Oregon Is there an insidious chicken or the egg argument with 114?

[docwolf]

From 114:


"requires a person applying for a permit to purchase a firearm to present their police chief or county sheriff with proof of completion of a firearm safety course."


How can you provide proof of completion of the safety course if you don't already have a legally owned gun to complete said safety course? Nonetheless even having the capability of getting to the in-person demonstration step.

As I'm reading this section of the text, does this not mean you can never buy a gun in the future if you don't already legally own a gun by December 8th.

This should be enough to wipe out this furiously blatant unconstitutional bцllsн¡t, should it not? Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but 114 is literally saying "you cannot own a firearm", is it not? This is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Read More

 

[Camelfilter]

What's 114?











[/sarc]

 

[wombatz]

It would be a general gun safety course with guns supplied by the course.

Note that there is no cost limit set for that requirement. This could be a rather expensive course.

 

[Yarome]

Note that there is no cost limit set for that requirement. This could be a rather expensive course.

That element is being tacitly ignored, but pretty critical in that it may make it prohibitively expensive for many. They mention the $65 as a "modest" and "reasonable" fee, but it could be $100's "all in". The training course, range time, firearm rental fee, photos, fingerprint card... It adds up!

Then there are the less tangibles like your time, scheduling access to those courses is likely to be backlogged and fuel... as for many in the state those resources may not be readily available in their local communities.

It's also not unreasonable at all to predict that current pricing for such things will increase when the mandatory demand for range time and rentals goes up.

 

[Camelfilter]

That element is being tacitly ignored, but pretty critical in that it's going to make a permit prohibitively expensive for many. They mention the $65 as a "modest" and "reasonable" fee, but it could be $100's "all in". The training course, range time, firearm rental fee, photos, fingerprint card... It adds up!

Then there are the less tangibles like your time, scheduling access to those courses is likely to be backlogged and fuel... as for many in the state those resources may not be readily available in their local communities.

It's also not unreasonable at all to predict that current pricing for such things will increase when the mandatory demand for range time and rentals goes up.

Yup. I think Massachusetts' scheme is in the $600+ range now. All in.

I could easily see Oregon's being similar to more...

 

[Knobgoblin]

Do the instructors have permits??

 

[Yarome]

View attachment 1325192View attachment 1325193

Do the instructors have permits??

BAZZINGA!!

 

[dinky450]

The course/class will be expensive. No one works for free and they will have to pay for a facility and people to run it. Even if sheriff's department run their own class you still have operating cost and we know the government doesn't run cheap.

 

[Stomper]

I think it's more of a "what came first" question of an A-hole or a progressive, over a chicken or the egg….

 

[Jay Walk]

Logic is not a word used by the committed Progressive.

 

[PiratePast40]

It would be a general gun safety course with guns supplied by the course.

Thanks for clearing that up for us Reverend Knutson. I'm looking forward to learning how to lock and load my revolver.

 

[wombatz]

That has me imagining that all the training could be done with top break revolvers.

 

[Soli]

"Welcome to Soli's Lock-n-Load Master Class Training Facility and Vape Shop! Here's your rental gun, let's get to work!"

 

[Aero Denezol]

View attachment 1325192View attachment 1325193

Do the instructors have permits??

It is an insult to have to take a class after safely handling firearms (and teaching others to shoot) for 20/30/40 years.

Of course, that was not the point... That was just how they sold it to all the ignorant little twats. They wanted to create chokepoints to bunch us up so they can hit us again.

 

[docwolf]

It would be a general gun safety course with guns supplied by the course.

Note that there is no cost limit set for that requirement. This could be a rather expensive course.

Oh yay. Was waiting for clarification on that. Thrilling development

That element is being tacitly ignored, but pretty critical in that it's going to make a permit prohibitively expensive for many. They mention the $65 as a "modest" and "reasonable" fee, but it could be $100's "all in". The training course, range time, firearm rental fee, photos, fingerprint card... It adds up!

Yeah when my buddy talked about the permit and training course, cost was the first thing I thought about. Yeah, "modest fee", but why not charge 1 trillion dollars for the training course and do away with our pesky rights entirely if there's no limit...

Speaking of that concept, is there not a constitutional amendment making it so you can't charge the people to pay to have their rights? Like, as an example, I imagine you can't tell someone they have to pay a fee to have their 1st and 13th amendment rights. Or am I wrong on that?

That's gotta be just entirely unconstitutional on it's face.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

What's 114?
[/sarc]

A typo of M14?

 

[GWS]

That element is being tacitly ignored, but pretty critical in that it's going to make a permit prohibitively expensive for many. They mention the $65 as a "modest" and "reasonable" fee, but it could be $100's "all in". The training course, range time, firearm rental fee, photos, fingerprint card... It adds up!

Don't forget those hidden fees too. Many ranges require you purchase your ammo from them (at highway robbery prices)... OR... be required to pay an additonal "ammo fee" if you bring in your own. Even at the low per round cost you might have paid... by the time you add in the ranges "ammo fee"... it can end up costing more than their highway robbery priced ammo. Do your research.

Then there are the less tangibles like your time, scheduling access to those courses is likely to be backlogged and fuel... as for many in the state those resources may not be readily available in their local communities.

It's also not unreasonable at all to predict that current pricing for such things will increase when the mandatory demand for range time and rentals goes up.

OR... You could have someone like Dan@Sporting Systems who set up the Washington semi automatic rifle certification for free.
It really is NOT in the interest of gun shops to charge a lot for whatever the OR certification turns out to be. Why would they make it harder for folks to buy guns from. them?
Also, why isn't an Oregon CHL proof of having had training?

 

[docwolf]

"Welcome to Soli's Lock-n-Load Master Class Training Facility and Vape Shop! Here's your rental gun, let's get to work!"

View attachment 1325389

I would gladly take a bargain bin training class if it meant I didn't have to pay out the @55 for something I already know how to do proficiently and safely.

 

[Cavedweller]

How can you provide proof of completion of the safety course if you don't already have a legally owned gun to complete said safety course? Nonetheless even having the capability of getting to the in-person demonstration step.

As I'm reading this section of the text, does this not mean you can never buy a gun in the future if you don't already legally own a gun by December 8th.

No. The measure allows the loan or temporary transfer of a firearm to a trainee for the purpose of training. Furthermore, the measure does not require training with an actual firearm, only that the trainee demonstrate the ability to load, fire (pull the trigger?) and unload a firearm. This could be accomplished with facsimile firearms and ammunition, and comply with the letter of the law as the measure is written. However, the actual rules and policies have not been developed yet, so the actual training requirements are unknown. But as it stands now, you do not need to own an actual firearm or even use an actual firearm during training as the law is written.

 

[Cavedweller]

Also, why isn't an Oregon CHL proof of having had training?

It is if the CHL training meets the requirements of 114. The missing element that I see is the requirement to cover the adverse effect of homicide and suicide on communities. So, if I were teaching the class, I would say, "Homicide bad. Suicide bad." Would that suffice? We don't know until they develop and actual syllabus for the training required by 114.