Response from Lane County Sheriff's Office to my email inquiring as to their stance on recent anti-gun legislation

[Mikej]

They never retreat, they will just move on to something even more idiotic like banning 2-ply toilet paper. When they come for my Charmin, that's when the gloves come off

They get that toilet paper, yur going to be needing them gloves.
Jus' sayin'!

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Good Lord, you really need to step away from the computer and go play outside

Even though he has me blocked I totally knew who you were talking to!

 

[oremike]

So here is a question for you tin foil hat types. When the jackbooted Blue Hats come for your guns what do you do? Bug out? Lots of talk about that. Stand and fight? Cold dead fingers comes to mind. Or do you just hand them over because you don't really use them much anyway.

 

[Koda]

So here is a question for you tin foil hat types. When the jackbooted Blue Hats come for your guns what do you do? Bug out? Lots of talk about that. Stand and fight? Cold dead fingers comes to mind. Or do you just hand them over because you don't really use them much anyway.

They will hand them over. If the gun rights community let them make their guns illegal in the first place then its not something they will die for.

 

[gmerkt]

Id say little to nothing. NWFA is about more than buying or selling guns.

We all will still own guns, shoot, reload etc. we just may not hear about many new purchases is all however...

I believe 114 will NOT prevail, at least to the degree of the permit to purchase & other extreme parts of it as well.

I have a 'hunch' there are some 'hold on a minute' things going on behind the scenes such as the possibility the proponents of the bill may have been informed it was improperly presented, rushed through and quite possibly entirely illegal.

BUT - 'they' are not simply going to say, 'Citizens, we made a mistake, so 114 is trashed and we are so sorry for the inconvenience'

What 'they' MAY be doing is working on a 'tactical retreat' in an attempt to 'save face' to avoid being seen as greater losers than we already know they are, but the smug, self righteous attitude of most left/lib/dem politicians would NEVER allow them to admit a mistake. The Supreme Court upholding the injunction is potentially a 'power play' to give the dems an 'escape clause' so to speak until they find a way out of this.

Hey, I COULD be entirely wrong but I firmly believe something is going on with this and it may ultimately come out better, although not perfect, than we are expecting. Oh, 'they' will still need to show us it passed in some form or another but I believe it will be pretty much 'watered down'.

Yes, you may be right about this. Previously, I mentioned how initiative measures can be oppressive. Kind of the modern day lynch mob by ballot. In Wash. state, proposed initiatives are sent to the Office of the Code Reviser for review, a branch of the Secretary of State. Which can make recommendations to initiative sponsors, but they aren't binding, simply advisory. I don't think it goes through the state AG's office for legal vetting.

The major, obvious problem is that locking up existing gun ownership starves the next generation of easy entry into it. The whole idea of attaching all these strings to lawful ownership is to discourage activity.

Before 1240 (AWB) in Wash. state, several years previously we had I-1639. Another initiative, in part poorly written. One provision called for annual verification of gun-owning persons who'd had background checks done on them. The State Patrol was tasked to do this. A few years passed before anyone noticed that this wasn't being done; there simply wasn't the manpower available to comply with the mandate. The state had chosen to ignore it. So far as I know, it still isn't being done but the law is still on the books.

In Wash. state, initiatives by the people are supposed to be limited to one subject. But it's amazing how many angles can be stuffed into one, single anti-gun initiative, and pass muster with the puppet state supreme court.

 

[Longwalkhome]

They get that toilet paper, yur going to be needing them gloves.
Jus' sayin'!

Go away for the day and the thread is a Wipeout....

 

[oa98pistol512]

So think that out just for a minute, if you can't buy or sell a gun without the permit and they ain't giving permits......

What does that do to NWFA when we can't buy or sell a gun?

I assume some will do it anyway... Like the Sherriff said they don't have the money to investigate ..lol. If one got caught of say one chl selling to another chl with no BCG because their was no way to do it . Is the state really going to try the case?

 

[TT37]

Section 4(1)(e) in M114 says;

The permit agent shall request the department to conduct a criminal background check, including but not limited to a fingerprint identification, through the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

It seems the big issue is that the measure requires the checks to be done by the FBI, even though Oregon State Police is more than capable of doing them themselves. We already know the writers of this petition were ignorant but this just drove it home further that they had no idea what they were drafting. If OSP runs the checks then its not in compliance with the text of the measure. The FBI has expressed, as stated in the original post, that they have no intention of running these checks for us. So what happens next? Let's say M114 is ruled constitutional after all the legal challenges. The FBI still won't run the checks so it'll result in a defacto gun ban unless law enforcement agencies disobey the text of the measure which says the FBI has to do it. Does that mean once we're at that point we'll need to sue the FBI? I'm no lawyer but I'm sure any plaintiff would get laughed out of court because the FBI will just wave the supremacy clause and say the voters of Oregon have no power to dictate the FBI to do anything. This whole situation is definitely going to get a lot more murky here soon.

I'm from Washington and new to this. I have never read the entire measure. However, from the one part quoted here, I see no mention of the background check being required, only that it be requested. That sounds easy enough.

 

[Longwalkhome]

I assume some will do it anyway... Like the Sherriff said they don't have the money to investigate ..lol. If one got caught of say one chl selling to another chl with no BCG because their was no way to do it . Is the state really going to try the case?

that's the risk people take...just hope friends and family don't turn you in or the friends and family of the guy you sell it to. Unfortunately those who gave us 114 will also be the ones deciding who to prosecute.

 

[RVTECH]

Unfortunately those who gave us 114 will also be the ones deciding who to prosecute.

Illegal, private FTF gun transactions are alive and well due to SB 941.

If 114 becomes law I don't believe it will influence anything with regard to FTF sales.

 

[Longwalkhome]

Illegal, private FTF gun transactions are alive and well due to SB 941.

If 114 becomes law I don't believe it will influence anything with regard to FTF sales.

I like my gun rights, I won't give them up for a few bucks selling a gun to a stranger.

Good luck.

 

[Koda]

Illegal, private FTF gun transactions are alive and well due to SB 941.

If 114 becomes law I don't believe it will influence anything with regard to FTF sales.

the last 9 months backlog paints a different picture...

 

[oremike]

Even though he has me blocked I totally knew who you were talking to!

Looks like I made the blocked list as well. As I scroll thru the thread I see missing posts, log out and yep they are the same guy.

 

[red442joe]

Tagged

Joe

 

[Stomper]

It's proof of ownership, if you can't prove when you bought the magazines then how are they to know it's not contraband? They will confiscate our magazines if they see them in the wrong place. May even charge us if they want to.

You got it backwards, the state has to prove you didn't own them prior. The burden of proof is on the state, that's how our legal system works.

 

[jayR]

You got it backwards, the state has to prove you didn't own them prior. The burden of proof is in the state, that's how our legal system works.

uhhh, word is there's a new twist now. It's called affirmative defense. Guilty - you have a magazine - Now prove your innocence by showing possession prior to the law going into effect.

 

[Stomper]

uhhh, word is there's a new twist now. It's called affirmative defense. Guilty - you have a magazine - Now prove your innocence by showing possession prior to the law going into effect.

"Affirmative defense", "qualified immunity"… all lawyer weasel words.

 

[Longwalkhome]

FBI Carried Out Warrantless Monitoring On Man Who Posted Guns For Sale On Facebook | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[Longwalkhome]

You got it backwards, the state has to prove you didn't own them prior. The burden of proof is in the state, that's how our legal system works.

Feds have been stealing cash from people for decades because the people can't prove where the money came frome. It's drug money until proven different.

 

[PiratePast40]

uhhh, word is there's a new twist now. It's called affirmative defense. Guilty - you have a magazine - Now prove your innocence by showing possession prior to the law going into effect.

That is one of the issues Immergut refused to allow during the trial. Her reasoning is that you can't argue the point if you don't have standing, and since M114 hasn't gone onto effect, there have been no instances of anyone charged with illegal magazine possession. Therefore no one has been "damaged". Someone might be charged in the future, and need to provide proof, but that hasn't happened yet.