Messages
34,437
Reactions
118,702
Ah how is this any different then a 4473? Sure it ads the photograph and full finger prints. But its basically the same thing we been doing for years. Granted you add on the other requirements like the training and its a bigger PITA. But do they really have anywhere more to look into a persons background then they do based on a 4473.

This all just stupid duplication.

Duplication and redundancy is what government is ALL about!
 
Messages
18,344
Reactions
38,577
There is nothing in the Measure's text that explicitly states that the electronic searchable database is to be restricted only to the LEOs/Permitting Agencies/agents and not releasable to the public.
There's nothing in writing that any one of us won't have a heart attack tomorrow either. Better get a will ready today. We just can't keep hollering about people being able to just get online and see who in The Hood has a permit to have guns and what guns he has. People that do that sound like the "Others", over there, that are predicting/sure the streets will run red with blood if this measure isn't enacted ASAP.
 
Messages
10,012
Reactions
20,448
There's nothing in writing that any one of us won't have a heart attack tomorrow either. Better get a will ready today. We just can't keep hollering about people being able to just get online and see who in The Hood has a permit to have guns and what guns he has. People that do that sound like the "Others", over there, that are predicting/sure the streets will run red with blood if this measure isn't enacted ASAP.
Basic principle of American law. If it's not prohibited by law; it's permissible. It's that simple. If the Measure doesn't state that the public is prohibited from requesting access to the database, then it is permissible for the public to be able to request access to the database.
 
Messages
18,344
Reactions
38,577
Ah how is this any different then a 4473? Sure it ads the photograph and full finger prints. But its basically the same thing we been doing for years. Granted you add on the other requirements like the training and its a bigger PITA. But do they really have anywhere more to look into a persons background then they do based on a 4473.

This all just stupid duplication.
For me it's the cost. I already have to pay a bunch of money for everything I do. And the prices keep going up! And the city/state wastes the money on things that it shouldn't be spent on. Why did we get that increase to our CCPs? What was the need for that? And where did the money go? More jail space for criminals? LOL.
 
Messages
93
Reactions
161
HA! They can't keep up with the BGC backlog, there are people that have been in "delay " status for over 18 months, but they still have staff spending time purging records ??!

Where is that bridge that was up for sale ?
Likely preprogrammed into the database. Takes no human effort. But who knows, they probably have it backed up some where dating back to the 80's.
 
Messages
8,707
Reactions
14,858
They told us nobody's taking away anything from us, but now you can only keep your magazines at home.
They told us nobody's taking away our guns, whilethey are discussing an AWB for next legislative session.
They told us they just wanted a database to track gun sales, but have tried to make CHL owners public info.

They tell us theres no writing on the wall.
 
Messages
34,437
Reactions
118,702
There's nothing in writing that any one of us won't have a heart attack tomorrow either. Better get a will ready today. We just can't keep hollering about people being able to just get online and see who in The Hood has a permit to have guns and what guns he has. People that do that sound like the "Others", over there, that are predicting/sure the streets will run red with blood if this measure isn't enacted ASAP.


Mike…. MSM outlets have already DOXED concealed carry holders in their sheitty little fish-wrapper “news papers”, what makes you think the jack-wagons here in Oregon won’t jump at the chance to do the same?
 
Messages
54
Reactions
48
Looks like OSP posted a mock-up app today, maybe to satisfy a state official like Rosenblum. It’s accompanied by a press release calling M114 “very complex” and “on hold”. (Release is back-dated “Dec 7” but posted an hour ago today)

Overall seems the app intent is put liability on the applicant for honesty rather than do actual vetting of mental health history, etc.

View attachment 1326450 View attachment 1326451
Did anyone else watch the livestream of the Wednesday hearing?

I got the impression that OSP had spent all their time trying to cobble together a rehearsed response, in anticipation of the questions that the legislators might ask, but that they had not implemented anything at all. (The two women who appeared on behalf of OSP, had what my wife refers to as a "lost possum look" on their faces.)

And - Pray tell, why was "Pinko Floyd" Prozacski the *only one in the room" wearing a face mask??
 
Messages
714
Reactions
2,109
Yeah. Okay. The sky really IS falling. Ya'll win.
I know how you feel, people scream about stupid untrue bubblegum all the time.

In this case however it is true bubblegum being talked about. In another post showed how the new database of permit application and info was not exempt from public disclosure. I too doubted the 'list of all guns', but read on.

Section 6 (7)(a) The department may retain a record of the information obtained during a request for a criminal history record check for no more than five years, except for the information provided to the dealer under subsection (2)(d) of this section, sufficient to reflect each firearm purchased by a permit holder, which must be attached to the electronic record of the permit stored by the department. The department may develop a system for removal of the information in subsection (2)(d)(E) of this section, upon proof of sale or transfer of the firearm to another permit holder and for recording of the information to reflect the transfer of ownership to the permit of the new owner.
(b) The record of the information obtained during a request for a criminal history record check by a gun dealer is exempt from disclosure under public records law.

The bolded part is the addition to the existing law. It explicitly says that record of each firearm purchased must be "attached" to the permit record. The permit record is not exempt from public disclosure.

The record of the information obtained during a request for a criminal history record check IS exempt from disclosure. But notice something; the "record of the information obtained during a request for a criminal history record check" must be destroyed (lol... we know how that works...) after 5 years. But information from that record must be transferred to another system, the new permit system. Which has no time it is destroyed, and is not exempt from disclosure.

Now, reasonable people might say, "Hey, there's a contradiction here, we need to protect this data that needs to be destroyed and is not public from hanging around in another, perpetual and open to the public, system. Let's change the wording to clarify."

LMAO Personally I don't see LEVO (who are helping write the final version of this law!) being reasonable people.

I trust that the motherbubblegumers who wrote this knew what they were doing, and indeed want and will implement the system where all your info plus info on each and every gun you buy is in a public accessible database. This type of bubblegum is what they do.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
31
Reactions
67
That's why I plan to spend my previously allocated "new gun" money on getting Gun Candy and Cerakote on all members of my collection. Yes it won't appeal to other "normal" gun owners but it'll be fun and if I ever find myself in your described situation I doubt the accuser will be able to pull my chosen color out of their butt.:s0136:
I do some cool color shift cerakote!
 
Messages
3,851
Reactions
5,822
Did anyone else watch the livestream of the Wednesday hearing?

I got the impression that OSP had spent all their time trying to cobble together a rehearsed response, in anticipation of the questions that the legislators might ask, but that they had not implemented anything at all. (The two women who appeared on behalf of OSP, had what my wife refers to as a "lost possum look" on their faces.)

And - Pray tell, why was "Pinko Floyd" Prozacski the *only one in the room" wearing a face mask??
I watched. You're right, both of them looked and sounded like they were bowing and scraping before the emperor and afraid they would have their heads chopped off if they uttered the wrong words.

Floyd looks like he's aged 30 years since I saw him last. He's an uber-lib from Eugene, of course he's wearing a Shanghai shivers mask!
 
Messages
780
Reactions
2,017
I trust that the motherbubblegumers who wrote this knew what they were doing, and indeed want and will implement the system where all your info plus info on each and every gun you buy is in a public accessible database. This type of bubblegum is what they do.
It makes it easier to establish where to send the bachelors when the time comes.
 
Messages
99
Reactions
127
What would it take to do so?
In Oregon, you need to get valid signatures totaling at least 6% of the total votes cast for governor at the last election to get a statutory initiative on the ballot. That’s what these folks had to do. So the anti-measure would say it is to repeal Measure 114, which said … [copy the measure’s language].

What scares me is that to get a constitutional initiative on the ballot, anti-gunners would need valid signatures totaling only 8% of the total votes cast for governor at the last election. If the Oregon S. Ct. Rules any if this measure is invalid under the Oregon Constitution, it wouldn’t surprise me if they try to remove Oregon Article 1, Section 27 from the constitution, leaving the US 2nd Amendment as the only fallback. Goodbye Benchmade automatic knife too.
 

Upcoming Events

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top