Oregon Oregon measure 114

[R971]

Well, is there any restrictions on how many mags we can carry? Two 10 round mags will give me 5 more than my edc 15 rounder

 

[ob1]

I wonder if a gunsmith could alter magazines to only hold 10 rounds. I have a browning BDA 380 and don't think they have 10 round magazines.

I have been looking to have that done on a number of platforms for a couple years. No luck.

 

[ob1]

There really hasn't been much in the way of court cases that would help somebody know what type of conversion might fly as permanent. I doubt many gunsmiths are going to guarantee a conversion as legal?? But you never know until you ask. @Velzey

Ditto....@Velzey if you need more S&W test platforms let me know. They're useless as is.

 

[ob1]

Should I start another? I want to voluntarily neuter myself too! I want to be the master's favorite sheep….

GTFOH. Haha.

How about...
114 ...."hot chicks on freeway overpasses"

 

[Alexx1401]

It will take a couple of years before all is in place to implement 114. Once in place, it will take a minimum of six months to get your firearms license/permit,

If its really that bad that would be perfect. Might just piss off enough people to get it on the ballot again. Its just been too easy for too long. A lot of people need a wake up.

 

[Hooyah DeepSea]

Well, since there is no limit onnumber of magazines, maybe we should wear a belt that looks like a bandoleer of mags. One holster and twenty-seven 10 round mags. That would freak some people out!!

 

[The Heretic]

Well ain't this some bullbubblegum. When this gets struck down (hopefully), will the entire bill be nullified or only certain provisions?

Depends on what the court says is unconstitutional

 

[PiratePast40]

Well ain't this some bullbubblegum. When this gets struck down (hopefully), will the entire bill be nullified or only certain provisions?

It'll only be the sections that are appealed and, as @The Heretic said, IF a judge agrees.

SECTION 12. If any provision of this 2022 Act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable. The people hereby declare that they would have adopted this Chapter, notwithstanding the unconstitutionality, invalidity and ineffectiveness of any one of its articles, sections, subsections, sentences or clauses.

 

[The Heretic]

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Depends on what the court says is unconstitutional

I am far far from any sort of legal expert but I think it also depends on how the plaintiff frames the case. My guess is step 1 would be to seek an injunction based on irreparable harm. Fe if an ffl or group of ffls were to show irreparable harm via loss of business due to an "unfunded mandate" permit process. Likewise someone producing or selling magazines, etc.

Then the longer court case after that. Fortunately we now have post-Bruen court cases they can use as precedent to guide them which is freaking awesome!

So what can we do about it individually? I think #1 is identify the group(s) actively submitting the lawsuit(s) and support them. I think @nammac said the firearms policy coalition (FPC) is the lead group in Oregon (someone correct me if I'm wrong please).

My personal plan (FWIW) from the moment they got enough signatures on the ballot was to buy all the key guns on my wishlist (I have enough mags) and send twice that amount to whatever group I think will be most effective in fighting this. Just my course of action fwiw and may not apply to anyone else. But I do believe the court case is the most effective way to fight this. Other efforts such as voters repeal or whatever are well intended but I question how effective they would be.

We have seen in the last months that court cases are extremely effective in striking down these laws, one after another. We need to push that imo and continue to build precedent that these unconstitutional gun laws will not stand! The body of precedent cases we can help create builds an inpenetrable fortress for protecting our gun rights far into the future (perhaps forever).

Lastly this may sounds nuts but perhaps this piece of sh!t legislation passing is just what we need to make us shift from the old "support the nra and they will fight it via lobbyists" (which is now ineffective Imo) to fighting these laws in court (which is now very effective post-Bruen imo). This could not have happened pre-Bruen so we have an unprecedented opportunity right now to make a difference by shifting our efforts to striking down these laws in court.

 

[Busyhawk]

Why in the Hell don't our "leaders" have more common sense? I for one would like a deterrent like if you committed a crime with a gun and someone gets dead then the convicted party is automatically put on death row or in jail for life. Yes, one strike and done.

 

[KrautBurner]

You need to read 112 before commenting. What it really means is that taxes will skyrocket to pay for services like food, laundry, and cleaning in prisons. It also means that you local neighborhood murderer and rapist can now go to counseling instead of going to prison. Don't you just love how Fagan allows the lies in ballot measure titles?

I have read it, and I understand that.

I'm surprised if 45% voting against it actually understand that

 

[The Heretic]

Why in the Hell don't our "leaders" have more common sense? I for one would like a deterrent like if you committed a crime with a gun and someone gets dead then the convicted party is automatically put on death row or in jail for life. Yes, one strike and done.

The "leader's" intent is not about safety/security and/or reducing crime. For most of those in power, it is about disarming the populace to give the government more power. In that way, gun control does make some sense; the more restrictions on guns for law abiding citizens, the less threat citizens are to those in power.

 

[wombatz]

You can read the statement from the Klamath sheriff at:

Klamath County Sheriff's Office on Ballot Measure 114

As of today, it is unclear whether Ballot Measure 114 has passed with a majority of vote throughout the state. In Klamath County, 76% voted “No” on this mea

klamathalerts.com

 

[Hismeds]

Waiting to see what Marion county says. I can only hope it will be half as based as Linn county

 

[taku1946]

Just what the forum needs, yet another 114 thread, because the other half dozen or so aren't enough. Six out of 10 "New Posts" are 114 threads.

THERE CANNOT BE ENOUGH POSTS ON THIS TOPIC IF THEY ARE ACCURATE.

 

[titsonritz]

THERE CANNOT BE ENOUGH POSTS ON THIS TOPIC IF THEY ARE ACCURATE.

But they don't need to be spread through-out a dozen threads and take up the majority of the "New Posts" window, either.

 

[BAJ475]

 

[Hooyah DeepSea]

So, a bit of enlightenment; I just found out that there are 2200± completely gullible morons in Crook County. That is the approximate number of people who voted 'for' 114. I only wish I knew their names so I could properly address them when I saw them; you know, Mr. moron, Mrs. moron, Ms. Moron, etc.

 

[ScatPackLife]

. Know your rights.

You have the right to show LE your CHL if you choose. Or not.