Messages
742
Reactions
1,578

So what's the plan for increase of stabbings? 114 doesn't touch that nor will IP18 legislation session.
Ban kitchen knives. You can come to downtown PDX to use a city-owned knife to prepare dinner, but first you have to take a class and pay $65 for a permit. They can pay the guy supervising the knife out of increased Light Rail fees.
 
Messages
3,934
Reactions
7,955
Ban kitchen knives. You can come to downtown PDX to use a city-owned knife to prepare dinner, but first you have to take a class and pay $65 for a permit. They can pay the guy supervising the knife out of increased Light Rail fees.
Only if you submit the past 3 years of all social media accounts for scrutiny, the private information and the same for anyone that lives in the home with you, provide 4 character references, pass a psych eval and meet with a permit officer for an interview to determine if your moral character merits permission for you to handle a knife.

Wait 30-90days and we'll get back to you.
 
Messages
3,934
Reactions
7,955
Check this one: Portland Police didn't show when a Franklin School official called after seeing someone with a gun there
I was reading a report for the same school not long before that. Some students reporting individuals in the parking lot driving around and brandishing firearms.

LEO's never did respond to that call, but they did email the school officials much later in the day to ask if the threat was still present or not. It was nice of them to check in even though they didnt have the manpower to physically show up. ;)
 
Messages
525
Reactions
732
Only if you submit the past 3 years of all social media accounts for scrutiny, the private information and the same for anyone that lives in the home with you, provide 4 character references, pass a psych eval and meet with a permit officer for an interview to determine if your moral character merits permission for you to handle a knife.

Wait 30-90days and we'll get back to you.
You forgot to be trained and a demonstrate a "live" cutting/stabbing must be performed before ANY permit is to be issued. and Nothing over 5.5 inches LOL
 
Messages
525
Reactions
732
I was reading a report for the same school not long before that. Some students reporting individuals in the parking lot driving around and brandishing firearms.

LEO's never did respond to that call, but they did email the school officials much later in the day to ask if the threat was still present or not. It was nice of them to check in even though they didnt have the manpower to physically show up. ;)
I bet LEVO was hoping for a shooting... perfect timing for 1
 
Messages
977
Reactions
1,532
Thanks for the action and information covered in this thread.

In context of defense, it would appear that it would be legal under the proposed law to keep pre-ban standard capacity magazines available and loaded for your use on your own property. But not elsewhere. So using them in defense on your own property would be perfectly fine. Do you guys agree with my interpretation?
Standard Capacity will be the Next Step.
 
Messages
780
Reactions
2,018
Thanks for the action and information covered in this thread.

In context of defense, it would appear that it would be legal under the proposed law to keep pre-ban standard capacity magazines available and loaded for your use on your own property. But not elsewhere. So using them in defense on your own property would be perfectly fine. Do you guys agree with my interpretation?

FORWARD: I am trying to keep my cool as best as I can about this crap as the election nears. I suppose that I'll opt to get really pissed-off angry later, when we actually cross this bridge.

I believe that if this garbage is passed, and I'm pessimistic that it will; it will be immediately challenged in the courts; an injunction placed, and none of the below will ever have to be considered.




The wording reads as such:

Sec. 11 Sub. Sec. 5 As of the effective date of this 2022 Act, it shall be an affirmative defense, as provided in ORS 166.055, to the unlawful possession, use and transfer of a large-capacity magazine in this state by any person, provided that:

(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

(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.


DISCLAIMER: INAL The below is only my perceived legal interpretation and ought naught be considered as legal advice.

Pertaining to a person that may be a card-carrying member of a private range:

It's my understanding that there is no stated radius, or established distance perimeter that one must be within to be reasonably considered to be in transit to a private range. The range could conceivably be located in a different city, or even a different county.

It also doesn't declare that a person must travel directly from one's place of residence to and from the range with no other stops in between. What if a person also needs to fill their gas tank, grab some lunch somewhere, get a haircut, play a round of golf?

Now, I realize that a person would be prohibited from carrying the restricted mags on person in public, but there is nothing in the wording that would preclude say perhaps having an unloaded rifle(or rifles), or full-size duty pistol(s), and separated mags in one's vehicle, and for it to still be considered as reasonable that one is on route to the range.

In theory, as long as one is in transit during normal range operating hours, a person could be running an errand (or two, or three) on their way to the range. Perhaps something pressing came up, and range time had to be postponed altogether. As long as a person is able to present proof of range membership -- I.E. a member card, gate-key etc. on one's person, then there would be a burden to prove otherwise.

Opinions?
 
Messages
3,934
Reactions
7,955
Opinions?
I don't disagree, but what's the point? If you are out of your vehicle you can't carry it for SD and inside your vehicle it's in 2 seperate containers and not readily available for defensive purposes so.... why go to the bother/risk?

There is also that little issue, if you have a LE encounter and you are specifically asked, it's a crime to make any false statements to an officer.
 
Messages
1,175
Reactions
2,104
If it passes (I'm thinking it will) I will be switching my carry from a 15 round G19 to a ten round G26 to remain legal in the remote chance I ever need to use my firearm in self defense.
 
Messages
780
Reactions
2,018
Good Point. Keep it in yer Vehicle! :)

Well (c) and (A) of the sub-section reads:

(it shall be an affirmative defense.....provided that:) (c)the owner has not maintained the large-capacity magazine in a manner other than:

(A)On property owned or immediately controlled by the registered owner


And it's here that I'm in search of some clarity.

'Property' is not defined in the definitions portion of the section. At least not that I can see.

I presume 'property owned' is at a minimum designated as one's place of residence or business address. Does 'property owned' also extend to one's vehicle, or an RV/Camper? Also, I see that the wording is 'or' and not 'and' before 'immediately controlled by the registered owner'.

By 'registered owner', I presume that applies to the 'registered owner' of the property, not the magazines. AFAIK there is no registration requirement for the grandfathering of standard mags. Right?


Whoever wrote this piece of work needs a swift kic...... Eh, I'll leave it right there to remain civil, and honor the site's rules.

Hopefully its horrible wording will be considered as one of the primary reasons to toss it all out; preferably 'with prejudice'.
 
Messages
780
Reactions
2,018
I don't disagree, but what's the point? If you are out of your vehicle you can't carry it for SD and inside your vehicle it's in 2 seperate containers and not readily available for defensive purposes so.... why go to the bother/risk?

There is also that little issue, if you have a LE encounter and you are specifically asked, it's a crime to make any false statements to an officer.
All well understood.

While it wouldn't be immediately accessible, it could be made accessible in a fairly expedient manner if properly set-up; while also still obeying the letter of the law.

Say, one is at a gas station (on the way to the range of course), and a car pulls up with multiple attackers armed with SBRs & standard capacity mags, and one is afforded the time necessary to be able to access and equip one's own SBR and standard mag(s).

Or, one is in a designated Gun-Free Zone such as a grocery store, and a mentally disturbed individual rolls up in the parking lot with a semi-auto long gun and starts shooting at anyone and everyone in their sites, including potentially oneself being (or soon to become) 'in their sites'.
(Once again provided enough time is afforded to do so); opt for one's SBR instead of one's =/<10 round CC pistol.


A LEO may ask questions as a function of an investigation of a crime, however, a person may also lawfully refuse to answer any questions.
Without probable cause, it is unlawful for them to search a vehicle.
Having the business card of an attorney-at-law to hand over to them enforces the point.

Now I'm not trying to get all uppity 'sovereign citizen' Cop-Watch DB here, nor am I wanting to take the convo that route.
I usually always make it a point to be respectful, courteous and professional to LEOs, but rights are rights.

I could go decades(and have gone) not having an interaction with a LEO (on the job) beyond the rare once-in-a-decade traffic stop for a low-level speeding violation. So, I'm not too concerned about loop-holing this unconstitutional law if it does survive. That stated, I still would prefer to keep it legal-eagle, and have some more clarity on what is deemed as lawful.
 
Messages
84
Reactions
192
FORWARD: I am trying to keep my cool as best as I can about this crap as the election nears. I suppose that I'll opt to get really pissed-off angry later, when we actually cross this bridge.

I believe that if this garbage is passed, and I'm pessimistic that it will; it will be immediately challenged in the courts; an injunction placed, and none of the below will ever have to be considered.




The wording reads as such:

Sec. 11 Sub. Sec. 5 As of the effective date of this 2022 Act, it shall be an affirmative defense, as provided in ORS 166.055, to the unlawful possession, use and transfer of a large-capacity magazine in this state by any person, provided that:

(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

(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.


DISCLAIMER: INAL The below is only my perceived legal interpretation and ought naught be considered as legal advice.

Pertaining to a person that may be a card-carrying member of a private range:

It's my understanding that there is no stated radius, or established distance perimeter that one must be within to be reasonably considered to be in transit to a private range. The range could conceivably be located in a different city, or even a different county.

It also doesn't declare that a person must travel directly from one's place of residence to and from the range with no other stops in between. What if a person also needs to fill their gas tank, grab some lunch somewhere, get a haircut, play a round of golf?

Now, I realize that a person would be prohibited from carrying the restricted mags on person in public, but there is nothing in the wording that would preclude say perhaps having an unloaded rifle(or rifles), or full-size duty pistol(s), and separated mags in one's vehicle, and for it to still be considered as reasonable that one is on route to the range.

In theory, as long as one is in transit during normal range operating hours, a person could be running an errand (or two, or three) on their way to the range. Perhaps something pressing came up, and range time had to be postponed altogether. As long as a person is able to present proof of range membership -- I.E. a member card, gate-key etc. on one's person, then there would be a burden to prove otherwise.

Opinions?
That's what's wrong with this law. Here I am with a ccw permit issued by sheriff Pat Garret. I also have a Utah ccw to be able to carry in another 35 states.For that I received additional 3 hours of instruction.If this passes I won't be able to carry any weapon I can't permanently render incapable of holding more than ten rounds,unless I'm home at the range or hunting. So no more carrying my Glock 19 or CZ 75. Leaves us carry single stacks and wheel guns. My next gun will require me to get a permit. I don't anticipate being disabled from doing that, but now my sheriff, who is really a nice guy, needs to see me load and shoot a gun safely. As others have pointed out, that's where the clown show starts. Where and how is this supposed to happen?I suppose some of us will profit by taking advantage of this fledgling employment opportunity, but for most of us veteran gun owners who already have been scrutinized up the Ying yang it seems like a load of crap. Folks in Salem. You already know we aren't criminals and how many guns we buy. We already have to go through a background check every time we purchase a weapon. Start enforcing drug laws and put bad guys who use guns in jail for a long time, but don't try to convince us that a gun law this silly makes any sense at all.
 
Messages
780
Reactions
2,018
That's what's wrong with this law. Here I am with a ccw permit issued by sheriff Pat Garret. I also have a Utah ccw to be able to carry in another 35 states.For that I received additional 3 hours of instruction.If this passes I won't be able to carry any weapon I can't permanently render incapable of holding more than ten rounds,unless I'm home at the range or hunting. So no more carrying my Glock 19 or CZ 75. Leaves us carry single stacks and wheel guns. My next gun will require me to get a permit. I don't anticipate being disabled from doing that, but now my sheriff, who is really a nice guy, needs to see me load and shoot a gun safely. As others have pointed out, that's where the clown show starts. Where and how is this supposed to happen?I suppose some of us will profit by taking advantage of this fledgling employment opportunity, but for most of us veteran gun owners who already have been scrutinized up the Ying yang it seems like a load of crap. Folks in Salem. You already know we aren't criminals and how many guns we buy. We already have to go through a background check every time we purchase a weapon. Start enforcing drug laws and put bad guys who use guns in jail for a long time, but don't try to convince us that a gun law this silly makes any sense at all.
Oh yeah, I could rant for hours and hours on the absolute redundancy of this legislation.
It's really a de-facto pause on almost all firearms sales in the State of Oregon until?

From what I gather, there is no mandate to require LEO agencies to actually facilitate these permits. The permit fees won't cover the costs passed onto the agencies, and they will be left to have to fill the gap in funding, creating a shortfall in their already (I presume to be) tight budgets.

Where are these LEO approved training locations going to be? How long is it going to take for them to be approved?

The mandate of requiring a license to do any sort of firearm transaction will create what kind of backlog for the 10s of thousands, rather, 100s of thousands that will now be needing to jump through these hoops.

If there has ever been a more blatant attack on the 2A under the premise of infringement and undue burden; causing harm to an individual exercising their constitutionally protected civil right. I don't know what the fu.....

Oh man, there goes the BP rising, I'm gonna go grab a beer and settle down for a bit rather than continue. Someone else feel free to carry on with the rant.
 
Messages
4,212
Reactions
6,629
Hello,

I did not read this entire thread ALL over again so I may have missed something here.

There were some states trying to push ROUND CAPACITY for all types of guns a couple of years ago and much LONGER than that time frame too. Handguns, rifles, etc. in CF and in RF.

They wanted to go AFTER lever action rifles in 22lr as ONE example now.

SOME tube fed and SIMPLE lever action rifles can hold 22 short, 22 long and 22lr ammunition as you know.

So some of THOSE TUBE FED lever action 22lr rifles hold more than 10 ROUNDS of ammo if someone uses x, y or z.

ARE THEY GOING TO SCREW WITH THEM - BAN THEM - GRANDFATHER THEM IN OR WHAT NOW (?) just like some states wanted to do a LONG time ago and not too long ago when it came to RF lever action rifles now in OREGON with this NEW BS PROPOSED GUN LAW?

Some of those states that wanted to do that with RF lever action rifles did NOT do that IN THE END and it is old news - many years ago.

BUT they wanted to DO IT and ban them and not even GRANDFATHER THEM IN.

I remember writing about it in various places including on some OLD BOARDS and email groups about those OTHER STATES.

I did NOT go back and reread what all of you have written about the OREGON mess all over again just NOW.

Thanks for any information about the TUBE FED - round capacity lever gun question ahead of time too.

Cate
PS: I live in Montana and not in Oregon.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
40
Reactions
56
Hello,

I did not read this entire thread ALL over again so I may have missed something here.

There were some states trying to push ROUND CAPACITY for all types of guns a couple of years ago and much LONGER than that time frame too. Handguns, rifles, etc. in CF and in RF.

They wanted to go AFTER lever action rifles in 22lr as ONE example now.

SOME tube fed and SIMPLE lever action rifles can hold 22 short, 22 long and 22lr ammunition as you know.

So some of THOSE TUBE FED lever action 22lr rifles hold more than 10 ROUNDS of ammo if someone uses x, y or z.

ARE THEY GOING TO SCREW WITH THEM - BAN THEM - GRANDFATHER THEM IN OR WHAT NOW (?) just like some states wanted to do a LONG time ago and not too long ago when it came to RF lever action rifles now in OREGON with this NEW BS PROPOSED GUN LAW?

Some of those states that wanted to do that with RF lever action rifles did NOT do that IN THE END and it is old news - many years ago.

BUT they wanted to DO IT and ban them and not even GRANDFATHER THEM IN.

I remember writing about it in various places including on some OLD BOARDS and email groups about those OTHER STATES.

I did NOT go back and reread what all of you have written about the OREGON mess all over again just NOW.

Thanks for any information about the TUBE FED - round capacity lever gun question ahead of time too.

Cate
PS: I live in Montana and not in Oregon.

Interesting to see how narrowly your recent measures passed.

There are two call-outs which are relavant to your question. Please excuse the formatting. Items B & C are NOT considered "high capacity."

(d) "Large-capacity magazine" means a fixed or detachable magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, helical feeding device, or
similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, or a kit with such parts, that has an
overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition
and allows a shooter to keep firing without having to pause to reload, but does not include any of the following:
(A) An ammunition feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it is not capable, now or in the future, of
accepting more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
(B) An attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with 0.22 caliber rimfire ammunition; or
(C) A tubular ammunition feeding device that is contained in a lever-action firearm
 
Messages
125
Reactions
96
When are there going to be TV and internet ads opposing this stupidity?

My proposal:

Video of the Portland riots playing.
911: What is your emergency?
Victim: There are people in the street outside my home breaking windows and setting fires. I'm scared (children screaming and crying in the background).
911: All available law enforcement have been dispatched to other calls. It will be 90 minutes to 2 hours before they can respond to your location.
Victim: What can I do? I'm surrounded <sobbing>.
911: Take your children to the bathroom and lay in the bathtub with them until help arrives.
Victim: <pleading> Please, help me?
911: Sorry, I can't. I wish you well, but I have to respond to another emergency phone call.
<dial tone>
 

Upcoming Events

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top