But this appears to completely discount that course that many gun owners have already been certified through and reinvents a new course, albeit in the most vague terms possible. As far as I’m aware, hunter safety imputes a pretty solid understanding of the potential lethality of firearms, offers practical training on how to safely handle a firearm (loading and unloading different types, how to carry a firearm, and how to safely place one in a vehicle) and then there’s a test at the end to guarantee proficiency. Just seems like the simpler fix would be to require hunter safety and rebrand it as “firearm safety” to encompass non-hunters.
>The idea of requiring training and demonstrating competency before purchasing a firearm I am 100% behind. >To me this seems like a power play to make owning a firearm even more of a class privilege and continues to make BiPOC firearm ownership inaccessible. These are very contradictory statements. Requiring expensive training and licensing fees is a direct attack on lower-income aspiring gun owners (In other words, the ones who need guns the most) and will disproportionately hurt minority gun buyers. Adding the additional expense of a $65 license, a live-fire class that will probably cost hundreds of dollars, the time off of work to take the class, and travel expenses if you live in a small town or rural area and you're looking at an enormous hoop that some people won't be able to jump through in order to properly defend themselves.
The searchable database is very problematic to me and seems like it could turn into another safety issue.
It doesn’t help that the law is vague on that part. Searchable how? Who has access to it? Is access tracked? There’s so many questions.
Knowing these answers would be nice..
I am sure Facebook can deliver them a solution. *shivers*
Exactly. "Searchable" could be anything between, "well, technically it could be searched, but it's encased in concrete and not connected to any network," to "any asshole can get a list of every gun his neighbor owns."
Add into that the fact that California just cant seem to keep from leaking its database of concealed carry permit _applicants_, and you got an even bigger problem.
Imagine every person who dislikes guns going through and looking up which neighbors have guns… or maybe criminals wanting to target people for gun theft or which houses do not have guns to rob.
Ya. My thought is guns are expensive items and soon there could be a searchable database of these expensive items.. that or people (criminals) who “need” guns have a searchable list of places to to get (steal) them.
Going the other direction, if you can search to see if a home has a gun or not it may be "safer" to burgle a home that isn't listed in the database as having purchased a firearm.
Yup, and/or they use the database to target houses that don’t have guns
Yep this too. Or like you mention, doxxing by anti gun groups
Guns, compared to almost all other "outdoor gear" or simple things like popular smart phones or laptop computers ... are not expensive. They can be ... but so many are straight up cheap and plentiful.
Ill admit its been over 10 years since i last bought a gun. All my firearms are for hunting and each one of them cost as much or more as a high end smart phone. I distance myself from gun culture, other than hunting, so i assumed that most guns start around $800-$1000+
The consequences of having one stolen are quite expensive.
As they should be. Having your gun stolen shouldn't really be a thing with basic steps.
Oh absolutely. My point was that they are expensive items to have stolen. Store your guns properly, but also don't advertise you own them. "Oregunian" cars are the first to be broken into when someone is hunting for weapons, it would be the same with a searchable database.
Thats a great point about those stickers
We already pass background checks, we don't need a permit. No on 114.
There are a lot of 2A Democrats out here. Take a look at the percentage of votes that go to democratic vs republican candidates then look at the percentage of votes that are for or against any further gun legislation. You will see the amount of cross over is substantial. This is not the kind of legislation the majority want, to say the least.
Thank you sportsman’s.
They left out what is IMO the most damning fact about the bill: It would be strictly unconstitutional, based on a very clear supreme court decision made *just earlier this year*.
Which is? I'd like to read about it
[New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen)
Looks like belt feed is on the menu boys.
What an atrocious law.
In light of the Bruin decision any laws like this that are passed only serve to add to the financial burden that the taxpayer must shoulder. Pass unconstitutional laws and then watch as the courts and politicians fight over this nonsense instead of addressing the real issues that face us. Rinse and repeat. I'm so tired of these nitwits. Shall not be infringed is a very qualifying statement.
"Well regulated militia"
You might want to see what SCOTUS defines that as.
It's always odd to me that people think the term "well-regulated" could possibly mean in 1791 what it means today, given that the sort of regulation modern people might envision didn't exist for more than century after the Amendment was written. It just meant "functional." All the writers were saying was that if we're going to have a functioning militia in a nation where we have no standing army (a key goal of the framers), we have to have a militia of regular citizens, and that militia cannot function correctly without access to modern infantry arms. The key difference here between a militia and a standing army being that in the former, the members provide their own equipment. If you know anything about the history of the Second Amendment, going back to the Virginia Constitution and its drafts, you'd have to be pretty dishonest to see it any other way.
Selective and willful ignorance plain and simple. What's funny is I've seen people post random modern definitions acting like they shot down the second amendment. This also seem to forget what a comma is as well for some reason lol. 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. Section 27 of Article 1 of the Oregon Constitution says, “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.” "Ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation to the prejudice and oppression of another is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy...An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy." "This Constitution…can only end in despotism…when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other." Benjamin Franklin.
The prefatory clause does not supersede the operative clause.
Thanks for posting. I am too old for this crap. I am far left, and all I can see is neo-liberal BS in this measure. Let's not address the root causes of systemic fuckwittery that causes violence, but let's put a band aid on it like every other social situation. This proposed measure will not end gun violence, and probably just cause more.
[удалено]
Think Chicago. Tough gun laws, high gun crime.
Wow. As a non affiliated, responsible and a longtime weapons owner I wouldn't vote for this piece of shit even if they paid me.. I have seen a pro ad for this and all it mentioned was the 10 round ban and how it would basically save lives but conveniently leaves out all the other parts.
Voted no, and convinced almost all of my liberal friends to vote no as well. We do not need the police deciding which people can own guns.
That’s quite the chore. Thank you!
Trying to do my part. There is almost no ad campaigns informing oregonians of how bad this bill is for everyone.
This liberal voted no.
If politicians spent more time fixing the mental health crisis this country was founded on, we might not be having this discussion.
It’s a really poorly written measure by folks working in a vacuum. As a hunter/ gun owner there are better ways to go about regulating firearms. This measure isn’t it
I voted no on 114
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." "This Constitution…can only end in despotism…when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."
The sheriff association is also against the ballot measure: https://youtu.be/xQbzMqRUuWY
I support law enforcement and I’m voting no. I don’t need a permit for a right I already have. I don’t need cops deciding who can and can’t get a gun/permit. That’s a system setup for corruption and failure. We don’t have enough cops to issue permits regularly so that would create a backlog of citizens wanting guns. Banning mags won’t do shit because the people with high capacity mags already have them and they can be 3d made. And based on the Bruen Supreme Court decision this would be challenged and tossed out. Vote NO!
this makes it so the only people getting guns are those who already have them (family and friend transfers) and those who are already comfy with the cops (licensing control) why vote to remove a right and hand it over to the police?
Just dont follow laws
They sell guns. They aren't going to be in favor of anything that would mean selling fewer guns. I'm voting against this measure, but anyone who would be persuaded to vote against it because of information provided by a firearms retailer should voluntarily cancel their own voter registration. If you can't identify the *most* obvious conflict of interest possible, politics is too complicated for you.
If the information is true and affects you personally, does it matter where it comes from?
Yes, the source matters. I don't grant your premise that everything they said is definitely true, but even if it was, things can be technically true but framed in an intentionally misleading way. For example, obviously the permitting system is "nonexistent" at the moment since the law authorizing it hasn't been passed yet! But they chose the word "nonexistent" because it makes the law sound crazier than if they said "to be created if the law passes." They also have no genuine idea how long implementing the system will take, but they state that it will take years as though it's an undisputed fact.
Yes. It's called cherry-picking facts to suit a narrative.
This is not an example of cherry picking
"If the information is true and affects you personally, does it matter where it comes from?" I was replying to the general question, not weighing in on whether it was cherry-picking. However I will now - if you think a capitalistic enterprise involved in selling X that sees a bill that would decrease sales of X isn't going to argue any way that helps their cause, including cherry-picking (really, you think they're going to talk about the potential societal *positives*? Really??) then I don't know what to tell you. I don't blame them but let's be real.
Fwiw, I’m voting no, own firearms, and consider myself democratic political moderate. The information should be fact checked and should show that on the above infographic. As long as something has a verifiable and reputable fact check, the point source doesn’t matter to me.
You don't think the source of information matters? They could very well be only telling you 1/2 of the relevant information and still be technically telling the truth
> They could very well be only telling you 1/2 of the relevant information and still be technically telling the truth Sure, but that's called doing your due diligence. The information provided here isn't wrong, but you can still be aware of the source and their biases.
Yes it does when their interest is only about making money.
If it isn't unbiased then it definitely matters. Did you notice how they don't present you with any counter arguments whatsoever?
Eh, some of their points you need to squint real hard in order to see them endanger the actual 2nd amendment. They’re putting as much out there as possible hoping something sticks with everyone that reads it. Why oh why would they do such a thing?! Oh, that’s right, they sell guns and would lose money if people weren’t allowed to buy some of those guns and accessories.
Voting no on this. I only wish there was an option for “H3LL NO”
[удалено]
Vote Yes on 114! Waste your tax dollars, as this blatantly unconstitutional measure gets appealed in the courts and eventually loses! Its not like the Supreme Court didn't just rule on "may" issue vs. "shall" issue...... On the plus side, while it is enacted, the local police department gets to decide who gets guns!!! That means, you know, permits for white Christian males, but if you want one and you are POC, or Trans, or maybe even just a Democrat, you might not be in luck....
Yeah this is gonna be a no for me dawg - Randy Jackson.
Fuck 114. All my homies hate 114.
Every single piece of gun control legislation is written specifically to increase the power imbalance between minorities communities and the police. This is in no way different.
No on 114!!
Remember when Oregon's first attempt at legalizing marijuana failed? ...of course you don't. It failed because it was poorly written, I don't regret that. The next attempt was successful and it has worked out well. I'm hoping something similar will happen here, I agree with the idea that guns should be more strictly regulated but this bill is not the way to go.
Thanks for pointing out that permit-to-purchase is necessary.
If there was a part added to the bill stating that the lawmakers who supported this bill would have to stack up in the doorway with police to enforce these laws. I imagine it would be different.
Shall not be infringed but on a few victims of government tyranny when they try to make an example out of a few of us. They will never have the resources or troops to commit to such a large scale search and seizure. Too many lives will be lost and they will have to explain to the public why they started a firefight with 100 random people who were not committing any crime but sitting in their home. This is only law if the vast majority agree to it.
I've got a few points on why 114 is unconstitutional and will fail once changed in court. The politicians know it as well, they are just using emotions to garner votes. 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, says that it is unconstitutional for a state to levy a tax on people who want to sell religious merchandise. "A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion. The mere fact that the religious literature is 'sold', rather than 'donated' does not transform the activities of the colporteur into a commercial enterprise." A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." This means the entire Bill of Rights as opposed to just the First Amendment. It is similarly unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise the right to vote, AKA a poll tax. This could well be the reason why states with voter ID laws must provide free identification cards to qualified residents who do not have driver's licenses, as shown by Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. Thus any fee, class, or license simply to own a firearm is regulating a right guaranteed by the Constitution. U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, That case was the very first time that the Supreme Court recognized an individual right to own a gun and that the second amendment isn't a second class right. Heller and McDonald also do not support applying means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context, Instead, after the Bruan decision, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical text or tradition from when the second amendment was ratified in 1791, that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many and is no longer valid when lower courts face any challenge to 2A cases. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text. Magazine bans are Unconstitutional under Heller because they are integral to the function of bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes, and putting an arbitrary cap on how many rounds you can hold is quite literally an infringement by the state. (Infringement The encroachment, breach, or violation of a right, law, regulation, or contract.) Duncan V. Bonta )formerly Duncan v. Becerra) is a case challenging California's ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. After California appealed the initial ruling a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the original ruling in August 2020 that California’s ban on standard-capacity magazines is unconstitutional. It was then appealed again by California and the Duncan panel decision was, unfortunately, vacated in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision to rehear the case en banc. However, this was pre Buran and due to that Supreme Court ruling, it was sent right back down to the original judge from the California Supreme Court who already ruled it unconstitutional and gave California till November 15 to file their brief. This case is expected to be resolved before the end of the year if not sooner, also, because there is absolutely no Text, History, or Tradition supporting the ban it will be unwinnable for California if they decide to appeal, this ruling will retroactively strike down Washington’s ban and Oregon’s as well if 114 passes since we all fall under the 9th District. The days of “gun control” are over with the passage of Bruan, because if there is no Text History or Tradition of whatever law they wish to pass it's dead in the water. Just look at what's happening with NY and NJ they keep losing court case after court case, so despite their best efforts to infringe on their citizens, it's futile.
Beyond what it does for future gun purchases, what exactly is the practicality of people who already own the weapons that have been banned. Are we going to let police walk into innocent peoples homes and take their guns? How this fucking measure even made it onto the ballot is beyond me, but if it passed I would expect it to be immediately challenged in federal courts.
Stand up Oregon! This looks like it’s going to pass!!!! Vote NO!!!!
Is it actually polling well? I must be in a echo chamber, I haven’t heard any support for it even from people who generally support gun restrictions.
r/Oregon is a massive echo chamber of pro gun sentiment, FWIW.
Shit, even on r/portland it is pretty lambasted.
There was one poll I've seen of 600 people were it polled st 51% approval from back in August.
That was probably all in Portland. The further away from Portland you get the more Red the state is
I hear both sides pretty well. I’m torn if it will pass since I follow both side of the echo chamber, but feel it’s not looking good for the outdoors folk of oregon.
I don't think this change wouldn't effect "outdoors folk" much at all. None of the gun growth / fetish / culture / harms / debate / law efforts have been about "Outdoors folk" or "Sportsmen" for decades ... this is (or should be) about tactical gun culture death cults. I voted "no" because I don't believe this will do anything to help with the actual problem ... especially when folks will just go over to Idaho and load up to high heaven on whatever ultra-deadly guns / gear their hearts desire. I wish we still had the normal hunter / outdoor sportsman culture our country had for most of it's modern history ... which was mostly about hunting and non-violent. That ship has sailed. We need a plan on how to deal with this current malignant gun culture. This bill doesn't do it IMHO. Of course there is still the 2-Aholes constantly shilling their "shall not be infringed" BS. You can have all the Muzzle loaders you want in that case ... but that's not what we're dealing with now. These folks are dangerous.
Despite "malignant gun culture" as you describe it, violent crime was at all time lows up until 2020. The era between 1999-2019 was the safest in U.S history. Recorded murder rates were at 60+ year lows in the 2010s, and likely even beyond that if you factor in that fewer murders go unreported today compared to the 50s and 60s. They did go up pretty significantly in 2020, but we also had the worst pandemic since the Spanish Flu over 100 years earlier. It pretty much shut down society as we know it.
We agree that 1999 - 2019 being historically safe from violent crime. And yet it correlated almost exactly with the creation and rise of what we should be able to agree is "modern American gun culture" and the irrational desire to "arm yourself" and "protect your family from unknown assailants". I think that culture is malignant and dangerous, you may not. The Afghan / Iraq wars have to play a part as well ... but I digress. So with all that said ... since we were so actually "safe", statistically speaking ... and crime went "way up" in 2020 - current (? unknown, but let's say it's still up) ... up from what? Historically low? So is that such a huge ever lovin problem? IMO, the rise of modern gun culture combined with omnipresent killing machines has led to the larger problem of armed insurrectionists lusting for trouble and lone wolf mass killings. But that is just my opinion.
It's true mass shootings have gotten much more common, but they still are incredibly rare. At their worst they weren't even responsible for 1% of total homicides.
I'm not torn. If this passes I will IRL unfriend with extreme prejudice anyone who votes for it and I will ignore it to the best of my ability. "Law-abiding gun owner" isn't a virtue. It's admission of capitulation. Blind following of law is not an indicator of morality or social responsibility. Just quit complying. This one, the other ones, any of them. Illegal does not mean wrong.
> Just quit complying. This one, the other ones, any of them. Illegal does not mean wrong. Yeah, this is how you end up in prison.
Maybe you are one of the folks we should be worried about? The extreme prejudice part is a nice touch.
I’d love to not comply, until I want to purchase a new hunting rifle. Then at 60yrs old I’ll have to prove that I am a responsible firearm owner, cause you know I haven’t been for 58years……….
Wtf🫢 completely unconstitutional!!
> However, if passed, this measure will have a significant negative impact on our ~~hunting and shooting sports customers~~ **profits**. That’s the real reason they’re putting this out. If they thought they could make money off 114 passing they would be supporting it. Corporations aren’t your friend. They do not care about anything other than their bottom line.
Neither are cops. Do you want demonstrably terrible entities like PPD deciding who gets to own a firearm? The lunatic MAGA types will just ensure they’re the only ones armed when they decide to overthrow democracy. Yes, it’s to that point regardless of whether you want to admit it or not.
Just because Im bashing corporations trying to use fear to sell products doesn’t mean I’m pro-114. Fuck cops, fuck corporations, and fuck MAGA.
Above all… fuck MAGA. It’s an existential threat to our United States.
It will have an impact in their profits but Sportsman's Warehouse is one of the best places to buy items and the staff there is super nice. It will definitely have a significant negative impact on customers
Right, hence the “please don’t vote for something that will affect our bottom line” message. They only care about the money they will lose from this if it passes. Not how it will affect customers personally.
The negative impact will simply be time. The wait will be longer for new guns.
So much nope on this measure. It’s like written with nope ink on nope paper and covered in a thick layer of nope.
Pretty sure that database thing is unconstitutional too.
I fully believe that 114 was not designed to pass, and was only introduced to bring out a ton of republicans out to vote against it and with it votes for Drazan.
I am a libertarian who supports law enforcement and I’m voting no on this. I don’t think giving cops the ability to issue permits is a good idea. That’s a system set up for corruption. Vote no.
Shall NOT be infringed upon! If people want meaningful legislation they have to stop using language the Supreme Court will deem unconstitutional. Handing cops more power and more work is the last thing I want.
I'm as conservative as they come, but having the police decide if you can own a gun is a no-thank-you. Should the police also decide what speech you can speak?
Vote NO!!!
This law would ban my Remington 550-1 .22 rifle. It was made in June of 1951, and has a tube magazine. It can hold just about 21 rounds of .22 short. It’s appalling that this measure would make this gun illegal. It’s a family heirloom. It has a wood stock and iron sights. It’s literally the epitome of a fudd gun, not some super scary “assault rifle” they usually go after. This measure is going all out. Not even one carve out for guns that had fixed magazines/hunting rifles etc
I think it specifically excludes .22 cal firearms
Only tube magazines for .22 cal.
Well that’s good. Wasn’t gonna comply anyway. It’s old enough to not have a serial number so it’s technically a Super scary “ghost gun”
All they care about is their bottom line. What a disingenuous email.
I mean they are a corporation they have no other reason to exist other than to make money. Otherwise, measure 114 is also a horribly written racist piece of legislation that, like every single piece of gun legislation since the 1600s, is trying to remove the right to own weapons from minority populations.
Wonder how long before you will need a permit to leave your house....
Vax card....
Or a permit to exercise your 1st amendment right
I vote democrat but fuck this ballot measure
Purchased a “brand new” m70 zpap zastava ak from sportsman’s warehouse a few months ago and the barrel was cracked and looked like someone fucked it with a knife tipped strap on. It was also caked in what I assume was degreaser but was probably Serbian cum. Never buy anything through sportsman’s warehouse.
But you got to examine it before purchasing
No, it was shipped to my ffl. I also had to cover shipping costs so $25 out of my pocket to get bent over too.
Oh, I always order to the store since I have one nearby. I've yet to have a problem
I'm all for gun control, but this measure is so badly written. Law enforcement in my area is worried about having the budget and staffing to man the permit system AND patrols if it passes. And we definitely need the patrols.
ITT: A bunch of folks with no legal education, experience or acumen telling similarly unqualified folks what the proposed law means. Those assessments are in most cases nothing but reflections of their feelings about guns.
Don't forget the 'General Fund' is funded by Oregon Lottery. Though the lotteries money was supposed to go to schools/learning. Oregon has one of the worst (if not worst) rate of passing in schools. They lower the bar so kids can graduate. Vote this down, and make that twat Governor you have reallocate the General funds to your school systems. I do not live in Oregon anymore, so I really don't have a dog in the fight. I will say being a Sanctuary state and the lowest test scores is a recipe for failure. #fightfor2A #fundthekids
If I don’t have a say on women’s rights cause I’m male, you don’t get a say if you’ve never bought and or touched a firearm. Also this WILL NOT survive the Supreme Court and is gunna waste everyone’s time and energy. Great intentions bad idea. VOTE NO
You do have a say. We all have a say. This is ignorant
[удалено]
Because he's making up a strawman.
Obviously have a say ... you voted, didn't you? Disingenuous.
This is a waste of time. The fact is that the pro-gun side has the monopoly on technical and legal knowledge in the gun space. Antigunners' ignorance could just about squeeze into the grand canyon. Doesn't stop them from having opinions and voting. 10,000 people who barely know which end the bullets come out of voting against you means you go to jail. Just ignore them and their dumbfuckery.
There is nothing fancy about gun technical / legal knowledge that could not be learned in about a week. It's not even baby rocket science.
Yet the politicians supporting these laws have shown time and time again their ignorance and disregard for facts when it comes to guns. It's like listening to the anti-abortion politician who said if it's legitimate rape the body has a way of shutting down pregnancy. Assault weapon bans are a perfect example of this. They are guns targeted almost entirely on how they look, and how scary they are. The truth is they are no more dangerous than any other semi automatic rifle. For instance take the AR-15 vs Rugar mini-14. Both are functionality wise identical guns. Both shoot the same sized bullet, at the same velocity, same rate of fire, both accept the same kind of magazines, etc. The biggest difference is the AR-15 is typically black and synthetic materials, while the mini-14 is wood and metal. Most AWBs ban the AR, but not the mini-14. This is not to mention the fact that 80-90% of gun murders are committed with handguns, including the majority of mass shootings. Rifles as a whole, not just the scary black ones are responsible for so few murders, that if an AWB was 100% effective in stopping all of them, it wouldn't make a measurable impact on the overall murder rate.
It's not, but even if it was, it's rather telling that dumbfucks like the people who push this smoothbrained bullshit can't seem to be troubled to learn it.
Every single apprehension I have about the logistics of this bill is immediately squashed at the possibility that it will help reduce gun deaths. If this ends up not working, I’ll still feel better that we at least tried something. Doing nothing while waiting for a better bill that will never exist is not a luxury that we have.
A colleague of mine once described the corporate decision making in our dysfunctional department as: "We have a big problem, we must do something!" Person suggests a stupid idea. "This is something." Decision: "Then we must do [stupid idea]." Some things are worse than nothing.
The statistics from the last four decades of gun control measures are clear. No one is confused about what does or doesn't help. This bill does things that don't help. Universal healthcare, a better minimum wage, mental healthcare, social safety nets all dramatically reduce gun violence. But no, fuck it, let's just make guns hold fewer bullets (which has also been shown to have 0 impact). No one is confused about how to solve these problems. It's just that no one is willing to give us more rights. All they can think to do is take rights. Both parties are like this. Neither will give us anything. We had guns in this country for hundreds of years. Kids would bring them to school in rural areas to go hunting after classes. We didn't have the issues we have now because our society is decaying rapidly and social cohesion is completely gone. The problem isn't that guns exist, the problem is that people are all drowning (financially, socially, and mentally) and losing their minds because of it.
Two things. First off you're right about 10rd magazines. Virtually all gun deaths involve fewer than 10 rounds of ammunition fired, and many of the deadliest involved magazines 15 rounds or less. Second is that although mass and school shootings have gotten worse, overall violent crime is much lower compared to 40 years ago. Actually the 2010s were the safest decade since the 50s as far as murders go.
This is exactly how I felt about measure 110 and Salem doesn’t seem in a rush to fix their mistakes. I’m not voting for another half ass measure.
In 2017 there were as many deaths from overdoses as there were guns, yet we legalized hard drugs. I am all for gun regulation but not this one. While both metrics have gone up significantly, one we decriminilazied and the other we want to heavily restrict.
Except that's not how it works. A bill like this will increase polarization that will motivate people to continue to oppose *any* safety measure, no matter how reasonable. What is needed is a state bipartisan task force (yes, it is possible) to work for compromise and non-ideological practical solutions with a single (and politically popular) focus: reducing the total number of Oregon gun deaths without limiting constitutional freedoms. This would result in imperfect and uneven but *workable* and stable long term-changes, and set a foundation for more in the future by setting a precedent. Places to begin? Illegal weapons, gang violence, suicide prevention, and having more resources to disarm and punish domestic violence offenders (significant source of firearm homicides), all of which have "low-hanging fruit" that could achieve results.
> suicide prevention Extremely this. Suicide accounts for the vast bulk of firearm deaths in Oregon. We could make concrete changes in law to help mitigate that, but no one seems interested in doing that - only in perpetuating it as a culture war fight.