Messages
1,301
Reactions
2,434
Everyone has different tolerances for risk so it's hard to say what another person should do, other than figure out what is right for you (to my way of thinking anyway).

I'm hoping that most people will be on their way to a range, outdoor recreation site, or their personal property, 100% of the time.

Im hoping that for those who worry about locked container will have mags in some sort of separate locked container (currently this is undefined) such as glove box?, trunk?, bag with little bs luggage lock on it? ammo can with lock on it?, etc. isn't it funny how some "locks" are so crappy that they can be opened so easily? People that have made some attempt on the locked container thing will have ammunition (arguments and evidence) for defense if they ever need it.

I doubt anyone will need it unless they are a crim committing another crime already, but who knows. Things that should be common sense in Multnomah County are frequently the opposite when it comes to city government.

I do think that whatever a person's risk tolerance is that it pays to keep a low profile though and not have things in plain sight. It also pays to be aware of your rights and don't consent to a search without a warrant.

Seems to me all these things woudl have to happen to get charged for mags:

1) LEO would have to see it
2) LEO would have to want to charge you with it
3) LEO would have to show you weren't actually on your way to your personal property (such as going home) or other allowable place
4) LEO would have to show it wasn't in a separate locked container (remember his is undefined so you could argue many things were a separate locked container)

So the obvious problem is on-body carry of a firearm with the mag in it. IMO each person has to weigh the benefits of that being there to save your life vs the potential risk. Sort of similar to carrying in a place where it's not allowed (I don't mean where it is not allowed such as airports, courthouses, more like so called fun free zones, etc). I know where I am on that benefit vs risk scale personally but I wouldn't push it on anyone else. I would just say that whatever you do be smart about it. I'll bet the one being a jerk and trying to piss off a LEO or whatever (or committing a crime) would be the one that is going to be charged for it. But just a guess.
My Voodoo Tactical padded rifle case holds two modern sporting rifles, three pistols and about six magazines. I guess I could throw a lock on it.
 
Messages
4,050
Reactions
8,122
Thank you for making my point. By your argument, all one need do is declare a law unjust... and where does that get us? For starters, a wide open border that has allowed conservatively 2 million over the last two years to just walk across and get a free goddamn phone and a bus ticket to anywhere from Poughkeepsie to Portland. The immigration laws are "unjust" you see... Then of course the sanctuary cities to protect the beneficiaries of ignoring the immigration laws because they are unjust. Shoplifting is now called "reappropriation of wealth" because, well, having to pay for stuff is unjust. How about refusing to prosecute people caught committing arson in places like Portland, Minneapolis, Manhattan... Prosecuting people for peacefully protesting is unjust, you see? Especially when the protest is protesting things that are unjust like cops doing their freaking jobs.

Do those circumstances above constitute a belief in the rule of law? Well, you go right ahead and ignore the law because you don't like it... because you think it is unjust. Just keep two things in mind: That is exactly what they want you to do so they can charge you with multiple felonies that they WILL prosecute -- gleefully -- then you lose your guns and your right to buy any more; You also lose the right to complain about everything above when you take the position that it's OK to ignore the law as long as you say it's unjust.

That said -- let me correct your summation of my position because you've got it 100% wrong:


Nowhere does my argument suggest "following law for the sake of following law" as your fallaciously assert. My argument suggests that your position above -- and the position of many on this thread as well -- is exactly what the anti-gunners are counting on. They WANT you to break their pile of crap law -- not only so they can throw your bubblegum in prison, but so they can advance their ultimate agenda which is the confiscation of all private firearms. They need to use your "will not comply" mentality against you (and me) ultimately convincing enough useful idiots that we simply can't be trusted with guns and they need to be voluntarily surrendered or we come with a no-knock warrant at 3AM. You are handing it to them, giftwrapped on a silver platter. Your rights are only as well-defended as your fellow citizens' willingness to defend them. Look at how many of them in Oregon voted against defending your rights. We don't beat them by "will not comply." We beat them by using their system against them.


My argument doesn't even remotely suggest that. Careful with open flames around that straw man...
Seriously? You're equating that what is "just" and what is "unjust" can be self determined based on personal perspective and most critically on personal interest? Thats you're justification that we must accept all or none? :s0140:

You've completely missed the plot... but it's okay. You're most definately not alone in that as many in our nation are just as confused as you seem to be. Having the "sheeple" mentality so deeply ingrained into most that it "is" their reality is part of what those that value freedom fight against, but people have to "want" and be open enough to look beyond the confines of what they have been groomed to believe.

On the "will not comply"... you're right. That in and of itself does not change laws. That has to happen within the system. Non compliance is a catalyst and, if history teaches us anything, both necessary and effective. Not to point out anything "too" obvious, but.... the first U.S. citizens started out as subjects of a long standing nation (I won't name names, but...). Heck... their "were" no U.S. citizens as the U.S.A. has a fairly short history and previously did not even exist. That's a mind blower, hu!!?? Look it up! It's true!! ;)

"I will not comply" also does not necessarily mean that you are a nutjub out standing nude in front of the captial building strapped with an AR-15 and a field vest full of 30rd mags trying to make a point. But I DO realize that many view "anyone" that does not comply with every law imposed upon them is a "radical"! I get it.

All I can say is... I can't help you... but you're certainly free to believe as you will and do as you do. Your point has been heard. I simply choose to reject it in full.. which is also my right.👍
 
Messages
1,301
Reactions
2,434
Seriously? You're equating that what is "just" and what is "unjust" can be self determined based on personal perspective and most critically on personal interest? Thats you're justification that we must accept all or none? :s0140:
No. I'm reporting my observations of our culture over the past several decades. I didn't say I like it. But this is how it is. This is how shoplifting becomes "reappropriation of wealth."

You've completely missed the plot... but it's okay. You're most definately not alone in that as many in our nation are just as confused as you seem to be. Having the "sheeple" mentality so deeply ingrained into most that it "is" their reality is part of what those that value freedom fight against, but people have to "want" and be open enough to look beyond the confines of what they have been groomed to believe.
Funny thing is, your callow trope notwithstanding, I am not the topic of this thread. A factual rebuttal addressing the topic would better support your argument.

On the "will not comply"... you're right. That in and of itself does not change laws. That has to happen within the system. Non compliance is a catalyst and, if history teaches us anything, both necessary and effective. Not to point out anything "too" obvious, but.... the first U.S. citizens started out as subjects of a long standing nation (I won't name names, but...). Heck... their "were" no U.S. citizens as the U.S.A. has a fairly short history and previously did not even exist. That's a mind blower, hu!!?? Look it up! It's true!! ;)
More fallacy for your reading pleasure I suppose.

"I will not comply" also does not necessarily mean that you are a nutjub out standing nude in front of the captial building strapped with an AR-15 and a field vest full of 30rd mags trying to make a point. But I DO realize that many view "anyone" that does not comply with every law imposed upon them is a "radical"! I get it.
Not even worth responding to.

All I can say is... I can't help you...
All I can say is... I'm still not the topic... and I sure as bubblegum didn't ask for any help.

but you're certainly free to believe as you will and do as you do. Your point has been heard. I simply choose to reject it in full.. which is also my right.👍
You have that right, of course. But that doesn't make you right. You do have the right to be wrong. The only way we win this is to outmaneuver the gun grabbers, not play right into their hands.
 
Messages
4,050
Reactions
8,122
The problem with the "will not comply" mentality is it is not how we win. And it is exactly how we lose. It is literally the ammunition the gun grabbers are counting on from us to further their ultimate agenda which is total disarmament and confiscation of all private firearms. They hate us. They hate our guns. They hate the fact the law-abiding responsible citizens destroy every last shred of their argument by virtue of our non criminality. UNTIL... we become the criminals they say we are. Careful what you wish for as the saying goes...
What you're missing is that's exactly what they are counting on. That's exactly what they use against us to strip our rights... and... it's been working BEAUTIFULLY!

They don't care if we squawk a bit... as long as we comply. Inch by inch... compliance.
 
Messages
1,301
Reactions
2,434
What you're missing is that's exactly what they are counting on. That's exactly what they use against us to strip our rights... and... it's been working BEAUTIFULLY!

They don't care if we squawk a bit... as long as we comply. Inch by inch... compliance.
Your noncompliance is a short term stopgap. What you're missing is THAT is exactly what THEY are counting on. They WANT you to break their stupid law. They WANT you in prison for possessing a piece of plastic with springs in it. They want to make you a felon. What might seem heroic on the surface is ill-conceived and short-sighted in the long run. And it just gives them more ammunition. Pun intended. I agree it is important to stand up for principle -- but that only works when dealing with rational people of good faith. And that's the piece I think that is missing from the "will not comply" ethos: These are not people of good faith. These are not rational people. These are not people who play fair. They are playing by a very different set of rules. And they HATE us more than they hate our guns: Irony defined. Their goal: disarm and confiscate. Our goal: The restoration of our most important constitutional right: Without the right to self-preservation, the rest become an academic exercise. You do not win the war by fighting pitched battles. You win the war by executing a superior strategy.
 
Messages
5,418
Reactions
10,779
Your noncompliance is a short term stopgap. What you're missing is THAT is exactly what THEY are counting on. They WANT you to break their stupid law. They WANT you in prison for possessing a piece of plastic with springs in it. They want to make you a felon. What might seem heroic on the surface is ill-conceived and short-sighted in the long run. And it just gives them more ammunition. Pun intended. I agree it is important to stand up for principle -- but that only works when dealing with rational people of good faith. And that's the piece I think that is missing from the "will not comply" ethos: These are not people of good faith. These are not rational people. These are not people who play fair. They are playing by a very different set of rules. And they HATE us more than they hate our guns: Irony defined. Their goal: disarm and confiscate. Our goal: The restoration of our most important constitutional right: Without the right to self-preservation, the rest become an academic exercise. You do not win the war by fighting pitched battles. You win the war by executing a superior strategy.
Misdemeanor. Not a felony.

You’re obviously much smarter then the rest of us. Please explain to me how we win “the war.” Cause following every law/infringement obviously isn’t working.

That’s a serious question. Cause right now as well as the past history we are only loosing ground. Look who runs/controls/makes laws.

Your theory didn’t work for the Jews or any other oppressed group of people. So I apologize for my doubts and criticism of your “method” of winning.
 
Messages
4,050
Reactions
8,122
Your noncompliance is a short term stopgap. What you're missing is THAT is exactly what THEY are counting on. They WANT you to break their stupid law. They WANT you in prison for possessing a piece of plastic with springs in it. They want to make you a felon. What might seem heroic on the surface is ill-conceived and short-sighted in the long run. And it just gives them more ammunition. Pun intended. I agree it is important to stand up for principle -- but that only works when dealing with rational people of good faith. And that's the piece I think that is missing from the "will not comply" ethos: These are not people of good faith. These are not rational people. These are not people who play fair. They are playing by a very different set of rules. And they HATE us more than they hate our guns: Irony defined. Their goal: disarm and confiscate. Our goal: The restoration of our most important constitutional right: Without the right to self-preservation, the rest become an academic exercise. You do not win the war by fighting pitched battles. You win the war by executing a superior strategy.
Ummm... in this particular case... it's not a felony, it's inconceivable to see any jail time, many LE has already stated they will not enforce it on constitutional grounds and for all practical purposes a violation would likely result in a warning... or at most a confiscation of your mag.

I dunno about anyone one else, but I have more and my ability to protect myself and my loved ones is exponentially more important to me than the cost of a mag. ;)

Crying out a doomsday scenario "the sky is falling" out of fear to reinforce the idea of compliance... I'm not buying it.

After all, this thread is not centered on grandstanding broad stroke ideaologies, it's about a mag ban... short and simple.
 
Correct. Let's start with the premise that all gun laws are unconstitutional. We have sadly allowed the tyrants to systematically and incrementally infringe on our right to keep and bear arms since the introduction of the so-called "black code" of the antebellum South. Precedent established, clearing the way for the ATF, the NFA, the FFA, the GCA, Brady, Clinton's 'Assault Weapon' ban, the CSLA, NICS, the BCSA, and hundreds of blatantly unconstitutional anti-gun local and state laws as we have unfortunately finally experienced firsthand here in Oregon just this month. It should send a chill down the spine of every lawful gun owner that ATF Director and anti-2A extremist Steve Dettelbach was not only appointed by President Sniffy Xiden, but endorsed by Everytown, Giffords, Moms Demand Action, and surely Lift Every Voice Oregon... he hates lawful gun owners, hates scary black rifles, hates big magazines, and hates the NRA most of all. We do not defeat this man by becoming criminals ourselves. The way we defeat him -- and his cadre -- is by using the system against him, tactically, strategically, and permanently.

The interesting thing about the 2A is it is the most plainly-stated and least equivocal of all the BOR. Yet it has been more equivocated than any of them. "Shall not be infringed" is as plain and direct as it gets.

The problem with the "will not comply" mentality is it is not how we win. And it is exactly how we lose. It is literally the ammunition the gun grabbers are counting on from us to further their ultimate agenda which is total disarmament and confiscation of all private firearms. They hate us. They hate our guns. They hate the fact the law-abiding responsible citizens destroy every last shred of their argument by virtue of our non criminality. UNTIL... we become the criminals they say we are. Careful what you wish for as the saying goes...
You seem to be arguing against yourself in this post. First you talk about the many unconstitutional laws that already exist against the 2nd Amendment, but then you proclaim that it is our obedience of the law that will defeat the infringements. History is not on your side in that (as you yourself referenced the numerous acts and policies that are now decades old).

The large majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens, and follow gun laws to the letter; yet here we are on a thread inspired by Measure 114. Here we are with our Washington neighbors to the North having their standard capacity magazines banned. Here we are with the ATF rewriting rules to increase restrictions on accessories for firearms.

The anti-2A crowd will continue their pursuit of the total dismantling of the 2nd Amendment even if firearm-related crimes were to cease entirely. The thought that refusing to obey unconstitutional laws is a bigger danger to our rights is laughable.
 
Like most everything....
It is wise to weigh the risk versus the reward.

So the OP made a lock box for his magazines....
Good for him.
If someone else doesn't like it ....then they don't have to do the same.

Same for non-compliance.
Can someone , who is non-complying , be used / showcased / or their actions spun to fit the anti gun agenda....yes.
Does that mean that some folks will follow the law and try to fight it some other way...yes again.

Does the possibility of non-compliance being used against gun owners mean that one shouldn't do this...
Maybe...
It all depends on you , your situation and just how you go about non-complying.

Comply or not...it's up to you.
Just weigh the risk versus the reward....and if you choose to non comply , do so wisely and be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions.
Andy
 
Messages
142
Reactions
53
Misdemeanor. Not a felony.

You’re obviously much smarter then the rest of us. Please explain to me how we win “the war.” Cause following every law/infringement obviously isn’t working.

That’s a serious question. Cause right now as well as the past history we are only loosing ground. Look who runs/controls/makes laws.

Your theory didn’t work for the Jews or any other oppressed group of people. So I apologize for my doubts and criticism of your “method” of winning.
Per magazine I believe and I’d it’s like other states laws. 364 days in jail times 30 magazines?
Mean I’m not wanting to even give up one year if my life in jail
 
Messages
142
Reactions
53
Like most everything....
It is wise to weigh the risk versus the reward.

So the OP made a lock box for his magazines....
Good for him.
If someone else doesn't like it ....then they don't have to do the same.

Same for non-compliance.
Can someone , who is non-complying , be used / showcased / or their actions spun to fit the anti gun agenda....yes.
Does that mean that some folks will follow the law and try to fight it some other way...yes again.

Does the possibility of non-compliance being used against gun owners mean that one shouldn't do this...
Maybe...
It all depends on you , your situation and just how you go about non-complying.

Comply or not...it's up to you.
Just weigh the risk versus the reward....and if you choose to non comply , do so wisely and be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions.
Andy
Mean it’s not the compliment people calling others idiot sheep’s
I don’t care what others do mean them dying in a firefight on their porch or random traffic stop doesn’t affect me. They seem to take great offense at those of use who plan to try to comply to avoid life altering downside. What did that guy being gunned down in snow accomplish? What about the guy killed at his front door over red flag law. Changed nothing. I’m just not willing to do for nothing or go to jail for years, no one will fund raise for me or pay my legal fees.

So I agree do what you want and don’t judge others for doing what’s best for them. We should be work together not attacking each other.
 
Messages
4,050
Reactions
8,122
Per magazine I believe and I’d it’s like other states laws. 364 days in jail times 30 magazines?
Mean I’m not wanting to even give up one year if my life in jail
I'm just gonna say it. If you're walking around with 30 mags strapped on ya.... I would hazard to guess that you've got bigger issues going on in your life to worry about than how many misdemeanors you might pull.

Just sayin.... 🤣


(Not condemning... just lightening the mood, here.)
 
Messages
1,301
Reactions
2,434
Misdemeanor. Not a felony.

You’re obviously much smarter then the rest of us. Please explain to me how we win “the war.” Cause following every law/infringement obviously isn’t working.

That’s a serious question. Cause right now as well as the past history we are only loosing ground. Look who runs/controls/makes laws.

Your theory didn’t work for the Jews or any other oppressed group of people. So I apologize for my doubts and criticism of your “method” of winning.
A few sacrificial lambs get us nowhere. I'm not here to pick a fight. I'm here to restore my constitutional rights -- yours as well in the process. Ultimately this will go to the Ninth Circuit. Notoriously "progressive" leaning, the court shocked the gun world by actually overturning California's draconian magazine ban. Precedent being what it is. The OR mag ban should be a slam dunk. But we've got much bigger fish to fry -- no other constitutional right requires training or licensure to exercise. EVERY GUN LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Remember, that's keep and bear. While Heller unequivocally affirmed individual ownership of a firearm as an individual right and not a collective one as the antis tried to argue, it did not go far enough. The current composition of the USSC makes this a rare opportunity to get our case in front of the one deliberative body who can emphatically affirm the 2A: No more BGC, no more CHL, and for goddamn motherbubbleguming bubblegum sake, no bubbleguming permit to purchase.

But even constitutionalists are not immune to social pressure. Recall the 2020 election where the justices took a knee... there's good evidence they were convinced if they even hinted at the possibility of ruling for BadOrange that cities would burn and society would spiral into anarchic chaos. This is why it is critical -- in my view -- that we give them no ammunition to use against us, thus minimizing the degree of social pressure they could potentially apply. I mean there was already a literal assassination attempt on Kavanaugh. Roberts is the wild card, of course, but he has been amenable to 2A issues in the past, and of course was of the majority for Heller. But we need to move quickly. Clarence Thomas isn't getting any younger.
 
Messages
702
Reactions
646
Step in line then. I won’t be playing by these rules. But that’s just me.

I’ve done my best to be a law abiding citizen. But some things have gone too far.
Well that's the thing about laws. We're supposed to follow them... or we are known as "criminals." Which is really "what they want."

We view these laws as unjust. They are. But as law-abiding citizens, we lose or credibility if we simply ignore them.
What’s that saying about “when tyranny reigns it’s your duty to rebel” or something to that effect.:rolleyes:
 

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top