JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
429
Reactions
817
I just called the sheriffs office to find out if it is still ok for me to take my daughter and her husband to my club/range and let them use my guns without a transfer. After speaking to 3 different people my final answer was they really did not know but don't worry about it as no one was going to arrest me for it or prosecute it. He also said he knew of no sheriff that understood it all or thought it was a good law. God , ya got to love this state and the wisdom of the voters.
 
My understanding is that this type of scenario was addressed in addendum as it went through the state legislature. I also understand that most of law enforcement in Oregon do not have the resources or inclination to actively investigate violations. My impression is it will be one of the laws in their back pocket to deal with people breaking other laws giving them probable cause to investigate or arrest. Otherwise, as long as you are respectful and comply with their direction, they'll send you on your merry way.
 
Hey Wayne, I just thought of something. We should do exactly what you did, and randomly call our local PD or sheriff's office, daily. Keep asking this question. Until they go bonkers, and get the legislature to amend/revoke 594.

State Patrol was first to state they would not enforce this silly initiative. I still predict it would be overturned in court on the basis of violating the "single subject rule" (see Wash. Const. Article II Section 19). The supreme court stated clearly in Amalgamated Transit that the single subject rule applied to initiatives.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1823136209530606834&q=I-695&hl=en&as_sdt=2,36

Can anybody claim with a a straight face that I-594 did cover a single subject?
 
Last Edited:
Hey Wayne, I just thought of something. We should do exactly what you did, and randomly call our local PD or sheriff's office, daily. Keep asking this question. Until they go bonkers, and get the legislature to amend/revoke 594.

State Patrol was first to state they would not enforce this silly initiative. I still predict it would be overturned in court on the basis of violating the "single subject rule" (see Wash. Const. Article II Section 19). The supreme court stated clearly in Amalgamated Transit that the single subject rule applied to initiatives.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1823136209530606834&q=I-695&hl=en&as_sdt=2,36

Can anybody claim with a a straight face that I-594 did cover a single subject?
Yes, harassing law enforcement always turns out well.
 
Yes, harassing law enforcement always turns out well.

+1. Outside of the People's Republic of Metro, most law enforcement officials are pro-second amendment. As was explained to me by one of Yamhill County's finest: it's not the cops you have to worry about when it comes to firearms. It's the DA's who are typically young lawyers, a bit on the left-leaning side of politics, and anxious to make their mark in the world who will foul you up.
 
My understanding is that this type of scenario was addressed in addendum as it went through the state legislature. I also understand that most of law enforcement in Oregon do not have the resources or inclination to actively investigate violations. My impression is it will be one of the laws in their back pocket to deal with people breaking other laws giving them probable cause to investigate or arrest. Otherwise, as long as you are respectful and comply with their direction, they'll send you on your merry way.

i-594 = Washington
SB941= Oregon

Wrong state bud.
 

Upcoming Events

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

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top