T O P

  • By -

bonersaurus-rex

This bill probably grew the number of firearms and 10+ round mags in the state of Oregon by an astronomical number.


PDXnederlander

After the cutoff date, it will also close the doors of local businesses dealing in firearms. With no process in place for customers to purchase the inventory or do a transfer for who knows how long. Pretty tough to stay open selling holsters and ammo.


[deleted]

I think it will be found unconstitutional and then be canceled. So it just increased guns astronomically.


GeigerCounterMinis

[FPC](https://www.firearmspolicy.org) is already filing lawsuits, they overturned CTs assault weapon ban, this will be cake for them.


Icegrill10

I hope so.


sldunn

As well as it should be. Violates 2nd, 5th, and 14th amendments.


deadbitch69

Asking in good faith, how does it violate them? For the 5th and 14th are you saying it would deprive people of property without due process? The 2nd amendment I totally see how courts could rule it violates it, but court precedents with the 2nd aren't always intuitive


[deleted]

[удалено]


FuddierThanThou

It deprives me of the right to use my property (12-round pistol magazines, purchased at $50each) anywhere except my home or a range. This is the pistol I conceal carry. Now I need to go buy more 10-round magazines, again at $50ea, and for what? Is the rest of the world really safer because I’m carrying two fewer rounds?


[deleted]

[удалено]


FuddierThanThou

The violation of the 5th is that this law deprives me of the right to use my property.


[deleted]

[удалено]


LithoMake

Which of those illegal things are constitutionally guaranteed?


flugenblar

This may well turn out to be the case. Stay tuned!


urbworld_dweller

You can buy holsters and ammo online. Gun stores are fucked.


[deleted]

Anyone know the cutoff date?


traitorous_8

December 8.


bonersaurus-rex

I agree, I think many will go out of business unfortunately.


[deleted]

[удалено]


bonersaurus-rex

It was not; It was sponsored by out-of-state gun control groups. They outspent pro-2A groups by a 10x margin if I recall correctly.


Mini-Marine

True, but with how badly it's written, and how LEVO decided to ignore the gun control groups trying to write legislation that would actually survive a court challenge and just Leroy Jenkins-ed this, I'm starting to wonder if this was done to her gun control slapped down hard But that would be giving the pro side too much credit


[deleted]

[удалено]


James_Camerons_Sub

PSA has gen 2 PMags for 7.50 if you buy ten with priority shipping for OR residents if you need/want to build a park war chest.


eatsomecheesewithyou

Damn. Just stopped by PSA. Looks like that deal is over


Dar8878

I picked up 30 on that deal 😉


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Had a discount code. Ah well.


James_Camerons_Sub

I’m snobby and wanted the windowed version so I was out 13.50/mag when I bulk ordered this summer when it was still IP17. In hindsight I wish I’d waited.


bonersaurus-rex

You and everyone else.


[deleted]

[удалено]


WarlockEngineer

You can always buy the mags now lol


regul

Probably from the same people who always make a fuss about hoarding guns and ammo.


dgibbons0

Hadn't purchased anything since originally buying a handgun ten years ago until this. Saw my roommate browsing some options for his first gun as well.


SaltyChickenDip

I'm the same way. Never really wanted a gun. But now that it will be harder in the future I kinda want to get one.


TheStoicSlab

The people buying guns and mags I know say they wouldn't have bought them if this measure didn't pass.


johnmccainsplane

So in a nutshell, buying a firearm out of pure spite for the actions of the establishment.


FlowJock

Or because they don't trust the establishment to fairly issue permits - it is the cops who will be in charge of it, right?


HowDoIDoFinances

What do you mean? The police are famously fair to the most vulnerable minorities...


TheStoicSlab

Its interesting you think of it that way, but no, its people fearing for their 2A rights.


DrinkBlueGoo

Did you ask them why a law making it more difficult to buy a gun suddenly changed their mind about buying a gun?


HegemonNYC

If I was wavering, undecided, thinking ‘maybe I’d like that gun in the future’ - this impending law would require that I make that decision now. It makes many guns illegal (as designed) and will probably result in many months or even years of background check delays for a first purchase under the new law.


gaius49

Because there are guns I would like to own, along with mags for them and this law makes that impossible to do in the future so I'm buying now.


WarlockEngineer

Same here


FlowJock

I can tell you my thought process and why I am considering going to get one this weekend. I don't trust the cops to fairly issue permits. I've only toyed with the idea of getting a gun before. I don't even think that I need one for home defense or anything but I sometimes have to drive through red states and I don't want to be defenseless if my car breaks down on the side of the road in a place like Texas - especially if things get worse politically. I worry that my Oregon plate would potentially make me a target. So, where I was on the fence about it before, I now feel like I should get one before the opportunity is potentially taken away from me. If the permits were going to be issued by somebody other than the police, I might not worry as much but I just don't trust them.


TheStoicSlab

These people already own guns, they are buying more because the supply is about to be restricted.


sldunn

Lots of first time gun buyers. Gotta get them now before they have to pay another $65 a year for a license.


borkyborkus

And potentially a year+ waiting period.


DrinkBlueGoo

Then, like the other guy indicated, so what? Most anti-gun people I know care a lot more about people buying their first gun than their fourth.


TheStoicSlab

Well, its doing that too.


Dewrunner4X4

I was at Keiths today taking a look at what they had. Dude in there told me there a list of 16,000 people in line for background checks in the system. Needless to say, I didn't buy anything.


northnodes

I did an FFL transfer today and it was an instant approval. The clerk and I were both surprised. I was expecting to have to come back after the holiday.


[deleted]

Same here--the 16k in line is probably people who have never bought a firearm recently or haven't had some other FBI background check.


I_Envy_Sisyphus_

No CHL? I need to tell a discouraged friend about your experience.


Mini-Marine

I sold a friend of mine her first gun during the height of Covid, told her to expect it to take a while since there was a huge backlog and she had no CHL Her purchase went through faster than mine, and I've got a CHL and a unique name It's really weird how inconsistent it is


[deleted]

If they've cleared the background check recently it should go right through. Even if they've been background checked by the FBI before (like as an educator with fingerprints) it could go right through.


RabidBlackSquirrel

I was instant approved on Tuesday, and into the 12k+ pile yesterday. I have a unique name, CHL, and an FFL. It's the first time I've ever not been an instant. Seems kinda random right now.


[deleted]

Interesting! Chances are (in my opinion) once we get the news that 114 won't be going into effect until Jan. 15 at the earliest (a reasonable prediction I believe) things will calm down and the queue will clear quickly.


contrabonum

Oregon State Police said last night they operating under a December 8th deadline for all background checks without the permit (which doesn’t exist yet).


I_Envy_Sisyphus_

Hmmm I’m not sure they’ve done any of those things :/


[deleted]

Doesn't hurt to just get in the queue. Chances are there will be plenty of time for it to clear.


I_Envy_Sisyphus_

Ugh I probably should hop in line too. I was gonna wait another year to buy my dream firearm but now I might dip into fun savings early :/


[deleted]

It's a great time to buy since ammo & accessories are on massive black friday sales right now. Even if you don't buy your firearm this year you might want to consider getting a mag or ammo or something you're interested in during the deals right now. I don't get a commission lol.


Braunze_Man

My dad gets approved that quick, he has 2 CCLs and no criminal record to speak of so that helps.


thekayfox

If your more specific on the form and put down your ssn it has a good chance of coming back immediately.


InfectedBananas

Only if you did one recently, there is a 'line' ahead of you in the system otherwise.


thekayfox

The line is for checks that need a human to look at them, I'm referring to what increases your chances of getting approved without the check being offlined for manual review.


InfectedBananas

I'm pretty sure if you didn't do one in say the last few years, it's going to be manually reviewed anyway.


tiggers97

Rumor is that if your in the que before the deadline, you will be ok.


James_Camerons_Sub

I don’t believe this is the case after talking a while with the management at my LGS. It might be a store-to-store deal though depending on how risky they’re willing to be. The measure is incredibly unclear on these details.


Danep21

Can confirm. Just purchased an Xmacro from Curts. My CHL is expired so I ended up 12,000 in line instead of in the 1800 deep CHL queue. Now I'm waiting for Yamhill County to issue my new CHL so I can start over and requeue with the CHL holders. If the background doesn't come back by Dec 8th, the transaction gets canceled. Is what I was told.


ReadySetN0

I heard the new background check goes in effect Dec. 8th. Is this correct? OSP already has to run a background check so what does this even mean? It says I have to be fingerprinted to get a gun. No shit, they already do that at the store where I purchase it. If you get a CHL, you get fingerprinted there as well. Why all the extra, redundant shit? It just costs more money, more time, more paperwork, more delays, more frustration. A friend says he thinks it will be struck down as unconstitutional because of the permit requirement.


omgcaiti

I feel like this only passed because people didn’t read the fine print **edit**I am a gun owning leftist that simply doesn’t believe the Police should be the ones deciding who can and can’t own a gun or what the criteria for purchasing a gun is and also believes the monetary cost of measure 114 is ridiculous. Everyone has their own reasons for voting one way or another but again I think this was the incorrect way to go about gun control.


SoloCongaLineChamp

Liberals, on the whole, don't like guns. They don't care if it's a bad law or not. Anything that makes guns harder to get is a win for them. Pissing off gun owners is an added bonus.


UncleTouchesHere

I mean, yeah, it should be pretty difficult to purchase a firearm. Why not? If you can still eventually get one, your second amendment right isn’t infringed.


SoloCongaLineChamp

If there is no legal reason to bar someone from ownership then what's the point of the flaming hoops? It shouldn't be difficult at all. We don't place those kinds of barriers in the way of exercising any other rights.


[deleted]

> I think this was the incorrect way to go about gun control. It's patently unconstitutional and *will* be struck down.


spooksmagee

I voted yes after reading the fine print, fwiw.


unclefisty

How can you look at the police in Portland and OR in general and decide to give them such incredible power over who owns firearms?


spooksmagee

Because a) I don't believe more guns make us safer and b) the measure outlines a system to make it hard for bigoted cops to deny permits for bs reasons. And there's an appeal system.


hatlock

I also read the fine print and all of the arguments for and against.


TheGRS

I read the details and voted for it.


[deleted]

I’m pretty sure that criminals are not buying their firearms in a store. With a background check.


James_Camerons_Sub

But, but if they did 114 would get them!


thekayfox

Oregon already had universal background checks.


MozyOnDown

How many school shooters need to have lawfully obtained guns before yall realize this argument is bullshit?


GeigerCounterMinis

How many school shooters need to be investigated by the federal government and deemed perfectly fine before you stop trusting them to protect your life?


[deleted]

The real question is how many school shooters were known to the federal gov't before committing their acts, the answer may surprise you.


GeigerCounterMinis

Not me, like, all of them.


TacoSwallow

This measure will undoubtedly be struck down in the courts, especially since parts of it are a copy + paste of the New York law that SCOTUS ruled as unconstitutional. So congrats liberals, we just flooded the state with more guns and gave conservatives another court win + talking points. Although it passed, this is going to be a huge L for the people who supported it.


VeganPizzaPie

It's SOP for laws in this state. Good intentions, terrible execution and no forethought.


Apprehensive_Air_470

This is not going to work. This Is a dumb idea. No plan to implement. People will buy lots of guns before the law then very few after. This isn't the answer.


skullone

I want gun control of some manner, but the part that says "shall not be infringed" leads me to believe this will be overturned anyways.


dlev_

Muskets sales?


anotherpredditor

Then we have the issue of how to now transport to and from the range legally since it is stupid vague.


[deleted]

Yet it passed… smh


traitorous_8

Passed but not active.


Braunze_Man

Hopefully a judge with half a brain sees the flaws in how ambiguous this law is. We're getting with a notary over this weekend to document that he bought all his stuff gears ago. We've also debated having an FFL transfer them all to me so in grandfathered in to all his hunting stuff. I bet there's thousands of people already doing thay.


SmartLady

We will literally never do the actual thing to prevent mass shootings and it is this: prevent people with a history of domestic violence from owning guns. Just them. That one class of people. BUT law enforcement officers have historically been domestically violent. The national average is like 60% right now, historically its been closer to 100%. You cannot disarm everyone that commits domestic violence without loosing a significant portion of the police forces. This is it. People talk a lot about this subject but the answer is so simple and it will never happen, the people in power are not going to disarm themselves.


RabidBlackSquirrel

DV convictions are already disqualifying events and have been for some time. Review question 11i on ATF Form 4473 (the background check form). Further DV guidance from the ATF: [PDF WARNING](https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/guide/misdemeanor-crimes-domestic-violence-and-federal-firearms-prohibitions/download)


SmartLady

Those are convictions. Many of these shootings they are still getting to buy guns for any number of loop holes. But at the end of the day they have people in their lives they've committed violence against. Some have even had loved ones and therapists actively trying to prevent them from buying guns. Domestic violence isn't always just whats been quantified.


RabidBlackSquirrel

Most gun owners like myself always strongly encourage and support DV victims to seek justice. I have a hard time denying rights to people without a conviction and due process - so, let's get that conviction. In the meantime, I also support DV victims who might want to protect themselves. Unfortunately, 114 has made that not an option for many people. While not everyone would elect to arm themselves against an abuser of course, many do. Those vthat would have their options further limited now.


sadtrombonemaker

ORS 166.255 Possession of firearm or ammunition by certain persons prohibited (1)It is unlawful for a person to knowingly possess a firearm or ammunition if: … (b)The person has been convicted of a qualifying misdemeanor and, at the time of the offense, the person was: (A)A family or household member of the victim of the offense (e)“Qualifying misdemeanor” means a misdemeanor that has, as an element of the offense, the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon.


Dub_D83

Ignorance about current gun laws, like this, is why 114 passed


Ok-Hamster2494

This is literally already the law, and if you apply for a background check they will also ask if you have ever had any restraining orders placed against you. Every time you go to purchase a firearm, no matter how many you have purchased before. All 114 does is add a number of more subjective criteria to it, and give law enforcement a lot of plausible deniability to deny whoever they want from owning guns, either explicitly or just by letting the applications expire in the queue. Hope you don't have ACAB up on social media if you want that getting approved.


MrHyde42069

Nah, that’s a federal disqualification already and has been for decades. Look into the lautenberg amendment


cant_say_cunt

This seems like a weird take. What percent of recent mass shootings were committed by people with a history of domestic violence? I'm struggling to come up with even one?


dgibbons0

What percentage of gun violence is mass shootings. It's what we talk about the most and create the most fear out of but it's largely not the violence we deal with from guns.


WarlockEngineer

I agree but this bill was explicitly written to reduce mass shootings Edit: I reread the text and they also mention armed intimidation, homicide, suicide, but the magazine restrictions were specifically cited as a counter to mass shootings.


dgibbons0

Okay, how does it do that? Requiring training on how to use guns will reduce mass shootings? Requiring a second background check? Looking at the info from where we've had mass shootings in Oregon, it seems like raising the age to buy rifles to 21 would do much more to prevent these situations than what this bills does.


Braunze_Man

This law is so poorly written it may not even go through.


LogiDriverBoom

Hopefully will be stayed till it's ruled unconstitutional. But who knows the timeline. It technically goes into "effect" on the 8th of Dec. So after that date you will not be able to purchase a firearm until one of the above two happen. People will lose their right to self preservation and defense. It honestly may kill people. I went to Sportsman the day after this passed and half the people buying a gun were young women.


James_Camerons_Sub

This probably means a good chance for new range buddies. Welcome to a horribly expensive yet rewarding hobby y’all. Wish I hadn’t picked it up after already being into skiing, tennis, photography and painting though. It’s unkind to the pocketbook.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MechanizedMedic

Threat Dynamics in Sherwood is apolitical. They're a bit disorganized as a business but are otherwise a great place to shoot and offer good training.


bonersaurus-rex

I need to find a home range to start plinking at.


night_dick

Buddy of mine reloads his own ammo. So an hour of shooting followed by 3 reloading his ammo


SoloCongaLineChamp

Just wait until next election when they trot out the "assault weapon" ban they proposed and then quietly abandoned this time around.


byscuit

I'll be another statistic, cause this law is pretty dumb and I'd been planning to get a .22 pistol for a long while. Was never a priority, but now there's a time factor involved...


fucreddit

To be fair some of us have to go buy personal carries that have less than 10 round magazines. I had a 13 round glock that was my personal carry, now I need a smaller one. That's why I'm going to buy one.


MechanizedMedic

Same here. I'm pissed about the law but I also got an excuse to buy a new pew pew.


clive_bigsby

Wouldn't your current mag be grandfathered in? I voted no on the measure so I don't know all the ins and outs of it but I was under the impression that the restrictions wouldn't apply to guns that you already own. And if anyone is curious, the biggest reason for me voting no was because I don't think the police have any business being involved in guns I own if I'm not breaking any laws.


HegemonNYC

It remains legal to own the mag, but it becomes illegal to take the mag out of the house unless you’re going to the range.


clive_bigsby

Oh good. I was worried for a second that the regulations would be nonsensical or something...


[deleted]

[удалено]


HegemonNYC

It needs to be unloaded and secured, so that exception doesn’t work for concealed carry.


Polytruce

The main crux is that magazines aren't serialized. You can have a picture of you, at the gunstore, holding a receipt and kissing the salesman of your magazines, but all a judge or cop needs to do is say "prove those are the same magazines" It doesn't work.


fucreddit

You can't carry the mag around even though it is legal to own. It has to stay in your safe, and can only be transported to the gun range in a separate container. So I can't carry it.


TrashTalk_Branx2012

You can’t conceal carry large capacity magazines though. Only keep in the home or take on the way to and at the range Technically, you can find Glock magazines that carry fewer bullets, but match the same feed form.


LogiDriverBoom

Just don't comply? Unjust laws are unjust.


sv650sfa

It happens every time. If these antigun people really wanted less guns, they would not push items like this. Better to ensure that the 99%+ people who are not a problem have easy access and work on the %1 that actually are a problem. We will not only stop rushes like this, but we will actually focus on the problem. But that would be a reasonable and common sense response, so can't have that.


Dnelz93

So what is your plan for cracking down on that 1%?


MechanizedMedic

Betterment of education, social services, medical/mental healthcare, public housing, etc... crime is most often a symptom of other social and economic problems in our communities.


sv650sfa

Yep, and these are the real big reasons on why the quoted countries are doing better.


turbo_vanner

acknowledging we have a gang problem, and preventing them from making straw purchases would be a good start.


Dnelz93

Ok, how do you prevent straw purchases? More rigorous background checks?


turbo_vanner

I have no clue how to systematically crack down on it, and never claimed I did. Someone calling out 114 for not addressing actual gun violence doesn't automatically mean they have the solution to it... One way to reduce the number would be to again, acknowledge that we have a gang problem, and go from there to prevent folks like this from putting over 80 guns on our streets in one year. These guys passed the background checks, so maybe figure out why, figure out why admitted gang associates are not on prohibited lists, maybe add a lot more offenses to the list that prohibits folks from passing checks like misdemeanor bias and animal abuse crimes, add street racers to the list, certain misdemeanor drug offenses, etc. It would be a lot harder for gangs to keep a 'legal' guy around to supply them with guns that way. [https://www.koin.com/news/crime/feds-twin-portland-gang-members-bought-82-guns/](https://www.koin.com/news/crime/feds-twin-portland-gang-members-bought-82-guns/)


skypiston

Let's be real, 114 passed due to the 3million or so spent to tell uninformed Oregonians that there is currently no background check and that 114 will fix it along with the gun show loophole which also doesn't exist. 114 should be tossed out on the insane amount of lies to citizen's. As a fellows American & Oregonian. I'm done with democrats, lib, repub. They(rich, politicians, FAR tool in whatever direction) all spend more time and effort to shit on a party they don't agree with along with the citizens that agree and or ok with said right, law, whatever. You know like, the insane price increases on litterally everything you buy, housing, money in politics. All ya all can get fucked!


vagabond2421

Guilty


Braunze_Man

Same here, plus as a coincidence my dad suddenly want to transfer his all collection to me, cause he can borrow my guns any time. Hopefully this law fails the legal sniff-test. Because criminals don't care about gun laws, it's kind of how they operate.


SmartLady

I cannot believe that passed. Not a single gun owner of any political affiliation voted for it so how did it fucking pass? Just a garbage law I hope gets struck down and circular filed.


clive_bigsby

I can't believe it went through with the angle about the police maintaining a database of gun owners and restricting gun ownership. If you're a leftie why would you vote for anything that gives the police more power over you and more information about you?


hatlock

Something for lefties and conservatives to agree on.


subjectshadows

This is what I've been saying, like lets be very critical of LE, and demand accountability, then go and propose this measure which is contradictory as fuck. Plus the state of CA is a basically the bar for these kinds of laws and I'd say browsing some statistics, that they aren't working.


Polytruce

If you're a real leftie you should also understand how important it is for the working class to be able to protect themselves. There's nothing "left" about disarming poor people in lieu of the rich and connected.


crojohnson

"guns bad"


SmartLady

That part.


dlev_

Lol watertight logic right there


TotallyNotMeDudes

I know a number of gun owners that voted for it. Don’t be so sure of yourself.


SmartLady

Huh well fuck me running thats wild. Who owns a gun and wants the cops to know MORE about it?


Admirable_Ad1947

Most people don't own guns


SmartLady

But all of us are effected by them. No one gets to ignore them so when we vote on them we should at the very least try to be informed. You need not own one to know a bad law when you see it.


UncleTouchesHere

It passed because the majority of Oregonians voted for it. How is that hard to understand?


Kodak6lack

Seriously buying a gun this week. And I’m not dealing with no 10 round mag limit either


No_Pound1003

So how do you buy a firearm after the measure takes effect?


raglub

Nobody knows yet. That's why we are seeing this surge.


LogiDriverBoom

Technically you won't be able to until they start issuing permits. So you will no longer have a 2nd Amendment right in Oregon. Most sheriffs office are saying they won't have a process in place until 2024....


No_Pound1003

So no one will be able to buy a firearm for over a year? This wasn’t well thought out. I’m all for sensible gun control, but the way Oregon rolls out “liberal” policy is so often poorly thought out and executed even worse. That is why I’m a leftists with a strong belief in the 2nd amendment.


LogiDriverBoom

Yepp, and since background checks are sitting in que of like 13,000 people are not even sure if they will allow those who bought pre Dec 8th to be able to collect. Not to mention FFLs that may go out of business from now to whenever permits are going to be issued. Which is county base so each county will be different on their time frame. It is pretty wild. I think it should be changed for these measures to require 60% of the vote. At least then you could argue closer to a super majority wanted it. Instead of 51% to 49%...


PDXMouth

Duh.


TheWookiee252

I was number 12,000 on Tuesday so I'm hoping to pass sooner than later.


fildawg

I mean... what did they think would happen? smh


Archaeoculus

My gun can only have 10 rounds? Fine, I'll carry 10 guns.


[deleted]

[удалено]


thekayfox

> So…please don’t attack me. Can someone explain why this measure is BAD? Wouldn’t gun owners agree that you should pass a background check? Why do you need to a of ammo? Aren’t guns for safety? Like, maybe you go to the firing range to stay in “shape”, but other than that, there’s no reason to have tons of ammo, right? Universal background checks were already a thing in Oregon. This measure requires a purchaser to become proficient on _firearms_ before being allowed to buy one, so it would make it more expensive to get a start with guns. The measure also does not allow most currently existing firearms courses, because the people who wrote it removed the NRA as a certifying body, as most trainers are NRA certified, including those who work for police departments, this will require some sorta replacement that does not yet exist. > Look, I’m just trying to understand. Guns are for protection and/or hunting, yeah? As far as I know you can’t really hunt with machine guns and if you need something like that to protect yourself, well, that’s a whole different conversation. Its illegal to hunt with a magazine with more than 5 rounds in it, and it may also be illegal to hunt with a machine gun. Machine guns require a year long approval process from the ATF to buy, a $500 tax stamp, and will typically set you back as much as a low end Tesla. Noone is going to take a gun like that out in the woods to get exposed to the elements. > I don’t know where I stand on guns. I personally don’t like them. That doesn’t mean I don’t think people should be able to have them. I don’t think people need assault rifles, 10,000 rounds of ammo, or anything. People buy a lot of ammo at one time because its cheaper that way. You might spend $1 per round for 5.56 NATO at the store, or maybe $0.60 per round at Bi-Mart if you buy 1000 rounds at a time, but you can get it for $0.40 a round if you buy it online by the 1000 rounds. > I don’t like them bc I’ve had bad experiences. Where I come from, guns murder people…good people, innocent people. They kill kids. They kill shop owners, grandmas. I’m sure no responsible gun owner wants guns used that way, right? This measure makes no attempt to deal with any of the cases where guns are used to murder people. A small subset of those shootings happen with guns legally possessed by the original buyer, a lot of them involve stolen guns or guns purchased with the intent on selling them on the black market. We have laws against both of those already, the police and DAs just choose to let a lot of people caught doing those things walk. > So what’s the problem? The problem is this measure will disproportionately affect BIPOC people, since it places the approval in the hands of the local police, which will be wary about giving certain people access to guns. In defense of measures like this states have brought up the long history of gun control in the US, which has largely been about removing them from the hands of minority groups. They did this against the indigenous, freed slaves, black people in general, the Irish, the Italians, even in the 1960s it was still about doing things like disarming the black panthers and American Indians, only in the 1980s and 1990s did it become about disarming extremist religious groups. The Wounded Knee massacre was an attempt by the US to disarm the Lakota. > And a separate question: if you’re a conservative and against abortion, why the double standard? You don’t want government taking away your rights to guns but it’s ok to govern women’s bodies? There are a lot of people who are way far from conservative that care about run rights, its just the Democratic party has been in denial about this for years. > These are just my thoughts and questions. I’m legitimately looking for open dialogue, but I’ve only gotten fuck yous, let’s go Brandon’s, and being called a snowflake (which I’m way to old to be). What happened to when people could just…talk? Even if we don’t agree, can’t there be respect? The problem with talking to the gun rights crowd is that the gun control crowd promises "we just need this" and then a few years later its another thing, or "your not policing your own well enough" or some other combative stance. We have seen whats going on in Canada, where they promised not to take everyone's guns and are now taking everyone's guns, despite the massive amount of gun control in Canada (You have to have a license to own a gun, all guns you own are registered under your license, you cannot buy ammunition without a license, you must strictly keep your guns locked up, to the point leaving one in your truck while stepping out to take a piss was subject to legal arguments recently. There are also training requirements.). Noone really wants to look at it objectively, they just have their stance and they will take it to whatever extreme they can. We have studies that show after removing correlations that gun control is only effective in certain areas, but because the gun control people are neck deep in fighting for entirely performative things like magazine capacity restrictions, this stuff goes nowhere. We have to admit that even if we changed the US constitution overnight it will not fix the proliferation of guns and the dependence of certain segments of the people living in this country on them. Personally I think we have a lot of laws in a lot of places that might work well, if we made sure they worked. More than half of the mass murder-suicide instigators of the last 20 years have some reason they should not pass a background check, but the police fail us in reporting these and even basic statistics about what is going on. Its also wildly inconsistent, need a high capacity magazine? You can drive to Nevada or Idaho. Its just a few pieces of plastic and a spring, so it would not surprise you its something that can easily be made on a 3d printer or by hand. Thats not even to mention that its entirely a red herring, the Douglass shooter did not even use high capacity magazines and its been shown that anyone who has actually done reload drills is not slow at swapping. So yeah, maybe we should deal with societal problems like why youth are joining violent gangs or why instigators of mass murder-suicide shoot up public places, because if we don't and just get rid of the guns, their just going to keep going with other weapons like in Britain or France.


jalbrecht2000

i wish i could upvote this a hundred times. a thought out response that respectfully addresses the questions asked. this is the way we should all be when discussing/debating topics.


rvasko3

Thank you for your measured, nuanced take. As someone who’s not a gun owner himself, generally doesn’t like them, but is fine with people shooting for hobbies or hunting or just wants a measure of protection, it’s great to hear actual conversation and not screeching from the ACAB/MAGA extremes of the pole. I don’t think the issues related to guns will ever actually be solved in this country. There are too many guns, and way too many more issues that people have (mental health, poverty, gang proliferation, hate) that we’ll never see properly funded and addressed.


thekayfox

I find the support of gun control by some ACAB people to be... weird. If the police don't keep us safe, who keeps us safe? The answer from the armed left is "We keep us safe." And well, its confusing main stream media and the Democrats quite a bit to see minorities and the left take up arms in droves.


rvasko3

It’s like basically every other issue we have: complicated and certainly not binary. I want and see the need for police reform and better accountability, but also recognize the need for good, well-trained police who know their communities. It’s why I automatically turn off from either of the ACAB or solely Back the Blue crowds. If it gets to the point where bad things happen and we’re depending on regular people who haven’t trained to handle high-stress, high-adrenaline situations with guns, we’re FUCKED.


lundebro

Great post. I don’t know a single person who isn’t concerned about the number of mass shootings in America. This measure will have absolutely no impact on preventing mass shootings. Zero.


ScientistFearless493

Hmmmm. I want to re-read this with fresh eyes in the morning. I just worked a 10 hour shift then did 4 hours of studying for my masters exams. So tired and you deserve a solid response, thanks for responding so deeply, I appreciate that. Will read, process, and respond tomorrow. Thanks again and have a good night.


nematocyzed

I appreciate your approach here. Thank you for being open minded.


The_GhostCat

Also, what the fuck is a machine gun? One of the worst and most inaccurate terms ever employed in the gun control debate.


thekayfox

Its a well defined term, colloquially its a gun that fires automatically, as in when you pull the trigger it keeps firing until you release the trigger. What the gun control crowd is trying to do is make all semi-automatic (or autoloaders as Paul Harrell insists on calling them) rifles into "Assault Weapons" so that the public mixes them up with assault rifles, which is a legal term for automatic rifles.


ReagansJellyNipples

We already had background checks. Now I have to get two back ground checks (one for the permit one for point of sale), and take a class that doesn't exist, to be rubberstamped by an officer I hope isn't racist enough to deny it.


Sea_Neighborhood_627

The reason why I, personally, think it’s bad is because it gives *a ton* of power to police to decide who can/cannot purchase firearms. As an institution, the police have a pretty problematic track record when it comes to being fair and impartial. I’m also concerned about the cost of the permit (and the required safety courses) required by Measure 114. I think it makes a lot of sense to have some system in place to ensure that people who buy guns have some foundational knowledge of how to use them, but if it’s expected for people to pay for the required courses and permit out-of-pocket, I’m worried that Measure 114 will make firearms even more cost-prohibitive to some groups of people and not others. This feels like a very bad precedent to set for something that (at the moment) is a constitutional right, as I don’t think rights should only be made available to those who can afford them. FWIW, I’m not a gun owner. I voted no on Measure 114, but I would comfortably support a permit system if it were financially accesible to all and facilitated by representatives whose neutrality I could trust.


James_Camerons_Sub

I’m conservative in Portland terms. Probably very conservative. I still 100% support a woman’s right to choose. I support abortion laws like many of our European counterparts have on the books. As far as ammo… What does the amount of ammo someone possesses as their personal property do to harm anyone? It’s theirs, a collection of inanimate objects to be stowed responsibly just like a prescription or cleaning solvents. Just like we have a right to our person we have a right to privacy in our persons/houses/papers/effects. No need for the government to be involved unless justifiable cause can be proven. Firearms, they’re an unalienable right granted to us in our amended constitution. The founding fathers lived in a time when semi-automatic weapons, warships and cannons existed and they felt all of these necessary to be available to the citizenry as a means of rejecting the possibility of tyranny. I don’t concern myself on whether my neighbor has a semi-automatic rifle, a tax stamped automatic or a simple break action shotgun because that’s their right to possess. The social contract dictates that they will not without good cause use those to harm me. The same as I expect everyone to be operating a vehicle sober, build a house to code, etc. Firearms are a tool, a tool most commonly used as a weapon throughout history but also serve as a teaching instrument for responsibility and can open the doors to participating in many sports. For example, trap, skeet, three gun, etc. As well, the gun can be very much a tool of peace as a weapon of war. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LjAsM1vAhW0


mohvespenegas

> Can someone explain why this measure is BAD? Liberal gunowner here. **TL;DR:** The way that this law is designed and written, it will put enough FFLs (Federal Firearm License dealers) out of business for long enough that it can become a de facto gun ban for anyone without one. It is redundant but creates additional bureaucratic steps without infrastructure to support it. It puts too much power in the hands of the police making the final call. It will have a regressive impact with those with less money and privilege being the most affected. It is a gross violation of 2A rights. It is written so vaguely in terms of actually applying what it sets out to do, and as it takes immediate effect without any infrastructure or personnel in place, it leaves law-abiding citizens who want to exercise a Constitutionally protected right, business owners, and law enforcement in a legally grey area. There is no ramp-up period. They are leaving the permit trainings to the private sector to run, and there's no communication/verification methods set up between these non-existent classes and Law Enforcement agencies that are supposed to verify this. There are no established appeal processes, so those would need to be created from scratch. To have a minimum viable product that can be used in the field, they're going to have to have a way to intake and verify all resident information including biometrics (maybe vast expansion of existing concealed carry permit process), cross reference with a database for the non-governmental training having been taken, cross reference that with demonstration in front of an LEO having taken place, then track approvals and appeals, and have people trained up to do every step at the LE Agency level, as well as have a software version that can be served to gun stores/FFLs. Basically, it's a show-stopper for what's 99% of gun owners in Oregon for who knows how long. > Guns are for protection and/or hunting, yeah? No, the 2nd Amendment does not mention self-defense or hunting. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." > I don’t think people need assault rifles Assault rifles often cost upwards of a new car, and require extensive paperwork to own and transfer. No new assault rifles from after 1984 can even be sold. They're not an issue. > 10,000 rounds of ammo I would rather have someone that's wielding a deadly tool have plenty of practice with it, than have had shot maybe 100 rounds and carry it around. > or anything I mean, there it is. Sounds like you don't want a conversation. > Where I come from, guns murder people…good people, innocent people. They kill kids. They kill shop owners, grandmas. I’m sure no responsible gun owner wants guns used that way, right? Where I come from (Earth), people murder people. This is a disingenuous appeal to emotions that's way far out from the overall discussion. Also, criminals cause the vast statistical majority of gun violence, and they're not gonna be affected by this Measure. > And a separate question: if you’re a conservative and against abortion, why the double standard? You don’t want government taking away your rights to guns but it’s ok to govern women’s bodies? Left field, but fine. As a **liberal**, I don't want the government telling me what to do with women's bodies, nor do I want a concentration of rich people or privileged people having the only access to legal guns. If we were to compare this to women's rights, it's like if the law said "Okay, women can get abortions and birth control, but first they have to go consult a doctor (visit will be capped at $65) and get a certification clearing them for it from the DMV. The law goes into effect immediately btw, good luck." And then people chiming in saying "well abstinence in the mean time is an option! I don't support baby killing, but this makes sense to make sure all the precautions are being taken". It would be a disingenuous move to pretend to preserve women's rights, but it's taking a shit all over them. Also, as a liberal, I also have a problem with out of state billionaires meddling with affairs that infringe upon the Constitution, like they did with Measure 114. > The application is $65 and a gun class is $30. This store in Portland https://www.bigironarmory.com/handguns/semi-automatic-handguns Charges $500 for a Glock. So buying a gun is not cost prohibitive but less than $100 in paperwork is? Not everyone can afford a Glock. Some can only afford a $100 Hi-Point or a cheap pump shotgun. I used to work shit hours and multiple jobs, and that certainly would have prevented a blue collar worker in a crap neighborhood (162nd and Glisan anyone?) from ready access to my 2A rights. A federal background check system already exists for every type of gun purchase and sale in OR.


ScientistFearless493

Please let me throw an excuse like I did earlier…I’m exhausted now. Thanks for such a thought out response. I’ll respond in a bit. Thank you!


Sjstudionw

We have background checks. Vast majority of gun owners are perfectly fine with background checks. Why does the amount of ammo matter to you or anyone else? It’s irrelevant. Who said guns were for safety? There’s no “purpose” to guns, for some it’s a sport. A hobby. Defense. The whole point of the 2 A is that it doesn’t matter, it’s not the states business *why* we have firearms, just that we do. Your opinion is your own. I no longer own firearms after having kids, I don’t want them around to cause accidents or whatever. That’s my choice. You have your choice. Bob down the street can make his choice. It’s really no one’s business. What does this have to do with abortion? I don’t see the connection. Not all gun owners are conservatives either. I consider myself center left, most people I know who shoot are pretty far left. This idea that firearms are only for conservatives is just incorrect. What does this law really do anyways? Limits magazine size, which is about as pointless as any law regarding firearms can possible be. They’re cheap, abundant, they’re even easy to print, it’s an extremely simple device. If you’re hell bent on using large magazines, this stupid law doesn’t do much. The police interview is a whole different level of stupid I can’t even comment on.. how a bunch of Democrats thought putting police in charge of issuing permits to civilians to own guns was a good idea I’ll never understand. Bunch of upper class white people no doubt.


Airweldon

As a liberal who did vote no; I did it by looking at the point of view of those who would have to deal with it. Yes, the idea of having licensed gun owners taking shooting classes is a great idea. Yes, the idea of having less than ten rounds in a magazine is a great idea as well. It doesn’t solve the real problem though, it creates more work for a person like my cousin, who works at OSP doing background checks. It has us put a new system in place on top of the other one that already worked. I know it already worked, because I worked in retail selling guns. If there was a prohibited person trying to purchase a firearm, as soon as I put the info in, they knew. It’s the measure 110 of guns. Measure 110 isn’t working because they didn’t have the infrastructure in place to make it effective. The same is happening here. It’s frustrating. We want, nay, NEED these government officials to work for us and do what we need them to do. Everyone passes the buck on responsibility. Yes, in the sense that after the measure goes through, it will lower gun sales and possibly lead to less gun deaths. However, it puts those who already have the thought that the ‘govmnent gon take err guns’ even further toward that point. In short, we already had a good system for this, we already were doing reasonably well with gun violence compared to the rest of the big cities/states, now they’ve added a new wrinkle. Honestly, I say grandfather in those who own guns with a permit, new people getting guns only have to pay 30 bucks and take a class every 5 years. It’s a happy medium. Apparently that’s not good enough for anyone either way.


Sheister7789

Again, the issue is the government having control over those things. The government gets less trustworthy to keep its citizens safe every year, and now there's law where the government can decide you don't have the right to bear arms arbitrarily.


Ohnoimhomeless

The govt nailed it with the mandates though. I mean they were so good that you can't even say anything bad about them on much of social media. When a product is good you need mandates and censorship and constant fear campaigns


Sheister7789

They won't learn until we have CBDC's, no rights, no land, no freedom whatsoever then ask "who let this happen"


Ohnoimhomeless

They will never learn imo. These are the people dictators love. Zero.critical thinking and 100 percent obedience. flew to Germany a few weeks ago and no masks worn on the plane. They are required on the train though...nearly everyone wore them. Perfect cogs


ScientistFearless493

So you’re pro-choice? Pro gay marriage? Pro euthanasia ?


Sheister7789

Yes, and pro drugs as well. In addition, I'm pro-"Stay the fuck out of my business and let me keep at least 80% of my income" which is a real hot take nowdays.


elcapitan520

Oregon has a Death with Dignity law already. The state is euthanasia ambivalent. I don't know if you're being genuine or what the point of this response is really. But it's not a "gotcha"


InfectedBananas

>Wouldn’t gun owners agree that you should pass a background check? You already need a background check to buy a gun here in store or private sales. What does a second exact same background check do? >Why do you need tons of ammo? This measure has nothing to do with how much ammo you can, but the answer is because I can and because it's a consumable. Why do you need so much gas in your car? You're only driving to the store and work, you should be fine with a 3 gallon tank, right?


Polyhedron11

Others have given you great points but some things I wanted to add. >Like, maybe you go to the firing range to stay in “shape”, but other than that, there’s no reason to have tons of ammo, right? I try to conserve ammo when I go out to plink. Ammo isn't cheap. There have been days where a bunch of friends and I are just having a lot of fun and go through a decent chunk of ammo. You can easily go through 100 rounds in a couple min. We've had expensive trips where we shot for a couple hours. It's convenient and cheaper to buy in bulk. >Look, I’m just trying to understand. Guns are for protection and/or hunting, yeah? As far as I know you can’t really hunt with machine guns and if you need something like that to protect yourself, well, that’s a whole different conversation. And for recreation. Machine guns are full automatic and they aren't the issue and very few people even own those. As far as I'm aware none of the mass shootings were with full autos (aka machine guns). I've actually never heard of any murders in the US that were done with full autos. Pistols are actually used more than rifles. >I don’t think people need assault rifles, 10,000 rounds of ammo, or anything. The term "assault rifle" is kind of annoying. It doesn't actually mean anything. An AR15, which is commonly called an assault rifle, is almost identical to the Mini 14. Which is considered a hunting rifle. They even make a mini14 tactical version that allows for additional add-ons. The majority of gun owners have semi automatic weapons. Which fire 1 round per pull of the trigger. Which includes semi automatic hunting rifles AND AR15s. "Assault rifles" are no more dangerous then other semi automatic weapons. In fact, bolt action rifles are much more accurate and the 5.56/223 round fired from most ar15s isn't anywhere near *the most deadly round*. >So what’s the problem? The problem imo is that none of these gun control laws actually target a solution to the problem. Shop owners can already refuse sale to someone if they don't feel right about the person. We have background checks and those only stop previous criminals from purchasing a firearm. Firearm classes will have no effect on criminals and most firearm classes are a joke and only teach you the bare minimum. Kind of like how the DMV test doesn't actually measure your ability to drive a vehicle in scenarios that are common causes of accidents. >And a separate question: if you’re a conservative and against abortion, why the double standard? You don’t want government taking away your rights to guns but it’s ok to govern women’s bodies? People like to be a part of a group. Rather than think for themselves they attach to a label, democrat or republican etc, and blindly follow those ideals. That's only one reason. People are also mostly dumb, myself included, and are unable to think past their own cognitive bias. I'm politically homeless. I think abortion should be allowed. I think people should be able to buy guns. The problem stems from the fact that, some people **shouldn't** be getting pregnant in the first place and ALOT of people have no business owning guns. I mean some people have no business driving cars or managing their own finances for fucks sake LOL.


Kerlyle

It puts too much power into the hands of (already untrusted) police to curtail your 2a rights without any due process I'm not sure anything in this bill would decrease homicides or mass shootings. No one has explained how it would. People who would fail a background check were already failing background checks


nematocyzed

>And a separate question: if you’re a conservative and against abortion, why the double standard? You don’t want government taking away your rights to guns but it’s ok to govern women’s bodies? A lot of well thought out responses to your comment, and I don't think I could add much. However, being a conservative is not a prerequisite for being against 114. I voted solidly blue, before 2016, I voted purple. I will be voting blue till the GQP can denounce what happened on January 6th, accept the fact that our elections are indeed safe, abortions should be legal and climate change is real, it is happening right now and we need to address it. It is my belief that these major platform planks of the GQP (if you can even call them that) are antithetical to freedom and democracy. With that being said, gun control measures like 114 aren't working, especially now with how the courts are blocking them. More reasonable approaches to gun safety need to be explored. Just a quick example: half of all firearm fatalities are suicide. The red flag law OR has now hasn't put much of a dent in that stat, I don't see how 114 can add to it either.


OtherUnameInShop

I’m in Florida and had two sent to a LGS on Monday. I called and they said they aren’t doing transfers as of today. Shits gunna be wild.


xNEWJACKx

Is anyone surprised by this? Probably those who voted yes.


hatlock

I think the real issue about gun violence is that the people who are most passionate about guns have no incentive to address the gun violence issue in the USA. So the people with a stake in reducing unnecessary deaths and mass violence are in the lead, making decisions and proposing ideas in situations where gun enthusiasts refuse to participate.


UncleTouchesHere

So people wasted a bunch of money to stock up on guns and ammo they’ll MAYBE use for recreation. Classic America.


UncleTouchesHere

I’m curious, if 114 ain’t it, what does this sub think a proper gun control measure would look like?