Oregon IP-44; thoughts

[v0lcom13sn0w]

What if you bought a gun post SB941, but sold it to a free man (private individual) in Idaho or some free state, would that be legal? They'd say "What was his name"? You'd say, I cannot recall - met him at a gun show - he paid cash - I didn't know him - we went outside and transferred the gun at my car - I have no idea what he was driving. They'd say which gun show, where? I don't recall the date. They'd say Where did you stay while on this trip? You'd say, I camped off of a FS road near the freeway in the Blue Mountains. Did you buy gas? Of course - I paid cash. Which gas station? I don't recall. Did you make any phone calls? Darndest thing - I forgot my phone when I left the house - pissed me off!

Find out today where the gun shows are held around Boise and get the story straight in your mind. Think of every in/out. Rehearse it over and over.

They have some way of tracing all the guns used in the mass shootings because they immediately announce where the gun was obtained, whether it was obtained legally, etc.

state to state handgun sales req. bgc and transfer iirc

i do like your ambiguity there tho

 

[Jonnyuma]

how would Oregonians like it if the same applied to owning a car that was stolen or sold? Holding anyone responsible after it leaves your possession is just plain nuts

I have heard stories of car owners being prosecuted when their vehicle is stolen because they left it unattended and running... seems stupid, but plausible.

 

[JavaDude]

I have heard stories of car owners being prosecuted when their vehicle is stolen because they left it unattended and running... seems stupid, but plausible.

I don't know about that but I do know that if you get your car stolen in PDX the culprit will likely not be prosecuted. We don't need any more lays just enforcement of the ones we already have.

FBI statistics show crime is stable or down in Portland in almost all major categories: murder, assault, burglary and robbery. The one exception? Auto thefts, which rose by about 50 percent in the past three years.

In Portland, You Can Steal Cars Over and Over—and Get Away With It. Here's How.

 

[JavaDude]

What if you bought a gun post SB941, but sold it to a free man (private individual) in Idaho or some free state, would that be legal? They'd say "What was his name"? You'd say, I cannot recall - met him at a gun show - he paid cash - I didn't know him - we went outside and transferred the gun at my car - I have no idea what he was driving. They'd say which gun show, where? I don't recall the date. They'd say Where did you stay while on this trip? You'd say, I camped off of a FS road near the freeway in the Blue Mountains. Did you buy gas? Of course - I paid cash. Which gas station? I don't recall. Did you make any phone calls? Darndest thing - I forgot my phone when I left the house - pissed me off!

Find out today where the gun shows are held around Boise and get the story straight in your mind. Think of every in/out. Rehearse it over and over.

They have some way of tracing all the guns used in the mass shootings because they immediately announce where the gun was obtained, whether it was obtained legally, etc.

How about this? I gave all of my firearms, magazines and ammo to my uncle just before he passed away and I have no idea where they are now. If I am not mistaken SB941 has a clause allowing transfers between immediate family members and spouses. Anybody else sure about this? Another alternate is, to just plead the 5th and let them try and figure the rest out.

 

[JavaDude]

Speaking of thoughts on this initiative, we only have until May 15th to get our challenges in.

 

[Colts4me]

If you wanted to stop 43 and 44 just get it written into either bill the state must pay market value for any guns or magazines they ban in Oregon. Guns and magazines at this point are legal property, to ban them is purely theft.

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities


Checking the rules; this title looks like a classic non-sequitur

 

[3MTA3]

Makes Victim of Firearm Theft Responsible For Gun Crimes Committed By Thief For Five Years

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

Non-sequitur was a dead end, my idea of a non-sequitur didn't match reality.

My opening argument for a title reads: "Requires the State to prosecute law abiding citizens for event(s) out of the citizen's control".

I think 15 words is the maximum; checking now.

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

Final draft in the Tavern

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

There doesn't appear to be as much opposition to IP-44; as there was for IP-43.....



I'm basing my observation on what is not being seen here on NWFA, the absence of return e-corrispondance (0 of 19), twitter tweets are non-existent (except for Dave Workman) and the lack of news feeds (all I received was that from OFF and Oregon SoS).

No talk of 2A rallies...

Narrow vision or accurate?

 

[alv7722]

Clean house in Salem is the only way to finally stop this idiocy.

These two ARE NOT COMING FROM SALEM!!! They are being brought to us by our "friends and neighbors" (sic).

Aren't there already laws against breaking into my home and stealing a firearm?? Why do they not simply enforce those?????????

There are already laws against allowing children access to firearms. When have those not been enforced when a tragedy has happened????
There are plenty of laws available already to address the imagined situation.

 

[alv7722]

Of those who cared-enough to read IP-44 and are weighing the options of civil discourse; some may be thinking that the provisions in IP-44 aren't that bad... Perhaps they feel like the effort isn't worth time...

After all, being told (forced) to do something that is already being done isn't so bad...//s.

Because most owners of firearms keep their property secured anyway...

Most owners of firearms supervise children anyway...

Most owners of firearms transport them properly anyway..

Most of the owners of firearms are already liable anyway....

I know that only a small % of firearms owners will fight for their God-given and Constitutional rights of self defense; to those few I say fight!

Don't give away 1 inch, 1 ounce, or 1 iota of your Individual Liberty.

Write that letter to the Secretary of State today; tell them why the title is misleading.

Lift the ink pen (tap a keyboard) and write!

Spend 30 minutes of your time and .42 cents for a stamp.

Today

Hey, OK1775!!! Did you know stamps are .49 now???

Your position is absolutely correct. Any Civil Rights we allow to be taken will never be regained. They will also not be available to our children, or their children should the need arise for those Civil Rights in the future!!!

Too many in these posts claim how they will get around these Unconstitutional laws. Everything from a boating accident, or giving their firearms to a dead Uncle!! In either case, you no longer have your firearms for defense of yourself or your family.

Not one inch!! No More!!! For some reason the acronym UTAWBAG comes to mind, remembering basic training! (up their bubblegum with bugs and gas)

Some of us live in rural areas. Where I am, LE response is generally greater than 40 minutes. If we are disarmed of effective self defense weapons, we will be vulnerable to criminals that have not yet surrendered their weapons!!!

These bills MUST be stopped!!

 

[nammac]

I have heard stories of car owners being prosecuted when their vehicle is stolen because they left it unattended and running... seems stupid, but plausible.

But what about a stolen vehicle, never recovered, used years later in the commission of a crime, let's say running folks down in a sidewalk...

Would the registered owner, who reported is stolen, not running at the time or with the keys in it, be held responsible for the act of violence that occurred?

Makes no sense to me. Once something is stolen and out of your control, how could you be reasonable held responsible?

How about stolen prescriptions and someone dies from an overdose? Seems they want to hold the victim responsible and let the criminal walk away scott free, yet again...

 

[Connor Murphy]

It is my understanding that any firearm not secured according to the conditions of the initiative and that is subsequently stolen subjects the owner to the 5 year period of strict liability. Not sure how the authorities would prove such a negative; maybe they put the onus on the victim of the theft to prove that they were stored responsibly which would be difficult as well.

 

[JavaDude]

It is my understanding that any firearm not secured according to the conditions of the initiative and that is subsequently stolen subjects the owner to the 5 year period of strict liability. Not sure how the authorities would prove such a negative; maybe they put the onus on the victim of the theft to prove that they were stored responsibly which would be difficult as well.

I created a thread 4 days ago announcing that it is time to get our challenges ready and there have not been any posts so far or challenge ideas shared at this point. I really hope people aren't going to let this one slide by because it seems not as bad as IP-43, however, it still leaves a lot of concern. Having said that, I am not really sure how we are going to challenge this one if the owner has said firearm in their possession is not required to have it locked. This doesn't seem to apply to DC v. Heller because it still allows one access to defend themselves. Also, the 5 year rule only applies if the owner does not have said firearm locked when transferring or in the case of not reporting its loss or theft. What I don't understand is how this law would be enforced or how we can prove we were in compliance. Do we need to take a picture of the new owner receiving said firearm with the lock engaged? Would the burden of proof be on the seller or the buyer? Whatever the case is, let's get our challenges out before May 15th.

Oregon - It's here - 2018 IP-44 Draft Ballot Title

 

[JavaDude]

These two ARE NOT COMING FROM SALEM!!! They are being brought to us by our "friends and neighbors" (sic).

This is correct regarding IP-43 & IP-44, however, they will be coming for us after the November General Elections make no mistake about it. Watch the following KGW video (1:15 Min Mark) where it comes straight from the horse's mouth (Kate Brown). She states she will get this done if somebody else doesn't do it first. This is a rare occurrence as she has not mention this for a long time hoping Democratic gun owners will have forgotten on Election Day.

 

[3MTA3]

It is my understanding that any firearm not secured according to the conditions of the initiative and that is subsequently stolen subjects the owner to the 5 year period of strict liability. Not sure how the authorities would prove such a negative; maybe they put the onus on the victim of the theft to prove that they were stored responsibly which would be difficult as well.

All it takes is a prosecutor that wants to make a point. Offer the actual criminal a deal for a reduced plea bargain if he or she testifies that the gun wasn't properly secured. Maybe you have shown up too many times to testify against anti gun legislation or become otherwise inconvenient. We have already seen the tendency to railroad such people in the case of Michael Strickland so you know they will no qualms about lieing to ruin someone.

 

[alv7722]

This is correct regarding IP-43 & IP-44, however, they will be coming for us after the November General Elections make no mistake about it. Watch the following KGW video (1:15 Min Mark) where it comes straight from the horse's mouth (Kate Brown). She states she will get this done if somebody else doesn't do it first. This is a rare occurrence as she has not mention this for a long time hoping Democratic gun owners will have forgotten on Election Day.

"If it's Brown, flush it down!!"

We have a fight on several fronts. Hopefully, 43 and 44 may be the catalyst that motivates us to take back our state!! Last I checked, the Facebook group "Gun owners against IP43" had 116,000+ members!! That is a formidable bloc, if we all act in concert. Nix 43 and 44, nix Brownstain, maybe even nix DeFazio!!

 

[alv7722]

All it takes is a prosecutor that wants to make a point. Offer the actual criminal a deal for a reduced plea bargain if he or she testifies that the gun wasn't properly secured. Maybe you have shown up too many times to testify against anti gun legislation or become otherwise inconvenient. We have already seen the tendency to railroad such people in the case of Michael Strickland so you know they will no qualms about lieing to ruin someone.

Recently, a robber was sentenced to 13 months in prison for holding up a Dutch Bros with a gun!! I thought the "gun" was supposed to add 5 years to whatever other crime was committed. Yet, if 43 passes, I am sure we will see homeowners sentenced to the full 10 years for nothing more than minding their own business!!