Oregon Oregon 114 update???

[1775usmc]

[(C)] (iii) While engaging in the legal use of the large-capacity magazine, at a public or private
shooting range or shooting gallery or for recreational activities such as hunting, to the extent permitted
under state law;

Is concealed carry not considered a recreational activity?

We aren't the ones who wrote this stupidity. So I can't give you a concrete answer on that.

 

[Librarian]

It might be enough to convince immergut to start permits now or very soon.

Can't go back and revise her opinion now - it has been appealed to 9th Circuit.

 

[TTSX]

Well, I for one, know exactly who has all the answers and they're going to give them to us ... On February 31st of next year. So stay tuned.

 

[FALshot]

What is the strategy here? Why didn't the legislature create and pass this legislation in the first place, rather than create a measure for voters to vote on? Seems like a bait and switch. Get the pro-gun side to put all their money into fighting M114, while they simply pass this law, causing us to have to start over again fighting it.

It's difficult, if not impossible, to say if Oregon anti-Constitution Legislators planned for things to end up this way but it's definitely a bad outcome for all of us who have given of our time and money to fight 114.

Bottom line is that we cannot give up on what is CLEARLY an infringement of our Second rights. One need not be an Attorney of a Constitutional law expert to see that many Leftist Liberals simply do not believe in private ownership of firearms in spite of what the United States Constitution says. (It's also quite telling that many of them also want limit free speech as well.)

 

[FALshot]

Some Oregon Taxpayers are going to want the State's defense fees paid for.

I've already heard, via Lars Larsen, that it has been mentioned,..... Many willfulllly ignorant low information Liberals have no problem with Leftist politicians picking and choosing which parts of the U.S. Constitution that they will choose to follow once elected.

 

[R2BA_DD]

The appeal to the Oregon supreme court is being filed at this time. Based on the wording of the appeals court decision, absent a stay by the Oregon supreme court, M114 will go into effect on or about April 16th. This is the end of the 35 day period granted by the appeals court.

IF it goes into effect at that date, the magazine restriction is the only thing immediately affected. The permit to purchase cannot go into place until and unless a permit system is ready to go. That was the decision of the federal judge in December of 2022.

House Bill 3075 will replace M114 and should become law sometime in the next few months.

There are numerous posts and threads on this forum explaining the very thing I just typed out. Just about every industry advocacy group in Oregon has the same information and is begging gun owners and FFLs to actually take action and submit testimony against the new anti-gun bills.

Following

 

[jayR]

2027 future-ing
Only three round magazines are necessary for self defense.
Must have a permit to purchase to buy ammunition.
Prohibiting 'arsenals' - cannot possess more than 3 firearms.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

2027 future-ing
Only three round magazines are necessary for self defense.
Must have a permit to purchase to buy ammunition.
Prohibiting 'arsenals' - cannot possess more than 3 firearms.

Agree and don't forget in home storage inspections. These are all things that follow some European country laws.

If they could they would take every one of our guns away. But since they can't they will restrict everything about them that they can. They D legislators and their anti-gun idiot followers think like this:

 

[jayR]

Oh ya..
Mandatory liability insurance of at least 10 Million dollars

 

[Dozer99]

Please quit giving them ideas!

 

[PiratePast40]

Following

The attorney is saying that it won't go into effect unless the Oregon supreme court refuses to take it up. If that's the case, I was wrong about the dates I posted.

 

[1911Fanatic]

Agree and don't forget in home storage inspections. These are all things that follow some European country laws.

If they could they would take every one of our guns away. But since they can't they will restrict everything about them that they can. They D legislators and their anti-gun idiot followers think like this:
View attachment 2075209

Well, that would mean her private security wouldn't be able to have guns. Go ahead Rosie, make that happen. Her security team should be limited by law to dildos and bongs for weapons.

 

[Mono1]

Well, that would mean her private security wouldn't be able to have guns. Go ahead Rosie, make that happen. Her security team should be limited by law to dildos and bongs for weapons.

Pretty sure she doesn't live here anymore. And I am quite sure she feels safer in Ireland where licenses are required to possess firearms.

That is to say; she will feel safer until Putin retaliates against the Euro NATO members via nuclear response once they stupidly force his hand.

 

[RVTECH]

Yes, I think this weakens our argument its unconstitutional to require a class that doesn't exist. Now one does.

This however brings up an interesting scenario.

According to the Oregon Sheriff's Assn. it was estimated 300,000 WILL pursue the permit to purchase.

While there is now ONE range authorized to perform the training lets say 10 ultimately follow suit.

This mathematically spreads it out to 30,000 per range. How many years will it take to certify just a portion of the supposed 300K?

 

[TTSX]

This however brings up an interesting scenario.

According to the Oregon Sheriff's Assn. it was estimated 300,000 WILL pursue the permit to purchase.

While there is now ONE range authorized to perform the training lets say 10 ultimately follow suit.

This mathematically spreads it out to 30,000 per range. How many years will it take to certify just a portion of the supposed 300K?

30k per range is less than 100/day over a year's time. We can call it exactly 100 per day per range for easy math. If we brought it down to 25/day then it would take about 4 years to get through all 300k. There will be far, far more than 10 places of business wanting to get in on the money. Probably tenfold at minimum once the tap is turned on. So we could drop it to 4.8 months if 100 ranges held classes for 25 people per day. Assuming 300k wanted to get the permit all at once and 100 ranges set up the classes all at once, of course. Just back of the napkin sketching here.

 

[Koda]

4.8 months of backlog to express a constitutional right.

and even when if its caught up, we all know damn well it only infringes on the good guys. Hypothetically lets say sometime soon with the law in effect ones house is burglarized and their guns are stolen. Now that person has to start over and in order to protect themselves with just one gun purchase they have to go thru this whole process meanwhile the thieves do not.

And when does this end? We all know taking a class isnt the end game of gun control.

 

[1911Fanatic]

I'm all for people taking classes. But if you are going to require a FOID caed or permit to exercise a constitutional right, it should be free. With the exorbitant fees they are pricing out the "undesirable people" whom they don't want to have guns. The disabled, the poor, etc. it won't matter to the guy that's making 400K a year doing Pap smears and delivering babies, etc.

 

[Greshamreloadr]

I guess I shouldn't be, but I'm absolutely floored by the number of gun owners and FFL's that don't have a clue about what's going on. If I fed my family and put a roof over their heads with a firearms related business, I would be reading everything put out by my advocates. "I don't have internet" or I get too many emails as it is" or my brother in law keeps me updated on these things" are, IMO, pi** poor excuses for having your head in the sand.

I know several guys at work that are the type that say they are hunters and this won't apply to them. I remind them that this is what happened to Canada and also Australia. They think they will not come for their guns but they are wrong. These people just keep finding ways to make up new rules to strip our freedoms away. They allow the criminals to get away with no bail and low bail so they can continue their reign of terror because it does two things. It shows that guns in people's hands are bad and they must be outlawed. So, every time they allow another criminal out the door to continue to do this we all lose in the long run if you think about it. It just reinforces the media and their agenda that guns are bad.

 

[Mark W.]

Well, that would mean her private security wouldn't be able to have guns. Go ahead Rosie, make that happen. Her security team should be limited by law to dildos and bongs for weapons.

That cow is living in Ireland at least until she pisses them off a little more and they throw her fat bubblegum out.

 

[64MercurysRule]

I know several guys at work that are the type that say they are hunters and this won't apply to them. I remind them that this is what happened to Canada and also Australia. They think they will not come for their guns but they are wrong. These people just keep finding ways to make up new rules to strip our freedoms away. They allow the criminals to get away with no bail and low bail so they can continue their reign of terror because it does two things. It shows that guns in people's hands are bad and they must be outlawed. So, every time they allow another criminal out the door to continue to do this we all lose in the long run if you think about it. It just reinforces the media and their agenda that guns are bad.

Yes it has never been about safety and security but about harassment and ultimately confiscation .