Oregon Oregon Ballot Measure 114 – Magazine Ban and Permit To Purchase Firearms — Vote NO!

[nammac]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1593816495418662912

S U P P O R T

And so it begins. I support OFF among others, and urge others in the strongest terms possible to put some financial support behind these organizations fighting or posed to fight 114.

Throw them a donation equal to a couple
Of boxes of ammo, they're going to need every penny they can get their hands on.

 

[ValleyAR]

I wish i could fix OFFs website. It really needs a modern look.

and thank goodness first challenge filed.

my guess is they are coordinating and FPC will file suit for the permits

 

[Cavedweller]

I thought there was a 180-day period of time (grace period) built into the measure that allows shops to sell their current inventory etc? At least that's what I understood after reading it (the entire measure with fine print)

That grace period referred to magazines, not firearms, and allowed dealers 180 days to sell their current inventory to other dealers out of state.

This could in theory be an excellent case for the ACLU to take.. if they weren't so anti-2A

If you look at the list of donors to LEVO, you will find that the ACLU donated something in the neighborhood of $25,000 in support of 114. So, no, I don't think so.

 

[Nosferatu]

Sent what pittance I could to OFF. Good luck down there.

 

[CamoDeafie]

If you look at the list of donors to LEVO, you will find that the ACLU donated something in the neighborhood of $25,000 in support of 114. So, no, I don't think so.

Yeah, like I said, in theory since this puts the power to grant or deny permits in the hands of the State Police, and also puts the training in the hands of SP, as well as violating the 4th and 5th Amendment regarding privacy and seizures, and possibly the 1st A due to people now having to justify their pictures/posts regarding permits and magazines things that the ACLU supposedly are "for" but because it's specifically targeting gun owners, they don't care it seems

 

[Lilhigbee]

So the defendant is "KATE BROWN, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF OREGON, In her official capacity,...". So they can drag this out until her term ends and the judge can toss it because she is no longer "in her official capacity" and all the time, money and effort is wasted and they can start all over again. Nice.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Nvm - I see the link now. Thx

 

[sed]

And so it begins. I support OFF among others, and urge others in the strongest terms possible to put some financial support behind these organizations fighting or posed to fight 114.

Throw them a donation equal to a couple
Of boxes of ammo, they're going to need every penny they can get their hands on.

Just a reminder for Oregonians...if you donate to the OFF Political Action Committee, your donation of $50 for a single filer or $100 for a joint/head of household filer, qualifies for an Oregon tax credit.

Oregonians can make a $50 donation to a qualifying political party/committee of their choosing each year and 100% get this contribution back as a credit on your Oregon tax return.
There may be income requirements of single filer making less than $75k and joint/household making less than $150k to get this credit - do your own research if concerned.

This is not a deduction, but a credit.
You send OFF PAC a $50/$100 donation; the state of Oregon gives you $50/$100 back on your tax return.
You are reimbursed in full for your contribution and OFF PAC gets $100 to help fight for our 2A rights.

This is a use-it-or-lose-it credit you can use each and every year.
If you haven't used your Oregon Political Tax Credit this year, I can't think of a better Oregon political cause/group to support than OFF PAC!

More info about OFF PAC - https://www.oregonfirearms.org/oregon-firearms-federation-political-action-committee
How to donate - https://www.oregonfirearms.org/join-support-off

 

[PiratePast40]

Just a reminder for Oregonians...if you donate to the OFF Political Action Committee, your donation of $50 for a single filer or $100 for a joint/head of household filer, qualifies for an Oregon tax credit.

Oregonians can make a $50 donation to a qualifying political party/committee of their choosing each year and 100% get this contribution back as a credit on your Oregon tax return.
There may be income requirements of single filer making less than $75k and joint/household making less than $150k to get this credit - do your own research if concerned.

This is not a deduction, but a credit.
You send OFF PAC a $50/$100 donation; the state of Oregon gives you $50/$100 back on your tax return.
You are reimbursed in full for your contribution and OFF PAC gets $100 to help fight for our 2A rights.

This is a use-it-or-lose-it credit you can use each and every year.
If you haven't used your Oregon Political Tax Credit this year, I can't think of a better Oregon political cause/group to support than OFF PAC!

More info about OFF PAC - https://www.oregonfirearms.org/oregon-firearms-federation-political-action-committee
How to donate - https://www.oregonfirearms.org/join-support-off

Thanks for the bump, worth repeating.

 

[jackrv]

Donated to both OFF and FPC.

 

[FireArm]

Keep buying, swell the numbers, break the system before it even works, because I think we're close to this currently.
I just ordered a bunch of lowers, and have other transfers pending, mine yesterday was over 18k in NICS.

 

[CrazyKingJammy]

Keep buying, swell the numbers, break the system before it even works, because I think we're close to this currently.
I just ordered a bunch of lowers, and have other transfers pending, mine yesterday was over 18k in NICS.

You've got lowers shipping? Are there any Oregon FFL's that will still accept transfers? Mines said they already passed the cut off point.

 

[Local Loader]

You've got lowers shipping? Are there any Oregon FFL's that will still accept transfers? Mines said they already passed the cut off point.

There are a few places still doing it but you have to call around to find who still is doing transfers.

 

[FireArm]

Going to keep buying. There's only a few things I wanted, besides freedom to choose to buy a gun without buying a permit to buy a gun first. WT actual F

 

[Pete F]

And so it begins. I support OFF among others, and urge others in the strongest terms possible to put some financial support behind these organizations fighting or posed to fight 114.

Throw them a donation equal to a couple
Of boxes of ammo, they're going to need every penny they can get their hands on.

Already did, FPC also.

 

[tkdguy]

And so it begins. I support OFF among others, and urge others in the strongest terms possible to put some financial support behind these organizations fighting or posed to fight 114.

Throw them a donation equal to a couple
Of boxes of ammo, they're going to need every penny they can get their hands on.

i DID TODAY AND WILL CONTINUE

 

[E4mafia]

Don't forget to set your Amazon smile up to OFF or FPC or whomst ever. May as well toss them some while you consoom from Amazon sales too.

 

[baker3gun]

Is the searchable database an angle of attack? If they tie an item to an owner that become a public registry. I think that 1986 national law may forbid that. But of course just a public list endangers people.

The prohibition on registration of guns, gun owners, and transactions is federal only; it does not restrict states.
See USC Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 926.

The constitution does not enumerate a right to privacy.

The constitution was interpreted to protect a citizen right to privacy in Griswold 1965, but the boundaries of that protection continue to be argued.
The Griswold Justices cited the 1st​, 3rd​, 4th​, 9th​, and 14th​ amendments in their ruling, but they specifically did not mention the 2nd​.

Contesting M114 on the basis of invasion of privacy is a huge legal challenge because privacy is not an enumerated right and because scotus specifically excluded 2A from the list of enumerated protections they relied on to "find" a constitutional protection of the citizen right to privacy in 1965.

If you don't want to take on that huge legal challenge, your other options are:

1 - Attack the mag limit. Easy because it is already unfolding in California.

2 - Attack the permit requirement. Not as easy, because there is no precedent. Permit requirements are an obvious infringement, but they are not low-hanging fruit. Challenging their constitutionality will not be easy.

3 - Wait till Oregon halts gun sales while the permit system is put in place, then sue because you can't buy a gun.
This is not a good strategy because Oregon may not halt gun sales, or, if they do, sales will be resumed before your suit is resolved. You might ultimately win a financial reward, but your suit probably won't change M114.

4 - Find some other part of M114 and file suit against that part.

Of note:
If a suit against M114 magazine capacity limits is successful, then that part of M114 will be repealed or struck down, but all the other parts of M114 will stand.
This helps explain current action against M114: all the playas are immediately filing the same suit: the winnable suit against the low-hanging fruit of mag limits.
Everyone wants to win that suit, because the winner gets the feather in their cap.
Meanwhile, the permit requirement goes uncontested? I'm not 100% sure myself. It's hard to keep track of whom is doing what.

2 cents.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

The prohibition on registration of guns, gun owners, and transactions is federal only; it does not restrict states.
See USC Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 926.

The constitution does not enumerate a right to privacy.

The constitution was interpreted to protect a citizen right to privacy in Griswold 1965, but the boundaries of that protection continue to be argued.
The Griswold Justices cited the 1st​, 3rd​, 4th​, 9th​, and 14th​ amendments in their ruling, but they specifically did not mention the 2nd​.

Contesting M114 on the basis of invasion of privacy is a huge legal challenge because privacy is not an enumerated right and because scotus specifically excluded 2A from the list of enumerated protections they relied on to "find" a constitutional protection of the citizen right to privacy in 1965.

If you don't want to take on that huge legal challenge, your other options are:

1 - Attack the mag limit. Easy because it is already unfolding in California.

2 - Attack the permit requirement. Not as easy, because there is no precedent. Permit requirements are an obvious infringement, but they are not low-hanging fruit. Challenging their constitutionality will not be easy.

3 - Wait till Oregon halts gun sales while the permit system is put in place, then sue because you can't buy a gun.
This is not a good strategy because Oregon may not halt gun sales, or, if they do, sales will be resumed before your suit is resolved. You might ultimately win a financial reward, but your suit probably won't change M114.

4 - Find some other part of M114 and file suit against that part.

Of note:
If a suit against M114 magazine capacity limits is successful, then that part of M114 will be repealed or struck down, but all the other parts of M114 will stand.
This helps explain current action against M114: all the playas are immediately filing the same suit: the winnable suit against the low-hanging fruit of mag limits.
Everyone wants to win that suit, because the winner gets the feather in their cap.
Meanwhile, the permit requirement goes uncontested? I'm not 100% sure myself. It's hard to keep track of whom is doing what.

2 cents.

as I read it, FOPA does restrict the states.
2) Challenge it as a poll tax to exercise a right

 

[CamoDeafie]

The prohibition on registration of guns, gun owners, and transactions is federal only; it does not restrict states.
See USC Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 926.

The constitution does not enumerate a right to privacy.

The constitution was interpreted to protect a citizen right to privacy in Griswold 1965, but the boundaries of that protection continue to be argued.
The Griswold Justices cited the 1st​, 3rd​, 4th​, 9th​, and 14th​ amendments in their ruling, but they specifically did not mention the 2nd​.

Contesting M114 on the basis of invasion of privacy is a huge legal challenge because privacy is not an enumerated right and because scotus specifically excluded 2A from the list of enumerated protections they relied on to "find" a constitutional protection of the citizen right to privacy in 1965.

If you don't want to take on that huge legal challenge, your other options are:

1 - Attack the mag limit. Easy because it is already unfolding in California.

2 - Attack the permit requirement. Not as easy, because there is no precedent. Permit requirements are an obvious infringement, but they are not low-hanging fruit. Challenging their constitutionality will not be easy.

3 - Wait till Oregon halts gun sales while the permit system is put in place, then sue because you can't buy a gun.
This is not a good strategy because Oregon may not halt gun sales, or, if they do, sales will be resumed before your suit is resolved. You might ultimately win a financial reward, but your suit probably won't change M114.

4 - Find some other part of M114 and file suit against that part.

Of note:
If a suit against M114 magazine capacity limits is successful, then that part of M114 will be repealed or struck down, but all the other parts of M114 will stand.
This helps explain current action against M114: all the playas are immediately filing the same suit: the winnable suit against the low-hanging fruit of mag limits.
Everyone wants to win that suit, because the winner gets the feather in their cap.
Meanwhile, the permit requirement goes uncontested? I'm not 100% sure myself. It's hard to keep track of whom is doing what.

2 cents.

as I read it, FOPA does restrict the states.
2) Challenge it as a poll tax to exercise a right

On the other hand. Look at Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, California,Maryland, DC, Hawaii, and probably some other States... where there are permits/license to buy; and/or mag bans and/or AWBs edit with registries.. I do believe there currently are no suits regarding permit/license to purchase firearm schemes such as what Illinois have (FOID?) ?