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

[Lugg]

Just looked at the NRA site https://www.nraila.org/campaigns/2022/or/or-ballot-initiative, and no mention there. But, I emailed the Rick address just now.

 

[Lugg]

Just looked at the NRA site https://www.nraila.org/campaigns/2022/or/or-ballot-initiative, and no mention there. But, I emailed the Rick address just now.

I'm not seeing any merchandise concerning Measure 114 (i.e..bumper stickers) on the NRA's website. Still searching....

 

[Lugg]

No. BM114 if passed by the voters would have to be challenged in the courts. The Governor can only veto bills from legislators.

There will be major litigation if, Heaven forbid, Measure 114 somehow passes in November. There are multiple case precedents if 114 becomes law.

Here are some of the more recent supreme court decisions below.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense" (id. at , 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that "individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right"

Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. (2016) "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States"

NYSRPA v. Bruen, 597 U.S. (2022) The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home; New York's proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Librarian]

There will be major litigation if, Heaven forbid, Measure 114 somehow passes in November. There are multiple case precedents if 114 becomes law.

Here are some of the more recent supreme court decisions below.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense" (id. at , 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that "individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right"

Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. (2016) "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States"

NYSRPA v. Bruen, 597 U.S. (2022) The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home; New York's proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

And we need to include Duncan vs Bonta, the CA Federal court case where Judge Benitez ruled the CA ban on large-capacity magazines is unconstitutional. Appealed to SCOTUS after an en banc reversal at the 9th, it was on hold for NYSRPA v. Bruen and GVRd to the 9th for proceedings consistent with Bruen. 9th kicked it down to Benitez again, who is expected to re-issue much the same ruling as his original, sometime before the end of the year.

That result will apply across all of the 9th Circuit, including Oregon and Washington, so lawsuits challenging similar OR and WA restrictions will put those laws in jeopardy - though no doubt the governments will persist in their errors until slapped down in court on each law.

 

[Mono1]

There will be major litigation if, Heaven forbid, Measure 114 somehow passes in November.

Good point and great examples. But let's cut the head off this snake before it gets that far.

That Sh*t takes forever even IF it does get challenged in Court!

 

[Lugg]

And we need to include Duncan vs Bonta, the CA Federal court case where Judge Benitez ruled the CA ban on large-capacity magazines is unconstitutional. Appealed to SCOTUS after an en banc reversal at the 9th, it was on hold for NYSRPA v. Bruen and GVRd to the 9th for proceedings consistent with Bruen. 9th kicked it down to Benitez again, who is expected to re-issue much the same ruling as his original, sometime before the end of the year.

That result will apply across all of the 9th Circuit, including Oregon and Washington, so lawsuits challenging similar OR and WA restrictions are in jeopardy - though no doubt the governments will persist in their errors until slapped down in court on each law.

Very, good point. We need keep an eye on what happens in Duncan vs Bonta as it affects all the 9th Circuit states.

 

[Lugg]

Good point and great examples. But let's cut the head off this snake before it gets that far.

That Sh*t takes forever even IF it does get challenged in Court!

That the truth right there.

 

[dancinghippos]

Good point and great examples. But let's cut the head off this snake before it gets that far.

That Sh*t takes forever even IF it does get challenged in Court!

When you take a state to Court, you are paying for your lawyer and the state taxpayers pay the state lawyers. Let's try to stop it now.

 

[taku1946]

Until these states (Oregon, Washington, etc.) get rid of cheat-by-mail voting, our rights will continue to get railroaded (to put it lightly). The state of affairs right now is grotesque, but I have optimism that the tyrannical regimes propped up by "the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics" are, ultimately, all going down.


View attachment 1259880

THIS IS THE STRAIGHT TRUTH.
Hasn't been an honest election since vote by mail was enacted !

 

[Librarian]

When you take a state to Court, you are paying for your lawyer and the state taxpayers pay the state lawyers. Let's try to stop it now.

I've always wondered why voters don't demand their money be spent on other 'holes in the water' like homeless or health care, instead of lawsuits.

 

[Yarome]

I've always wondered why voters don't demand their money be spent on other 'holes in the water' like homeless or health care, instead of lawsuits.

You mean.... like... address core issues that would have the greatest impact on the issues we face, reduce crime, save the lives of our most precious resource and restore safety to our citizenry? All at a fraction of the costs we spend on counterproductive, self detrimental actions and initiatives that do nothing but further degrade the State?

Are you full blown off your rocker or just off your meds again?? That's just crazy talk.

Along with pushing a NO vote on 114 we should also be doing everything we can to promote and support a meaningful change in the Governors office. Conditions as they are, with many of the liberal votes beings pulled from the blue vote, it's a unique opportunity to flip our state.

(So as not to get off track and get the thread shut down, that's all I'll say on that, but something to keep in the back of our minds when talking to people about 114.)

 

[PiratePast40]

If you're interested in ballot integrity and transparency, check out the group Oregon Peoples Vote . They give weekly updates at the Tuesday evening meeting with Jeff Kropf of KSLM at the HoneyTonk at 2275 McGilchrist St SE in Salem. I've also been giving a quick update on Measure 114 activities. A lot of good information and good people there, and you have the opportunity to actually do something meaningful.

 

[PiratePast40]

Just looked at the NRA site https://www.nraila.org/campaigns/2022/or/or-ballot-initiative, and no mention there. But, I emailed the Rick address just now.

I've found the best way to contact them is to call. This is from their web site:

Want to get involved in the effort to defeat Ballot Measure 114?​

Contact Rick Coufal at (503) 799-9430 or [email protected] or Jesse Greening at (703) 708-4487 or [email protected] to get involved today.​

​

 

[PiratePast40]

What he said!

 

[PiratePast40]

Here's the breakdown of a poll from the Oregonian: See how Oregonians view law enforcement, district attorneys and the criminal justice system:

The last line, from a San Francisco transplant, speaks volumes:

"There's just a huge feeling of lawlessness," she said.

 

[LoJane]

i say it was a plan from day 1! betsy has been a career demoncrat 21 yrs. tho she is pro 2A kinda.. i think they knew Kotex was dead unless they could split the vote! just My conspiracy theory. i also want to think she saw the light and the demoncrats just was too far left for her anymore

They don't care it's stupid. The point is that it will make us jump through hoops like their dancing monkeys. People need to get fired up and pizzed about this.

If all you can do is pass out brochures, then pass out brochures. You can even do it standing on a street corner. How many will be standing outside Sportsman's and passing out brochures this weekend? Don't have plans, print off 30 or so brochures and get to it. If you can chip in a ream of paper to those of us printing brochures on our own, then do it.

Print out some of the brochures, circle the links on the back and give them to friends and neighbors that you know are pro 2A. Take some to the gun club and bring up what's in this. Let people know that they will no longer be able to carry a gun with a magazine that holds more than ten rounds. Doesn't matter if they have a CHL or not.

When you go into a gun shop to talk to them about leaving a stack of brochures in the counter, ask them if they have heard of Ballot Measure 114. You'll be shocked at how many don't have a clue, even though gun sales will be stopped for the foreseeable future when this goes through.

Get your hair on fire, get your fangs out! This is an all hands on deck casualty response!

I can't find No on 114 yard signs anywhere. Anyone know where to find them?

 

[PiratePast40]

I can't find No on 114 yard signs anywhere. Anyone know where to find them?

I have some of the larger signs. I'm in Salem but willing to drive to Woodburn to met up if you want signs.

 

[Yarome]

Here's the breakdown of a poll from the Oregonian: See how Oregonians view law enforcement, district attorneys and the criminal justice system:

The last line, from a San Francisco transplant, speaks volumes:

"There's just a huge feeling of lawlessness," she said.

Not to beat a dead horse, but with confidence so low in our leaders it's astounding that people are still buying their rhetoric and continuing down the same path that got us to where we are today. At what point do people take a breath and realize, "Wait a sec.... this isn't working at ALL."(?)

 

[ilikegunspdx]

New Supreme Court ruling for permit in Mass. (info posted on bottom) raises some Q's re 114:

1) permit in mass?/DC? says you have lifetime ban from buying guns if u are convicted of a misdemeanor involving guns. Does proposed OR permit have any specifics yet on what the permit "rules" are? This same thing could be included in Oregon? Fe you are caught carrying over 10 round mag.

2) Does the proposed OR permit require mental health evaluation like in Hawaii?

- In short, are there any specifics on what the permit will be based on or will they "just make up the rules later on"? That could be damn scary if they do that.

3) does this ruling (and Bruen) mean that OR cannot legally have a permit system to purchase?

Re the case, basically a guy in Mass. asked a cop where to check his gun in a museum where guns weren't allowed. His carry permit was for dc not mass so he was arrested. He plead guilty to a misdemeanor. Now he can't buy a gun anymore. Scotus nullified his conviction and sent it back down to court for reinterpretation in light of Bruen.

I'm not aware of a text version of the result so sorry you have to suffer weird hair and whinny voice guy to get the info:

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

New Supreme Court ruling for permit in Mass. (info posted on bottom) raises some Q's re 114:

1) permit in mass?/DC? says you have lifetime ban from buying guns if u are convicted of a misdemeanor involving guns. Does proposed OR permit have any specifics yet on what the permit "rules" are? This same thing could be included in Oregon? Fe you are caught carrying over 10 round mag.

2) Does the proposed OR permit require mental health evaluation like in Hawaii?

- In short, are there any specifics on what the permit will be based on or will they "just make up the rules later on"? That could be damn scary if they do that.

3) does this ruling (and Bruen) mean that OR cannot legally have a permit system to purchase?

Re the case, basically a guy in Mass. asked a cop where to check his gun in a museum where guns weren't allowed. His carry permit was for dc not mass so he was arrested. He plead guilty to a misdemeanor. Now he can't buy a gun anymore. Scotus nullified his conviction and sent it back down to court for reinterpretation in light of Bruen.

I'm not aware of a text version of the result so sorry you have to suffer weird hair and whinny voice guy to get the info:

1) It was the existing Mass purchase permit requirement that stated that a non-violent misdemeanor involving a firearm disqualified you from getting the purchase permit. If he had gotten the charge in New York of California that would also disqualify him. In Oregon, once BM114 is in place they can change it in Salem with their supermajority of Democrats to whatever they want.

2) Not as BM114 is written, however each issuing police department can set their own criteria for getting a permit.

3) Not yet. All the Supreme Court did was say to those lower courts "You got it wrong, your ruling is vacated, here are the rules for determining what is Constitutional, now redo your ruling." California's magazine ban is being kicked down to a pro-2A judge, so that will likely be resolved by the end of 2022. I do not know about Mass, but it could be a year before that ruling is redone.