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

[Rkangel]

Saving the tax payers dollars is the only way. Public defendants cos money too. How's the state senate and house looking?
It would be a great step in the right direction to pass legislation that will allow people to defend themselves against these criminals.

The problem with government bureaucrats is that they always think they are the solution. They are never going to vote themselves less money or power and once they get their grubby little hands on both, they will never return it to the people. To them self defense means self reliance means they have less control. They may have lost the super majority this time, but they also neutered the power of the walk-out, so I don't see anything good coming for Oregonians out of this legislature any time soon.

 

[tkdguy]

Crook County Sheriff 'in the dark' on Measure 114 implementation. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjjH1hybiGe

 

[PiratePast40]

Here's another KGW video that explains the lawsuit.

ETA: The lawyer and KGW both fail to mention that we already have background checks in Oregon. The lawyer seems to support permits and enhanced background checks, because lawyers need to do it to practice law. He also supports permits because other states have them on their books. He fails to mention that those permits have not been recently challenged in light of the Bruen decision, nor does he mention that, in Justice Kavanaugh's opinion about permits, he talked about permit to carry outside the home, not a permit to purchase.

 

[Nutty4Guns]

Crook County Sheriff 'in the dark' on Measure 114 implementation. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjjH1hybiGe

Video is unavailable now.?

 

[tkdguy]

Video is unavailable now.?

Skip the link and try direct via Youtube. I have noticed consistent cyber attack "fluttering" with blue waved lighting on many of these 2nd A youtube videos. Same with same with preparation videos and threat intelligence videos. Too consistent to ignore.

 

[jackrv]

Crook County Sheriff 'in the dark' on Measure 114 implementation. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjjH1hybiGe

No longer available Going to youtube and plugging "Crook County Sheriff 'in the dark' on Measure 114 implementation" into the search bar works.

 

[PiratePast40]

No longer available Going to youtube and plugging "Crook County Sheriff 'in the dark' on Measure 114 implementation" into the search bar works.

Is this the one you're talking about? Central Oregon Daily article

 

[Local Loader]

Crook County Sheriff 'in the dark' on Measure 114 implementation. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjjH1hybiGe

The like is broken but here's the fixed link.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Deschutes County Sheriff Nelson offered this:
BM114 would cost $145 million to implement. With no fund site in place, and Oregon's law enforcement agencies are expected to pick up the tab.
"You cannot legislate good behavior... Measure 114 only penalizes law-abiding citizens in what is a long-term refusal in Salem to properly fund mental health and drug dependency issues. We consistently rank at the bottom of the barrel in these areas per the yearly statistics available to anyone with a computer. Mass shootings and suicide are mental health related incidents – can you imagine the strides in this area if $145 million dollars were properly set aside in Oregon and used to improve our mental health system?"

 

[jlynblackmore]

Deschutes County Sheriff Nelson offered this:
BM114 would cost $145 million to implement. With no fund site in place, and Oregon's law enforcement agencies are expected to pick up the tab.
"You cannot legislate good behavior... Measure 114 only penalizes law-abiding citizens in what is a long-term refusal in Salem to properly fund mental health and drug dependency issues. We consistently rank at the bottom of the barrel in these areas per the yearly statistics available to anyone with a computer. Mass shootings and suicide are mental health related incidents – can you imagine the strides in this area if $145 million dollars were properly set aside in Oregon and used to improve our mental health system?"

Hit the nail on the head with that one

 

[Jay Walk]

Deschutes County Sheriff Nelson offered this:
BM114 would cost $145 million to implement. With no fund site in place, and Oregon's law enforcement agencies are expected to pick up the tab.
"You cannot legislate good behavior... Measure 114 only penalizes law-abiding citizens in what is a long-term refusal in Salem to properly fund mental health and drug dependency issues. We consistently rank at the bottom of the barrel in these areas per the yearly statistics available to anyone with a computer. Mass shootings and suicide are mental health related incidents – can you imagine the strides in this area if $145 million dollars were properly set aside in Oregon and used to improve our mental health system?"

Much like Background Checks for Ammunition purchases in New York (passed in 2013) and still not implemented because the logistics simply do not work.


The SAFE Act that passed in January of 2013 required that sellers must determine a purchaser's eligibility to possess ammunition by a currently non-existent, on-line State Police-operated database.

The ongoing costs were to be borne by state taxpayers, who also would be on the hook to pay for equipment needed to conduct the background checks at each point of sale – every retailer across the state that sells ammunition, according to Senator Young.

 

[Local Loader]

Anyone else seen this BS claim today.

Oregon Measure 114 delay would lead to ‘unnecessary deaths,’ attorney general argues

The attorney general’s office, in its response to the Oregon Firearms Federation's lawsuit, argued large-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are not “arms” protected by the Second Amendment and the state’s new requirement for a permit to purchase a gun will withstand constitutional...

www.oregonlive.com

 

[_Will_]

Anyone else seen this BS claim today.

Oregon Measure 114 delay would lead to ‘unnecessary deaths,’ attorney general argues

The attorney general’s office, in its response to the Oregon Firearms Federation's lawsuit, argued large-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are not “arms” protected by the Second Amendment and the state’s new requirement for a permit to purchase a gun will withstand constitutional...

www.oregonlive.com

Yuppp. I thought Attorney General wasn't a political office? Otherwords they should remain neutral. Guess not in Oregon

 

[E4mafia]

From PSA

 

[ORN197]

Yuppp. I thought Attorney General wasn't a political office? Otherwords they should remain neutral. Guess not in Oregon

The AG is extremely political... always has been, always will be. As for remaining "neutral"... what's that supposed to mean? They are charged with enforcing the laws of the state. BM-114 was passed by a majority of the voters in the state and while not yet encoded into ORS, it IS (or will be in some form) state law. The AG's job is to defend it in court against any challenges. They'll use every tool they can to do so.

Now in my opinion... in a sane and just world, a reasonable AG would look at BM-114, see how blatantly unconstitutional it is, and perhaps decide to either slow-walk the implementation/enforcement of it, or maybe even side with the plaintiffs and ask for a court-ordered injuction... throw it in the legislature's lap, let them sort it out. They would also probably be accused of being "political" and "not neutral" by the liberals/left, who wouldn't necessarily be wrong! So the AG would deflect those accusations by saying that trying to defend such a ridiculous law is a waste of resources.

But we don't live in a sane or just world. I'm not trying to be a jerk, just point out reality. You can't expect a highly political office to not act... politically.

 

[jayR]

From MidwayUSA

 

[Local Loader]

Good thing I stopped ordering from midway over year ago, plus they're overpriced on a lot of things.

 

[jayR]

ya good thing. save your money for donating to the ones fighting this new law.

 

[sed]

The AG is extremely political... always has been, always will be. As for remaining "neutral"... what's that supposed to mean? They are charged with enforcing the laws of the state. BM-114 was passed by a majority of the voters in the state and while not yet encoded into ORS, it IS (or will be in some form) state law. The AG's job is to defend it in court against any challenges. They'll use every tool they can to do so.

Now in my opinion... in a sane and just world, a reasonable AG would look at BM-114, see how blatantly unconstitutional it is, and perhaps decide to either slow-walk the implementation/enforcement of it, or maybe even side with the plaintiffs and ask for a court-ordered injuction... throw it in the legislature's lap, let them sort it out. They would also probably be accused of being "political" and "not neutral" by the liberals/left, who wouldn't necessarily be wrong! So the AG would deflect those accusations by saying that trying to defend such a ridiculous law is a waste of resources.

But we don't live in a sane or just world. I'm not trying to be a jerk, just point out reality. You can't expect a highly political office to not act... politically.

In a sane and just world, this horribly and deceptively written ballot measure never should've been allowed on the ballot in the first place.
Whether it's the AG, SoS or governor, these politicians are all cut from the same cloth...and sadly it ain't the kind that defends constitutional rights!

 

[Pepe-lepew]

Yuppp. I thought Attorney General wasn't a political office? Otherwords they should remain neutral. Guess not in Oregon

The Rittenhouse trial should have shown you how public law people are politically motivated and how far they will go in making up lies to defend their spin on things.