JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
They want to make it so aggravating and time-consuming to be a firearm owner because of their ludicrous laws that it will deter people from even wanting to own a firearm. That's just a guess.

That would be my hunch too. Making firearm ownership as obnoxious and expensive as possible has always been their plan.

I collect NFA items (e.g., silencers, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs, etc.) and that involves a bunch of paperwork, taxes, and long waits; which was their goal to dissuade said. Didn't stop me though.
:s0066:
 
Indeed and this is a good point: a one size fits all firearms storage requirement makes no sense. In our household there are two adults who shoot, but there also two small children, so we have to go to great lengths to keep them out of the hands of a curious wee ones. The same wouldn't be true of, say, a bachelor.
I totally agree. And if I had children, Id of course ensure they (firearms) were kept out of reach and locked up. I think most active pro gun folks do. That and slowing down would be burglars is why most of us lock our investments up.. but a law forcing it so.. Not a huge fan of that.
Its often the occasional/casual/non aware shooters that allow children to get ahold of their firearms when they arent around. Its truly heartbreaking that common sense isnt so common in that regard.

The antis love a one size fits all policy that essentially equates to further punishment for "after-the-fact" type charges... I take issue with that.
 
I can't imagine a world where somebody breaks in and the resident is to blame for being shot with their own gun... the notion is completely backwards.
 
Here's what I'm hearing from our local sheriff on the current crop of gun laws:

I'll echo another member about enforceability being a challenge. Our sheriff didn't go as far as to say he'd support sanctuary county status and ignore the state laws but did repeat his oath to the CONUS. The next step will be red flag type laws which allow anonymous complaints/reports and LEO 'checking them out', even though #40 says nothing in the measure allows police to come into a domicile to inspect how guns are stored. That would become incidental to the other check that gets them in the door. I personally doubt Hanlin and his deputies would ever participate in that. State popo, who knows. Same with other counties. It would likely vary.
 
Well it's here! Ballot title:
"Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities"

Makes it sound so innocuous. Unfortunately nobody cares to read these things anymore. Let's turn this upside down folks.
 
Well it's here! Ballot title:
"Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities"

Makes it sound so innocuous. Unfortunately nobody cares to read these things anymore. Let's turn this upside down folks.
The problem I've found is that there is often nothing to read until just before being voted on, or testimony heard, and sometimes not until after as we've seen with recent senate bills.
 
Wonder if this will help us come christmas time.


Sounds like the main point was about New Yorks strict travel restrictions on handguns innacity fiasco. Hope they make a verdict and pass it nation wide to stop limiting us law abiders.
 


A ballot measure that will require you to keep your self defense firearms locked up and unavailable is moving forward.
Ballot Measure 40 has collected enough signatures to get a ballot title from the Attorney General.
In Oregon, the Attorney General is a vocal anti-gun radical.. You can rest assured she will do all she can to write the most sympathetic ballot title possible. Of course, we will be doing all we can to prevent that.
The simple truth is, mandatory gun luck up laws are unconstitutional. This is not in doubt. The US Supreme Court made that clear in the Heller decision.
So now we have no choice but to gear up to fight them in court. We simply must not allow them to write a ballot title that misleads Oregon voters. They need to know that under the proposed ballot measure, victims of theft in Oregon will face harsher penalties than gun thieves will. It's insane.
Please consider contributing as much as you can to our legal fund to to stand in the way of this madness. If we don't succeed all Oregonian gun owners will face severe legal jeopardy simply for having the means to defend themselves and their loved ones.
You can make a tax deductible donation here .
Please choose "Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation" from the "Donation Category" drop down menu to ensure that your donation qualifies for a tax deduction. Thank you for your commitment to liberty.
Here we go again. We have until Oct 24th to challenge title:
Initiative Petition
The Elections Division received a draft ballot title from the Attorney General on October 10, 2019, for Initiative Petition 2020-040 proposed for the November 3, 2020, General Election.
Caption
Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities
Chief Petitioners
Henry W. Wessinger 1000 SW Vista Avenue #1105 Portland, OR 97205
Paul Kemp 8710 SE 137th Avenue Happy Valley, OR 97086
Lisa A. Reynolds 2442 NW Westover Road Unit 201 Portland, OR 97210
Comments
Written comments concerning the legal sufficiency of the draft ballot title may be submitted to the Elections Division. Comments will be delivered to the Attorney General for consideration when certifying the ballot title.
Additionally, the Secretary of State is seeking public input on whether the petition complies with the procedural constitutional requirements established in the Oregon Constitution for initiative petitions. The Secretary will review any procedural constitutional comments received by the deadline and make a determination whether the petition complies with constitutional requirements.
To be considered, draft ballot title comments and procedural constitutional requirement comments must be received in their entirety by the Elections Division no later than 5 pm.
Comments Due
October 24, 2019
How to Submit
Scan and Email: [email protected]
Fax: 503.373.7414
Mail: 255 Capitol St NE Ste 501, Salem OR 97310
More information, including the draft ballot title and text of the petition, is contained in the IRR Database available at www.oregonvotes.gov.
 
The problem I've found is that there is often nothing to read until just before being voted on, or testimony heard, and sometimes not until after as we've seen with recent senate bills.
If anybody comes up with a good reason to challenge this ballot title or the procedural constitutional requirements of the petition, please post a copy of your letter on NWFA and I will send a personlized version of it in too. We have until Oct. 24th to challenge this.
 
Time (or lack of time) will not be on our side this election. The antis started early and will likely have plenty of time to resolve any petition challenges that might be raised.

By challenging these petitions, we will be allowing the antis the opportunity to make their petitions law more challenge proof should they be voted in.

If we don't challenge them then we have to live with could of, would of, should of and hope there is some group who will challenge the new law. Reality is, IP law rarely gets overturned.

Keep all this in mind when deciding whether to write letters now or hope for the best later.
 
One current chill to the normal democratic process of peacefully petitioning the government for redress of grievances is the current climate of information harvesting and collation. We've seen it with the attacks on POTUS, we've seen it with citizens being doxxed we've seen the social media intelligence gathering operations tell us how much they know about our everyday lives and who we are. I still believe the democratic processes protected under CONUS are the way to go but a certain amount of us should stay 'off the grid' in case stronger measures become necessary. 1984 is here, no time machine necessary. Orwell was on it 70 years ago this year.
Lastly,, OR is completely vote by mail, no polls. What could go wrong with that? Normally I'd think it to be very efficient but in this climate IDK.
 
I don't understand why they are bothering with a ballot measure. Why don't they just cram it down our throats with an "emergency clause" like they do with everything else now? :mad:
 
Dude, by population it's a blue state. They have the votes and they know it. Just look what Washington had happen recently.
 
This crap is getting ridiculous. As of oct 1 this year In Portland it is illegal to be offered plastic utensils or straws if it is a catered event like a wedding reception, company picnic etc. or in any restaurant, bar, etc. but if it's for the homeless it IS legal. I'm not kidding, look it up here: What you need to know about Portland's new plastic policy

Went to a restaurant this morning and my youngster was given adult cup with plastic top that couldn't drink out of without a straw. But it is illegal for them to give you a straw unless you ask.

Also it is illegal for any restaurant now to put those little creamers for your coffee on the table. You have to specifically ask them to bring it. Nuts!
 
Last Edited:
If anybody comes up with a good reason to challenge this ballot title or the procedural constitutional requirements of the petition, please post a copy of your letter on NWFA and I will send a personlized version of it in too. We have until Oct. 24th to challenge this.
You mean besides being yet another do nothing law that just like not being able to enforce Background checks between private sales in Oregon. Just like Red Flag laws not stopping murders in Oregon. Just like all other legal gun sales in Oregon not having much if any impact on violence, to include gun violence? Yes, if I come up with anything I'll be sure and post it.
 
"Safe Storage" is not properly defined in the Ballot Measure which states it is whatever the Oregon Health Authority decides it is. This lack of a clear definition of what is legal that is subject to change in the future was not mentioned in the Ballot Title.
 
While I share the standard disdain for this IP, something that I think is worth noting is that it's a law requiring (essentially) that any firearms not on your person need to be locked up, which is what most responsible gun owners already do. Whether or not I keep a pistol in my bedside drawer at night in my home where there are no children is my business exclusively, unless you come in my home uninvited and with ill intent.
It goes a lot farther than just "secure your firearms in a safe in your home". There is a lot of stuff in there on how exactly to transport a firearm. A few pages more and it would be telling us which foot to stand on when transfering a firearm.
 
Last Edited:

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top