Oregon Are 10 round magazines really legal?

[arakboss]

Nope. And tubular magazines are excepted by capacity only on LEVER ACTION firearms and 22 rimfire firearms

"(d) "Large-capacity magazine" means a fixed or detachable magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, helical feeding device, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, or a kit with such parts, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition and allows a shooter to keep firing without having to pause to reload, but does not include any of the following: (A) An ammunition feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it is not capable, now or in the future, of accepting more than 10 rounds of ammunition; (B) An attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with 0.22 caliber rimfire ammunition; or (C) A tubular ammunition feeding device that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

Maybe skeet shooters will start using lever action shotguns.

 

[nwslopoke]

I don't agree one bit with this so called law but if you've been paying attention it doesn't affect my day to day, immediately. My 2 main edc are under 10 rounds. If I have my AR I am most likely heading to the range. Call it coincidence.

Of course it is a @#$% overreach of the state of government. But if you haven't waited to the last minute, how much are you affected? This has zero to do with agreeing with 114.

PS. Looks like Russia just attacked Poland. Stay salty.

 

[Vinnie]

Same here NWSlopoke. Down the road from you. Have plenty of compliant gear and need no permit as I have no plans requiring licensing or permitting.
I will attempt to help float the local dealers by way of ammo and accessory items until the bulk of this mess blows over. It will be quite some time.

It seems like government over-reach, however this was accomplished by initiative petition. We can do the same. The government's response will be what counts toward their over-reach points. Can't wait for info dumps that might come along and prove government coaching or other support in the crafting of this measure.
I note that the sponsors of this measure are involved in the planning for fulfilling the requirements of the measure. So are shooting groups. But it smells to me like a measure that has elevated the sponsors to being tantamount to legislators, and I hope that the state government draws the line on their influence at some reasonable mark that complies with rules for all other lobbyists.

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

I would grab 10 round mags for your favorite carry piece already looks like they are getting gobbled up

 

[samthedog73]

Why is everyone purchasing 10 round mags? Standard capacity mags you already own are grandfathered in. Same as my commie (WA) state. What am I missing?

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

Why is everyone purchasing 10 round mags? Standard capacity mags you already own are grandfathered in. Same as my commie (WA) state. What am I missing?

Oregonians would no longer be able to manufacture, sell or purchase "high-capacity magazines," defined as magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. People who already own larger magazines could keep them, but could only use them in a few places, including on their own property and on private shooting ranges.

So looks like a no go in your CCW unless you are on a range or property

 

[samthedog73]

Oregonians would no longer be able to manufacture, sell or purchase "high-capacity magazines," defined as magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. People who already own larger magazines could keep them, but could only use them in a few places, including on their own property and on private shooting ranges.

So looks like a no go in your CCW unless you are on a range or property

Thank you PORSCHE, I just read the 'fine print.' This bill is way worse than I693. I do carry in Oregon when a trip to tent city cant be avoided. How many people actually plan on complying with this nonsense?

 

[pogi]

The measure says:

"or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition"


If you want to geek out on it, put yourself in the position of a gun hating cop, a gun hating prosecutor and a gun hating jury member. Ask yourself if all three of these people would likely consider that your mags could be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition?

Or you could hope that you never have to have any of those people make that determination about your magazines.


Or you could decide heck with them and carry 33 rounders. That way you can go out in blaze of glory when they question the capacity of your mags.

Register as a Democrat and re-identify, then you can do whatever you want in Oregon.

 

[samthedog73]

Register as a Democrat and re-identify, then you can do whatever you want in Oregon.

Or maybe my mags identify as 10 rounders...

 

[pogi]

Or maybe my mags identify as 10 rounders...

Sounds good. Just make sure to register your mags and dog as Democrat.

 

[Librarian]

Thank you PORSCHE, I just read the 'fine print.' This bill is way worse than I693. I do carry in Oregon when a trip to tent city cant be avoided. How many people actually plan on complying with this nonsense?

Probably all those who think a $6250 fine and up to 364 days in jail for the Class A Misdemeanor is too much to risk.

Don't forget, bringing in a 11+ mag is 114-illegal 'importing', so this applies to out of state residents, too.

Everyone gets to estimate the likelihood of detection and prosecution for him/herself.

 

[doomsday]

Be based and fill a plate carrier with tannerite and silverware, front and back. If you are going to be an example be an example for them too

I feel I will die in a hot pile of brass!!!!!

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

Probably all those who think a $6250 fine and up to 364 days in jail for the Class A Misdemeanor is too much to risk.

Don't forget, bringing in a 11+ mag is 114-illegal 'importing', so this applies to out of state residents, too.

Everyone gets to estimate the likelihood of detection and prosecution for him/herself.

I for one will be using my S&W 629 with a few speed loaders my CCW identifies as magazine exempt !

 

[washagonian]

I don't agree one bit with this so called law but if you've been paying attention it doesn't affect my day to day, immediately. My 2 main edc are under 10 rounds. If I have my AR I am most likely heading to the range. Call it coincidence.

To some extent, I agree with @nwslopoke.

Right now I carry a 15-round mag.

But I carried 10, and prior to that, 8-round mags.

So, I'll get by with daily CC of 10-rounds (plus reloads).

But, like someone else said in an earlier post, what's next? Limit to 8-rounds?

When the mass shooting deaths and other gun related deaths do NOT decline, then the argument could be - "Hey, we just didn't reduce the magazine capacity enough. Let's limit mags to 5 rounds, that should do the trick."

That seems like it is so stupid, it could never happen. But never say never. Look where we are today. The magic number of 10-rounds has NO scientfic data that documents a direct causality between magazine capacity to the number of deaths in a mass shooting. So, the same logic (without data) could be used to argue that the mag capacity should be lowered to 5 rounds.

And with a "citizen initiative" process where proposed laws can go directly to the voters, by-passing the legislative process - as was the case with BM 114 - who's to say the people who voted for 114 this time, won't vote for another more draconian measure in the future.

An initiative like this doesn't benefit from the scrutiny, debate, compromise and possible rejection that happens when a proposed law is moved through the legislative process. Thus, there are a huge number of unintended consequences that would - for the most part - be discovered and debated and resolved or compromised by moving the bill through the legislature.

All we can hope for is a successful and fast injunction, and then winning in court given the SCOTUS Bruen decision from the summer of 2022 which threw out the "two test" process for appellate courts.

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

To some extent, I agree with @nwslopoke.

Right now I carry a 15-round mag.

But I carried 10, and prior to that, 8-round mags.

So, I'll get by with daily CC of 10-rounds (plus reloads).

But, like someone else said in an earlier post, what's next? Limit to 8-rounds?

When the mass shooting deaths and other gun related deaths do NOT decline, then the argument could be - "Hey, we just didn't reduce the magazine capacity enough. Let's limit mags to 5 rounds, that should do the trick."

That seems like it is so stupid, it could never happen. But never say never. Look where we are today. The magic number of 10-rounds has NO scientfic data the documents a direct causality between magazine capacity to the number of deaths in a mass shooting. So, the same logic (without data) could be used to argue that the mag capacity should be lowered to 5 rounds.

And with a "citizen initiative" process where proposed laws can go directly to the voters, by-passing the legislative process - as was the case with BM 11 - who's to say the people who voted for 114 this time, won't vote for another more draconian measure in the future.

An initiative like this doesn't benefit from the scrutiny, debate, compromise and possible rejection that happens when a proposed law is moved through the legislative process. Thus, there are a huge number of unintended consequences that would - for the most part - be discovered and debated and resolved or compromised by moving the bill through the legislature.

All we can hope for is a successful and fast injunction, and then winning in court given that SCOTUS Bruen decision from the summer of 2021 which threw out the "two test" process for appellate courts.

When capacity goes down caliber goes up lol !

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

Besides a cap of 10 rounds per mag you carry 3 mags no rule against that !

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

What about warranty issues with magazines. If Im not obtaining an additional 10+ capacitt magazine but rather simply exchanging one mag for another.. would this fall under the purview of the mag ban law?

What about magazine trades? Lets say an owner and myself have an equal number of mags and we simply exchange his for mine, mine for his.. nothing new is gained by either party.. is that really an outright transfer or is it simply an exchange?

 

[nehalemguy]

There. Done. Mark them for .458 socom. View attachment 1312166

Genius!!!!!!!!

-E-

 

[Librarian]

What about warranty issues with magazines. If Im not obtaining an additional 10+ capacitt magazine but rather simply exchanging one mag for another.. would this fall under the purview of the mag ban law?

What about magazine trades? Lets say an owner and myself have an equal number of mags and we simply exchange his for mine, mine for his.. nothing new is gained by either party.. is that really an outright transfer or is it simply an exchange?

It's a transfer, value (your mags) for value (his mags).

Don't make the mistake of believing public employees and legislators are stupid. Their goals may be very different from what you and I might want, but they are at least cunning in getting what they want.

 

[doomsday]

It's a transfer, value (your mags) for value (his mags).

Don't make the mistake of believing public employees and legislators are stupid. Their goals may be very different from what you and I might want, but they are at least cunning in getting what they want.

Your so right. They want all or guns. And the way we are going they will!!!!!