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

[ilikegunspdx]

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.

Or just say guns don't commit suicides. People commit suicides.

 

[The Heretic]

Logic is not a word used by the committed Progressive.

Oh I think the authors of the legislation knew exactly what they were doing.

 

[PiratePast40]

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.

It does NOT say that. Anyone could interpret it to say that is allowed, but those words are not in the measure. Oregon law certainly does say that you can loan a firearm to someone if you're with them, but again, those words are not in the measure. The measure also says that an approved location could be a community college. You could infer that firing a real gun is not required because no community colleges would allow that, but those words are not in the measure.

 

[Cavedweller]

It does NOT say that. Anyone could interpret it to say that is allowed, but those words are not in the measure. Oregon law certainly does say that you can loan a firearm to someone if you're with them, but again, those words are not in the measure.

Section 7

(a) "Transfer" means the delivery of a firearm from a transferor to a transferee, including, but not limited to, the sale, gift, loan or lease of the firearm. "Transfer" does not include the temporary provision of a firearm to a transferee if the transferor has no reason to believe the transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm or intends to use the firearm in the commission of a crime, and the provision occurs:

(A) At a shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designed for the purpose of target shooting, for use during target practice, a firearms safety or training course or class or a similar lawful activity;

The measure also says that an approved location could be a community college. You could infer that firing a real gun is not required because no community colleges would allow that, but those words are not in the measure.

The measure does not explicitly state that a live firearm be used either. It mandates that certain skills be demonstrated to a certified instructor. These skills (loading, firing, and unloading) can be demonstrated with facsimiles. The measure does not state that competency with a firearm, such as being able to hit a target with any degree of frequency or accuracy be demonstrated.

 

[PiratePast40]

Section 7

(a) "Transfer" means the delivery of a firearm from a transferor to a transferee, including, but not limited to, the sale, gift, loan or lease of the firearm. "Transfer" does not include the temporary provision of a firearm to a transferee if the transferor has no reason to believe the transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm or intends to use the firearm in the commission of a crime, and the provision occurs:

(A) At a shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designed for the purpose of target shooting, for use during target practice, a firearms safety or training course or class or a similar lawful activity;


The measure does not explicitly state that a live firearm be used either. It mandates that certain skills be demonstrated to a certified instructor. These skills (loading, firing, and unloading) can be demonstrated with facsimiles. The measure does not state that competency with a firearm, such as being able to hit a target with any degree of frequency or accuracy be demonstrated.

The title of Section 7 is "REQUIRES PERMITS FOR PRIVATE TRANSFERS" It isn't about compliance of the training requirements. It's part of SB941 and has been in effect since 2015.

I agree that it does not specifically call for a live fire demonstration, but it does not say that a fake gun can be used or that simulating is an option. We can infer that, but it doesn't specifically state that.

Here's the text: "(D) In-person demonstration of the applicant's ability to lock, load, unload, fire and store a firearm before an instructor certified by a law enforcement agency."

In any case, you're right about one thing, Traffic Court Floyd will make those determinations and has been having the requirements written in the last few days during the secret committee meetings. We'll be able to see what comes out of the judiciary committee meeting tomorrow. I suspect he'll be dragging out the Texas License To Carry requirements again, just because that's what he does.

 

[Cavedweller]

The title of Section 7 is "REQUIRES PERMITS FOR PRIVATE TRANSFERS" It isn't about compliance of the training requirements. It's part of SB941 and has been in effect since 2015.

Certain individuals have stated you can't get a gun without a permit, and you can't get the permit without a gun. Therefore, the measure prevents people from buying guns if they don't already own one. As I read Section 7, a training provider could loan or rent a firearm to a trainee who does not own one for the purpose of complying with the training requirement, so there is no "Catch 22" as some have claimed. Am I wrong in this assumption?

I agree that it does not specifically call for a live fire demonstration, but it does not say that a fake gun can be used or that simulating is an option. We can infer that, but it doesn't specifically state that.

And it doesn't specifically state otherwise.

Here's the text: "(D) In-person demonstration of the applicant's ability to lock, load, unload, fire and store a firearm before an instructor certified by a law enforcement agency."

Which of those abilities could not be demonstrated with a facsimile firearm and ammunition? I could design a course of instruction which would satisfy the letter of the law without live firing. It just shows how poorly conceived and written the measure is. As I said earlier, the actual policies and procedures have yet to be worked out.

Traffic Court Floyd will make those determinations and has been having the requirements written in the last few days during the secret committee meetings. We'll be able to see what comes out of the judiciary committee meeting tomorrow. I suspect he'll be dragging out the Texas License To Carry requirements again, just because that's what he does.

Who is traffic Court Floyd?

 

[PiratePast40]

Who is traffic Court Floyd?

You sir, are in for a treat in the next few months. I'll not go into details on a public forum, but start looking or listening for the statements that begin with "as a prosecutor" to denote a self proclaimed experienced, and important litigator and legislator.

 

[Knobgoblin]

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.

Insulting functioning individuals would just be icing on the cake

 

[Mark W.]

If I ever have to get one of these stupid permits to buy I'm showing up for my live fire training with my Remington 1858 New Model Army cap and ball revolver. About 5 rounds and no one at an indoor range will be able to see the targets.

 

[Mark W.]

I think that about 20,000 of us should show up on day one of the training.

 

[Danall]

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?

keep in mind the modest $65 fee is only for processing the permit to purchase. As has been mentioned the training could be costly or yes online free as long as "conducted by a trainer certified by law enforcement" (see capital D below)

as far as CHL training proof, that is also covered in the 114 regs ie.

(d) Proof of successful completion of a training course in order to meet the requirements for a concealed handgun license issued under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 may be submitted for a permit as a substitute for the requirements in paragraph (c) of this subsection, provided the completed course included each of the components set forth in paragraph (c) of this subsection.

Components under paragraph C are as follows:

(A) Review of federal and state laws in place at the time of the class and other safe practices related to ownership, purchase, transfer, use and transportation of firearms;
(B) Review of federal and state safe storage laws in place at the time of the class and other safe practices related to safe storage, including reporting lost and stolen guns;
PAGE - 4 New sections are in boldfaced type. Matter in amended sections in boldfaced type is new; matter [struck through and bracketed] is intended
to be omitted.
(C) Prevention of abuse or misuse of firearms, including the impact of homicide and suicide on families, communities and
the country as a whole; and
(D) In-person demonstration of the applicant's ability to lock, load, unload, fire and store a firearm before an instructor certified by a law enforcement agency. This requirement may be met separately from the other course requirements in subpargagraphs (A), (B) and (C) of paragraph (c), which may be completed in an on-line course, provided the on-line course has been conducted by a trainer certified by law enforcement.

So i guess it depends upon the nature of your CHL training, dunno if all required certified instructor by a law enforcement agency?

 

[ma96782]

IMHO. This is why voting on a ballot measure in order to MAKE LAW.....without the voter(s) actually KNOWING or UNDERSTANDING what they are actually signing up for.......is a BAD IDEA.

Yeah.....WA and OR (and wherever else it happens).
Never mind that people have RIGHTS and/or that the Govt (and those who voted for it) is/are NOT even prepared to implement the LAW.



"No worries......we'll just make more stuff up as we move along."

Aloha, Mark

PS.........let's put it to a ballot measure.........
Reparations to be paid for past "injustice"?
Student Debt Forgiveness?
The IRS?
Why not add in ALL current debt(s) while we are at it?

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

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.

Really? Where does it say guns will be provided by the instructor?

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

View attachment 1325192View attachment 1325193

Do the instructors have permits??

Good lord.

 

[wombatz]

Really? Where does it say guns will be provided by the instructor?

It does not even say that real guns are required.

There is 0% chance that they will require you to bring a gun to get a permit to purchase a gun. I am not defending 114 but even the author of that monstrosity is not that stupid.

 

[GWS]

keep in mind the modest $65 fee is only for processing the permit to purchase. As has been mentioned the training could be costly or yes online free as long as "conducted by a trainer certified by law enforcement" (see capital D below)

as far as CHL training proof, that is also covered in the 114 regs ie.

Components under paragraph C are as follows:

So i guess it depends upon the nature of your CHL training, dunno if all required certified instructor by a law enforcement agency?

I cannot speak to the $65 fee except to say, I don't think that's a "modest" fee at all, but if that's what the state will be charging for you to exercise your constitutional right, you're stuck with it. That's a separate lawsuit for you guys to deal with. All I am saying is that it will be counterproductive for gun shops to drive off paying customers by gouging them on the costs of the permit classes.

As an aside, IIRC, the PRK required a "Safety card" You take a multiple choice test every 5 years and I think it ran $15 for the test and card. Even with your card, gun shops had to have handgun buyers demonstrate how to check to see if their new handgun was loaded as well as how to load and unload it. Every time you bought one, new or PPT.

 

[diagoras]

IMHO. This is why voting on a ballot measure in order to MAKE LAW.....without the voter(s) actually KNOWING or UNDERSTANDING what they are actually signing up for.......is a BAD IDEA.

Yeah.....WA and OR (and wherever else it happens).
Never mind that people have RIGHTS and/or that the Govt (and those who voted for it)......are NOT even prepared to implement the LAW.

View attachment 1325859

"No worries......we'll just make more stuff up as we move along."

Aloha, Mark

PS.........let's put it to a ballot measure.........
Reparations to be paid for past "injustice"?
Student Debt Forgiveness?
The IRS?
Why not add in ALL current debt(s) while we are at it?

View attachment 1325874

You've swerved into what I believe is the fundamental issue.

In theory, Measure 114 could have passed by *a single vote*. Which would make it nonetheless "the law of the land".

The Constitution, in what has become known as the "Guarantee Clause", states that "Congress shall guarantee to the States a republican form of government". The Founders were well aware of the difference between a "Democracy", which is "tyranny of the majority", and a Republic - a representative Government - which is what we supposedly have.

In my view, Measure 114 gives the Supreme Court the ideal opportunity to curb this "Mob Rule", by ruling it unconstitutional under the Guarantee Clause. In this case, "The People" (with a little help from the usual coven of billionaire oligarchs) have attecked the Second Amendment - the Constitution itself. I.e., this isn't just a little matter of limiting State property taxes, or whatever (although, *any* form of "initiative" measure is arguably a violation of the the Guarantee Clause, at least in principle). Think about this: What's to stop "The People" (read: Screaming Mob of Leftists) from passing an "Initiative" that simply outlaws speaking some list of words that offend liberal snowflakes? Answer: Nothing - they can pass *anything*, and then in classic "Democratic" fashion, it's left to whomever has just had their rights savaged and stripped away, to *defend* themselves from the howling mob - the "Democracy".

It's high time the Court dragged the Guarantee Clause out of the closet where it's been languishing and treated like an embarrassing idiosyncrasy.

 

[SixgunSymphony]

Most gun owners don't vote, they want to avoid politics. They are about to find out that politics will not ignore them.

 

[srxfan]

If I ever have to get one of these stupid permits to buy I'm showing up for my live fire training with my Remington 1858 New Model Army cap and ball revolver. About 5 rounds and no one at an indoor range will be able to see the targets.

As a black powder gun that's technically not a legally defined firearm (I believe), would it then NOT satisfy the training requirement??

 

[L84Cabo]

If I understand it correctly, $65 is just the fee for the permit. The class is going to be a separate fee unto itself and there is no limit on what the range can charge. To that end, there also doesn't seem to be much definition around how long the course has to be and/or exactly what it must present. But for rough comparison, an 8 hour initial CCW course (CA) costs around $200-$250 and four hour CCW renewal course costs around $100. However, in both cases you supply your own gun and ammo. If a range is supplying the gun and ammo I would expect they would add at least another $50 to the cost.

I also don't have much faith that the permit part of this bill will be struck down. On the one hand, it absolutely should be based on the recent Bruen decision, as there were no cities/states that required you to obtain a permit and take a class in order to own a gun back in 1791 when the COTUS was ratified.

On the other hand, there are other states that require you to obtain a permit first before you can own a gun. And SCOTUS completely ignored its own ruling by saying it was permissible to require a permit to carry a concealed gun, even though that didn't exist back in 1791 either.

So if requiring a permit to CCW is permissible, then why wouldn't SCOTUS also make an exception about a permit to own a gun in the first place?

SCOTUS' inconsistency is very troubling.