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

[CamoDeafie]

A nit: CA does not require registration of all firearms.

CA does require either using an FFL for transfers, or 'voluntarily' filing paper for things like intrafamilial transfer, C&R aquisitions, and moving to CA with guns, and those transactions get recorded in their Automated Firearms System (AFS).

But guns that have not been transferred since 1991, or long guns since 2014, need not be registered; it is legal to own, possess, and use a gun not known to the state of California.

But, just a nit.

Registration

Registration laws create accountability for gun owners and curb illegal activity. There is no comprehensive national gun registration system.

giffords.org

Tell that to them

 

[Librarian]

Registration

Registration laws create accountability for gun owners and curb illegal activity. There is no comprehensive national gun registration system.

giffords.org

Tell that to them

It's no fun teasing the incompetent.

 

[baker3gun]

Good info Camo, thanks.

@Librarian : in 40 years, the nit will de facto become a writ.
Opponents of freedom have a long-term goal.

Thx. Good discussion.

 

[PADRE]

Just a simple question here:

CAN THE PEOPLE OF A STATE PROTEST WHEN WE WERE ASKED TO VOTE ON A MEASURE THAT WAS NEVER FULLY EXPLAINED??

Jobs are being lost, businesses being closed, rights violated, millions of new government expenses never disclosed, all because we were duped into a woefully inadequate description of the proposal in the voting pamphlet,

 

[ValleyAR]

Just a simple question here:

CAN THE PEOPLE OF A STATE PROTEST WHEN WE WERE ASKED TO VOTE ON A MEASURE THAT WAS NEVER FULLY EXPLAINED??

Jobs are being lost, businesses being closed, rights violated, millions of new government expenses never disclosed, all because we were duped into a woefully inadequate description of the proposal in the voting pamphlet,

It was explained people just didn't fcking read it.

 

[CrazyKingJammy]

Sportsman's in 185th in Hillsboro…

That's my place! Sadly, I dont think they offer transfers at this time? Blah, I already canceled my order...

 

[Camelfilter]

That's my place! Sadly, I dont think they offer transfers at this time? Blah, I already canceled my order...

I don't believe chain stores ever offered person to person transfers.

 

[Librarian]

Good info Camo, thanks.

@Librarian : in 40 years, the nit will de facto become a writ.
Opponents of freedom have a long-term goal.

Thx. Good discussion.

Yes, in 40 years pretty much all the guns will have been transferred and thus CA will expect they are in AFS.

I was actually using 50 years when this first came up in CA, so 1991 + 50 = 2041, 2014 + 50 = 2064 for long guns.

 

[RedRover]

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's 1​ authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

There is no federal prohibition of state-level registers or registration in this particular law.
If there is another federal law that prohibits state registers, I need that link for my own knowledge and purposes.

Thx.

Is there something about the bolded text above that I'm interpreting incorrectly?

I believe it reads: "Or any State"

 

[Jay Walk]

If you order a gun now and do not get BGC approval by December 7th you will still be processed.

I believe this statement was posted here by a reputable member who got the word directly from OSP.

Sorry, I did not write down which one of the 87 measure 114 threads that it was reported on.


Too many threads and they are mostly Off The Rails.

 

[dancinghippos]

It was explained people just didn't fcking read it.

The news coverage before and after the signatures were gathered was dishonest. The signature-gatherers said it was about "gun safety". The committee who wrote the "neutral" description in the voter pamphlet were 3 supporters vs 2 opponents and they voted on the description. The opposition had to buy commercials to get heard, but the supporters got positive "news" coverage for free. The first time I heard a mainstream news story mentioning the chaos we see now was after it passed, even though it was predicted by half the opponents statements in the pamphlet.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

Is there something about the bolded text above that I'm interpreting incorrectly?

I believe it reads: "Or any State"

Bingo

 

[Pete F]

If my brain worked as well as it did a decade ago, I remember a fight with Gov Brown over how long gun records could be kept. After 5 years, they were supposed to be destroyed/removed from Government files. Brown wanted it to be unlimited.

I don't remember how it resolved itself.

 

[draza]

If you order a gun now and do not get BGC approval by December 7th you will still be processed.

I believe this statement was posted here by a reputable member who got the word directly from OSP.

Sorry, I did not write down which one of the 87 measure 114 threads that it was reported on.


Too many threads and they are mostly Off The Rails.

I was thinking if you get in the background check before youd be good because don't you have to have the permit before you can even attempt to buy and go through a BGC anyway?

 

[RedRover]

You missed the Or state part. See the bolded part for where state registries are forbidden. The first bolded portion grandfathers existing registries. The second bolded portion forbids state registries.

Cherry picking.

No offense, and not going to argue with you, but the argument you present will not prevail under any legal scrutiny.
Because what you are saying is not what the law pasted above says.
The basic sentence structure says something entirely different than what you are saying.

Best focus now is broader tangible legal challenges to 114, or repeal.

Thx.

Hold on dude... Not trying to be a jerk here, but that's exactly what it states. Let's read through it together again, shall we?

(I went ahead and crossed out 'the United States or' in case that makes it a little more difficult to comprehend what is written here.)



No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.

 

[Cavedweller]

If my brain worked as well as it did a decade ago, I remember a fight with Gov Brown over how long gun records could be kept. After 5 years, they were supposed to be destroyed/removed from Government files. Brown wanted it to be unlimited.

I don't remember how it resolved itself

Prior to 2016, state law allowed OSP to keep firearms transaction records for 6 months. In 2016 Kate Brown issued an executive order extending that period to 5 years. I don't remember there being much of a fight.

 

[sti2011]

If you order a gun now and do not get BGC approval by December 7th you will still be processed.

I believe this statement was posted here by a reputable member who got the word directly from OSP.

Sorry, I did not write down which one of the 87 measure 114 threads that it was reported on.


Too many threads and they are mostly Off The Rails.

If this was true (and I pray it is) you would think OSP would make that known. I feel like no one actually knows what will happen.

 

[Texanna]

It was explained people just didn't fcking read it.

Well, the "anti-114" info had a statement that said background check was "suggested."

SUGGESTED?? Well no, it's REQUIRED (albeit unconstitutionally). So, all the nanny-state freedom violators who are scared of "the shoulder thing that goes up" believed the state of Oregon did not have the background intrusion.

 

[RedRover]

Prior to 2016, state law allowed OSP to keep firearms transaction records for 6 months. In 2016 Kate Brown issued an executive order extending that period to 5 years. I don't remember there being much of a fight.

Here is a link with some information on the stated(and updated) policy of the OSP on the retention of firearm's transaction records:

There is an UPDATE FOLLOW UP LINK at the bottom of the section 2. At the Oregon State Police (FICS) , and then another UPDATE LINK at the very bottom of the second article.

Records retention of Oregon firearms background checks

by Dan Lucas The subject of records retention of Oregon firearms background checks came up during testimony on SB 1551, Sen. Floyd Prozanski’s unnecessary “universal background check” bill. Records retention was discussed due to privacy concerns, past examples of government being a poor stewar

oregoncatalyst.com

 

[Cavedweller]

Here is a link with some information on the stated(and updated) policy of the OSP on the retention of firearm's transaction records:

There is an UPDATE FOLLOW UP LINK at the bottom of the section 2. At the Oregon State Police (FICS) , and then another UPDATE LINK at the very bottom of the second article.

Records retention of Oregon firearms background checks

by Dan Lucas The subject of records retention of Oregon firearms background checks came up during testimony on SB 1551, Sen. Floyd Prozanski’s unnecessary “universal background check” bill. Records retention was discussed due to privacy concerns, past examples of government being a poor stewar

oregoncatalyst.com

My mistake. State law allowed retention for 5 years, but prior to Kate's executive order OSP did not do this. I seem to remember 6 months was the policy before Kate's order. Kate's order extended retention to the full 5 years allowed by law.