Oregon Here's what I do not understand about 114 etc.

[GWS]

OK these people want to implement Measure 114 or pass a bill that end runs 114 and puts the same crap in place (though from what I can tell more expensive).

SO how does this logic work. I currently have more then 1 and less then 50 fully functional firearms in my legal possession. I can carry a number of them concealed I can carry most any of them openly. I can hunt, I can target practice, I can kick a pop can around an open field, I can shoot a person breaking into my house in the middle of the night.

EXACTLY what purpose in the real world of Disney would requiring me to jump through all these hoops and pay this money to buy one more firearm? I can assure you should crime and mayhem be my intention I would not require another firearm to carry anything out.

I know that the reason for these laws has nothing to do with reducing crime or safety. But how on earth does this even screw with me? I have firearms. Sure I might want a couple more but is all this effort worth me not having that Replica Winchester model 1886 rifle I would like?

It just seams from a logical point of view so amazingly stupid.

So basically, you're going to do exactly what the left wants. You'll stop buying guns. You are now a "Win" for the anti-gun legislators.

 

[Mark W.]

So basically, you're going to do exactly what the left wants. You'll stop buying guns. You are now a "Win" for the anti-gun legislators.

Well I guess if you read my post sideways while dancing on one foot you could come up with that idea. As to stopping buying firearms. I'm not sure how you get that from the observation I posted.

 

[hker71]

Total disarmament to control everyone. And if anyone thinks thats a conspiracy theory then please provide an answer to the OP.

100% This. These clowns in politics are playing the long game.

 

[GWS]

Well I guess if you read my post sideways while dancing on one foot you could come up with that idea. As to stopping buying firearms. I'm not sure how you get that from the observation I posted.

I guess I misread your last line: Sure I might want a couple more but is all this effort worth me not having that Replica Winchester model 1886 rifle I would like?
My bad.

 

[Ducati_Meister]

The goal is to condition each generation that guns are "normally" banned, regulated, etc. Think of the NFA of 1934, The GCA of 1968, then the FOPA in 1986, that closed the machine gun registry, etc, the Clinton gun ban from 94-04 so on.
These laws were passed as each generation went by, creating a culture change that the gun grabbers want, if not full-blown confiscation, which is their end goal.
In the EU, gun grabbing was easier, and even to this day, they tend to give into authority more than we do in the US.

 

[nwslopoke]

The goal is to condition each generation that guns are "normally" banned, regulated, etc. Think of the NFA of 1934, The GCA of 1968, then the FOPA in 1986, that closed the machine gun registry, etc, the Clinton gun ban from 94-04 so on.
These laws were passed as each generation went by, creating a culture change that the gun grabbers want, if not full-blown confiscation, which is their end goal.
In the EU, gun grabbing was easier, and even to this day, they tend to give into authority more than we do in the US.

That is something to think about seeing how several Comblock countries didn't see their independence until the early 1990s. They should be saying, hell yes everyone needs a gun (in Europe).

It's an unfortunate truism that an armed society (however unlikely to fight) is a danger to tyranny. Perhaps it's not needed but it seems to be working.

 

[CamoDeafie]

they tend to give into authority more than we do in the US.

That is something to think about seeing how several Comblock countries didn't see their independence until the early 1990s. They should be saying, hell yes everyone needs a gun (in Europe).

It's an unfortunate truism that an armed society (however unlikely to fight) is a danger to tyranny. Perhaps it's not needs but it seems to be working.

You can blame Hobbes for that, not the tiger from the Calvin comics, but Thomas Hobbes the English philosopher from the 1600s.. most widely known for "Leviathan" book and the "Social Contract" concept in which the "absolute sovereign" must be in place for citizens and subjects to obey, be it Church, or State

 

[Deavis]

I know that the reason for these laws has nothing to do with reducing crime or safety. But how on earth does this even screw with me?

I can explain it for you but I can't understand it for you.

Apathy from gun owners is how we got here, and paves the way for where antis want to take us.

It's cultural lawfare and it will not stop until you are a subject instead of a citizen.

 

[Mark W.]

Well I certainly am not apathetic about any firearm related law. I've in the past spent hours in hearing rooms fighting earlier laws. I testified a number of times. Even being involved with the law that changed how CHL are issued.

You missed my point. Which was basically unless I buy another firearm this law does NOTHING to reduce the chance I might commit a crime with a firearm. So while will screw with firearm owners it won't reduce crime.

 

[GWS]

Well I certainly am not apathetic about any firearm related law. I've in the past spent hours in hearing rooms fighting earlier laws. I testified a number of times. Even being involved with the law that changed how CHL are issued.

You missed my point. Which was basically unless I buy another firearm this law does NOTHING to reduce the chance I might commit a crime with a firearm. So while will screw with firearm owners it won't reduce crime.

It's not about lowering crime. That line is just BS window dressing. It's about making the process such a pain in the bubblegum that people will throw up their hands and say "Screw this! It isn't worth the hassle." and walk away. When fewer guns get sold, shops close and Dept. stores close their gun departments, making it even harder for honest citizens to buy a gun and slowly ending gun culture in this region. It was never truly about lowering crime or violence. It's Salem and Olympia and Sacramento playing the long game for disarming the people of their respective states, by incrementally making it harder for honest citizens to buy a gun.

 

[Jay Walk]

114 Is just another steppingstone towards Total Civilian Disarmament, it was never about reducing crime.

 

[FandF24Mels]

1. They don't care about you or me. They care about the young people coming of age soon. The fewer pro2A kids, the better for them. The fewer kids with access to legal guns and legal avenues of self defense and common use stuff, the better for them (politicians)

2. Sure you have good stuff but they did throw in those mag restrictions along with no grandfather clause...


3. They won't stop here.

Oregon - 2025 83rd Oregon Legislative Assembly Firearm Proposals, a list

A couple of really genius bills that are being proposed here, most of them by senator Lisa Reynolds. Lisa needs to go in 2026. Only one I'd be in favor of is SB987. It is also shocking to me that SB975 creates a loophole for homeless to get guns, but completely screws over law abiding citizens...

www.northwestfirearms.com

They already have a whole bunch more to go in this session, and they're looking at Colorado's semiautomatic ban for the next subject which will be... "Oregonians can get ""illegal"" mags from Idaho and other States,,so we need to clamp down and ban guns that uses these mags"

Really good point about them playing the long game in making guns less accessible (and visible) to young people. If politicians can change young people's view of guns to fit their narrative, they are on their way to potentially changing the 2nd Amendment.

 

[AshWilliams]

"But how on earth does this even screw with me?"

OP, all of your standard magazines will soon be illegal and if you are caught using them it is up to you to prove to the state that you owned them before M114 was enacted. If you fail to do that you will be charged with a class A misdemeanor (DUI, assault in the fourth degree, etc.).

 

[arakboss]

Well I certainly am not apathetic about any firearm related law. I've in the past spent hours in hearing rooms fighting earlier laws. I testified a number of times. Even being involved with the law that changed how CHL are issued.

You missed my point. Which was basically unless I buy another firearm this law does NOTHING to reduce the chance I might commit a crime with a firearm. So while will screw with firearm owners it won't reduce crime.

Maybe they are thinking that it will reduce suicides by firearm or deter/delay shootings by new firearm purchasers?

If it's a real hassle to acquire a firearm a person may choose to walk in front of MAX train instead.

 

[Koda]

Maybe they are thinking that it will reduce suicides by firearm or deter/delay shootings by new firearm purchasers?

Yes that too, but they are playing all angles as they have nothing to lose. The long term strategy is to virtually eliminate gun culture, If they cant stop sales, make it a huge major investment so the price isnt worth the reward so to speak (this will eventually annual inspections, and recurring background checks....).

 

[AshWilliams]

Maybe they are thinking that it will reduce suicides by firearm or deter/delay shootings by new firearm purchasers?

If it's a real hassle to acquire a firearm a person may choose to walk in front of MAX train instead.

Or jump off a bridge. There's plenty to choose from downtown and they even post signs on the bridges I've seen discouraging them from jumping and encouraging them to seek help.

 

[Koda]

I'm not one to hide statistics, guns are the highest success rate of suicides and the US has the highest rate of guns used in suicides. That doesn't mean banning guns eliminates the problem of suicide nor should anyones rights to own them be removed as a solution to a different issue.

 

[RVTECH]

Yes that too, but they are playing all angles as they have nothing to lose.

Absolutely.

And 'nothing to loose' is a VERY powerful advantage to have and position to be in....

 

[Koda]

Absolutely.

And 'nothing to loose' is a VERY powerful advantage to have and position to be in....

That ol saying...
You cant compromise with someone who has nothing to give up in return. Yeah, its a very powerful position they are in.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Absolutely.

And 'nothing to loose' is a VERY powerful advantage to have and position to be in....

That ol saying...
You cant compromise with someone who has nothing to give up in return. Yeah, its a very powerful position they are in.

The same could be said of formerly law abiding gun owners who refuse to comply?

I mean; "in for a penny, in for a pound? "

If they're gonna felonize us over small potatoes like gun appearances and mag capacities, go big?