Messages
19,607
Reactions
29,892
My immediate concern with IP17 is that the license to purchase process won't be active when the IP takes effect on Jan 1st, 2023. I would like to see an FFL seek an emergency injunction so that the license to purchase requirement is halted until OSP and any other police agencies involved have the process in place and active. OSP is only going to have less than two months to set up an entire new structure for reviewing and issuing licenses to purchase. They are going to be overwhelmed with background checks from people trying to get in last minute transfers before Jan 1st. It could be months into the new year before they get the license to purchase program up and running with licenses in buyers hands. Smaller FFLs are going to suffer most.

Edit: It appears that local police agencies will be doing the brunt of the work. The process appears to mirror the CCW licensing structure except for the addition of the live fire requirement. Imagine how backed up the sheriff's offices are going to be.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
19,607
Reactions
29,892
There is going to be a serious shortage of providers to provide the training (including live fire training) required to get a license to purchase.

It would be great if ranges all across the State would welcome certified trainers to use their facilities to help their clients complete the live fire portion of the training.
 
Messages
3,187
Reactions
7,383
My immediate concern with IP17 is that the license to purchase process won't be active when the IP takes effect on Jan 1st, 2023. I would like to see an FFL seek an emergency injunction so that the license to purchase requirement is halted until OSP and any other police agencies involved have the process in place and active. OSP is only going to have less than two months to set up an entire new structure for reviewing and issuing licenses to purchase. They are going to be overwhelmed with background checks from people trying to get in last minute transfers before Jan 1st. It could be months into the new year before they get the license to purchase program up and running with licenses in buyers hands. Smaller FFLs are going to suffer most.

Edit: It appears that local police agencies will be doing the brunt of the work. The process appears to mirror the CCW licensing structure except for the addition of the live fire requirement. Imagine how backed up the sheriff's offices are going to be.
They'll probably contract out a lot of the work to private shooting ranges, which will have their own mess of paperwork to deal with. I'm planning let our FFL expire, I don't want to deal with any of this. Transfers are just a microscopic part of our business anyway.

These people who signed this are IDIOTS. What does a registry and a training course do for public safety anyway? Is it they can't figure out who the mass shooters are, or is it the mass shooters are unable to safely handle a firearm? But I guess we already know the real reason is they want to throw up obstacles for people . It's like the Reconstruction South. Just make it a little more annoying and hard for people like us to live here, until hopefully most of us leave.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
19,607
Reactions
29,892
I think there would be a good opportunity for those providing the training to do a package deal. A package that would allow people to get their training for CCW and license to purchase at the same time would be good. If the Sheriff's Depts can do the same thing, it may dramatically increase the amount of CCW holders in this State.
 
Messages
246
Reactions
376
They'll probably contract out a lot of the work to private shooting ranges, which will have their own mess of paperwork to deal with. I'm planning let our FFL expire, I don't want to deal with any of this. Transfers are just a microscopic part of our business anyway.

These people who signed this are IDIOTS. What does a registry and a training course do for public safety anyway? Is it they can't figure out who the mass shooters are, or is it the mass shooters are unable to safely handle a firearm? But I guess we already know the real reason is they want to throw up obstacles for people . It's like the Reconstruction South. Just make it a little more annoying and hard for people like us to live here, until hopefully most of us leave.
Yes uninformed ones at that. The Shills at LEVO either did this intentionally as a defacto ban on firearm purchases or are completely misguided or both. I've got into it with them on Facebook, they kept citing the " permit to purchase" program in Missouri for handguns as a great success. The program is now defunct. Alot of the studies they use to make their case and point are all open sourced publications or studies ANYONE can publish. They're absolute joke.

We all should be meeting for lunch or " war gaming" our next offensive. We have to be better organized than we are.
 
Messages
246
Reactions
376
Did anyone watch the Oregon Legislative Session on IP17? Apparently Leonard Williamson a pro firearms attorney and the gentlemen next to him hk khang ( firearms instructor) are there to represent the " Oregon Gun owners". Now keep me honest here, it seems they stepped up represent us at large?


 
Messages
2,768
Reactions
4,493
I know OFF isn't popular for all the necessary reasons, but I took a cue from their mail suggesting a follow up to SecState. I have a more detailed reason why this should not move forward which I'm saving for what I hope is a hearing or feedback, so for now focusing on where they're drilling in on the language. Here's my mail:

"Hello,

With regard to IP17, I respectfully request that the following items be addressed in language for the ballot. I am submitting this in advance to specific feedback on the proposed ballot item.

Broad points which need clarity:

Costs to Oregonians: This initiative should call out the costs to Oregonians for maintaining or administering this added process beyond mandatory background checks (as already required in Oregon.) Fees will not immediately cover the costs, and an assessment of cost to taxpayer needs to be transparent as part of this.

Demonstratable link the tile of safety to how this prevents criminals from attaining firearms.

To the specific provisions:

Training: there are multiple requirements for training (classroom/live fire) and there should be clarifications on the state's actual capacity to accommodate training by citizens without forcing an undue burden on those seeking to exercise their right to own firearms.

Licensing: There is significant redundancy in the requirements for a license to purchase vs. a concealed pistol license in Oregon. Please clarify if a concealed license will serve with rights to purchase or if Oregon is looking to introduce a parallel, redundant process for ownership.

Capacity: Capacity for the state to facilitate support of a citizen following the proposed process should either be identified or listed as an item to be developed at a later date.

List of purchasers: The Constitutionality of this will likely be successfully challenged, but until such time this group is obligated to state up front that the goal is to create a list maintained, and by whom. Federal registries of owners are illegal, and the State level may not survive a challenge per Bruen.

Magazine restrictions: The committee needs to acknowledge that the movements from the Supreme Court on existing cases on magazine and weapon bans have been vacated and remanded with a clarification on the tests that must be used to determine Constitutionally protected devices. This includes multiple cases where states have restricted magazine capacity. It would be responsible to annotate at the bottom of the language that this - as well as much of the rest - may be subject to legal challenges due to the most recent ruling from SCOTUS.

My feedback as to the constitutionality of IP17 per both rulings in Heller and Bruen will wait for what I expect will be open feedback sessions."
 
Messages
18,345
Reactions
38,586
I know OFF isn't popular for all the necessary reasons, but I took a cue from their mail suggesting a follow up to SecState. I have a more detailed reason why this should not move forward which I'm saving for what I hope is a hearing or feedback, so for now focusing on where they're drilling in on the language. Here's my mail:

"Hello,

With regard to IP17, I respectfully request that the following items be addressed in language for the ballot. I am submitting this in advance to specific feedback on the proposed ballot item.

Broad points which need clarity:

Costs to Oregonians: This initiative should call out the costs to Oregonians for maintaining or administering this added process beyond mandatory background checks (as already required in Oregon.) Fees will not immediately cover the costs, and an assessment of cost to taxpayer needs to be transparent as part of this.

Demonstratable link the tile of safety to how this prevents criminals from attaining firearms.

To the specific provisions:

Training: there are multiple requirements for training (classroom/live fire) and there should be clarifications on the state's actual capacity to accommodate training by citizens without forcing an undue burden on those seeking to exercise their right to own firearms.

Licensing: There is significant redundancy in the requirements for a license to purchase vs. a concealed pistol license in Oregon. Please clarify if a concealed license will serve with rights to purchase or if Oregon is looking to introduce a parallel, redundant process for ownership.

Capacity: Capacity for the state to facilitate support of a citizen following the proposed process should either be identified or listed as an item to be developed at a later date.

List of purchasers: The Constitutionality of this will likely be successfully challenged, but until such time this group is obligated to state up front that the goal is to create a list maintained, and by whom. Federal registries of owners are illegal, and the State level may not survive a challenge per Bruen.

Magazine restrictions: The committee needs to acknowledge that the movements from the Supreme Court on existing cases on magazine and weapon bans have been vacated and remanded with a clarification on the tests that must be used to determine Constitutionally protected devices. This includes multiple cases where states have restricted magazine capacity. It would be responsible to annotate at the bottom of the language that this - as well as much of the rest - may be subject to legal challenges due to the most recent ruling from SCOTUS.

My feedback as to the constitutionality of IP17 per both rulings in Heller and Bruen will wait for what I expect will be open feedback sessions."
What do you think the odds are of getting a response? :rolleyes:
 
Messages
3,861
Reactions
5,834
I think we need to be careful about offering suggestions to make these initiatives more palatable. IMO, providing a roadmap to legality for this, isn't in our best interest. If they want to put it on the ballot in a form that's unconstitutional, let them. It's the old thing about not interrupting your enemy when he's making a mistake.
 
Messages
7,725
Reactions
21,384
I have a bunch of ideas, beliefs and questions regarding the license to purchase requirement portion of IP17. I am starting this thread to share and discuss them.


Link to text of IP17:

@arakboss thanks for taking point on this.

We need you to share your input on the measure's contents.

The Secretary of State has formed a committee to write an "explanatory statement" for the voter's guide, supposedly to describe what the ballot measure does.

We need your comments to go to that committee. The committee is scheduled to meet to accept public comments on August 3rd, but you may email comments now to [email protected]

It is essential that the committee hear from gun owners in Oregon. We know the Secretary of State has stacked the deck so it is critical that voters actually know what they will be voting on.

Do NOT send comments opposing the measure. That will not matter. What we need are emails pointing out what is actually IN the measure so we can at least try to get an honest assessment of what the measure does. Just pointing out that the measure is a bad idea does not help.

Please contact the committee and point out any or all of the following facts about the measure and ask that they be included in any statement published in the voter's guide.

 
Messages
7,725
Reactions
21,384
Here is a thought. Since the recent Supreme Court Bruen Decision declared that New York State and other states that are not currently Shall Issue cannot be a "May Issue" states when it comes to CCW permits, wouldn't Oregon State counties refusing to issue a permit to purchase due to lack of the required training resources violate Bruen?
 
Here is a thought. Since the recent Supreme Court Bruen Decision declared that New York State and other states that are not currently Shall Issue cannot be a "May Issue" states when it comes to CCW permits, wouldn't Oregon State counties refusing to issue a permit to purchase due to lack of the required training resources violate Bruen?
Exactly what I was thinking. A license to purchase smacks to me as an infringement of a constitutional right. What if someone can't "pass the test" (whatever might be in said test) to get the license? Seems to me that they would be denied their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

And then add in that whole thing about firearm registries being, like, totally illegal and all...
 
Last Edited:
Messages
1,618
Reactions
1,042
Exactly what I was thinking. A license to purchase smacks to me as an infringement of a constitutional right. What if someone can't "pass the test" (whatever might be in said test) to get the license? Seems to me that they would be denied their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Doesn't make much difference if they pass or not as most places won't teach you live fire training unless you already have a gun.
 

Upcoming Events

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top