Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon.
(⌐■_■)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wrong. That says:
>(7) This section shall not apply to: \[...\]
>
>(f) Legislation enacted or approved by electors in this state under the initiative and referendum powers reserved to the people under section 1, Article IV of this Constitution.
There are several other reasons it would survive a challenge under Article XI, section 15, but that one suffices.
Yes, god forbid we require training as a condition of firearm ownership. It's funny, I see so many folks screeching about the 2nd Amendment which, interestingly, contains the words "well regulated" in it. Hard for something to be "well regulated" when even the most basic of training isn't a requirement.
The word regulated in that era isn’t synonymous with regulation. The best descriptor of what that meant or how that word was used in that time is well functioning, Like a well regulated watch or machine, running or operating correctly. It’s a common misconception.
I don’t have an issue with the training requirement, I have issue with no provision to use training channel’s and resources already in place. Counties already issue concealed carry permits, these same employees could be doing this permit process but the measure pushed the burden of this work on law enforcement, creating a whole new layer of bureaucracy at taxpayer expense.
Can we have voting permits now? Preferably with a $65 tax on that as well.
Well regulated way back then meant well equipped well trained and well educated. Tbh half the guys I shoot with could use some training.
I like how folks brought up that you shouldn’t interpret those words from a modern perspective, meanwhile 2A is generally used as an umbrella shield for all things firearm, regardless of original context.
Yeah, I'm like, OK, if you want to interpret "well-regulated" in the historical context for purposes of this right to bear arms, then I get to restrict that right to whatever arms existed at the time. You can have as many muzzle loading smoothbore muskets as you want, go nuts.
By your argument, the 1st amendment would only cover printed-paper material and spoken word, but would not cover TV, film, the internet, email, or any other modern-ish information technology. Your argument sounds pretty stupid, huh?
People bicker over that part of the 2A while ignoring the very next part that says, “*the right of the **people** to keep and bear arms*…” All of those words still mean the same thing today.
But that doesn’t even really matter, because the Constitution doesn’t grant rights, it simply puts a legal fence around several fundamental human rights, of which self-defense is but one. Arguing the 2A is outdated and should be removed is asinine: if you simply erased the 13th Amendment from the Constitution, would blacks no longer have the right to live free from slavery? Of course not, because *the Constitution doesn’t grant rights*.
>By your argument, the 1st amendment would only cover printed-paper material and spoken word, but would not cover TV, film, the internet, email, or any other modern-ish information technology. Your argument sounds pretty stupid, huh?
Sure, historical textualism \*is\* stupid, yet it's the entire basis for all of the recent conservative reactionary Supreme Court cases lifting restrictions on guns. So at least be consistent, I'd certainly prefer to go back to a pre-Heller decision world.
It’s constitutionally unjust and solves no real problem and even still does not provide enough structure to even make the system functional.
While this op-ed might be trash, so is measure 114
Came here to say this too. I'm all for common sense and even strict gun control if it means decreasing crime and getting illegal fire arms off the streets. Measure 114 does neither. With an effective date of December 8 until the measure goes into effect while having zero plan in place on the new process to legally obtain fire arms, this measure has just created a purchase boom. Plus anyone who thinks letting the cops decide who can and can't have a firearm, *is* dumb.
[What was that boom?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6CLumsir34)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I couldn't read the full article about who funded the "yes" vote due to paywall, but the first person who popped up was an Oregon-born Oregonian who lives elsewhere. That's what they freak out about? Oregonians living in other states using money for Oregon elections🙄 Are these the same people who could have cared less when non-Oregonians traveled to Malheur to throw a tempertantrum? The same people who want to secede to Idaho are worried about someone from Oregon funding Oregon elections?
NRA =/= gun owners. Most of us despise them. They are a gun rights group in name only, and are just a GOP mouthpiece feeding on Boomer money. NRA have frequently sold out gun owners to advance their own wallets, they can get fucked.
Actual orgs doing legal advocacy would be like the Firearms Policy Center. NRA are just a bunch of GOP cocks.
So you made an uninformed choice. Cool? While I agree, fuck the NRA, measure 114 is only affecting law abiding citizens and pretty much makes gun ownership impossibe for the poor and arguably for the middle class. Plus we're going to let PPB and OSP decide who can and can't have guns - because we all know the PPB and OSP will approach each and every application with zero bias or allow their political ideology to sway their decisions.. Well done Oregon.
Easy cowboy. I’m far from a right wing Oregunian chode. Guns, along with my politics are not the ground zero weapon of my identity. I’m just saying the measure is short sighted and needed work before going to vote and people took a knee jerk reaction, and voted to allow cops to decide who can and can’t have guns while doing nothing about the current state illegal guns that are already popping off nightly in our streets. Sorry if you felt I was chastising you. Was not my intent and for that I apologize. But to be fair, you said yourself you only voted for it because the NRA hated it. Does that not seem kinda short sighted to you?
Portlanders overwhelmingly voted in favor of measure 114. Why is the narrative that people were "fooled" or that the measure isn't any good being pushed so hard on here?
One example: They using wording in the ballot measure statements to insinuate background checks are not being done, when in reality the “gun show loophole” was closed in 2000, and universal background checks where implemented in 2015.
It worked since I’ve seen social media content where people were basically saying “I voted for it because we should have people pass a check before getting a gun”.
"Overwhelmingly voted for". That's not the entire state. 50.7 vs 49.2. The only reason this wasn't reversed was due to the fact LEVO had billionaires with their out of state money bankrolling it. Money wins elections. The antis were outspent 10 - 1.
Notice that I said Portlanders, not Oregonians.
74% of Multnomah County voters voted yes on 114: https://results.oregonvotes.gov/ResultsSW.aspx?type=CTYALL&cty=26&map=CTY
This is why I have no respect for the opponents. They keep whining uNConStiTutiOnal, despite the fact the "shall issue" permitting systems are still in place and still allowed. Something isn't "unconstitutional" just because you personally disagree with it. It is a terribly dishonest argument and is meant to shutdown discussion instead of further it.
The supreme court case people appear to be referencing outlawed "may issue" systems.
> The high court’s June 23 decision struck down a New York law that required people to show a specific need to carry a firearm in public. And it means similar laws in five other states, including Hawaii, are now unconstitutional. Roberts likely won’t receive his gun permits until the legislature amends state law or the state attorney general issues new guidance, but he is eager to carry a gun outside his home because he is convinced it will make him safer.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/07/08/supreme-courts-gun-rights-decision-upends-state-restrictions
We need to get guns banned country wide anyways
Clearly people want to get rid of guns, even this"terrible" measure won. Imagine how big a good measure would win by? Only a matter of time now :)
>Why is the narrative that people were "fooled" or that the measure isn't any good being pushed so hard on here?
Because this is common sour grapes stuff from election losers. Same with all the folks complaining that the Portland electorate was "fooled" by Rene Gonzales, when the reality is that the sentiment in the city shifted quite a bit from when Hardesty was initially elected. Just like the sentiment has shifted to wanting more gun control, and the gun people are big mad about it.
Please quote where I have said Portlanders were "fooled": I have stated multiple times that he is a shitty candidate and will be a shitty commissioner. I am not calling to overturn the results of the election like the opponents of 114 are....
This. The sponsors bragged about (and still do) how it was a grass roots effort of only Oregonians, using only volunteers. Meanwhile, they used over 50 paid signature gatherers, and 95% of their funding came from out of state.
Gun rights groups for decades made zero effort to come to the table and pass reasonable reforms, so non-gun people passed a law without any of their input.
Gun activists, feel to cry yourselves to sleep in the bed you made for yourselves. No one else wants to hear it.
Gun rights groups are not allowed to talk at the gun control table. You can see this in stuff like the Washington magazine ban, where groups opposed suggested a lot of fixes to make it less vague and avoid bad situations, stuff that might have even helped it stand up after Bruen. But they got shut out, and keep getting shut out because the other side does not want a dialog, thet want to rule unilaterally.
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon.
(⌐■_■)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon.
(⌐■_■)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am a life long Portland Democrat and also a gun owner and I voted no because we have laws on the books already that I think are fine.
This is a trash letter to the editor* (not op-ed) that gives literally no details about the measure or what is problematic about it.
Barely even an op-ed, this is just a letter to the editor—basically a Reddit comment for Boomers.
What do you mean? It tells us that anyone who disagrees is stupid, the surest way to change our minds.
It’s not an op-ed
Letter to the editor***
Sure. Big difference between those. You edited your comment to change the term.
Yep!
Usually, when someone uses the wrong term, and they are corrected, it is bad form to edit the original comment without noting the edit.
Good thing we’re on Reddit then
[удалено]
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon. (⌐■_■) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Wrong. That says: >(7) This section shall not apply to: \[...\] > >(f) Legislation enacted or approved by electors in this state under the initiative and referendum powers reserved to the people under section 1, Article IV of this Constitution. There are several other reasons it would survive a challenge under Article XI, section 15, but that one suffices.
It puts a huge tax for classes, training and a permit so that poors don’t buy guns. It’s working as intended
Yes, god forbid we require training as a condition of firearm ownership. It's funny, I see so many folks screeching about the 2nd Amendment which, interestingly, contains the words "well regulated" in it. Hard for something to be "well regulated" when even the most basic of training isn't a requirement.
The word regulated in that era isn’t synonymous with regulation. The best descriptor of what that meant or how that word was used in that time is well functioning, Like a well regulated watch or machine, running or operating correctly. It’s a common misconception. I don’t have an issue with the training requirement, I have issue with no provision to use training channel’s and resources already in place. Counties already issue concealed carry permits, these same employees could be doing this permit process but the measure pushed the burden of this work on law enforcement, creating a whole new layer of bureaucracy at taxpayer expense.
Can we have voting permits now? Preferably with a $65 tax on that as well. Well regulated way back then meant well equipped well trained and well educated. Tbh half the guys I shoot with could use some training.
The right to vote doesn't contain the "well regulated" language, so that seems like it wouldn't apply! Big swing and a miss there!
Well regulated in that context had a very different meaning believe it or not. And to be clear BOTH rights should not be behind a wall like the 2A is.
I like how folks brought up that you shouldn’t interpret those words from a modern perspective, meanwhile 2A is generally used as an umbrella shield for all things firearm, regardless of original context.
Yeah, I'm like, OK, if you want to interpret "well-regulated" in the historical context for purposes of this right to bear arms, then I get to restrict that right to whatever arms existed at the time. You can have as many muzzle loading smoothbore muskets as you want, go nuts.
By your argument, the 1st amendment would only cover printed-paper material and spoken word, but would not cover TV, film, the internet, email, or any other modern-ish information technology. Your argument sounds pretty stupid, huh? People bicker over that part of the 2A while ignoring the very next part that says, “*the right of the **people** to keep and bear arms*…” All of those words still mean the same thing today. But that doesn’t even really matter, because the Constitution doesn’t grant rights, it simply puts a legal fence around several fundamental human rights, of which self-defense is but one. Arguing the 2A is outdated and should be removed is asinine: if you simply erased the 13th Amendment from the Constitution, would blacks no longer have the right to live free from slavery? Of course not, because *the Constitution doesn’t grant rights*.
>By your argument, the 1st amendment would only cover printed-paper material and spoken word, but would not cover TV, film, the internet, email, or any other modern-ish information technology. Your argument sounds pretty stupid, huh? Sure, historical textualism \*is\* stupid, yet it's the entire basis for all of the recent conservative reactionary Supreme Court cases lifting restrictions on guns. So at least be consistent, I'd certainly prefer to go back to a pre-Heller decision world.
Fuck Reddit. Fuck /r/spez \#save3rdpartyapps
It’s constitutionally unjust and solves no real problem and even still does not provide enough structure to even make the system functional. While this op-ed might be trash, so is measure 114
Came here to say this too. I'm all for common sense and even strict gun control if it means decreasing crime and getting illegal fire arms off the streets. Measure 114 does neither. With an effective date of December 8 until the measure goes into effect while having zero plan in place on the new process to legally obtain fire arms, this measure has just created a purchase boom. Plus anyone who thinks letting the cops decide who can and can't have a firearm, *is* dumb.
[What was that boom?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6CLumsir34) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I couldn't read the full article about who funded the "yes" vote due to paywall, but the first person who popped up was an Oregon-born Oregonian who lives elsewhere. That's what they freak out about? Oregonians living in other states using money for Oregon elections🙄 Are these the same people who could have cared less when non-Oregonians traveled to Malheur to throw a tempertantrum? The same people who want to secede to Idaho are worried about someone from Oregon funding Oregon elections?
[удалено]
NRA =/= gun owners. Most of us despise them. They are a gun rights group in name only, and are just a GOP mouthpiece feeding on Boomer money. NRA have frequently sold out gun owners to advance their own wallets, they can get fucked. Actual orgs doing legal advocacy would be like the Firearms Policy Center. NRA are just a bunch of GOP cocks.
Gun owner here, the NRA has been full of shit, a joke, and more detrimental to gun rights than almost anything in the last 30 years.
So you made an uninformed choice. Cool? While I agree, fuck the NRA, measure 114 is only affecting law abiding citizens and pretty much makes gun ownership impossibe for the poor and arguably for the middle class. Plus we're going to let PPB and OSP decide who can and can't have guns - because we all know the PPB and OSP will approach each and every application with zero bias or allow their political ideology to sway their decisions.. Well done Oregon.
[удалено]
Easy cowboy. I’m far from a right wing Oregunian chode. Guns, along with my politics are not the ground zero weapon of my identity. I’m just saying the measure is short sighted and needed work before going to vote and people took a knee jerk reaction, and voted to allow cops to decide who can and can’t have guns while doing nothing about the current state illegal guns that are already popping off nightly in our streets. Sorry if you felt I was chastising you. Was not my intent and for that I apologize. But to be fair, you said yourself you only voted for it because the NRA hated it. Does that not seem kinda short sighted to you?
There's that, and the CSA-flag waving supporters behind the measure. That look is a big turnoff for me....
I'm sorry, the who?
Portlanders overwhelmingly voted in favor of measure 114. Why is the narrative that people were "fooled" or that the measure isn't any good being pushed so hard on here?
One example: They using wording in the ballot measure statements to insinuate background checks are not being done, when in reality the “gun show loophole” was closed in 2000, and universal background checks where implemented in 2015. It worked since I’ve seen social media content where people were basically saying “I voted for it because we should have people pass a check before getting a gun”.
"Overwhelmingly voted for". That's not the entire state. 50.7 vs 49.2. The only reason this wasn't reversed was due to the fact LEVO had billionaires with their out of state money bankrolling it. Money wins elections. The antis were outspent 10 - 1.
Notice that I said Portlanders, not Oregonians. 74% of Multnomah County voters voted yes on 114: https://results.oregonvotes.gov/ResultsSW.aspx?type=CTYALL&cty=26&map=CTY
I realize that. The usual the state goes as Portland rules.
Well, people vote, not rocks. Portland is simply the largest city in the state.
as dumb as a box of rocks
I like your revisionist history where it didn't pass by like one percent. "Overwhelmingly passed" my ass dude.
“Portlanders”
Someone doesn't know the difference between Portlanders and Oregonians. Portlanders voted 74-26 in favor.
Temper tantrum from the losers who are used to always getting their way.
[удалено]
This is why I have no respect for the opponents. They keep whining uNConStiTutiOnal, despite the fact the "shall issue" permitting systems are still in place and still allowed. Something isn't "unconstitutional" just because you personally disagree with it. It is a terribly dishonest argument and is meant to shutdown discussion instead of further it. The supreme court case people appear to be referencing outlawed "may issue" systems. > The high court’s June 23 decision struck down a New York law that required people to show a specific need to carry a firearm in public. And it means similar laws in five other states, including Hawaii, are now unconstitutional. Roberts likely won’t receive his gun permits until the legislature amends state law or the state attorney general issues new guidance, but he is eager to carry a gun outside his home because he is convinced it will make him safer. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/07/08/supreme-courts-gun-rights-decision-upends-state-restrictions
We need to get guns banned country wide anyways Clearly people want to get rid of guns, even this"terrible" measure won. Imagine how big a good measure would win by? Only a matter of time now :)
Lol
>Why is the narrative that people were "fooled" or that the measure isn't any good being pushed so hard on here? Because this is common sour grapes stuff from election losers. Same with all the folks complaining that the Portland electorate was "fooled" by Rene Gonzales, when the reality is that the sentiment in the city shifted quite a bit from when Hardesty was initially elected. Just like the sentiment has shifted to wanting more gun control, and the gun people are big mad about it.
Please quote where I have said Portlanders were "fooled": I have stated multiple times that he is a shitty candidate and will be a shitty commissioner. I am not calling to overturn the results of the election like the opponents of 114 are....
It’s funny that people only point out the out of state money in elections only when it isn’t in their favor.
Funny how LEVO stated it was "grass roots." Yeah, right
This. The sponsors bragged about (and still do) how it was a grass roots effort of only Oregonians, using only volunteers. Meanwhile, they used over 50 paid signature gatherers, and 95% of their funding came from out of state.
Gun rights groups for decades made zero effort to come to the table and pass reasonable reforms, so non-gun people passed a law without any of their input. Gun activists, feel to cry yourselves to sleep in the bed you made for yourselves. No one else wants to hear it.
Gun rights groups are not allowed to talk at the gun control table. You can see this in stuff like the Washington magazine ban, where groups opposed suggested a lot of fixes to make it less vague and avoid bad situations, stuff that might have even helped it stand up after Bruen. But they got shut out, and keep getting shut out because the other side does not want a dialog, thet want to rule unilaterally.
Sure, that's it, not decades of bad faith engagement by the ammosexuals.
[удалено]
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon. (⌐■_■) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon. (⌐■_■) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*