Why is all the Rush to buy guns before the 114 takes affect?

[CountryGent]

And abusive ex's and stalkers

This touches upon something that scares the hell out of me. Me and my wife were talking about the "crazy ex" factor. Many of us have at least one in our past, but some folks have the type that have no problem committing violent crimes upon their former partner. My sister, one of my wife's very close friends (almost like a sister), and her cousin (a transwoman) all had to arm themselves for the first time due to an insane, stalking, and violent ex. One of them was, sadly, brutally raped and beaten by said. All three males were eventually jailed, either for something they did to the aforementioned women, and in one case what the did to another, unrelated lady.

If that was going down now? Well, let's see, they would have to:

• Obtain a license from a system that simply does not exist as of this writing. Complete a background check.
• Buy a firearm from an FFL, that, by law, is going to require the aforementioned non-existent license. And another background check.
• To carry, she would have to complete all the steps for a CHL, including passing a third background check, but it is a moot point due to the first two.

I seem to recall a lot of the individual who support this kind of grossly unconstitutional garbage also are a fan of the expression "empowering women". Yah, well I am all for that and that includes their ability to exercise their civil rights.

It is absolutely sickening what this law will do to people in very real fear for their lives.

 

[ELRShooter]

Oh, so Karen who works in HR where you just interviewed for a job can run your name in a publicly accessible database and shiete-cans your employment eligibility because you're an "evil gun owner", then blasts your name to all her other Karen HR manager friends to add to their "black-list"….. because that sharing of "black-lists" is what they've been documented doing.

Or landlords using it to screen renters…. or nosey neighbors taking a peek into your business, or bad-guys shopping for places to hit and score firearms that'll wind up on the street and perpetuate the very thing 114 purports to prevent… etc, etc, etc.

So, you still see no difference between that and a government database that's accessed for "official use" only by official government agents?

Really?



Quite frankly, I believe YOU'RE the one who's possibly being combative, in a slimy passive-aggressive way.

Or, what about Kate in the lunchroom at work who is talking about the benefits of communism and why Oregon should fully move there.

Then Christine comes in and disagrees, which angers Kate.

To retaliate, Kate looks up Christine in the public database and sees she has a 38 Revolver. So Kate files a red flag complaint against Christine by making up a story Kate felt threatened. The cops show up at Christine's house and confiscate here Revolver.

Probably a little bit of a stretch, but who knows.

 

[solv3nt]

Or, what about Kate in the lunchroom at work who is talking about the benefits of communism and why Oregon should fully move there.

Then Christine comes in and disagrees, which angers Kate.

To retaliate, Kate looks up Christine in the public database and sees she has a 38 Revolver. So Kate files a red flag complaint against Christine by making up a story Kate felt threatened. The cops show up at Christine's house and confiscate here Revolver.

Probably a little bit of a stretch, but who knows.

That doesn't sound like a stretch.

 

[Mikej]

Probably a little bit of a stretch, but who knows.

Hey, go back a few years and The Babylon Bee was WAY out there. Nohm-sayin'?

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

The rush is on for the Mcribb get yours before they are gone forever !!!

 

[RVTECH]

Guess we're back to revolvers and lever-actions.

Back to? Some of us have always had them.

I get tired of reading about lever actions and revolvers being regarded as 'alternatives' to something else in the event of bans or other laws.

 

[Stomper]

That doesn't sound like a stretch.

That's because I haven't visited them and ruined them for everyone else…..





Lord, I apologize for that. Please bless the starving pygmies in new guinea.

 

[gtivan]

Oh, so Karen who works in HR where you just interviewed for a job can run your name in a publicly accessible database and shiete-cans your employment eligibility because you're an "evil gun owner", then blasts your name to all her other Karen HR manager friends to add to their "black-list"….. because that sharing of "black-lists" is what they've been documented doing.

Or landlords using it to screen renters…. or nosey neighbors taking a peek into your business, or bad-guys shopping for places to hit and score firearms that'll wind up on the street and perpetuate the very thing 114 purports to prevent… etc, etc, etc.

So, you still see no difference between that and a government database that's accessed for "official use" only by official government agents?

Really?



Quite frankly, I believe YOU'RE the one who's possibly being combative, in a slimy passive-aggressive way.

Yes, it was confrontational. Unecessary bold face type to empahsize a small point and try and make me embarassed rather than asking decent questions. Similar to your name calling. But you atleast gave me something to articulate why i think there is very little difference between the 2 databases and why I said they are similar.

1. I personally believe that it is unconstiutional and goes against the 2nd amendment to have any database. The one in Oregon is more intrusive, but I really dont care. Illegal databases are illegal databases.

2. Any karen or homeowner story of using it is an act of discrimination. So there fore a court case. I like court cases cause they can go to the current supreme court which is the strongest support of the 2A in decades. If we can prove it is being used to target people and intimidating them from their 2A rights, then we have an arguement for supreme court to overrule it and secure our rights in the future.

3. People say criminals will use it to break into your home. I believe this is a false assumption. The homeless, gangs, antifa, and normal low lifes already find enough guns cheaply on the street. Since the nation is so lo9cked down on transfers, the only market would be illegal sales which if homeless can afford guns, then they are dirt cheap. I would be more concerned for not showing up as owning a gun if a thief were to search the database. I figure they would target the enighborhoods that are more liberal and have no gun owners showing up in the system. Much safer for them and easier to pawn any stolen items that do not have SN.

4. Neighbors knowing I won guns? They already do. I never hid that i was a gun owner from anyone. At work or at home. It is who I am. Have my garage open in the summer all the time. As with others in my neighborhood you will often see reloading presses or safes in full view in garages as people take walks. No big. Even if i moved to a neighborhood without a 90% gun ownership i doubt if i would care. Not in me to think that way. i am a very open persona and really dont care.

5. Data base maintained by fed govt that searches by sn and not name vs a database maintained by state that can be searched by name. Hat to tell ya, it would take a DBA less than a day to convert the query for the fed database to query based on name. So I am against any database and find no difference just cause they currently dont do it that way.


I think the law is deplorable and I voted against it. However, I am kinda pleased it passed. We finally have a majority in the supreme court. I want as many decisions made as possible from the current supreme court to hopefully shore up our rights and stop the continual nit picking away that continually happens. We are losing every elections cycle by continuing doing what we are doing. Let it go to the supreme court for some big fights and hopefully big wins.

 

[hongkong2]

Yes, it was confrontational. Unecessary bold face type to empahsize a small point and try and make me embarassed rather than asking decent questions. Similar to your name calling. But you atleast gave me something to articulate why i think there is very little difference between the 2 databases and why I said they are similar.

Offended by BOLD TEXT? Come on over to the AKFiles or FalFailes and be sure to wear your flame proof suit... My ignore list just got longer.

 

[Krinkov]

Can someone post the text or show me where it says the database will be PUBLIC?

 

[gtivan]

I coach a high school trap shooting team. I've got new students who have joined the team because they had friends on the team and were interested in it. They don't come from big gun collecting families and had been borrowing guns to shoot on the team. Unfortunately, they can't get their own gun now. And not only that, their parents and grandparents can't get them a gun as a present. Young people who didn't "fill all the gaps" prior to Measure 114 are SOL. It's my hope that older family members who have the means are some of those people who are buying guns right now. Otherwise, I have a feeling that my trap team will have dwindling numbers as members graduate out of it.

How is M114 affecting any current way your students are acquiring guns currently? The only change i see to acquisition is a permit fee and training.

Permit requires training, finger prints and background checks. You already do 2 out of the 3 on any purchase.

The permit fee is going to be a good arguement for the supreme court. Similar to the voter ID arguement. Exercising a constitutional right should not cost a citizen money. Why the state may require due diligence to prove you have the right to your constitutional rights, they should foot the bill, not the citizen. So good fodder for a court case going forward to set precidents.

As for the training aspect. I find that could be challenged in court. Why should we prove we are intellegient enough to purchase a gun if it is our right? With that said, I am honestly kinda on the fence. Way too many noobs picked up weapons during the riots or covid. A lot of scary people out there who have no clue about safety are a risk and embarassment to the gun owning population. Also, once per lifetime training is good enough before your purchase with available classes at no cost to citizens and abundantly available.

As I understand current oregon law, people borrowing weapons from another to go shotting is considered an illegal transfer right now. So what diffrence does the new rules of acquisition chnage how the transfer happen to allow the kids to shoot trap?

In all honesty, i believe most shooting sports are in decline anyway. And we are doing it to ourselves. When ammuniation evaporates for 8 straight years when a democrat president gets elected, the new and recreational shooters find something else to do. So less access to the sport. I beliee this will be the demise fo the 2A more than anythng else. Younger generations will just lose interest.

 

[gtivan]

Offended by BOLD TEXT? Come on over to the AKFiles or FalFailes and be sure to wear your flame proof suit... My ignore list just got longer.

Okay.
But bold text is considered yelling when typing. Offended? Nope.
But it also means people aren't listening to each other or trying to come to a general understanding. just trying to prove a point.
Feel like just proving a point, stay in the echo chamber.

 

[Jade Falcon]

Back to? Some of us have always had them.

I get tired of reading about lever actions and revolvers being regarded as 'alternatives' to something else in the event of bans or other laws.

I like lever-actions and revolvers. Got one each and I want more. I wrote that based on the assumption that it's probably not the first guns people think about nowadays with so many semi-autos out there.

 

[gmerkt]

I'm anticipating that in Wash. in the next legislative session. One ray of hope, the M1 Rifle has a fixed, internal 8 round capacity and will probably not be on "the list." But most all semi-autos of any kind are already on the semi-auto "controlled item" list per I-1639.

Quoting myself. When I disposed of 75% of my guns in the past few years, I kept two M1 Rifles. One in .30-06, the other in 7.62mm NATO. The M1A's were sent off to new homes.

 

[Member 34319]

Why the surge?

Because come December 8th 2022 the second amendment of the constitution will be put on pause for Oregonians. Effective that day not a single person (minus any listed exempt) in the state will not be able to bear arms unless you already own them.

How many permits have been issued and or will be issued by December 8th 2022 = 0

No permit = No gun

No right to bear arms = No second amendment for you.

This is and will be the greatest attempt to dismantle the 2nd amendment in our countries history.

Why the surge, lol!!!

 

[Heyjoe]

At least you can travel less than ten minutes in any direction and pick up some dank bud. Good trade, right?

 

[s1xty7]

Can someone post the text or show me where it says the database will be PUBLIC?

Interesting question. I've heard this mentioned numerous times and took it at face value. I used a copy of the measure text from here: https://stop114.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/017text.pdf (which may not be the final version) and found the following items.


"Section 4, subsection 5, sub-subsection a: The permit agent [police chief or county sheriff with jurisdiction over the residence of the person making the application, or their designees] shall report the issuance of a permit under this section to the department [Department of State Police], and shall provide to the department a copy of the permit and any information necessary for the department to maintain an electronic searchable database of all permits issued under this section. A permit agent revoking a permit shall report the revocation to the department at the time that notice of the revocation has been sent to the permit holder.

Section 4, subsection 5, sub-subsection b: The department shall maintain the electronic database described in paragraph (a) of this subsection by ensuring that new permits are added to the database, renewed permits are assigned a new expiration date, and expired or revoked permits are marked expired or revoked but retained in the database.

Section 4, subsection 2, sub-subsection c: On or before January 31 of each year, beginning in 2024, the department shall annually publish a report indicating for each county the number of applications made to any permit agent, the number of permits-to-purchase issued and the number of permits-to-purchase denied and the reasons for denial. The department may, by rule, include any additional information that it determines would be helpful to ensuring the permit-to-purchase process is being administered in a consistent and equitable manner."


I didn't immediately find anything about it being publicly searchable but I could have missed it. While the sections quoted don't say what data would be included, the Department of State Police could CHOOSE to publish all details legally. Again, I may have missed something or there is a revision that has more explicit details.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Obligatory IANAL, but the important part is that it doesn't say that it isn't publicly searchable and I would fully expect someone to argue that because it isn't 'private' per the text of the law that it should be searchable by anyone. Maybe the authors of 114 intended for it to be a LEO only database but they didn't include that in the text and as a result the odds are that it will end up a publicly or at least limited publicly searchable

 

[Mikej]

Interesting question. I've heard this mentioned numerous times and took it at face value. I used a copy of the measure text from here: https://stop114.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/017text.pdf (which may not be the final version) and found the following items.


"Section 4, subsection 5, sub-subsection a: The permit agent [police chief or county sheriff with jurisdiction over the residence of the person making the application, or their designees] shall report the issuance of a permit under this section to the department [Department of State Police], and shall provide to the department a copy of the permit and any information necessary for the department to maintain an electronic searchable database of all permits issued under this section. A permit agent revoking a permit shall report the revocation to the department at the time that notice of the revocation has been sent to the permit holder.

Section 4, subsection 5, sub-subsection b: The department shall maintain the electronic database described in paragraph (a) of this subsection by ensuring that new permits are added to the database, renewed permits are assigned a new expiration date, and expired or revoked permits are marked expired or revoked but retained in the database.

Section 4, subsection 2, sub-subsection c: On or before January 31 of each year, beginning in 2024, the department shall annually publish a report indicating for each county the number of applications made to any permit agent, the number of permits-to-purchase issued and the number of permits-to-purchase denied and the reasons for denial. The department may, by rule, include any additional information that it determines would be helpful to ensuring the permit-to-purchase process is being administered in a consistent and equitable manner."


I didn't immediately find anything about it being publicly searchable but I could have missed it. While the sections quoted don't say what data would be included, the Department of State Police could CHOOSE to publish all details legally. Again, I may have missed something or there is a revision that has more explicit details.

These people running the show now will allow a glitch, somewhere, to hold someone up in "Delay HELL" for MONTHS! (< yes, "Yelling". Deal with it!) Or more! To the point where they give up and tell you it's up to you to find the glitch! Been there done that! How the hell are dummies in charge now going to implement the above! Rhetorical question. I already know the answer is, Very Poorly.

 

[156256Hunter]

Can someone post the text or show me where it says the database will be PUBLIC?

Maybe they mean, that if OSP keeps a database of who has a permit and what they bought, then under the public records act, such information *may* be public record?

Of course when compared to other states such as Washington, the State of Oregon's "compliance" with the public records act (and transparency, generally) is just terrible. Remember the news story where Oregon's "indpendent" public records czar quit, after alleging she was being leaned on by the Governor's office? https://www.oregonlive.com/news/201...et-friday-amid-furor-over-whos-in-charge.html

Oregon tries to charge hundreds or thousands of dollars to "review" emails or other information that should be public record and promptly disclosable. Over the years Oregon State and local agencies I think have discouraged quite a few public records requesters from getting information, with their "estimate" to the requester on how much money it will cost to get public information. It's sad, but helps explain why Oregon keeps doing what it's doing not doing.

So given Oregon's lack of transparency track record, maybe the firearm database records won't be so public. Or perhaps there's an exception in the public records act that exempts such information from public disclosure?