Messages
2,760
Reactions
5,861
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;



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

or the development and staffing of a certification process for the instructors.
Or what fees would likely be charged for the training at range time. We know the permit itself is $65 but nothing states the cost for the actual mandatory training requirement. Wouldn't expect it to be economical either.

Factoring in SB554 good luck if you don't already own a gun on getting this required training in since you can't be loaned a gun as transfer of a non secured gun is negligence per se as it's written. Yeah that's class A misdemeanor violation with fees jail time or both.

Washington county nor Multnomah county have any program for this required training either from law enforcement and that's two of the biggest counties in Oregon.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
272
Reactions
416
… … …

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
Working on it ...

Here's another - large-capacity magazines.

says
With LCMs, the only thing we have to go on now is the handful of cities that track the ammunition capacity of firearms connected to crimes. Dr. Koper's research found that 22%–36% of the firearms used in crimes recovered by law enforcement had large capacity magazines, and LCMs are involved in 20%–67% of fatal mass shootings. That is a broad range because data on the ammunition capacity of firearms used in mass shootings is often missing.


What does the research say about the use of these devices in mass shootings? In a 2020 paper, Dr. Koper found that fatal mass shootings with LCMs have 60%–67% higher fatality counts and 100%–200% higher wounding counts than mass shootings without LCMs. A study that looked at active-shooter scenarios [found that] the use of an assault rifle with an LCM had twice as high fatality counts and 81% higher numbers of victims with nonfatal gunshot wounds than in shootings committed with other types of firearms.
Read that one again: With LCMs, the only thing we have to go on now is the handful of cities that track the ammunition capacity of firearms connected to crimes.

There's no data! Any assertion on use in crime is just unsupported. They're Making Stuff Up.

The article mentions Dr Koper; this seems to be the paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28971349/, Criminal Use of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Semiautomatic Firearms: an Updated Examination of Local and National Sources . His abstract says "Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total), though data on this issue are very limited."

Here's a RAND study - https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons.html "We found no qualifying studies showing that bans on the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines decreased any of the eight outcomes we investigated." No data!
 
Messages
272
Reactions
416
Here's another Johns Hopkins article (beginning to see a pattern?) https://hub.jhu.edu/2018/06/01/permit-to-purchase-laws-linked-to-firearm-homicide-decrease/
Permit-to-purchase gun laws linked to fewer firearm homicides in large, urban areas

Here's an abstract to the study cited,
Association between Firearm Laws and Homicide in Urban Counties -- "PTP laws were associated with a 14% reduction in firearm homicide in large, urban counties (IRR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.82–0.90). CBC-only, SYG, RTC, and VM laws were all associated with increases in firearm homicide."

Here's an earlier study by Crifasi, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3978146/ Effects of the Repeal of Missouri's Handgun Purchaser Licensing Law on Homicides

Look what population it affects:
It has been argued that weaknesses in federal and state firearms laws contribute to the unusually high homicide rate in the USA, especially the lack of background checks or record-keeping requirements for private, unlicensed sellers of firearms.5 Many perpetrators of homicide have backgrounds that would prohibit them from possessing firearms as a result of prior convictions for felony crimes6 or for misdemeanors involving domestic violence, being under a restraining order for domestic violence, young age, or other disqualifications.7 Federal law requires background checks and record keeping for sales by federally licensed firearms dealers but exempts these regulations when the firearm seller is unlicensed. Fifteen states require individuals purchasing handguns from unlicensed sellers to pass background checks, and eleven of these states require all handgun purchasers to acquire a permit-to-purchase (PTP) license.

PTP systems require prospective handgun purchasers to obtain a license verifying that they have passed a background check. All handgun sellers, both licensed dealers and private sellers, may only sell to those with a current PTP license. Most states with PTP handgun licensing require applicants to apply for the license directly at a law enforcement agency.
We -have- background checks. And other than Portland, we don't have any 'large urban areas' in Oregon, and Portland's crime problem has little to do with the rest of the state.

Of course, the LEVO people are from Portland; maybe they should get out more and see the rest of the state.

Fix Portland; come back to us when you have succeeded.

114 slide.jpg

114 slide.jpg
 
Last Edited:
Messages
2,760
Reactions
5,861
Would love to see that as a precursor requirement.

Before passing a bogus measure like this on the rest of the state, how bout you show us this works in a major urban setting like portland. I'm talking all major crimes reduced if not stopped for more than 10 years.

Then we will talk about adopting 114's misleading ill conceived malpractice with false claims supplied by bought and paid for interest groups who make a living off violating 2A rights with a never ending supply of tax payer money.
 
Messages
3,044
Reactions
5,997
One other tidbit I picked up on in that debate was the projected permit availablility time frame of 2024. Although, the antichrist... er... anti2A'er said that the ban on firearms sales would not be immediate. They would set a schedule for implementation to transition it into affect to coincide with requirement fullfillment becoming available.

I don't see a woketard guided shedule being anything more than a "token effort" without any practical concern for those they are imposing their will on.

I also would have liked our side to point out.... when it was brought up that purchase permits have been sustained as constitutional... that those were all pre-bruen court decisions and would not survive under strict scrutiny. Can't touch all the points in the limited time they had, but more refuting of some of his misleading statments would have been nice.
 
Messages
3,554
Reactions
5,205
Wanted to give a big shout out to the people at the Tuesday night KSLM get togethers at the HonkeyTonk. Many have been distributing signs and handouts. Others have been calling businesses to spread the word or asking permission to post the 48 x 32 signs and highway signs. It's really eased my burden. Now I can actually go to locations without spending hours canvassing beforehand.

I'm meting some fantastic, patriotic Oregonians who do more than just talk about doing something.
 
Messages
13,399
Reactions
24,149
I've been doing my part to talk to as many people as I can about this and I am surprised at how many are NOT aware of 114 - and they are relatively active gun owners.

Question - with regard to all the posts about training requirements, permit costs and other logistics is there even a mandate that a Sheriffs Dept. city, county ect. has to even implement any of this? (assuming it passes)
 
Messages
2,760
Reactions
5,861
Yeah its alarming how many gun owners are unaware. I tried asking for a mass alert email sent out from site admin but that's a no go cuz it would violate a non profit status. Also tried asking for a special site graphic that would be present on NWFA to link here but I'm guessing that too would violate which is totally retarded.

Next best thing, if you make classified ads link this thread or anything related to M114. More people look at classifieds than they do subsections of the forums.

Word of mouth is our current best method
 
Messages
1,103
Reactions
1,975
Yeah its alarming how many gun owners are unaware. I tried asking for a mass alert email sent out from site admin but that's a no go cuz it would violate a non profit status. Also tried asking for a special site graphic that would be present on NWFA to link here but I'm guessing that too would violate which is totally retarded.

Next best thing, if you make classified ads link this thread or anything related to M114. More people look at classifieds than they do subsections of the forums.

Word of mouth is our current best method
Yeah, but the good reverend's church can get involved in any politics they want and even have services for measure 114 and still maintain their tax exempt status. You think the fix is in? 🤔
 
Messages
2,760
Reactions
5,861
Dunno if fixed or people aren't willing to try.

Either way we've got 38 days left until Nov 8th. Everyone who has been active in this thread is doing a good job of getting out there and alerting.
I'm certain the gun owners unaware will probably see the ads by now from pro 114 commercials or ads on YouTube mobile bringing attention finally.

News articles online have been slowly covering it more an more over the last month I've noticed. All articles seem to only talk about M114 as the only thing on the ballot when there's actually a couple others too but only M114 gets the lime light for some reason.
 
Messages
272
Reactions
416
I've been doing my part to talk to as many people as I can about this and I am surprised at how many are NOT aware of 114 - and they are relatively active gun owners.

Question - with regard to all the posts about training requirements, permit costs and other logistics is there even a mandate that a Sheriffs Dept. city, county ect. has to even implement any of this? (assuming it passes)
Yes - the measure says
(3)(a) Within 30 days of receiving an application for a permit under this section, if the permit agent has verified the applicant's identity and determined that the applicant has met each of the qualifications described in paragraph (1)(b) of this section, the permit agent shall issue the permit-to-purchase.
Thus the unfunded mandate - create and staff the program out of your own ("(5) "Permit Agent" means a county sheriff or police chief with jurisdiction over the residence of the person making an application for a permit-to-purchase, or their designees.") budget.

114 slide fine.jpg
 
Messages
2,760
Reactions
5,861
Only the POLICE can give you the permit. Remember not long ago in 2020 when it was all the rage to DEFUND police? What if we do that again or limit their budgets that they cannot afford to offer many program classes to give you a permit period. Stalling the police also effects the FFLs locally you buy from since nobody can buy a gun without a permit. If you can't get a permit from either a massive backlog of booked up classes or there simply is no funding/program offered in your area.

What are you supposed to do?

Should this pass how could they differentiate between someone whose grandfathered in vs whose not? Burden of proof falls on the state but how would they even start or finish? Pretty big gray area huh?

Starting to see how this isn't about "common sense" gun control and it's looking more like a scare you sh!tless into complying by violating your rights and threatening your way of life with fines and jail time.

Don't forget immediately in 2023 there be a legislation session that tackles IP18 which is an AWB. Their wet dream of reliving 1994 which as I understand and has been shared on this very site in the past, did absolutely NOTHING to stop violent crime and had little if any effect from studies shown. Personal accounts from people who've lived it seem to reflect.
 
Messages
3,044
Reactions
5,997
Starting to see how this isn't about "common sense" gun control and it's looking more like a scare you sh!tless into complying by violating your rights and threatening your way of life with fines and jail time.
It's never been about common sense. Putting gun stores out of business, stopping the purchase of new firearms, limit the number of new gun owners, hamper gun owners ability to carry, create a sense of public shame toward gun ownership.... THAT's the plan.

NONE of which will do jack to combat violent crimes.
 
Messages
2,760
Reactions
5,861
It's never been about common sense. Putting gun stores out of business, stopping the purchase of new firearms, limit the number of new gun owners, hamper gun owners ability to carry, create a sense of public shame toward gun ownership.... THAT's the plan.
Mostly replying to the lurkers with my question how this isn't about common sense. There is no common sense control that hasn't already been tried and implemented in various states and federally and none seem to be working.

If there was a common sense solution we would've ended violent crime long long long ago. Every state that's implemented any meme of gun control still has a massive gun crime problem. Funny how it's usually big blue states with big blue cities with these common sense solutions but also have the HIGHEST homicide rates and a overburdened system that constantly needs another common sense approach added.
 
Messages
2,760
Reactions
5,861
For those curious how it'll be displayed on the actual ballot:

Ballot title

The certified ballot title for Measure 114 is as follows:[4]

"Requires permit to acquire firearms; police maintain permit/firearm database; criminally prohibits certain ammunition magazines
Result of 'Yes' Vote:
'Yes' vote requires background check, safety training, fee for permit to acquire firearms; state police maintain new permit/ firearm database; criminally prohibits certain magazines; exceptions.
Result of 'No' Vote: 'No' vote retains current law: seller/ transferor must request criminal background check; permit, safety course not required; no magazine capacity restrictions.[5]
"

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for Measure 114 is as follows:[4]

"Oregon law currently allows persons over age 18 to acquire firearms (federal law requires age 21 for some handgun purchases), seller/ transferor must request criminal background check. Measure requires permit from local law enforcement to acquire firearm; person must pay fee, submit photo ID, fingerprints, complete approved safety training, pass criminal background check, not be prohibited from possessing firearms; officer may deny permit to person believed danger to self or others. Permit issued within 30 days, valid 5 years. Permit denials appealable. Must present permit, pass background check to acquire firearm. State Police creates/ maintains permit/ firearm database. Magazines over 10 rounds, or readily modifiable to exceed 10 rounds, prohibited; exception for current owners /inheritors. Exceptions for law enforcement, armed forces. Criminal penalties. Other provisions.[5]"
 

Upcoming Events

Falcon Gun Show - Classic Gun & Knife Show
Granite Falls, WA
Klamath Falls Gun Show
Klamath Falls, OR
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top