JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Well ahead of ya.


We got the main thread stickied, now we're on a mission to help spread the word to vote no on Measure 114.
 
@E4mafia nailed it. The article oozes fudd energy.

Once again they use a person who happens to own a gun as an example for gun-guys (and girls).. like those idiots that chop up their firearms on camera.. they may as well light money on fire to better virtue signal.

Firearm ownership has little to do with hunting. I loath that they always try and connect the two.
 
Here's hoping Paul Shively of Portland sees the biggest buck of his life and misses the shot, only to see the same buck in someone else's pickup on the way home empty handed. Here's hoping Paul Shively of Portland needs 11 rounds to save his life but only has 10.

Screw Paul Shively of Portland
 
Oh yeah, to the Bend Mayor Pro Tem in favor of this drivel, as soon as your PD only needs ten rounds to save their lives will I give up my magazines. Pound sand.
 
Unless Oregon confiscate every firearm in the state and somehow block all guns from other states, all they can hope for is some new gun owner or illegal gun owner (criminal) doesn't try anything.

Basically a worthless idea that won't work as advertised AND per usual, it comes with zero guarantee of my safety. It actually makes me less safe.
 
It effectively turns us into a "may issue" state as far as owning/buying a gun goes.

OSP with oversight from lawmakers are legally allowed to change the requirements at anytime. So whatever the measure says now could change over night or on a whim. They hold the final decision.

Have fun appealing it too considering they again get to decide if you're valid to own or not and there is no limit on how many times they can appeal your appeal and run you into financial ruin while they have unlimited tax payer dollars.

Basically the plan is to take NY and CA's concealed carry (thinly veiled) special need but putting it behind owning/buying guns AFTER you meet a specific criteria and if you are determined to be safe to do so, at their discretion (whatever that may be or include beyond the training course).

HARD NO
From Bruen ruling - though this pertains to concealed carry.

"We know of no other constitutional rights that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,"
"That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense."
 
Last Edited:
At a guess, it may be this Paul Shively, an Oregon Healthcare Authority program manager

Mr. Paul Shively
Oregon Health Authority
Re: Equity Plan Attestation Statement

Dear Mr. Shively,
By Tuesday, May 18, we expect that more than 65% of Deschutes County residents age 16 and older will have
received a first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Per Governor Brown's request, we are submitting the attached
Equity Plan to you for your review. We respectfully request State approval to move into the low risk category of
the State's public health framework on May 21.

My, an OHA drone supporting more government control. Quelle surprise!

If it's the correct Shively, of course.
 
Ghost written by a Soros backed organization, if I had to guess.

I could pick a random name off the 'net to put to a citizen submitted op-ed piece as well.
Presuming the paper follows the procedures it publishes, the 'citizen' would have to be a willing participant - they say they check.

But 'here are talking points for letters' - sure, quite likely, I think.
 
Does anyone know if this 114 model was tried and passed or failed in places like California or New York or Conn.?
I know.

California, sort of.

CA's FSC program is paperwork, but no training required.

CA's 2016 Prop 63 added language to make possession of 'large-capacity magazines' illegal; that's the subject of the CA lawsuit Duncan vs Bonta which has ruled that provision unconstitutional, but it's back at the US District Court for now.
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors April 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top