JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Status
The way I read 114 (I could be wrong) is that if you take your firearm out of your house/property with the 10+round mag in it, you have lost your affirmative defense as the 10+ mag is supposed to be locked in a separate case on the way to the range.
That's correct:
(A) On property owned or immediately controlled by the registered owner;
(B) On the premises of a gun dealer or gunsmith licensed under 18 U.S.C. 923 for the purpose of lawful service or repair;
(C) 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;
(D) While participating in firearms competition or exhibition, display or educational project about firearms sponsored, conducted by, approved or under the auspices of a law enforcement agency or a national or state-recognized entity that fosters proficiency in firearms use or promotes firearms education; and

(E) While transporting any large-capacity magazines in a vehicle to one of the locations authorized in paragraphs (c)(A) to (D) of this subsection, the large-capacity magazine is not inserted into the firearm and is locked in a separate container.
The crime would be
(6) Unlawful manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale or otherwise transferring of a large-capacity magazine is a class A misdemeanor.
Which means
ORS 161.635
Fines for misdemeanors

(1) A sentence to pay a fine for a misdemeanor shall be a sentence to pay an amount, fixed by the court, not exceeding:
(a)$6,250 for a Class A misdemeanor.
(b)$2,500 for a Class B misdemeanor.
(c) $1,250 for a Class C misdemeanor.
 
Last Edited:
Seen a few NO TO 114 yard signs in Washington county. Also seeing more Betsy Johnson signs and literally only two Tina signs in my AO.

Polls are currently showing Drazan in a lead.
 
Did you guys watch the debate? What did you think?
I went back and watched it. Pretty pitiful on the anti side. Avoid every question with rhetoric and "if it saves one, how much is that life worth"... while referencing uvalde and the like. No salient response to any question put to him.

On the pro2A side, he was very succint and logicaly presented the issues, facts and shortcomings.

IOW, same ol same ol from the left.

One comment really did piss me off though. The question was put, basically, as... isn't our childrens lives worth the delay measure 114 might cause for those who want to purchase a gun. Part of pro2A's response was that it's not tyically the law abiding affected by this measure that are involved in these mass shootings, and THEN.... anti2A throws out, statistics would prove otherwise to that response.

Crats mantra... if you want to make your point... LIE!!
 
Last Edited:
Which means
ORS 161.635
Fines for misdemeanors

(1) A sentence to pay a fine for a misdemeanor shall be a sentence to pay an amount, fixed by the court, not exceeding:
(a)$6,250 for a Class A misdemeanor.
(b)$2,500 for a Class B misdemeanor.
(c) $1,250 for a Class C misdemeanor.
If convicted, means no CHL for you. Has anyone read through the measure to find out if a misdemeanor under 161 disqualifies you from getting the new permit, or is that some of the "we'll make it up later" BS?
 
Which means

If convicted, means no CHL for you. Has anyone read through the measure to find out if a misdemeanor under 161 disqualifies you from getting the new permit, or is that some of the "we'll make it up later" BS?
You answered your own question. If convicted you lose your CHL so this is a double whammy.

Convicted of having a mag not at the above described locations approved means conviction.
You can appeal it via Oregon law but don't expect a victory if they can open the play book on you. Doubly so if you get hit with criminal trespassing.
 
Did you guys watch the debate? What did you think?
It was more of a sermon than a debate. The pro2A side gave some good points, but not any examples such as "Elliot Rodger, the Isla Vista killer responsible for a 2014 murder spree in California, used only California-compliant 10-round magazines."

It did not look like they took any texted or emailed in questions.

One "working man" who looked nervous about public speaking gave his opinion, but did not press the fake Reverend for a real answer.

At the end they let one Liberal Douche bag , complete with hippy vest, add his support because "think of the children".
 
Last Edited:
Just got my "No on 114" signs up out front. Thanks to McKluskey Arms of Eugene. They have a few more signs, so stop in and say Hi to those fine patriots.
Good Job! I was distributing Flyers today in a parking lot and one guy, after reading his flyer, walks up to me and says "Thank You for Doing This!".

I said no prob, BTW I have some free Yard Signs if you want a few. But you need to promise me you will put them up somewhere.

His response was "H*ll YES!" So the enthusiasm is out there, we just need to connect and get the word out.

If I am at a Sportsman's I make sure to cover the employee's cars. As they are in contact with customers every day, and will spread the message.

By the Way @dancinghippos ...I can use more flyers!! :)
 
You answered your own question. If convicted you lose your CHL so this is a double whammy.

Convicted of having a mag not at the above described locations approved means conviction.
You can appeal it via Oregon law but don't expect a victory if they can open the play book on you. Doubly so if you get hit with criminal trespassing.
Right - ORS 166.291
Issuance of concealed handgun license

(1) The sheriff of a county, upon a person's application for an Oregon concealed handgun license, upon receipt of the appropriate fees and after compliance with the procedures set out in this section, shall issue the person a concealed handgun license if the person:
...
(g) Has never been convicted of a felony or found guilty, except for insanity under ORS 161.295 (Effect of qualifying mental disorder), of a felony;

(h) Has not been convicted of a misdemeanor or found guilty, except for insanity under ORS 161.295 (Effect of qualifying mental disorder), of a misdemeanor within the four years prior to the application, including a misdemeanor conviction for the possession of marijuana as described in paragraph (L) of this subsection;
 
It was more of a sermon than a debate. The pro2A side gave some good points, but not any examples such as "Elliot Rodger, the Isla Vista killer responsible for a 2014 murder spree in California, used only California-compliant 10-round magazines."

It did not look like they took any texted or emailed in questions.

One "working man" who looked nervous about public speaking gave his opinion, but did not press the fake Reverend for a real answer.

At the end the let one Liberal Douche bag , complete with hippy vest, add his support because "think of the children".
Yes, I think the during the opening statements pro2A came on strong presenting strictly valid facts, but oftentimes the reverend pulled out the same old tropes "think of the children" and "hunters only have 6 rounds", etc. I think pro 2A guy should have taken Knutson to task when he trotted out the old you need a license to drive a car so why not a gun analogy. He should have told him it's a slippery slope asking government entities permission to exercise constitutionally guaranteed rights, but instead remained silent. Knutson did a good job preaching to his congregation attempting to tug on the heart strings and I think it worked. I think the gentleman from the audience who spoke opposing the measure didn't help things with the long beard and overalls, plus his points were incoherent and he stumbled over his words. I mean, I know his heart was in the right place and at least he's going public and standing up for what he believes in, but I don't think that helped the cause. The one gentleman who argued the dual background check to "protect law enforcement" was a real douche. He seemed visibly angry and very smug in his argument.

I hope I'm wrong, but for the record to gauge how close or how far off I was in hindsight, I'm going to say the measure will pass with about a 70% vote yes for measure 114.
 
You answered your own question. If convicted you lose your CHL so this is a double whammy.

Convicted of having a mag not at the above described locations approved means conviction.
You can appeal it via Oregon law but don't expect a victory if they can open the play book on you. Doubly so if you get hit with criminal trespassing.
What I was looking for was if, under the new measure, if you were convicted of a misdemeanor, do you lose your newly gained "permit" to purchase a firearm. I get that you lose your CHL, but what about the new permit to purchase?
 
Says it's a Class A misdemeanor.

Searching google I see a class A mis carries the following:

Jail - maximum up to one year incarcerated
Part time incarceration
Probation

Class A or Class 1 MAY include:
Assault causing bodily injury
Burglary
DUI with no bodily injury
Resisting arrest
Perjury
Possession of controlled substances
Unlawful possession of a weapon
Violating a restraining order

I can see them applying assault causing bodily injury in a self defense scenario and unlawful possession of a weapon with a capacity exceeding what's been allowed. Not a lawyer and not fluent in legalese so just assume the worst and err on the side of caution.

Looking at our AG and the courts I wouldn't bet you would get to keep your gun rights after being convicted with whatever they apply. If it's good enough to lose your CHL it's good enough to lose your rights is how I'm leaning.

Oregon is also a red flag law state so expect that that be used as well. Why would a law abider need a dangerously high capacity magazine on them post 114? - is the mindset I'm assuming they'll approach with to X you out.
 
Last Edited:
So, a few notes from the opening statements of today's event:

Knutson, 30-Sep-2022

Places with permit to purchase has dropped gun violence 30%

5 times to have more deaths with large capacity magazines than without.

Many gun owners support this, a high number

75% support for background checks being completed

It's constitutional


Pro-guy suggests OR gun stores will close, so OR residents will go to other states. Um, no, at least not for handguns.

31 new OSP positions, 275 new Sheriff positions, none budgeted

Official fiscal statement Costs 15 mill, 98 mill (2 years), $65 leaves 75 mill shortfall

He forgot court costs for trying to defend this.

I'll come back to this after a bit of research ...
 
Last Edited:
So, a fe notes from the opening statements of today's event:

Knutson, 30-Sep-2022

Places with permit to purchase has dropped gun violence 30%

5 times to have more deaths with large capacity magazines than without.

Many gun owners support this, a high number

75% support for background checks being completed

It's constitutional


Pro-guy suggests OR gun stores will close, so OR residents will go to other states. Um, no, at least not for handguns.

31 new OSP positions, 275 new Sheriff positions, none budgeted

Official fiscal statement Costs 15 mill, 98 mill (2 years), $65 leaves 75 mill shortfall

He forgot court costs for trying to defend this.

I'll come back to this after a bit of research ...
Other states will put up No Sales to Oregon Residents signs just like we have No Sales to California and Washington Residents signs.
 
Lets look at "Places with permit to purchase has dropped gun violence 30%"

Looking at data from WISQARS - https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html - I extracted data about firearms homicide, as a proxy for all 'gun violence'.

Here's the EXCEL graph comparing the rates/100,000 for Texas, California, New York, and Oregon. California got its original 'permit to purchase', the "Basic Firearms Safety Certificate" in 1994. One might expect a noticeable change starting in 1995 or so, at least for new guns used in murders.
COMPARE firearm murder rates.jpg
But the California and New York curves, both with 'permits to purchase' and before and after CA's 1994 date, show very similar curves to Texas, which has no such permit. (New York's permit is for handguns only; I do not quickly find when that started.)

In short, data on one category of gun violence, the one that gets most of the attention, murder - shows no such change.

That is, Rev Knutson is lying. Shame on a man of the cloth!
 
Last Edited:
Lets look at "Places with permit to purchase has dropped gun violence 30%
… … …
In short, data on one category of gun violence, the one that gets most of the attention, murder - shows no such change.

That is, Rev Knutson is lying. Shame on a man of the cloth!
We should put together a list of their main talking points and refutations and publish them. Just like our own flyers. An issue and answer format
 
The Pro-guy (I apologize, his name eludes me) noted the Fiscal Impact info. That's available at https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/committee-meetings.aspx, as https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/fec/IP-17-2022-FEC-analysis-draft-updated-for-8-5.pdf, and for highlights, OSP thinks it needs 31 new staff costing $5,206,030 in 2023-25, and $8,069,734 for FBI background checks and database development and other stuff, same period.

Sheriffs estimate 300,000 applications;
The association assumes the workload to process each initial permit will require one new employee for every 1,200 applications annually. In addition to staff to process the permit applications, supervisory employees will be required at a ratio of 10:1. The estimated cost for new staff is projected at $100,000 for each employee to process applications and $120,000 for supervisory position.
• Initial hiring, training, and equipment costs are projected by the association at $15,000 per new employee. Turnover is projected at roughly 50 employees per year.
Based on information received from the Oregon State Sheriffs' Association, the financial impact to local government is estimated at up to $51.2 million in the first year of implementation and up to $47.5 million in subsequent years. The largest component of this estimate includes the hiring of 250 employees to process applications and 25 supervisory employees at the cost of $28.0 million annually. Initial hiring, training, and equipment costs for new employees is projected at $3.8 million in the first year of implementation and $0.8 million in each subsequent year.
A county sheriff or police chief with jurisdiction of the resident of the person making application for a permit-to-purchase will serve as the permit agent. Permit agents may charge a fee of up to $65 for an initial permit, including the cost of fingerprinting, photographing and obtaining a criminal background check. Based on the estimated 300,000 applications per year, OSSA projects local government entities to receive up to $19.5 million annually in initial permit application fees.
SO, $39 million in income against about $60 million in expenses in 2023-2025, if I've sorted that out properly.

And we have not yet figured in ranges for the
(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.
or the development and staffing of a certification process for the instructors.

ETA But, let's speculate on that last.

Suppose that class takes 2 hours, and each class can safely accommodate 10 permit applicants. That would be 30,000 classes for 300,000 annual applicants.

Suppose any range and instructor can handle 3 of those classes per day; that would be 10,000 range days.

Suppose 10% of those 10-student-class, 3-classes-range days, 1,000, are at indoor facilities open 360 days per year; a bit less than 3 of those facilities, 100% dedicated to these classes would be needed. Can't make money that way? Can't accommodate 'regular' customers? Well, let's cut that back to 25% of the business - bump that up to 12.

That leaves 9,000 range days for outdoor ranges; suppose weather says those operate 250 days per year; that would be 36 outdoor ranges at 100%. Let's use them at the same 25% rate as above, so we need 144 outdoor range 10-student segments.

Are there 144 outdoor ranges like that in Oregon? Remember, these classes are for any gun, so have to have classes for handguns and rifles and shotguns.
 
Last Edited:
Good Job! I was distributing Flyers today in a parking lot and one guy, after reading his flyer, walks up to me and says "Thank You for Doing This!".

I said no prob, BTW I have some free Yard Signs if you want a few. But you need to promise me you will put them up somewhere.

His response was "H*ll YES!" So the enthusiasm is out there, we just need to connect and get the word out.

If I am at a Sportsman's I make sure to cover the employee's cars. As they are in contact with customers every day, and will spread the message.

By the Way @dancinghippos ...I can use more flyers!! :)
Give me a call Saturday and we will work out a time
 
Status

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top