JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
We are moving just in time, my wife graduated nursing school this summer and we have been planning our move to Wyoming Summer 2023 for last two years. Looked at Idaho and Montana, but ultimately decided with the amount of transplants, those two states will be turning blue in the next decade. Wyoming is really only blue in Jackson and Cheyenne, and I can deal with wind if it means no liberals.
 
If you wrote your Sheriff about engaging with OSP on the Permit To Purchase requirements, would you post the letter here? I think if each county Sheriff was baraged with letters they might move it up in priority.
 
Last Edited:
The wife and I spent three months traveling through Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. I'm sure there are many exceptions to what we experienced, but we ultimately ended up buying in Kingman, AZ during a 3 month stay there after our initial travels (total of 6 months on the road. As others have mentioned, Idaho has changed as the wave of people from Oregon and California have moved there, changing the prices and politics, although we found Grangeville Idaho a close second to Kingman (totally opposite climates). We currently live on a good size piece of property and hoped to do the same where ever we land, and a lot of what we found in Montana had been chopped up in smaller two acre +/- pieces to sell off to the crowds moving there. And tons of "trendy" places are being built - many towns that used to be small and quaint, such as Ennis or Kalispel are becoming the getaway locations for folks with money. Nevada wasn't bad and would probably work, but we didn't come across that area that checked all of the boxes we were hoping for. Utah was a bit pricey for the areas that we liked. Although we didn't cover the entire state, Wyoming was either super trendy (ie: Jackson Hole) and spendy, or the wind blew extremely hard all of the time.

Kingman proper is not our goal so we plan to fix that once we're settled in to the area. But, Kingman will provide the needed stuff with the usual Wally World, Home Depot, and a decent hospital with a trauma center. Property taxes for the house we bought in Kingman is $680 for the year, compared to a similar (actually smaller and older) house we owned as a rental around here at $8k. Very conservative and constitutional carry (and many do). And if you license it, you can legally drive your side-by-side on any roadway except the interstate. One downside that jobs don't pay as well as they do here, but as Gunbuggy points out, if you're retired you can live anywhere! We considered going further east such as Texas but we plan to frequent Oregon to see friends and family and Arizona seemed far enough to travel often. Hopefully it works out but we shall see!
That's funny the Arizona town I mentioned living in was between Kingman and Bullhead City.

Heads up, avoid bullhead city lol. Kingman has its rough parts too but not as bad as BHC sounds like you're also away from the main part of town if you have some land
 
You make a very good point but let's remember who gets laid off and who stays employed. Tech workers, office ppl, sales ppl, and the like.. all stay employed. Who gets laid off? Skilled workers. Look how many tech ppl moved to the Pnw from California during covid. They're not scared. Their jobs are secured. Sales and tech didn't suffer during covid scamdemic. Skilled workers did. All the guys that got laid off during the "pandemic" sat at home looking for work cause we can't work from home. The people behind the computers didn't suffer at all
The consequences for those still working is our taxes go up since fewer people have jobs. If you really look at covid it created a population shift all over the country, they got the herd moving. Heck it created high prices in housing and forced more services for the new population. My house went up in value a $100k during covid as folks moved out of the big cities.

8 new neighbors in the last two years paying greatly inflated prices for the area. House down the street has people living together sharing the rent because there is no place to rent that they can afford. Point being there are not enough skilled workers to carry the tax burden when the layoffs hit. A lot of folks are going to move out of Oregon, mostly young folks who want a future.
 
Please stop spouting that nonsense. By the end of her term, Brown will have appointed all 7 of Oregon's supreme court justices, so there is ZERO chance of any sections of 114 being repealed by the courts in Oregon. It'll take years for anything to happen and we'll still be living with the consequences of 114. You want restrictions and tyranny, go ahead, but please move somewhere else so you can vote for it for the purpose of fighting it.
right.
 
Please stop spouting that nonsense. By the end of her term, Brown will have appointed all 7 of Oregon's supreme court justices, so there is ZERO chance of any sections of 114 being repealed by the courts in Oregon. It'll take years for anything to happen and we'll still be living with the consequences of 114. You want restrictions and tyranny, go ahead, but please move somewhere else so you can vote for it for the purpose of fighting it.
I think the Bruen decision will force them to dismiss this. There is no way, shape, or form that Measure 114 meets the history, text, and tradition of the second amendment as put forth by SCOTUS.
 
I think the Bruen decision will force them to dismiss this. There is no way, shape, or form that Measure 114 meets the history, text, and tradition of the second amendment as put forth by SCOTUS.
It would be hilarious if this was the law that got SCOTUS to finally rule that this specific BS (e.g., magazine bans, obnoxious licensing) is unconstitutional for the whole country.
 
I think the Bruen decision will force them to dismiss this. There is no way, shape, or form that Measure 114 meets the history, text, and tradition of the second amendment as put forth by SCOTUS.
I don't know. A lot of members here seem to believe that the Bruen decision is a magic bullet or cure-all for everything. From the New York state bar association website:

It is important to note that Bruen does not undo the licensing requirements, e.g., fingerprinting, background checks and training, that exist in many states in order to possess a firearm, nor does it repeal the prohibitions that exist under federal and state law regarding who is qualified to possess a firearm. Justices Kavanaugh and Alito, in their concurrences, highlight that the Bruen decision does not undo the types of legitimate gun restrictions that were addressed in Heller and McDonald. These earlier seminal Supreme Court decisions acknowledged that the Second Amendment does not entitle a person "to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." They recognized the legitimacy of longstanding prohibitions on who can possess firearms and forbidding their possession in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings, and specifically noted that these regulatory measures were only examples and not exhaustive.

Sure, Alan Gottlieb filed a lawsuit last summer over the Washington magazine ban, that's likey what will happen next month in Oregon as well. But I personally have no expectation of ever legally purchasing a 20 round magazine in Washington state again in MY lifetime. Hope I'm wrong.
 
I don't know. A lot of members here seem to believe that the Bruen decision is a magic bullet or cure-all for everything. From the New York state bar association website:

It is important to note that Bruen does not undo the licensing requirements, e.g., fingerprinting, background checks and training, that exist in many states in order to possess a firearm, nor does it repeal the prohibitions that exist under federal and state law regarding who is qualified to possess a firearm. Justices Kavanaugh and Alito, in their concurrences, highlight that the Bruen decision does not undo the types of legitimate gun restrictions that were addressed in Heller and McDonald. These earlier seminal Supreme Court decisions acknowledged that the Second Amendment does not entitle a person "to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." They recognized the legitimacy of longstanding prohibitions on who can possess firearms and forbidding their possession in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings, and specifically noted that these regulatory measures were only examples and not exhaustive.

Sure, Alan Gottlieb filed a lawsuit last summer over the Washington magazine ban, that's likey what will happen next month in Oregon as well. But I personally have no expectation of ever legally purchasing a 20 round magazine in Washington state again in MY lifetime. Hope I'm wrong.
Great, but there is a Major problem with the source you quoted, they are incorrect in their determination of what was said, and the context in which it was said! The very core of Bruen expressly sets all challenges to the 2nd against "Text as informed by Relevant History and Tradition!" Which states the burden now lies upon the government to prove an analog of restrictions that existed at the time the Constitution was signed into law! It also expressly removes the tier based scrutiny, and commands a historically based conclusion!
How that looks going forward is going to be fun to watch, and as we are witness to several cases adjudicated using the Bruen standard, there is much movement toward the restoration of 2nd rights! Time will tell the tail here, but the inevitable conclusion is that most fun laws will be found unconstitutnal!
 
Read the actual writings of Bruen, not the Ultra leftist source of New York Bar bubblegum!!!
Excellent suggestion! It can be found right here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

I will draw your attention to page 71, where Justice Alito writes:
"Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns."

Justice Kavanaugh writes on page 81:
"Properly interpreted, the Second Amendment allows a "variety" of gun regulations. Heller, 554 U. S., at 636. As Justice Scalia wrote in his opinion for the Court in Heller, and JUSTICE ALITO reiterated in relevant part in the principal opinion in McDonald: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. . . . [N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [Footnote 26: We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.]"

So tell me again, where were those lefty New York lawyers "incorrect in their determination of what was said, and the context in which it was said!" ???
 
Excellent suggestion! It can be found right here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

I will draw your attention to page 71, where Justice Alito writes:
"Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns."

Justice Kavanaugh writes on page 81:
"Properly interpreted, the Second Amendment allows a "variety" of gun regulations. Heller, 554 U. S., at 636. As Justice Scalia wrote in his opinion for the Court in Heller, and JUSTICE ALITO reiterated in relevant part in the principal opinion in McDonald: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. . . . [N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [Footnote 26: We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.]"

So tell me again, where were those lefty New York lawyers "incorrect in their determination of what was said, and the context in which it was said!" ???
The part where they claim, out of context, what Kav. Wrote! Also, Thomas was the author, not Kav, and his opinion is clearly counter to what Kav. Writes, that's a VERY dangerous precedent to have and to leave unsettled! Where Thomas explicitly wrote that any historical analog must square with text and history, Kav. Opens all sorts of doors that counter Thomas's opinion! Bruen reaffirms parts of previous law, BUT spells out so much more in what and how cases must be heard, and because Justice Kav. Hasn't pointed to any historical analog, suggests there isn't one, otherwise, Bruen wouldn't contain the language it does, furthermore, Kav. Suggesting it is somehow aligned today as it was before Thomas penned Bruen is a stretch at best, and dangerous at worse!
 
Excellent suggestion! It can be found right here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

I will draw your attention to page 71, where Justice Alito writes:
"Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns."

Justice Kavanaugh writes on page 81:
"Properly interpreted, the Second Amendment allows a "variety" of gun regulations. Heller, 554 U. S., at 636. As Justice Scalia wrote in his opinion for the Court in Heller, and JUSTICE ALITO reiterated in relevant part in the principal opinion in McDonald: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. . . . [N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [Footnote 26: We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.]"

So tell me again, where were those lefty New York lawyers "incorrect in their determination of what was said, and the context in which it was said!" ???
Yeah it's happened. It is what it is. Sucks arse total BS. Fight it all you want, ill donate towards the fight, but they will bring it to Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will say the same thing they always say "it doesn't violate your 2nd amendment, you can still buy guns".

Currently plotting my exit from the west coast. WA passed gun control laws the last couple years and I'm done I'm over it but now that oregon passed this law that makes WA look as free as Wyoming??? It's only a matter of time before washington passes a similar law.
I always looked at oregon as the "not as bad as WA" state but dang, yall trumped us on this one. Heck, you trumped California on this one!!!

Time to pack up and flee. We fought as hard as we could.

North Dakota here I come! Lol
 
TL;DR - so excuse me if someone has already addressed this, and/or someone feels it is spinning off topic, but I am thinking about "what is next".

Fighting the measure in court is a given. Dealing with the law until it is defeated in court (or not), that is probably discussed quite a bit.

I was thinking beyond that. I was thinking about follow on legislation (whether it passes or not).

First, the state will have a database of the permits. This is just more data for the state to use in future confiscation efforts.
I expect the state to follow thru with some of what California & WA have done so far:

Registration of "Assault weapons" including presently owned guns, and guns imported by people moving into Oregon (possibly with data sharing between the three west coast states.

Maybe whitelists of firearms you can buy.

BGCs for ammo.

Prohibition of unserialized "home made" guns or otherwise .Treating "80%" guns as 100% guns.

Personally I intend to continue to stockpile ammo over time until such time as BGCs for ammo are required.
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors February Gun Show
Portland, OR
Central Oregon Sportsmen's show
Redmond, OR
Rickreall Gun Show
Rickreall, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top