Are these the last days of freedom in OR?

[RVTECH]

Part of the plan with these anti gun groups is they KNOW if they get something passed (especially as radical as IP 17/18) they KNOW it will cause confusion and disorientation with gun owners and this is EXACTLY what they want.

They will sit around laughing at us because none of it affects them - and they will get their jollies from it.

NOW - reality being what it is it most gun owners should approach this with a controlled 'temperament' and not panic because in reality INITIALLY it should not necessarily affect anyone because they should already have what they want, HOWEVER eventually it most likely will affect all of us when the reality of the requirements sink in .

Hey - I am not going to sugar coat this - I hate it (and those who proposed it) as much as we all do and hope something changes to render this an unreality.

 

[E4mafia]

For those among us blissfully unaware of what Measure 114 is and does:

Oregon Measure 114, Changes to Firearm Ownership and Purchase Requirements Initiative (2022)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Last time I checked this site had around 50-55k members (not sure why that count was removed from view) but that's at least 50k people already voting NO on this.

A simple header in the classifieds section (which I believe is the most trafficked portion of the site) would really BENEFIT us spreading the word. I am more than willing people would see Measure 114 while looking to buy/sell/trade vs coming to actual forums, I am aware there are a few threads in the appropriate forums but still this is huge and is coming THIS NOVEMBER BALLOT.

The about portion of NWFA says this:

"We believe the 2nd Amendment is best defended through grass-roots organization, education, and advocacy centered around individual gun owners. It is our mission to encourage, organize, and support these efforts throughout Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming."

#27 of the Oregon constitution says:

Bills and Laws OrConst

www.oregonlegislature.gov

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

 

[ilikegunspdx]

For those among us blissfully unaware of what Measure 114 is and does:

Oregon Measure 114, Changes to Firearm Ownership and Purchase Requirements Initiative (2022)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Last time I checked this site had around 50-55k members (not sure why that count was removed from view) but that's at least 50k people already voting NO on this.

A simple header in the classifieds section (which I believe is the most trafficked portion of the site) would really BENEFIT us spreading the word. I am more than willing people would see Measure 114 while looking to buy/sell/trade vs coming to actual forums, I am aware there are a few threads in the appropriate forums but still this is huge and is coming THIS NOVEMBER BALLOT.

The about portion of NWFA says this:

"We believe the 2nd Amendment is best defended through grass-roots organization, education, and advocacy centered around individual gun owners. It is our mission to encourage, organize, and support these efforts throughout Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming."

#27 of the Oregon constitution says:

Bills and Laws OrConst

www.oregonlegislature.gov

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

That site shows the NRA comments in "opposing arguments" saying a mental health review is required. Has anyone seen a mental health review component? I didn't know that was in there. ?

I can only view the preamble and definitions on that site on my phone so maybe it's in there somewhere?

Btw those two arguments against are quite frankly poorly and lazily written. They sound like a knee jerk reaction and are not convincing to those unaware of the issues. Is there any way to put a more factual and convincing argument in there for opposing arguments? IMO undecided voters will read that and say "that's just more NRA BS" or something. If those are the actual statements that end up in the voter pamphlet we are doomed no question IMO.

 

[Member 53328]

That site shows the NRA comments in "opposing arguments" saying a mental health review is required. Has anyone seen a mental health review component? I didn't know that was in there. ?

I can only view the preamble and definitions on that site on my phone so maybe it's in there somewhere?

Btw those two arguments against are quite frankly poorly and lazily written. They sound like a knee jerk reaction and are not convincing to those unaware of the issues. Is there any way to put a more factual and convincing argument in there for opposing arguments? IMO undecided voters will read that and say "that's just more NRA BS" or something. If those are the actual statements that end up in the voter pamphlet we are doomed no question IMO.

Well the NRA is a joke so…..

They're getting that money though.

 

[E4mafia]

Not quite a mental health review but in the bill itself it does state that they can determine if you're fit or not but doesn't explain the process of HOW.

Download the PDF Ctrl+f and type mental it's under the process of obtaining the permit or use the search icon in the upper right on mobile.

They would treat this like the CHL process essentially only this is now required to simply BUY/OWN guns which is strictly unconstitutional. Not to mention it maintains a data base ala registry.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Not quite a mental health review but in the bill itself it does state that they can determine if you're fit or not but doesn't explain the process of HOW.

Download the PDF Ctrl+f and type mental it's under the process of obtaining the permit or use the search icon in the upper right on mobile.

They would treat this like the CHL process essentially only this is now required to simply BUY/OWN guns which is strictly unconstitutional. Not to mention it maintains a data base ala registry.

View attachment 1256684 View attachment 1256685

Yep totally. All of it is unconstitutional. I'm wondering to what extent they evaluate mental health. If they did something like Hawaii that would add massive costs, delays, and probably eliminate 95% of buyers simply because they don't want to go to a doctor to get evaluated (proof that they are not dangerous) when they know they are sane.

I'm not saying they are going to that extent but it certainly happened in Hawaii.

 

[3MTA3]

Not quite a mental health review but in the bill itself it does state that they can determine if you're fit or not but doesn't explain the process of HOW.

Download the PDF Ctrl+f and type mental it's under the process of obtaining the permit or use the search icon in the upper right on mobile.

They would treat this like the CHL process essentially only this is now required to simply BUY/OWN guns which is strictly unconstitutional. Not to mention it maintains a data base ala registry.

View attachment 1256684 View attachment 1256685

Some clerk with blue hair and a nose ring will simply determine that if you want a gun you must be crazy (It's all common sense, ya know) then you will have to prove you are not.

 

[Member 53328]

Yep totally. All of it is unconstitutional. I'm wondering to what extent they evaluate mental health. If they did something like Hawaii that would add massive costs, delays, and probably eliminate 95% of buyers simply because they don't want to go to a doctor to get evaluated (proof that they are not dangerous) when they know they are sane.

I'm not saying they are going to hat extent but it certainly happened in Hawaii.

Well I've been diagnosed with "PTSD" "Anxiety" and "Depression" so I'll be a prime candidate….. even with my military career and no criminal record…. Looking forward to being labeled even more than I already am.

If this passes (which I'm sure they already have the ballots to ensure a victory) I will make it a point to not buy another gun in Oregon.

 

[E4mafia]

Basically they would have you fully dox yourself in a searchable data base just to exercise a "right" which has now been relegated as a privilege and make you pay for it to then wait 30 days to actually use it and STILL do another BGC with your 4473 when you go to buy a gun at a FFL.

Vote no on Measure 114. The state cannot even prevent crime in major cities what makes anyone think this system will do what a 4473 hasn't already been doing for years now. How does a permit enhance the possiblity of catching criminals who already ignore laws willfully on repeat.

The catch is that you the law abider must now abide by the new "law" because you say you abide by laws no matter how assinign they may be. If you say you won't comply that's great but I'm sure that FFL you go to WILL BE complying to avoid the long dong of the law.

 

[Going Tits Up]

What people don't realize is that you're outnumbered, get used to it. The entire Portland area could fall in the ocean or Columbia river after a nuclear attack and most of us would be happy. You lost get over it. Too much whining here.

 

[SCLU]

So why bother doing background checks anymore when selling to residents of Oregon?

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Can we all pitch in to buy space in the voters pamphlet for an Opposed essay?

 

[CountryGent]

This measure is built around a infrastructure that does not exist. So how do they expect to do it?

I had a very similar thought whilst reading the text of this offense to our rights and common decency. If this thing passes, and they try to implement it, it will be the mother of all clusterfs. And I have to imagine lawsuits would be flying like there is no tomorrow.

 

[3MTA3]

Can we all pitch in to buy space in the voters pamphlet for an Opposed essay?

I'm in. We just need to find the wordsmith and some more donors. It;s critically important to our freedom and liberty

 

[CountryGent]

I'm in.

Ditto.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Pretty sure Sun Tzu covered it, but (and a serious question) if you know you aren't going win at the ballot, why would you pick there to have your fight?

I would think either an effort to keep it off the ballot or a post election lawsuit, both centered around the obvious unconstitutionality, would be a better use of resources.

 

[Diamondback]

Better start looping in with FPC and SAF to start preparing the lawsuits for the day it passes...

 

[nammac]

Ditto.

I'd contribute to making something like that happen.

 

[rhollister71]

I'm in. We just need to find the wordsmith and some more donors. It;s critically important to our freedom and liberty

im in!

 

[Rkangel]

The harder the enemies of freedom push and the more our rights are pursued and hunted, the fewer options remain until we are propelled towards civil disobedience and, eventually, uncivil disobedience. That is true of all our rights and not just our right to bear arms. I hope with all that I am, that never happens.

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
- Martin Luther King, Jr. from his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," April 16, 1963

Honestly, I think the left believes this is their win-win scenario. If we bend over, they win without a fight. If they push us to uncivil disobedience, they win with a fight and use our resistance as "proof" that we were racist insurrectionists in need of a jackboot on our throats and a trip to the gulag.