Oregon Another Anti-gun Petition - Initiative 44

[tourproto]

We will have to disagree. I have seen and discussed many examples of unintended consequences of "common sense" laws like this on the forum to know that they do not play out like people think they will. Personally have been effected by it and have met people personally effected by it.

I dont think if a firearm is stolen the owner should have to be responsible for what is done with that stolen firearm. Its a trend of removing any responsibility of action from any one person. Locked up or not.

Transferring a firearm without a trigger lock engaged is dumb because I have seen trigger locks personally that will engage the trigger when installed. Requiring the use of a poorly made device to give the illusion of safety is a poor excuse for a law. Can you find some examples of people shot during the transfer of a firearm that require it to be codified into law? Is that really an important enough issue

I dont like the face that the chief petitioner does not live in Oregon. I dont live in Oregon anymore, but my son does. I still would not start a petition in oregon though.

Jeez, again somehow arguing against things that I no issue with.... Everything in 44 is bad, and the only thing I am "for" is for keeping unattended guns in a safe. Not at all times. Only if they are unattended and you are nowhere around.

The going to jail thing in my last post was referring to a child who kills himself/herself with an unattended gun. Not about someone who steals a gun and commits a crime. I do realize I was not as clear about that in my last post, but I was very clear in prior posts, especially the one with the links to news stories about kids accidentally shooting themselves with unattended firearms.

Totally against trigger guards and everything else in 44 except for keeping unattended firearms in a safe. I have never used a trigger guard as they are crap. When transferring a gun, my guns are unloaded, no magazine inserted and a chamber flag in the barrel throat. If a secure mechanism were required to transport, I would still do all of the above and have the gun in a locking gun case vs. using a trigger guard. However if all the other stuff were already done, a trigger guard, while useless, would still be pretty window dressing for the lefties. Hard to have a negligent discharge if there is no magazine in the gun/slide back/cylinder open, and a chamber flag in the throat of the barrel.

Can't be any more clear. Against 44 in its current form. Period.

My original comment was that I can understand the underlying sentiment for the part of 44 where guns should be locked up when not "in use". But even there, I disagree with 44. For me "in use" is on my belt, or in my immediate vicinity and I am not worried about some kid or someone I don't know finding it. And when "in use" a gun should not be locked up with a trigger guard or anything else, it should be ready to point and shoot until the gun is empty.

Kinda done with this thread now. People can keep bashing but I am going to stay away as this thread has gotten too toxic for me. I've stated my position, others have stated theirs. Tired of responding to "situations" or "circumstances" I never supported in the first place. Have a good day.

 

[bolus]

Kinda done with this thread now. People can keep bashing but I am going to stay away as this thread has gotten too toxic for me. I've stated my position, others have stated theirs. Tired of responding to "situations" or "circumstances" I never supported in the first place. Have a good day.

Im sorry that you assumed I was trying to bash you. I did not have that intention. Some of my venting was just in general about this initiative. A law would never be introduced that would just include locking when not in use. That's why we so aggressively oppose anything that restricts gun owners. The laws are always more overreaching and have bad unintended consequences.

My father's firearms where not locked up at any time during my childhood. They were in a case in a not-so-obvious location but no one was ever even considering making it illegal for him to go to jail if he left it unlocked when we were not home. I remember when my parents went to Europe when I was a teenager, I got out his revolver and put it on my bed stand at night just in case. I knew how to shoot it, I knew not to point the thing at anything I did not want shot. We didn't need the government holding our hands and if we got shot because we were idiots, that was it, no one else got punished for our stupidity.

 

[RailwayMan]

So if I transfer/give a .22 single shot rifle to my 20-year-old nephew in another state I have to then personally supervise his use of it???
Can these petition writers understand "FUC U!!!!!!"

 

[bolus]

They just spent $41000 on PR company
Welcome

and $10,000 on advertising
Hello. We're Coates Kokes.

Still expecting 44 to make it to the ballet and 43 will not.

 

[JavaDude]

They just spent $41000 on PR company
Welcome

and $10,000 on advertising
Hello. We're Coates Kokes.

Still expecting 44 to make it to the ballet and 43 will not.

How can they possibly get this on the ballot given the SCOTUS already ruled on this in "District of Columbia v. Heller" as unconstitutional?

 

[bolus]

How can they possibly get this on the ballot given the SCOTUS already ruled on this in "District of Columbia v. Heller" as unconstitutional?

they dont know or dont care. I bet they chief petitioners (not the one from Washington DC, the oregon ones) have never heard of Heller.

But legislators do this all the time. Also, remember someone will have to get arrested to contest it in court and go broke paying lawyers to appeal it since the lower courts will upheld it even though it is unconstitutional. So they will ruin at least one person's life and that's all they care about.

But you could ask them. Their phone numbers are in the public record under persons associated with the committee.
Oregon Secretary Of State

 

[RailwayMan]

Gotta love this Vague statmeent in it :
(2) For purposes of section
s1and 3of this 2018 Act, a firearm is under the control of a
person when the person is lawfully authorized to possess the firearm and the person is in
sufficiently close proximity to the firearm to prevent another person from obtaining
possession of the firearm.

This right here, a lawyer could use in a court room as it asks you to determine what a third party may or may not do.
Making it impossible to prevent possession without knowing the persons intent and ability to access said firearms.
Dropping that word in "prevent" is an impossibility, by this same logic could we not sue Gun Free Zones? As they are designed to prevent shootings ? So by this thinking every Gun Free Zone is liable when a shooting happens.

Its all illegal anyways.

 

[RailwayMan]

Another stupid poorly written attempt to subvert both the Bill of Rights and the Oregon Constitution, and the US Supreme Court has already ruled such requirement unconstitutional and illegal to impose.
The writer must have drank a 1/2 bottle of Scotch before sitting down to compose that one ....