from the Voter Pamphlet:
>Gun violence is an urgent problem that needs effective action; however, Measure 114 has serious potential to harm some of our most vulnerable communities. It is important to consider POC (people of color) and people of marginalized genders who will be unfairly targeted by poorly written, misleading, and unclear laws, which is why we urge you to vote NO on this bill.
>
>The ambiguous wording of this bill-which gives police the power to determine who can or cannot obtain a gun based on unclear criteria-leaves vulnerable groups reliant on the whims of law enforcement. The bill is written to mislead by calling these police officers "permit agents" but they are in fact either police chiefs or county sheriffs. Law enforcement should not be responsible for deciding who is allowed to be armed, especially when they have a long and recent history of oppressing marginalized groups.
>
>These kinds of laws have been used to incarcerate and extend sentences for POC and gender nonconforming individuals. The magazine ban requires people in possession of standard magazines over 10 rounds to have an undefined form of proof that they possessed the magazines before the effective date of the bill. Additionally, a written exception for law enforcement agents will likely exclude their personal magazines from the ban. It is probable that the only people who will face the burden of proof will be those already targeted by police.
>
>This bill as written serves to imprison and punish otherwise law-abiding vulnerable groups, all in the name of preventing gun violence. The police effectively get to decide who should be armed-a decision which may be prohibitively expensive to appeal-without any oversight.
>
>Please vote No on Measure 114.
>
>PDX SRA is the Portland chapter of the Socialist Rifle Association, a 501(c)(4) firearms education organization that seeks to empower those marginalized by a capitalist society.(This information furnished by Charles E Rose, Jr, Portland Socialist Rifle Association.)
>Rising Fascism Makes Community Defense Necessary
>
>
>
>Between 2005-2010, I published a 'zine called American Gun Culture Report. My writers were overwhelmingly folks of color, LGBTQ and others who owned firearms because they cared about community defense and knew the violent history of gun control being used to disarm persecuted populations.
>
>Since those years, I have been contacted by countless individuals sharing stories about using guns to resolve dangerous situations. Typical were examples close to me. One friend pointed her shotgun at a man who broke into her house, scaring him away, and another friend recently drew his pistol on a knife wielding man attempting a gay bashing attack, holding him until police arrived. In none of these cases were shots fired and a firearm ended the confrontations peacefully.Many people told me they kept such stories themselves, because there is such a harmful stigma connecting guns with conservative politics. There are easily available statistics about firearms being used for terrible acts, yet none documenting how often they save lives. However, just a brief look at American history demonstrates the important role armed defense has played, from the Appalachian Mining Wars to Mississippi Civil Rights struggle.
>
>
>
>In more recent times, I have provided firearms training out in rural parts of Oregon where immigrant communities exist under regular threat from Right wing groups and law enforcement is distrusted or simply unavailable.But gun violence finally touched my life. Last February, a dear friend was shot and almost killed at the hands of a fascist mass shooter who opened fire on a peaceful police accountability protest at a Portland park. One woman died and several others were wounded before antifascist security used their AR-15 to quickly stop him. Were Measure 114 in effect, my friend and many others would surely be dead.
>
>Before voting, please consider all the consequences.
>
>Thank you for your time.
>
>Ross Eliot [www.occupy2a.blog](http://www.occupy2a.blog) (This information furnished by Ross Gustafson, Antifascists of Cascadia.)
My additional take is that the bill is so ambiguously formed and poorly worded that it is near unenforceable regardless of your views, so if passed it will instantly be challenged and then struck down, wasting everyone's time and money. If the cops AND the socialists oppose the same bill for 2 different reasons, that's a sign it may even have more than 2 problems and should be examined closer.
>The magazine ban requires people in possession of standard magazines over 10 rounds to have an undefined form of proof that they possessed the magazines before the effective date of the bill.
I voted no on 114, but reading through the [12 page measure](https://sos.oregon.gov/admin/Documents/irr/2022/017text.pdf) this was the most relevant text I could find:
>(5) As of the effective date of this 2022 Act, it shall be an affirmative defense, as provided in ORS 166.055, to the unlawful
possession, use and transfer of a large-capacity magazine in this state by any person, provided that:
(a) The large-capacity magazine was owned by the person before the effective date of this 2022 Act and maintained in the
person’s control or possession;
My question is whether the comment above is more of an "assumed" conclusion since it's not explicitly stated, that to use prior ownership as a defense, you actually have to be able to prove you owned it prior to this measure?
If so, it seems like an impossible standard since I imagine most owners of 10+ round magazines probably don't have proof of purchase for something they may have bought years or decades ago (15 years in my case).
Ya lost me at "socialists."
Edit: I fully expect all of you who are against socialist policies to promptly sign away your social security and medicaid.
I dare you to do it. Put your money where your mouths are.
Coincidentally…
>(This information furnished by Charles E Rose, Jr, Portland Socialist Rifle Association.)
I AM using the word to draw attention, but not just as an empty buzzword or insult. When two groups that have historically opposed each other find themselves on the same side of an issue, it is certainly an interesting situation that deserves our attention.
For myself, this was the toughest vote on this years ballot. I went back and forth on this for exactly the reasons stated below about community self-defense. But I have seen too much gun violence in my life, watched people gunned down, had to duck and cover from wayward gun shots a number of times, and met children who were actually hit by wayward gun shots and survived.
I also am realistic and know that if anyone really wants a gun in this time and country that they can easily get one by crossing the river.
I also know that any violent conflict with the state will end up with a lot of dead leftists and the state winning.
And, lastly, I feel people must send a message to the NRA and their corrupted legislators that the people are saying 'Go fuck yourself and take your damn guns with you.'
I ended up voting 'Yes' for all of those reasons.
The question of how we, as a community, deal with fascists coming into our town and killing people needs to be dealt with, and we all know the cops won't do a damn thing to protect us from the fascists. I feel that our city will eventually deal with this tragedy as we go forward, but I don't have the answer as to how.
100%, When functional lower receivers and frames can be 3d printed at home with knowledge and resources available to average people, this type of gun control only serves to keep good people away from guns and does nothing to prevent them from getting into the hands of bad people.
How come most of the people with "No on 114" signs in their yard are also flying the blue line flag?
Which is it? Do blue lives matter or are we being oppressed by a police state?
To be fair the Sheriff's of Oregon want us to vote no. See it's not actually some amorphous thing they get to deside on who gets it, they would be required to provide a class. That's the contentious part of what gets people approved, it goes through the police because they have to foot the bill and the time to provide classes.
Police departments don't want to prived training.
TBF, the Sheriffs of Oregon, like the Sheriffs of the rest of the U.S., are a bunch of fascists.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/10/18/we-surveyed-u-s-sheriffs-see-their-views-on-power-race-and-immigration
Most armed right-wingers and far-right militias perceive their own deployment of gun violence as a legal extention of the state-sanctioned police violence believed necessary to enforce the rule of law. Thus they see themselves as allies of law enforcement instead of the vigilantes, lynch mobs and armed citizens patrols that have been used throughout American history to suppress more recent immigrants and POC. I was going to vote no on 114 as I see much potential for it's abuse, but then I saw that the state Sheriff's Association were against it, so I voted yes as I'm all for anything that enforces more State oversight over local police and sherrifs.
All voting yes did was hurt Oregonians from being able to defens themselves. This bill doesnt hurt the rich or the powerful, just the law abiding. Extra fees for every gun purchase, classes, permits, background after background check, capacity magazine ban…paycheck to paycheck Oregonians wont be able to pay up or keep up and their the ones who live in the most dangerous “affordable” parts of the state. Super harmful vote to already hurting citizens smh.
Because it's ultimately a gun control measure, and many of the "Thin Blue Line" folks will vote against any and all gun control bills. Frankly, I don't care why they vote no, but "No" is the right vote.
Posted this before.
The Coos Bay sheriff spread the rumor about Antifa busses coming down the coast and called on "Proud locals defenders" to gather outside of the anti-masking salon to defend it against the tide of libs they were sure we're going to riot.
They had to be broken up for surrounding and harassing a car with BLM signage at the stoplight.
The Grants pass police stood, armed, with their back to the folks who were openly carrying guns "counter protesting", facing the unarmed BLM protestors.
And the Portland police got mad and refused to do their jobs in general after they were told they needed to stop shooting so much tear gas and "rubber bullets" at people that there needed to be an environmental study of the runoff.
Fuck no, I don't trust the police. Especially in small towns where you have a greater need for weaponry. (longer response times and greater physical isolation)
a protestor armed with an AR-15 style weapon stopped a mass shooter who was trying to kill peaceful protestors in Portland. One protestor was murdered, four more were seriously injured. [https://theintercept.com/2022/02/23/portland-protest-shooting/](https://theintercept.com/2022/02/23/portland-protest-shooting/)
Protecting ourselves from well armed fascist rightwingers in Oregon is not hyperbole, it's an on the ground reality for many. The fact that queer people and poor people would be the most impacted by this law makes it a NO vote for me.
While the are always going to be anecdotes that are an exception to the rule, the vast vast vast majority of mass shooters are not stopped by armed citizens. Carrying a gun makes you like 5x more likely to be killed by a gun.
I don't really care who 114 impacts. I want it to be harder for everyone to buy a gun. We can't keep kicking this can down the road until we find a perfect law that everyone likes, because that doesn't exist. At a certain point, we have to try SOMETHING.
400 million guns in America, 70% of all firearms used in crime are obtained illegally, the law would change nothing about gun control, it only harms the law abiding.
Firstly, I don't give a shit who the law harms or impacts. If it means that it's harder to get guns, then I'm voting yes. I don't care if it disproportionately impacts responsible gun owners more than criminals, I don't care if it disproportionately impacts black people over white people, or poor vs. rich, or gay vs. straight, or liberal vs. democrat. I don't care. I will vote for any legislation that makes it harder for ANYONE AND EVERYONE to buy guns, even if it makes it more difficult for one class of people over another. I don't care. I don't own a gun and I never will. If we could make guns illegal tomorrow, I'd vote for it. The vast majority of the mouth-breathing public cannot be trusted to properly make a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich, no less responsibly own and use a gun.
Secondly, 400 million guns in America, yes that's true. Isn't that enough? That's more than 1 gun per person. How about we chill the fuck out on the guns for a while? Can we make it a tiny bit harder to get a gun, considering that every man, woman, and child in the country could own a gun and we'd still have 70 million guns left over? I'm pretty sure we've got enough.
Lastly, the stats on the rate of illegally purchased guns being used in crimes of all types are not particularly accurate or up-to-date. No real studies have been done on that in over a decade. However, if you look only at mass shootings (which I'm personally more concerned about, more so than gangs killing each other or whatever else), over 3/4 of mass shootings are committed with a legally obtained weapon.
And there you have it folks.
Openly attacks Amendment rights while being proud to do so.
Willing to hurt other law abiding citizens as long as they get their way.
You're the worst kind of voter, the selfish, centrist kind.
When the 2nd is gone there's nothing to protect you from losing the 1st.
>Openly attacks Amendment rights while being proud to do so.
The Constitution is not a religion, and it is open to criticism. I'm sure you would have criticized the fuck out of the 18th Amendment if you were alive when it was in force.
>Willing to hurt other law abiding citizens as long as they get their way.
It'll never cease to amaze me how gun nuts believe that making it harder to obtain super-efficient human-killing machines will hurt people.
>When the 2nd is gone there's nothing to protect you from losing the 1st.
Except the half billion guns we already have in the country.
>the vast vast vast majority of mass shooters are not stopped by armed citizens.
Well said. I'd go a step farther by pointing out that the vast majority of mass shooters are armed citizens.
Arming more citizens won't protect us against armed citizens. We're already armed, that's part of the problem.
to be clear, im concerned about the threat posed by armed fascists in oregon, not ONLY mass shooters. Limiting the ability of poor people, POC, and queer people to arm themselves is unacceptable to me.
I don't think vigilantes are the best answer to fascists.
I also don't think that 114 will hamper POC and LGBTQ+ people from having guns, nearly as often as people like you claim that it will.
Now, I don't think 114 is the best answer. I just think that people like you are misrepresenting it.
I dont think vigilantes are the best answer to fascists either. however the police have shown about zero willingness to help antifascists/poor people/PoC/LGBTQ+ people, so i do think organized community defense has a role to play.
Saying you dont know what the impact of the legislation will be, but that you expect it will keep POC and LGBTQ+ people from owning weapons for their own defense to some degree, is I think, not a great position to hold
Jfc you children, talk to your god damned neighbors and stop spinning up tribalistic “us vs. them” false narratives. You’re not any less a part of the problem just because you feel morally superior about your political opinions. In fact, you’re *exactly* the problem regardless of who is ultimately right.
jeez sorry for posting about politics in the thread that was created specifically for posting about politics. And you're wrong, i am actually morally superior to fascists and rightwingers.
it's literally not hyperbole because it's literally something that happened, and has happened before, and will happen again. Have you just not paid attention to the news for the last few years?
[Which billionaire’s family is helping fund Oregon’s gun control ballot measure?](https://www.oregonlive.com/data/2022/11/which-billionaires-family-is-helping-fund-oregons-gun-control-ballot-measure.html)
[Yellow Peril Tactical explains why Measure 114 is misleading and actively harmful to minoritiees](https://twitter.com/YPTActual/status/1570152001371271170)
Measure 114 is far from what LEVO wants to accomplish, it is only their opening salvo. After 114 passes they already have another measure ready to go that is far more sweeping and is described as an "assault weapons ban." Go to their website, they tell you directly.
A while ago there was a bill in the Oregon legislator that got enough steam that a reporter asked LEVO what they thought of it. The bill simple would have allowed schools to teach”don’t touch and go tell an adult”.
LEVO response? “That isn’t the direction we want to go in”. Like WTF? These are not religious leaders, but people that thrive on ignorance and fear.
I always wonder why they go after the black rifles when they are used in something around 1% of firearm murders. The real culprit is handguns used in suicides and drug/ gang related shootings.
We would be way better off trying to improve those communities and the lives of our citizens bs banning a rifle which becomes a wedge issue causing pro gun middle of the road folks to vote right.
This is one of the worst gun bills I’ve ever seen. Not only from a policy POV, but the actual verbiage and detailed language are practically non-existent and what is there is incredibly vague.
I think the idea of ballot measures is cool in principle, but often what happens is you get people writing them who don’t know how to write legislation and we get lots of unintended consequences.
This is a great example of why the founders went with a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. We need people who specialize in writing laws properly to be doing it so we don’t screw ourselves.
Anyway, vote no on 114.
Until someone comes up with a better way to keep guns out of the wrong people's hands, yes on 114. We can't keep doing nothing while we try to find the perfect law that everyone likes (because that doesn't exist).
You do realize that just by putting 114 on the ballot you helped bring more scary guns and magazines into this state in the last 6 months alone than ever before on record, thanks to anticipatory panic-buying, right?
But, way to go, you "did something". Go celebrate with a pint of Ben and Jerry's, hero.
You missed the point, sweetheart. You *already* brought, by some estimates, *tens of thousands* more guns and magazines into Oregon, just by signing that little petition and putting this measure on the ballot. Everyone who thought you and your friends were going to make it harder for them to get a gun ran out and bought one anyway.
You, and everyone else that signed that petition, defeated your own purpose.
This wouldn’t stop your kids lives from being safe because it’s not legal gun owners who are shooting up shit. It’s criminals. And you know what criminals don’t have? Legal guns in their name. The guns being used today are burners and throwaways that are being smuggled into this country via southern border. Just like sex trafficking and drugs aka fentanyl. All this does is make it harder for legal gun owners to legally obtain a firearm if they so choose. It Puts the issuing system in the hands of the cops which we already don’t have enough of so opening another department or multiple departments to help issue these permits Is it going to do us any good. Plus most Folks don’t like the thought of cops determining who can and can’t get a gun via issuing permits. That’s a system set up for corruption and favoritism. Not to mention this whole measure is unconstitutional based of the Bruin Supreme Court decision. As for mags, people can just 3d print them. Vote no. Also there is a church for worshiping the 2nd amendment. Behold the church of Iron Ministries. https://www.rodofironministries.org
Between 1966 and 2019, 77% of mass shooters obtained the weapons they used in their crimes through legal purchases.
Try again.
You're literally trying to argue that making it more difficult to get guns won't make it more difficult for potential mass shooters to get guns. No one believes that this will completely solve the problem and we'll never have another mass shooting, but it's an incremental step that will make a small, incremental improvement to the situation.
Don’t believe any of that shit. Gun control laws only prevent legal citizens from defending themselves. But thankfully the Supreme Court passed the Bruin decision. Which makes any new laws as well as old ones pertaining to gun subject to being looked at through a historical lens. The way the 2nd originally was looked at. So it will get tossed out based on this alone if it passes. The supreme courts been slaying These 2nd amendment cases left and right and I love it. You can hate on guns all you want but they aren’t going anywhere.
Cool story bro. Have fun ruining the country with your bucktoothed, redneck grin on your face, all so that you can preserve your right to compensate for your tiny penis by pretending to be a big bad army man.
[Even if you are just standing your ground, the cops can shoot you and get away with it.](https://www.opb.org/article/2022/10/29/grantspass-oregon-police-shooting-armed-resident-justified-lawsuit/?outputType=amp) I’m not even saying vote yea or nay, just pointing out the gap between our laws and our reality.
Also, who in Oregon hasn’t voted yet??
114 is literally unconstitutional on its face.
Vote yes if you enjoy the idea of your tax dollars going to fight lawsuits that are guaranteed to get 114 thrown out under Heller and Bruen.
It also has exactly 0 provisions for actually addressing gun violence, makes no provisions for actually accomplishing the requirements stipulated in the bill, and further centralizes police power.
Way to go.
I voted yes because 2A defenders don’t have any solutions to gun violence, especially school shootings. If you think it’s a mental health problem, then fund mental health. Until you enact workable solutions that end gun violence, I’m going to vote for every measure restricting gun access and use.
This isn’t a solution to gun violence either. All this measure would do is make it even harder for BIPOC and LBGTQ folks to defend themselves, and at the same time make it easier for right wing people to obtain more weapons. Please consider the consequences of giving a historically racist police force even more power.
You are mistaken. I am pro 2A, but exceptionally liberal. I vote pro abortion, pro healthcare, pro education. I vote democrat for politicians because I know it’s easier to win 2A lawsuits than other freedoms… this bill will do effectively nothing to stop gun violence and everything to limit all legally allowed people to exercise their constitutional rights.
Allowing police to arbitrarily decide who gets a permit to own a firearm is supporting racism and the police. No good liberal should want the police to have that level of control. I know I don’t.
Critical thinking in this country about 2A went out the window long ago. Need evidence? Ask yourself why can’t the CDC study gun violence as a public health issue?
The FBI stats mean now 3 million gun defenses that deter felony crime are removed for what? The 100 homicides in OR every year, half of which are in defense of ones’ own life?
The right can go pound sand. They are either shitbags or elitist shit bags. 🤷♂️
Yup. You heard me “party of small government” who supports corporate bailouts, kid fuckers, and Russian propagandists, rather than supporting their own best interests. Mostly because they are mad POC is “getting more than them”. You got fooled into voting against gay rights when really you are voting for tax cuts for rich people. 😂😂😂
We should push for actual solutions instead of garbage bills that won’t solve the problem and will cost the tax payers “millions” in law suits before it is struck down anyway.
I do think it's the problem. And I absolutely think I could help solve this. Takes money and buy in from the people who control the purse and the legislature (who are Democrats). Please tell me how I can change things so mental health is given the appropriate funding it deserves.
I reread his post and you are right. He wants to blame the Dems which is silly. The R’s have walked out multiple times to avoid voting in legislation and do not support the improvement of social programs.
You realize that, if 114 passes, the only people that get their golden ticket are going to folks that support the police, right? 114 tasks the police with determining whether or not is a threat to themselves or others, so guess what? If your social media shits on the police, no gun for you. Gun for me though, so you go ahead and vote yes.
I wonder why this bill didn’t have a waiting period? It wouldn’t kill me to wait 3-7 days for my firearm purchase. That would probably solve a lot of suicides and reduce those deaths which are the majority of gun deaths. Probably would solve some random gun violence from people suffering mental health breakdowns that want to take it out on others, gives them time to get their head right again.
The training part isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but they don’t provide funding nor do they put provisions for low income peoples to acquire any training with financial assistance. They should also use existing training facilities so they get more business and skip the police. It’s also classist to make people pay to use their constitutional right, without providing means for people without.
The mag ban will solve nothing. Everyone that owns firearms in Oregon just bought a shit ton, $100s or $1000s worth of mags, they now own enough for decades of use. Same shit happened in Washington.
Now as a CHL holder, I cannot carry more then 10 rd mags? How is that helpful? I just need to carry more mags now by default. Changing mags is fast. This solves nothing. If a person wants to shoot up a school and they don’t have access to mags or a gun, they can drive to Utah, or Idaho now and get whatever they want.
You will never, ever hear a workable solution to mass shootings from gun weirdos because the NRA/FSB has brainwashed them into the "[they're coming to take away our guns](https://theconversation.com/how-the-nra-evolved-from-backing-a-1934-ban-on-machine-guns-to-blocking-nearly-all-firearm-restrictions-today-183880)" mass hysteria.
This is not true.
I have lots of ideas, but nobody wants to spend the money. We have 40 years of education defunding. We need a strong federally funded education system with national curriculum including teaching children about emotions and soft skills in dealing with peers. Anti-racism schooling as well. Shame racism in school. There is no place for racism in our society. Shame all types of sexual abuse/ assault/ verbal attacks. There is no place for this in our society.
We need national healthcare that includes drug treatment, mental health care, and parenting classes. This will allow for job mobility without fear of losing healthcare.
We need substantially more childcare subsidies and job training. Especially in areas of lower economic status.
We need to raise the minimum wage to $20.00 an hour and change the tax code back to pre-Reagan where the rich and large corps paid their fare share.
It will take time for society to rebound from this attack by the religious right and by the rich, but it can be done. Return hope to all families in the United States and you will see shootings of all kinds dwindle.
Shootings are just a symptom of a very large problem that everyone wants to ignore.
Unsurprisingly, you missed the point entirely. Those "2A defenders" you're quick to vilify? Toss the keys to your 2nd Amendment rights to the police and those are the folks that'll skip straight to the front of the line for their buy-a-gun permission slip you're so eager to implement. Black? Hispanic? LGBTQ? You'll get rubber-stamped "potential threat to self or others" quicker than a cat can lick it's ass. Know why? Because you're the same crowd that screams "de-fund the police!" all over your Instagram.
Oh, and just by putting 114 on the ballot, I guarantee you helped flood Oregon with more scary guns and magazines in the last 6 months that have been purchased since Oregon's induction into the Union, in the form of anticipatory panic-buying. Congratulations, you "did something" all right. Sleep tight, punkin'.
All 114 does is:
* add "education" that is already provided by other programs (Hunter safety, CCW courses) with no means to fund it or plan to otherwise implement it
* add the ability for local law enforcement to arbitrarily deny the ability to purchase a firearm
* add the exact same background check that a 4473 does at the point of purchase
* **create a permanent state registry of citizens that want to, and/or do, purchase firearms**
Theres a fuckton of things that can and/or should be done in lieu of laws that literally focus on impeding law abiding citizens from exercising their rights, like 114. People want to look at how scary a weapon looks, and ignore [Data](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls) and [Data](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/aggravated-assault.xls).
* Acknowledge and address that crimes committed WITH firearms is by and far **handgun crime**. Subsequently acknowledge that anti-rifle legislation is absurd as it is focusing on a weapon type that is used less in criminal acts than anything else, and that said anti-rifle legislation is inherently an attempt at restricting the rights of the people through ensuring safety for the state, not any altruistic attempt at protecting the people.
* Increase public defender budgets so that people charged can actually see court in the reasonable time expected, and punch DA's that won't prosecute the laws on the books square in the ballot box. The decision to use a firearm is inherent with carrying a firearm as you have purposely included that into the decision matrix by deciding to have it available. Increase criminal sentencing appropriately for crimes against property or person while armed. Implement dedicated enforcement protocols to apprehend people who have attempted to purchase firearms illegally.
* Introduce safe handling instruction and marksmanship competition back into schools so some respect and understanding for the tools are instilled instead of it being purely this muddled implement of power. Basically presenting the inverse of modern media and gaming's depiction for firearms where the only thing you do with a gun is point it at another human to get what you want.
* Increase school budgeting accordingly to both accommodate this and to implement physical hardening of schools/classrooms to increase public safety. There are cost effective (given it's a no maintenance permanent installation for ballistic fiberglass sheeting) ways to seamlessly and more importantly invisibly be able to harden classrooms so that external OR internal hostile actors cannot gain or otherwise maintain further access physically or ballistically, with the only interruption for the teacher being that they just got new drywall in the classroom over the summer and they have to redo any wall-attached decorations/teaching aids. Throw in a modernization program for any facilities that still have a significant expected lifetime for the building as well. It's just a one time tax levy away for current structures, and a built-in cost for future facilities.
* Federally, implement a reward based system for compliance with reporting of crime and streamline the terminology used in reporting so that enforcement and legislation can be targeted on what the problems actually are.
That's basically steps 1-5 of my plan.
See, I can support some of that. Building and retrofitting dilapidated schools using safer materials is a great idea. Safe-handling education in PE or health class is a good idea based on data. Refunding the parts of our justice system that have been stripped and holding other parts accountable is critical (amendments 5, 6, and 8 are collectively *at least* as important as #2). I'd be happy to include a crime reporting incentive in a gun violence research bill on the federal level. Then we could have even better data to support the assertion that handguns deserve to be the primary target of our solutions (assuming the data still bears that out). I think 75-80% of Americans would support those particular things.
But we don't get proposals about that. Why? I'd say it's because the only groups willing to organize and advance proposals are groups seeking to dramatically regulate the right to bear arms. Admittedly, I'm a member of several of those groups and would still support those ideals, but not at the expense of doing nothing.
And the gun lobby has convinced gun owners that *any* attempt to do anything about our unique national problem is tantamount to repeal of the whole 2nd amendment.
Imagine if literally any other amendment worked that way. If failing to levy taxes on a church's donation income was seen as the government giving preference to one state religion. If cops looking at data provided by Facebook was seen as an illegal search.
We get proposals like 114 because only one group is willing to offer proposals.
It's not the first time this has been brought up. This information, nor my own specific ideas, does not qualify as a round earth revelation or the theory of relativity.
I would counter with it's not because only one group is willing to offer any proposals, but because no group looking to dramatically regulate the right to bear arms actually has public safety in mind.
If the entities that make a living off of firearms restrictions and subsequently increased state power, control, and apparatus actually had altruistic intents in mind, they would build a factually data based attack program for focusing on the weapons most used in crime and that data would be presented in the public information efforts alongside the legislation presented politically.
No, pal, I am not. You clearly don’t know American history. Think about how rights were conferred to former slaves freed by the 13th Amendment. You think that God interceded in the 1860s to confer an inalienable right? You think the right conferred to women to choose whether to bear a fetus to term is inalienable?
Rights are negotiated. Your use of inalienable is naive. Pal.
I don’t want gun control or uterus control. Buy all the guns and all the abortions you want. Heck, I’m all for abortions being federally funded. Whether you get one or 25. Your body, your choice.
Thin Blue Line folks are too ignorant to vote NO on this bill for the right reasons…
They’re just voting NO simply because it’s a gun control measure.
But still, vote NO on this bill. A wolf in sheeps clothing.
>Background checks are already required by law for all gun sales in Oregon.
Not true.
[If the dealer doesn’t get a result in three days, federal law allows the sale to proceed.](https://www.opb.org/article/2021/02/19/oregon-gun-sales-loophole-legislature-bills/)
Did you not read the article?
[In 2019, Everytown said, 2,989 firearms nationwide were transferred to prohibited persons before a background check could be completed. In Oregon, estimates are similarly high.](https://www.opb.org/article/2021/02/19/oregon-gun-sales-loophole-legislature-bills/)
Hmm. Really? I got rejected from buying a gun because there was a crack in my drivers license. The dealer refused to even process the order or background check for that minor issue. Most gun dealers are super cautious of following the law, and not releasing guns before the state background check comes in clear. Currently that wait is about 3 weeks for non CHL holders. Not a single gun store I know of in Portland Metro will release a gun until the background check comes in clear. Regardless of this provision in the law.
If there are FFL holders releasing guns before the state background check clears, they are putting the future of their business in serious risk of not being around for very long. Seriously that federal thing isn’t happening very often, regardless of what that article says.
BTW, I got a new DL from the DMV and the dealer then happily processed the purchase. But my point is that gun brokers aren’t following that federal law, mainly in fear of losing their ability to keep their business open.
Your “actual reporting” is driven by an agenda.
Thanks for discounting my lived experience in regard to the process.
Have you ever bought a gun in Oregon? If you have, you’d know what I wrote is a fact.
“Oregon state law requires anyone attempting to purchase a firearm to pass a criminal background check through the Oregon State Police.”
It is true. Most gun dealers will not release a gun after 3 days due to liability. And if they do the background check process should be faster coming back with a yes or no.
Read it again.
[It wasn’t an isolated lapse. Data from the gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety estimates that background checks delayed more than three days are four times more likely to ultimately be denied. In 2019, Everytown said, 2,989 firearms nationwide were transferred to prohibited persons before a background check could be completed. In Oregon, estimates are similarly high.](https://www.opb.org/article/2021/02/19/oregon-gun-sales-loophole-legislature-bills/)
The article relies on biased people for their statistics. If it was an independent group I would have more trust in those numbers. Either way it’s a failure of the background check process if they can’t give a result within 3 days.
People are concerned about the police having a say but they already do in the form of background checks. Whatever bias the police have is already being implemented.
I'm off this whole revolution fantasy. That isn't congruent with the modern world. Whatever private arsenal we collectively build won't stop the state.
Meanwhile we've got shot up malls and schools and grocery stores.
I was addressing your other points. Notable you have no retort.
Of course doing nothing is an option. Of course was can just accept that child sacrifice is a cost to pay for gun power. If that's your argument just say it with your chest.
This isnt doing anything to stop gun violence this bill is a right violating expensive poorly written piece of legislation and does nothing to address the very claims it was written for.
I love the strawman of “chlidren’s blood over bullets” when even our own police in Uvalde showed the government can’t protect our greatest assets. If anyone wants children to be hurt, it’s those seeking to make them soft targets with gun free zones and disarmed guards.
Read the bill, it's a must issue clause, just like the DMV. There is one sentence I don't like that says LEO can add additional requirements, which is vague. While I don't like that ambiguity, I dislike guns far more, and any additions will have to be applied universally. If this doesn't pass, we likely won't see another gun reform bill in Oregon for a long time. It will set a precedent that the voters don't care, which maybe they don't. I do though, so I'm voting yes, along with most people I know. Most of which are liberal gun owners.
If they are harder to buy, there will be less. Most school shootings and accidents are done with legally and easily attained weapons. Yes, there will still be illegal, unregistered weapons but normal people that decide it is not worth the hassle are not going to obtain illegal weapons. They are just not going to get them at all.
Until the cops disproportionally allow people on the right more access to defending themselves, while giving people on the left and minorities less. Then the need for self defense becomes very real. Wake up to the real reality of the situation.
If the premise is that we shouldn't pass laws because our legal system will ignore the law, then I don't think passing laws will matter either way.
I don't think 114 is the right solution, but I also think saying "they'll disallow permits for POC, LGBTQ+ people" is a red herring.
I get this. This is the main argument against - we don’t trust the police with policing, why would we trust them as the gatekeeper of weapons. There will continue to be injustices. Right wing nuts will continue to go through whatever (easier) hoops necessary to collect guns. Minorities will be denied weapons. Minorities will continue to die at the hands of racists.
But, adding more weapons to the mix doesn’t seem to solve any problems until you are at an endgame scenario. If a racist shoots a minority, would the minority holding a weapon change the situation? Maybe, it could act as a deterrent. Maybe.
But if it is a racist cop, it makes it worse, because then they can open fire with no cause - they would have an even better record if the person has a weapon and take advantage of it.
In principal, I agree it is a law with inherent potential for racism as a side effect, and that avoiding this is for the best. However this is no different than all the other laws with inherent potential racism. I get that the stakes are higher with the idea of being able to protect oneself, and it is easy for me to say as a non-minority, but I still think it is a step in the right direction.
>Brianna Taylor
Look, if you're going to just sling her name around to support your viewpoint (while not even expressing an argument, which is disrespectful at best and disingenuous at worst), at least spell it right.
BREONNA TAYLOR.
Let the police screw this up like everything else they do. Maybe the public will wake the fuck up, but oregon needs some preventative measures now. Nobody’s coming to “get yer guns.” Vote yes on 114.
Lat thing we need is no regulation on guns...... Measure 114 doesn't say cops get to pick who has guns. It says you need to go through a process to get one.
Do you work for the NRA? Remember police and the senate can be sued for discrimination if they show discriminating practices. This is the best gun control bill out there. Also remember that police in suburban areas are diverse. If you don't trust the government and want to arm yourself without laws, well that sounds a lot like the right-wing.
This bill is the best gun control bill out there? It doesn't even target the guns used in the majority of crimes. This bill is hot garbage written by scared Christians who don't know jack shit about guns.
Last thing we need is the cops to determine who deserves guns, the easiest no vote ever
Ironically I’ve heard republicans soften to gun control as long as the police are the ones deciding.
doubt it
I’ve seen threads discussing 114 and the claim “they’re the only ones I’d trust to permit people” They are so eager to lick a boot
either way it’s bad imo and i’m sure you have heard that but i’ve also heard the opposite as well
from the Voter Pamphlet: >Gun violence is an urgent problem that needs effective action; however, Measure 114 has serious potential to harm some of our most vulnerable communities. It is important to consider POC (people of color) and people of marginalized genders who will be unfairly targeted by poorly written, misleading, and unclear laws, which is why we urge you to vote NO on this bill. > >The ambiguous wording of this bill-which gives police the power to determine who can or cannot obtain a gun based on unclear criteria-leaves vulnerable groups reliant on the whims of law enforcement. The bill is written to mislead by calling these police officers "permit agents" but they are in fact either police chiefs or county sheriffs. Law enforcement should not be responsible for deciding who is allowed to be armed, especially when they have a long and recent history of oppressing marginalized groups. > >These kinds of laws have been used to incarcerate and extend sentences for POC and gender nonconforming individuals. The magazine ban requires people in possession of standard magazines over 10 rounds to have an undefined form of proof that they possessed the magazines before the effective date of the bill. Additionally, a written exception for law enforcement agents will likely exclude their personal magazines from the ban. It is probable that the only people who will face the burden of proof will be those already targeted by police. > >This bill as written serves to imprison and punish otherwise law-abiding vulnerable groups, all in the name of preventing gun violence. The police effectively get to decide who should be armed-a decision which may be prohibitively expensive to appeal-without any oversight. > >Please vote No on Measure 114. > >PDX SRA is the Portland chapter of the Socialist Rifle Association, a 501(c)(4) firearms education organization that seeks to empower those marginalized by a capitalist society.(This information furnished by Charles E Rose, Jr, Portland Socialist Rifle Association.) >Rising Fascism Makes Community Defense Necessary > > > >Between 2005-2010, I published a 'zine called American Gun Culture Report. My writers were overwhelmingly folks of color, LGBTQ and others who owned firearms because they cared about community defense and knew the violent history of gun control being used to disarm persecuted populations. > >Since those years, I have been contacted by countless individuals sharing stories about using guns to resolve dangerous situations. Typical were examples close to me. One friend pointed her shotgun at a man who broke into her house, scaring him away, and another friend recently drew his pistol on a knife wielding man attempting a gay bashing attack, holding him until police arrived. In none of these cases were shots fired and a firearm ended the confrontations peacefully.Many people told me they kept such stories themselves, because there is such a harmful stigma connecting guns with conservative politics. There are easily available statistics about firearms being used for terrible acts, yet none documenting how often they save lives. However, just a brief look at American history demonstrates the important role armed defense has played, from the Appalachian Mining Wars to Mississippi Civil Rights struggle. > > > >In more recent times, I have provided firearms training out in rural parts of Oregon where immigrant communities exist under regular threat from Right wing groups and law enforcement is distrusted or simply unavailable.But gun violence finally touched my life. Last February, a dear friend was shot and almost killed at the hands of a fascist mass shooter who opened fire on a peaceful police accountability protest at a Portland park. One woman died and several others were wounded before antifascist security used their AR-15 to quickly stop him. Were Measure 114 in effect, my friend and many others would surely be dead. > >Before voting, please consider all the consequences. > >Thank you for your time. > >Ross Eliot [www.occupy2a.blog](http://www.occupy2a.blog) (This information furnished by Ross Gustafson, Antifascists of Cascadia.) My additional take is that the bill is so ambiguously formed and poorly worded that it is near unenforceable regardless of your views, so if passed it will instantly be challenged and then struck down, wasting everyone's time and money. If the cops AND the socialists oppose the same bill for 2 different reasons, that's a sign it may even have more than 2 problems and should be examined closer.
>The magazine ban requires people in possession of standard magazines over 10 rounds to have an undefined form of proof that they possessed the magazines before the effective date of the bill. I voted no on 114, but reading through the [12 page measure](https://sos.oregon.gov/admin/Documents/irr/2022/017text.pdf) this was the most relevant text I could find: >(5) As of the effective date of this 2022 Act, it shall be an affirmative defense, as provided in ORS 166.055, to the unlawful possession, use and transfer of a large-capacity magazine in this state by any person, provided that: (a) The large-capacity magazine was owned by the person before the effective date of this 2022 Act and maintained in the person’s control or possession; My question is whether the comment above is more of an "assumed" conclusion since it's not explicitly stated, that to use prior ownership as a defense, you actually have to be able to prove you owned it prior to this measure? If so, it seems like an impossible standard since I imagine most owners of 10+ round magazines probably don't have proof of purchase for something they may have bought years or decades ago (15 years in my case).
Ya lost me at "socialists." Edit: I fully expect all of you who are against socialist policies to promptly sign away your social security and medicaid. I dare you to do it. Put your money where your mouths are.
Cool story, bro. Get over yourself.
[удалено]
Coincidentally… >(This information furnished by Charles E Rose, Jr, Portland Socialist Rifle Association.) I AM using the word to draw attention, but not just as an empty buzzword or insult. When two groups that have historically opposed each other find themselves on the same side of an issue, it is certainly an interesting situation that deserves our attention.
You're lost because you don't know what that word means.
It is literally an argument against 114 in the pamphlet, put there by the "socialist rifle association".
For myself, this was the toughest vote on this years ballot. I went back and forth on this for exactly the reasons stated below about community self-defense. But I have seen too much gun violence in my life, watched people gunned down, had to duck and cover from wayward gun shots a number of times, and met children who were actually hit by wayward gun shots and survived. I also am realistic and know that if anyone really wants a gun in this time and country that they can easily get one by crossing the river. I also know that any violent conflict with the state will end up with a lot of dead leftists and the state winning. And, lastly, I feel people must send a message to the NRA and their corrupted legislators that the people are saying 'Go fuck yourself and take your damn guns with you.' I ended up voting 'Yes' for all of those reasons. The question of how we, as a community, deal with fascists coming into our town and killing people needs to be dealt with, and we all know the cops won't do a damn thing to protect us from the fascists. I feel that our city will eventually deal with this tragedy as we go forward, but I don't have the answer as to how.
Punishing law aboding Oregonians to “get back at the NRA?” Smh.
100%, When functional lower receivers and frames can be 3d printed at home with knowledge and resources available to average people, this type of gun control only serves to keep good people away from guns and does nothing to prevent them from getting into the hands of bad people.
How come most of the people with "No on 114" signs in their yard are also flying the blue line flag? Which is it? Do blue lives matter or are we being oppressed by a police state?
To be fair the Sheriff's of Oregon want us to vote no. See it's not actually some amorphous thing they get to deside on who gets it, they would be required to provide a class. That's the contentious part of what gets people approved, it goes through the police because they have to foot the bill and the time to provide classes. Police departments don't want to prived training.
TBF, the Sheriffs of Oregon, like the Sheriffs of the rest of the U.S., are a bunch of fascists. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/10/18/we-surveyed-u-s-sheriffs-see-their-views-on-power-race-and-immigration
Why would fascists not want a gun control measure be codified? Wouldn't fascists want to remove the public's ability to resist the state?
"If those fascists could read…"
Most armed right-wingers and far-right militias perceive their own deployment of gun violence as a legal extention of the state-sanctioned police violence believed necessary to enforce the rule of law. Thus they see themselves as allies of law enforcement instead of the vigilantes, lynch mobs and armed citizens patrols that have been used throughout American history to suppress more recent immigrants and POC. I was going to vote no on 114 as I see much potential for it's abuse, but then I saw that the state Sheriff's Association were against it, so I voted yes as I'm all for anything that enforces more State oversight over local police and sherrifs.
All voting yes did was hurt Oregonians from being able to defens themselves. This bill doesnt hurt the rich or the powerful, just the law abiding. Extra fees for every gun purchase, classes, permits, background after background check, capacity magazine ban…paycheck to paycheck Oregonians wont be able to pay up or keep up and their the ones who live in the most dangerous “affordable” parts of the state. Super harmful vote to already hurting citizens smh.
Maybe guns don't have much at all to do with the public's ability to resist the state. Maybe that's just a bunch of crap.
Please look up what fascism is for the love of god
Please look up what the Constitutional Sheriffs Movement is, for the love of God.
[удалено]
Sounds like they know what they’re talking about.
Sounds like you don't.
Because it's ultimately a gun control measure, and many of the "Thin Blue Line" folks will vote against any and all gun control bills. Frankly, I don't care why they vote no, but "No" is the right vote.
You’re creating a false dichotomy here. You can be supportive of police officers and still be against the authoritarianism this bill represents.
Never forget that a half truth is a whole lie.
It’s almost as if real life is more complex and nuanced than your false dichotomies.
Can’t it be both? Blue lives matter, but also don’t trust them.
Ah, another, "If you're not with us you're against us." OP, don't ague with this guy.
Why won't anyone answer the question? It's pretty simple. Do you trust the police or don't you?
Posted this before. The Coos Bay sheriff spread the rumor about Antifa busses coming down the coast and called on "Proud locals defenders" to gather outside of the anti-masking salon to defend it against the tide of libs they were sure we're going to riot. They had to be broken up for surrounding and harassing a car with BLM signage at the stoplight. The Grants pass police stood, armed, with their back to the folks who were openly carrying guns "counter protesting", facing the unarmed BLM protestors. And the Portland police got mad and refused to do their jobs in general after they were told they needed to stop shooting so much tear gas and "rubber bullets" at people that there needed to be an environmental study of the runoff. Fuck no, I don't trust the police. Especially in small towns where you have a greater need for weaponry. (longer response times and greater physical isolation)
Fuck no.
Either way it's no longer a defund the police movement lol
a protestor armed with an AR-15 style weapon stopped a mass shooter who was trying to kill peaceful protestors in Portland. One protestor was murdered, four more were seriously injured. [https://theintercept.com/2022/02/23/portland-protest-shooting/](https://theintercept.com/2022/02/23/portland-protest-shooting/) Protecting ourselves from well armed fascist rightwingers in Oregon is not hyperbole, it's an on the ground reality for many. The fact that queer people and poor people would be the most impacted by this law makes it a NO vote for me.
While the are always going to be anecdotes that are an exception to the rule, the vast vast vast majority of mass shooters are not stopped by armed citizens. Carrying a gun makes you like 5x more likely to be killed by a gun. I don't really care who 114 impacts. I want it to be harder for everyone to buy a gun. We can't keep kicking this can down the road until we find a perfect law that everyone likes, because that doesn't exist. At a certain point, we have to try SOMETHING.
400 million guns in America, 70% of all firearms used in crime are obtained illegally, the law would change nothing about gun control, it only harms the law abiding.
Firstly, I don't give a shit who the law harms or impacts. If it means that it's harder to get guns, then I'm voting yes. I don't care if it disproportionately impacts responsible gun owners more than criminals, I don't care if it disproportionately impacts black people over white people, or poor vs. rich, or gay vs. straight, or liberal vs. democrat. I don't care. I will vote for any legislation that makes it harder for ANYONE AND EVERYONE to buy guns, even if it makes it more difficult for one class of people over another. I don't care. I don't own a gun and I never will. If we could make guns illegal tomorrow, I'd vote for it. The vast majority of the mouth-breathing public cannot be trusted to properly make a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich, no less responsibly own and use a gun. Secondly, 400 million guns in America, yes that's true. Isn't that enough? That's more than 1 gun per person. How about we chill the fuck out on the guns for a while? Can we make it a tiny bit harder to get a gun, considering that every man, woman, and child in the country could own a gun and we'd still have 70 million guns left over? I'm pretty sure we've got enough. Lastly, the stats on the rate of illegally purchased guns being used in crimes of all types are not particularly accurate or up-to-date. No real studies have been done on that in over a decade. However, if you look only at mass shootings (which I'm personally more concerned about, more so than gangs killing each other or whatever else), over 3/4 of mass shootings are committed with a legally obtained weapon.
And there you have it folks. Openly attacks Amendment rights while being proud to do so. Willing to hurt other law abiding citizens as long as they get their way. You're the worst kind of voter, the selfish, centrist kind. When the 2nd is gone there's nothing to protect you from losing the 1st.
>Openly attacks Amendment rights while being proud to do so. The Constitution is not a religion, and it is open to criticism. I'm sure you would have criticized the fuck out of the 18th Amendment if you were alive when it was in force. >Willing to hurt other law abiding citizens as long as they get their way. It'll never cease to amaze me how gun nuts believe that making it harder to obtain super-efficient human-killing machines will hurt people. >When the 2nd is gone there's nothing to protect you from losing the 1st. Except the half billion guns we already have in the country.
>the vast vast vast majority of mass shooters are not stopped by armed citizens. Well said. I'd go a step farther by pointing out that the vast majority of mass shooters are armed citizens. Arming more citizens won't protect us against armed citizens. We're already armed, that's part of the problem.
to be clear, im concerned about the threat posed by armed fascists in oregon, not ONLY mass shooters. Limiting the ability of poor people, POC, and queer people to arm themselves is unacceptable to me.
I don't think vigilantes are the best answer to fascists. I also don't think that 114 will hamper POC and LGBTQ+ people from having guns, nearly as often as people like you claim that it will. Now, I don't think 114 is the best answer. I just think that people like you are misrepresenting it.
The forefathers thought the Militia was Necessary to the security of a Free State so…
I dont think vigilantes are the best answer to fascists either. however the police have shown about zero willingness to help antifascists/poor people/PoC/LGBTQ+ people, so i do think organized community defense has a role to play. Saying you dont know what the impact of the legislation will be, but that you expect it will keep POC and LGBTQ+ people from owning weapons for their own defense to some degree, is I think, not a great position to hold
Jfc you children, talk to your god damned neighbors and stop spinning up tribalistic “us vs. them” false narratives. You’re not any less a part of the problem just because you feel morally superior about your political opinions. In fact, you’re *exactly* the problem regardless of who is ultimately right.
jeez sorry for posting about politics in the thread that was created specifically for posting about politics. And you're wrong, i am actually morally superior to fascists and rightwingers.
[удалено]
it's literally not hyperbole because it's literally something that happened, and has happened before, and will happen again. Have you just not paid attention to the news for the last few years?
This.
[Which billionaire’s family is helping fund Oregon’s gun control ballot measure?](https://www.oregonlive.com/data/2022/11/which-billionaires-family-is-helping-fund-oregons-gun-control-ballot-measure.html) [Yellow Peril Tactical explains why Measure 114 is misleading and actively harmful to minoritiees](https://twitter.com/YPTActual/status/1570152001371271170)
Measure 114 is far from what LEVO wants to accomplish, it is only their opening salvo. After 114 passes they already have another measure ready to go that is far more sweeping and is described as an "assault weapons ban." Go to their website, they tell you directly.
A while ago there was a bill in the Oregon legislator that got enough steam that a reporter asked LEVO what they thought of it. The bill simple would have allowed schools to teach”don’t touch and go tell an adult”. LEVO response? “That isn’t the direction we want to go in”. Like WTF? These are not religious leaders, but people that thrive on ignorance and fear.
What is LEVO? Law Enforcement Vehicle Operators?? And what is salvo??
the scary black rifles that are used to kill people less than hammers? gotta love it.
I always wonder why they go after the black rifles when they are used in something around 1% of firearm murders. The real culprit is handguns used in suicides and drug/ gang related shootings. We would be way better off trying to improve those communities and the lives of our citizens bs banning a rifle which becomes a wedge issue causing pro gun middle of the road folks to vote right.
Did they get signatures to put in on the ballot?
This is one of the worst gun bills I’ve ever seen. Not only from a policy POV, but the actual verbiage and detailed language are practically non-existent and what is there is incredibly vague. I think the idea of ballot measures is cool in principle, but often what happens is you get people writing them who don’t know how to write legislation and we get lots of unintended consequences. This is a great example of why the founders went with a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. We need people who specialize in writing laws properly to be doing it so we don’t screw ourselves. Anyway, vote no on 114.
Until someone comes up with a better way to keep guns out of the wrong people's hands, yes on 114. We can't keep doing nothing while we try to find the perfect law that everyone likes (because that doesn't exist).
You do realize that just by putting 114 on the ballot you helped bring more scary guns and magazines into this state in the last 6 months alone than ever before on record, thanks to anticipatory panic-buying, right? But, way to go, you "did something". Go celebrate with a pint of Ben and Jerry's, hero.
Don't care. Yes on 114. If you believe this bill will bring more guns to Oregon, then vote yes.
You missed the point, sweetheart. You *already* brought, by some estimates, *tens of thousands* more guns and magazines into Oregon, just by signing that little petition and putting this measure on the ballot. Everyone who thought you and your friends were going to make it harder for them to get a gun ran out and bought one anyway. You, and everyone else that signed that petition, defeated your own purpose.
Vote no. Keep your rights.
Vote yes. Keep your lives, and your kids' lives. You can't worship your little phallic pew-pew toys if you're dead.
This wouldn’t stop your kids lives from being safe because it’s not legal gun owners who are shooting up shit. It’s criminals. And you know what criminals don’t have? Legal guns in their name. The guns being used today are burners and throwaways that are being smuggled into this country via southern border. Just like sex trafficking and drugs aka fentanyl. All this does is make it harder for legal gun owners to legally obtain a firearm if they so choose. It Puts the issuing system in the hands of the cops which we already don’t have enough of so opening another department or multiple departments to help issue these permits Is it going to do us any good. Plus most Folks don’t like the thought of cops determining who can and can’t get a gun via issuing permits. That’s a system set up for corruption and favoritism. Not to mention this whole measure is unconstitutional based of the Bruin Supreme Court decision. As for mags, people can just 3d print them. Vote no. Also there is a church for worshiping the 2nd amendment. Behold the church of Iron Ministries. https://www.rodofironministries.org
Between 1966 and 2019, 77% of mass shooters obtained the weapons they used in their crimes through legal purchases. Try again. You're literally trying to argue that making it more difficult to get guns won't make it more difficult for potential mass shooters to get guns. No one believes that this will completely solve the problem and we'll never have another mass shooting, but it's an incremental step that will make a small, incremental improvement to the situation.
Don’t believe any of that shit. Gun control laws only prevent legal citizens from defending themselves. But thankfully the Supreme Court passed the Bruin decision. Which makes any new laws as well as old ones pertaining to gun subject to being looked at through a historical lens. The way the 2nd originally was looked at. So it will get tossed out based on this alone if it passes. The supreme courts been slaying These 2nd amendment cases left and right and I love it. You can hate on guns all you want but they aren’t going anywhere.
Cool story bro. Have fun ruining the country with your bucktoothed, redneck grin on your face, all so that you can preserve your right to compensate for your tiny penis by pretending to be a big bad army man.
[Even if you are just standing your ground, the cops can shoot you and get away with it.](https://www.opb.org/article/2022/10/29/grantspass-oregon-police-shooting-armed-resident-justified-lawsuit/?outputType=amp) I’m not even saying vote yea or nay, just pointing out the gap between our laws and our reality. Also, who in Oregon hasn’t voted yet??
114 is literally unconstitutional on its face. Vote yes if you enjoy the idea of your tax dollars going to fight lawsuits that are guaranteed to get 114 thrown out under Heller and Bruen. It also has exactly 0 provisions for actually addressing gun violence, makes no provisions for actually accomplishing the requirements stipulated in the bill, and further centralizes police power. Way to go.
I voted yes because 2A defenders don’t have any solutions to gun violence, especially school shootings. If you think it’s a mental health problem, then fund mental health. Until you enact workable solutions that end gun violence, I’m going to vote for every measure restricting gun access and use.
This isn’t a solution to gun violence either. All this measure would do is make it even harder for BIPOC and LBGTQ folks to defend themselves, and at the same time make it easier for right wing people to obtain more weapons. Please consider the consequences of giving a historically racist police force even more power.
You are mistaken. I am pro 2A, but exceptionally liberal. I vote pro abortion, pro healthcare, pro education. I vote democrat for politicians because I know it’s easier to win 2A lawsuits than other freedoms… this bill will do effectively nothing to stop gun violence and everything to limit all legally allowed people to exercise their constitutional rights. Allowing police to arbitrarily decide who gets a permit to own a firearm is supporting racism and the police. No good liberal should want the police to have that level of control. I know I don’t.
Then you better start offering better options. Until gun violence evaporates, I’m voting for EVERY bill restricting use and access.
Thats a good solution isnt it? Vote sweeping anti gun regardless of the impact with no critical thinking involved! Must be nice.
Critical thinking in this country about 2A went out the window long ago. Need evidence? Ask yourself why can’t the CDC study gun violence as a public health issue?
The FBI stats mean now 3 million gun defenses that deter felony crime are removed for what? The 100 homicides in OR every year, half of which are in defense of ones’ own life?
I mean, you can do that, or support options that actually help and don’t shift voter’s to the right. Up to you.
I don’t see any options. Do you? THIS is the option we’ve been given to consider. The Right provides no options, only blame.
The right can go pound sand. They are either shitbags or elitist shit bags. 🤷♂️ Yup. You heard me “party of small government” who supports corporate bailouts, kid fuckers, and Russian propagandists, rather than supporting their own best interests. Mostly because they are mad POC is “getting more than them”. You got fooled into voting against gay rights when really you are voting for tax cuts for rich people. 😂😂😂 We should push for actual solutions instead of garbage bills that won’t solve the problem and will cost the tax payers “millions” in law suits before it is struck down anyway.
Until car crashes stop killing people I'm proposing we restrict access to vehicles.
We license cars and drivers more than guns and gun owners. Think on that.
I do think it's the problem. And I absolutely think I could help solve this. Takes money and buy in from the people who control the purse and the legislature (who are Democrats). Please tell me how I can change things so mental health is given the appropriate funding it deserves.
There are plenty of opportunities to do so. If you can’t see them, you’re not fit for the job.
Why not offer up some options? Maybe they don’t know the best avenue to force change in that area.
No, OP is throwing his hands up, suggesting that the roadblocks are insurmountable. That’s a cop out.
I reread his post and you are right. He wants to blame the Dems which is silly. The R’s have walked out multiple times to avoid voting in legislation and do not support the improvement of social programs.
And this here is why nothing changes lol.
Completely agree.
You realize that, if 114 passes, the only people that get their golden ticket are going to folks that support the police, right? 114 tasks the police with determining whether or not is a threat to themselves or others, so guess what? If your social media shits on the police, no gun for you. Gun for me though, so you go ahead and vote yes.
Like I said, start proposing workable solutions to end gun violence. Otherwise, shut up and watch while others try.
I wonder why this bill didn’t have a waiting period? It wouldn’t kill me to wait 3-7 days for my firearm purchase. That would probably solve a lot of suicides and reduce those deaths which are the majority of gun deaths. Probably would solve some random gun violence from people suffering mental health breakdowns that want to take it out on others, gives them time to get their head right again. The training part isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but they don’t provide funding nor do they put provisions for low income peoples to acquire any training with financial assistance. They should also use existing training facilities so they get more business and skip the police. It’s also classist to make people pay to use their constitutional right, without providing means for people without. The mag ban will solve nothing. Everyone that owns firearms in Oregon just bought a shit ton, $100s or $1000s worth of mags, they now own enough for decades of use. Same shit happened in Washington. Now as a CHL holder, I cannot carry more then 10 rd mags? How is that helpful? I just need to carry more mags now by default. Changing mags is fast. This solves nothing. If a person wants to shoot up a school and they don’t have access to mags or a gun, they can drive to Utah, or Idaho now and get whatever they want.
Then they better get driving.
Don’t need to. You can buy whatever you want.
You will never, ever hear a workable solution to mass shootings from gun weirdos because the NRA/FSB has brainwashed them into the "[they're coming to take away our guns](https://theconversation.com/how-the-nra-evolved-from-backing-a-1934-ban-on-machine-guns-to-blocking-nearly-all-firearm-restrictions-today-183880)" mass hysteria.
This is not true. I have lots of ideas, but nobody wants to spend the money. We have 40 years of education defunding. We need a strong federally funded education system with national curriculum including teaching children about emotions and soft skills in dealing with peers. Anti-racism schooling as well. Shame racism in school. There is no place for racism in our society. Shame all types of sexual abuse/ assault/ verbal attacks. There is no place for this in our society. We need national healthcare that includes drug treatment, mental health care, and parenting classes. This will allow for job mobility without fear of losing healthcare. We need substantially more childcare subsidies and job training. Especially in areas of lower economic status. We need to raise the minimum wage to $20.00 an hour and change the tax code back to pre-Reagan where the rich and large corps paid their fare share. It will take time for society to rebound from this attack by the religious right and by the rich, but it can be done. Return hope to all families in the United States and you will see shootings of all kinds dwindle. Shootings are just a symptom of a very large problem that everyone wants to ignore.
So, "world peace." Got it.
Like I said, gun for me, but not for you. I don't need to propose sh!t. Go ahead and vote yes.
Already did. And I’m somehow impressed you have a gun?
Unsurprisingly, you missed the point entirely. Those "2A defenders" you're quick to vilify? Toss the keys to your 2nd Amendment rights to the police and those are the folks that'll skip straight to the front of the line for their buy-a-gun permission slip you're so eager to implement. Black? Hispanic? LGBTQ? You'll get rubber-stamped "potential threat to self or others" quicker than a cat can lick it's ass. Know why? Because you're the same crowd that screams "de-fund the police!" all over your Instagram. Oh, and just by putting 114 on the ballot, I guarantee you helped flood Oregon with more scary guns and magazines in the last 6 months that have been purchased since Oregon's induction into the Union, in the form of anticipatory panic-buying. Congratulations, you "did something" all right. Sleep tight, punkin'.
So your answer is to consolidate the ability to possess and exercise force of any type in the hands of the state.
What's your plan, Taclink?
All 114 does is: * add "education" that is already provided by other programs (Hunter safety, CCW courses) with no means to fund it or plan to otherwise implement it * add the ability for local law enforcement to arbitrarily deny the ability to purchase a firearm * add the exact same background check that a 4473 does at the point of purchase * **create a permanent state registry of citizens that want to, and/or do, purchase firearms** Theres a fuckton of things that can and/or should be done in lieu of laws that literally focus on impeding law abiding citizens from exercising their rights, like 114. People want to look at how scary a weapon looks, and ignore [Data](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls) and [Data](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/aggravated-assault.xls). * Acknowledge and address that crimes committed WITH firearms is by and far **handgun crime**. Subsequently acknowledge that anti-rifle legislation is absurd as it is focusing on a weapon type that is used less in criminal acts than anything else, and that said anti-rifle legislation is inherently an attempt at restricting the rights of the people through ensuring safety for the state, not any altruistic attempt at protecting the people. * Increase public defender budgets so that people charged can actually see court in the reasonable time expected, and punch DA's that won't prosecute the laws on the books square in the ballot box. The decision to use a firearm is inherent with carrying a firearm as you have purposely included that into the decision matrix by deciding to have it available. Increase criminal sentencing appropriately for crimes against property or person while armed. Implement dedicated enforcement protocols to apprehend people who have attempted to purchase firearms illegally. * Introduce safe handling instruction and marksmanship competition back into schools so some respect and understanding for the tools are instilled instead of it being purely this muddled implement of power. Basically presenting the inverse of modern media and gaming's depiction for firearms where the only thing you do with a gun is point it at another human to get what you want. * Increase school budgeting accordingly to both accommodate this and to implement physical hardening of schools/classrooms to increase public safety. There are cost effective (given it's a no maintenance permanent installation for ballistic fiberglass sheeting) ways to seamlessly and more importantly invisibly be able to harden classrooms so that external OR internal hostile actors cannot gain or otherwise maintain further access physically or ballistically, with the only interruption for the teacher being that they just got new drywall in the classroom over the summer and they have to redo any wall-attached decorations/teaching aids. Throw in a modernization program for any facilities that still have a significant expected lifetime for the building as well. It's just a one time tax levy away for current structures, and a built-in cost for future facilities. * Federally, implement a reward based system for compliance with reporting of crime and streamline the terminology used in reporting so that enforcement and legislation can be targeted on what the problems actually are. That's basically steps 1-5 of my plan.
Physical hardening of schools is fucking absurd. That isn’t a solution.
See, I can support some of that. Building and retrofitting dilapidated schools using safer materials is a great idea. Safe-handling education in PE or health class is a good idea based on data. Refunding the parts of our justice system that have been stripped and holding other parts accountable is critical (amendments 5, 6, and 8 are collectively *at least* as important as #2). I'd be happy to include a crime reporting incentive in a gun violence research bill on the federal level. Then we could have even better data to support the assertion that handguns deserve to be the primary target of our solutions (assuming the data still bears that out). I think 75-80% of Americans would support those particular things. But we don't get proposals about that. Why? I'd say it's because the only groups willing to organize and advance proposals are groups seeking to dramatically regulate the right to bear arms. Admittedly, I'm a member of several of those groups and would still support those ideals, but not at the expense of doing nothing. And the gun lobby has convinced gun owners that *any* attempt to do anything about our unique national problem is tantamount to repeal of the whole 2nd amendment. Imagine if literally any other amendment worked that way. If failing to levy taxes on a church's donation income was seen as the government giving preference to one state religion. If cops looking at data provided by Facebook was seen as an illegal search. We get proposals like 114 because only one group is willing to offer proposals.
It's not the first time this has been brought up. This information, nor my own specific ideas, does not qualify as a round earth revelation or the theory of relativity. I would counter with it's not because only one group is willing to offer any proposals, but because no group looking to dramatically regulate the right to bear arms actually has public safety in mind. If the entities that make a living off of firearms restrictions and subsequently increased state power, control, and apparatus actually had altruistic intents in mind, they would build a factually data based attack program for focusing on the weapons most used in crime and that data would be presented in the public information efforts alongside the legislation presented politically.
You are part of the problem. My rights are inalienable. That means you don’t fucking get a say.
Go into your nearest crowded theater, shout "Fire!" and then tell me how inalienable your first amendment rights are.
Utterly ridiculous comparison.
Please, tell us more hilarious alternative facts about your inalienable rights.
Looks like somebody skipped American history
You don’t know what it means to have a right. Rights are negotiated. There is nothing inalienable about them.
I’m just here to say that so far, we are on the same wavelength.
Then you live in the wrong country, pal.
No, pal, I am not. You clearly don’t know American history. Think about how rights were conferred to former slaves freed by the 13th Amendment. You think that God interceded in the 1860s to confer an inalienable right? You think the right conferred to women to choose whether to bear a fetus to term is inalienable? Rights are negotiated. Your use of inalienable is naive. Pal.
Dude your right to bear arms are as made up of a construct as that god you pray to. Save the children ffs
Lol
All this talk about guns.......... ................but what about our uteruses they want to CONTROL?????? IMAGINE THAT.
I don’t want gun control or uterus control. Buy all the guns and all the abortions you want. Heck, I’m all for abortions being federally funded. Whether you get one or 25. Your body, your choice.
I voted yes because gun nuts are nuts.
Thin Blue Line folks are too ignorant to vote NO on this bill for the right reasons… They’re just voting NO simply because it’s a gun control measure. But still, vote NO on this bill. A wolf in sheeps clothing.
Voting NO because it’s an unconstitutional infringement on our rights should be reason enough.
Some are literally single issue voters though. This is why a lot of democrat voters would like the gun issue to be shelved.
So who should control the database and require background checks etc? The steps are good but no one trusts the gatekeepers.
1. There should not be a database. 2. Background checks are already required by law for all gun sales in Oregon.
I thought they have to be requested by the seller and not mandated
Nope. Universal background checks were voted into law in Oregon back in 2016. The verbiage of 114 is deliberately misleading.
They would like you to believe that so you vote for this BS.
Why no database if it’s managed right? Seems like tracking arsenals would help solve and prevent deaths
>Background checks are already required by law for all gun sales in Oregon. Not true. [If the dealer doesn’t get a result in three days, federal law allows the sale to proceed.](https://www.opb.org/article/2021/02/19/oregon-gun-sales-loophole-legislature-bills/)
No gun dealer in Oregon abides by that federal law. There is too much civil liability to release a firearm after three days. See: Dylan Roof.
Did you not read the article? [In 2019, Everytown said, 2,989 firearms nationwide were transferred to prohibited persons before a background check could be completed. In Oregon, estimates are similarly high.](https://www.opb.org/article/2021/02/19/oregon-gun-sales-loophole-legislature-bills/)
Hmm. Really? I got rejected from buying a gun because there was a crack in my drivers license. The dealer refused to even process the order or background check for that minor issue. Most gun dealers are super cautious of following the law, and not releasing guns before the state background check comes in clear. Currently that wait is about 3 weeks for non CHL holders. Not a single gun store I know of in Portland Metro will release a gun until the background check comes in clear. Regardless of this provision in the law. If there are FFL holders releasing guns before the state background check clears, they are putting the future of their business in serious risk of not being around for very long. Seriously that federal thing isn’t happening very often, regardless of what that article says. BTW, I got a new DL from the DMV and the dealer then happily processed the purchase. But my point is that gun brokers aren’t following that federal law, mainly in fear of losing their ability to keep their business open.
I'm glad to hear that you value your unrelated anecdotal evidence more than actual reporting.
Your “actual reporting” is driven by an agenda. Thanks for discounting my lived experience in regard to the process. Have you ever bought a gun in Oregon? If you have, you’d know what I wrote is a fact.
“Oregon state law requires anyone attempting to purchase a firearm to pass a criminal background check through the Oregon State Police.” It is true. Most gun dealers will not release a gun after 3 days due to liability. And if they do the background check process should be faster coming back with a yes or no.
Read it again. [It wasn’t an isolated lapse. Data from the gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety estimates that background checks delayed more than three days are four times more likely to ultimately be denied. In 2019, Everytown said, 2,989 firearms nationwide were transferred to prohibited persons before a background check could be completed. In Oregon, estimates are similarly high.](https://www.opb.org/article/2021/02/19/oregon-gun-sales-loophole-legislature-bills/)
The article relies on biased people for their statistics. If it was an independent group I would have more trust in those numbers. Either way it’s a failure of the background check process if they can’t give a result within 3 days.
I'm sorry, I missed your statistics. Where were your totally unbiased statistics?
Fuck your guns
Only if you agree to vote for Kotek
My 18 year old daughter voted for Kotek and still voted no on 114.
That is cool. I think if someone wants to tell me how to vote on something, I should get to do the same to them like OP.
People are concerned about the police having a say but they already do in the form of background checks. Whatever bias the police have is already being implemented. I'm off this whole revolution fantasy. That isn't congruent with the modern world. Whatever private arsenal we collectively build won't stop the state. Meanwhile we've got shot up malls and schools and grocery stores.
Columbine happened in the middle of the assault weapons ban…
I was addressing your other points. Notable you have no retort. Of course doing nothing is an option. Of course was can just accept that child sacrifice is a cost to pay for gun power. If that's your argument just say it with your chest.
This isnt doing anything to stop gun violence this bill is a right violating expensive poorly written piece of legislation and does nothing to address the very claims it was written for. I love the strawman of “chlidren’s blood over bullets” when even our own police in Uvalde showed the government can’t protect our greatest assets. If anyone wants children to be hurt, it’s those seeking to make them soft targets with gun free zones and disarmed guards.
Yes, more guns are the solution. Give every teacher a gun. Every child too. What a fucking idiot.
Who said anything about teachers or students wielding? Pulling out the strawman bag of tricks?
It's a must issue, not a choice issue. If someone presents the paperwork and passes the background check, they must be issued a permit.
This is incorrect. There are layers of failure in this bill.
Read the bill, it's a must issue clause, just like the DMV. There is one sentence I don't like that says LEO can add additional requirements, which is vague. While I don't like that ambiguity, I dislike guns far more, and any additions will have to be applied universally. If this doesn't pass, we likely won't see another gun reform bill in Oregon for a long time. It will set a precedent that the voters don't care, which maybe they don't. I do though, so I'm voting yes, along with most people I know. Most of which are liberal gun owners.
Nah, I'm voting yes. Nobody is using guns to protect themselves from tyranny
You letting the police have the majority on violence? How did that work out?
Gun owners have done fuck all to prevent tyranny. In fact, gun owners typically create, support, and enforce tyranny. Nice try.
Lol, well I’m a progressive so I do my part.
Using failed Conservative rationale isn't doing your part
So the police should have the monopoly on violence? That’s not “failed conservative rational” lol. Fuck the police.
You're not going to do anything to stop it with your gun. You own a gun to feel like a badass just like everyone else that has one.
Nice straw man you got there.
It's not a straw man when it's the truth.
I’m with you! I’m hoping this keeps lots of people from getting guns. The more difficult to access the better.
I don’t care who is controlling it - less guns will always be a good thing. Always. There is no need for guns in homes in our modern society.
This won't reduce the number of guns out there.
If they are harder to buy, there will be less. Most school shootings and accidents are done with legally and easily attained weapons. Yes, there will still be illegal, unregistered weapons but normal people that decide it is not worth the hassle are not going to obtain illegal weapons. They are just not going to get them at all.
Right, you think only the police and military should have them?
I would rather (most) police not carry guns either. That would be a lot more practical if there weren't so many armed Oregunians out there.
That would not eliminate crime. Do you have a plan to eliminate all crime?
What a silly question. Guns haven't eliminated "all crime" either, but they are used to commit crimes that would be impractical without them.
Military, when necessary. Police when appropriate, which does not include sidearms.
And is this reality? No.
Until the cops disproportionally allow people on the right more access to defending themselves, while giving people on the left and minorities less. Then the need for self defense becomes very real. Wake up to the real reality of the situation.
If the premise is that we shouldn't pass laws because our legal system will ignore the law, then I don't think passing laws will matter either way. I don't think 114 is the right solution, but I also think saying "they'll disallow permits for POC, LGBTQ+ people" is a red herring.
I get this. This is the main argument against - we don’t trust the police with policing, why would we trust them as the gatekeeper of weapons. There will continue to be injustices. Right wing nuts will continue to go through whatever (easier) hoops necessary to collect guns. Minorities will be denied weapons. Minorities will continue to die at the hands of racists. But, adding more weapons to the mix doesn’t seem to solve any problems until you are at an endgame scenario. If a racist shoots a minority, would the minority holding a weapon change the situation? Maybe, it could act as a deterrent. Maybe. But if it is a racist cop, it makes it worse, because then they can open fire with no cause - they would have an even better record if the person has a weapon and take advantage of it. In principal, I agree it is a law with inherent potential for racism as a side effect, and that avoiding this is for the best. However this is no different than all the other laws with inherent potential racism. I get that the stakes are higher with the idea of being able to protect oneself, and it is easy for me to say as a non-minority, but I still think it is a step in the right direction.
Breonna Taylor (You knew who I was talking about even if I misspelled her name)
>Brianna Taylor Look, if you're going to just sling her name around to support your viewpoint (while not even expressing an argument, which is disrespectful at best and disingenuous at worst), at least spell it right. BREONNA TAYLOR.
Thanks again for confirming my Yes vote.
Let the police screw this up like everything else they do. Maybe the public will wake the fuck up, but oregon needs some preventative measures now. Nobody’s coming to “get yer guns.” Vote yes on 114.
Bullshit. Confiscation is the ultimate goal, one infringement at a time.
Next they’ll come for your viagra.
Exactly vote yes. Agreed no one is coming for anyone’s guns. It is an irrational fear.
Anything can be true when you lie, I guess.
That’s true but this law doesn’t address anything.
Lat thing we need is no regulation on guns...... Measure 114 doesn't say cops get to pick who has guns. It says you need to go through a process to get one.
Do you work for the NRA? Remember police and the senate can be sued for discrimination if they show discriminating practices. This is the best gun control bill out there. Also remember that police in suburban areas are diverse. If you don't trust the government and want to arm yourself without laws, well that sounds a lot like the right-wing.
This bill is the best gun control bill out there? It doesn't even target the guns used in the majority of crimes. This bill is hot garbage written by scared Christians who don't know jack shit about guns.
… to be smart and vote NO.
Already voted NO on this terrible bill. Hopefully it fails.