IFish Fishing Forum banner

THE ONLY Measure 114 related discussion thread

89832 Views 800 Replies 149 Participants Last post by  joeer77
This is where all related topics regarding Measure 114 will take place. If you start a thread elsewhere it will not be moved here, it will be removed. We are having to babysit and deal with too many threads on this subject, so to have it all in one place it will be more manageable. Please adhere to the AUP. We know the topic is political, but it's important to our recreational choices as hunters and fishermen. This means keep it civil and on topic.
  • Like
Reactions: 4
1 - 18 of 801 Posts
I say shortly after 10:00 am today the judge makes her decision.
  • Haha
Reactions: 1
Can someone confirm for me whether 10 round magazines are legal? Is it 10 rounds and more or over 10 rounds?
Over 10
Can someone provide some clarity on the mag capacity. If you own mags greater than 10 rounds prior to the 8th can you continue to keep them and use them at their full capacity (grandfathered in)? How do you prove this? Or can you keep them but only load 10 rounds??
Your mags that hold MORE than 10 are perfectly legal at home and on your property
The whole take pics of our mags thing is the biggest sham of the century. 🙄 🤷‍♂️
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 5
If the people on the East Side would vote the West Side wouldn't control them. 51% voted! Get what they get.
Even though it shouldnt have even been on the ballot its sad but true. And it passed by 25k votes is all.
It's unfortunate this thread is hidden here in the Hunting forum.

The reality is the majority of firearms owners are NOT hunters.

But thanks to the mods for keeping this open, appreciate not just shutting any discussion down.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
Agreed... I suggested the same thing and even asked if it could be moved to the general forum. But nope... 🤷‍♂️
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Not looking forward to even attempting to answer your question. You ask a question that literally millions of brilliant minds have struggled with for a long time. I can assure you it is extraordinarily unlikely that I would have the key to the solution that balances 2nd Amendment concerns as well as societal concerns about right to life, peace, and happiness. Guns have taken those promises from far too many, but we don't seem to be getting any closer to real solutions than we ever have. We have casual acceptance of daily mayhem which is where I believe we drop the ball. Callousness is not admirable, but we also don't really know what to do, hence the people trying the hardest miss the mark with their solutions. Stacking every justification behind the 2nd is also too simplistic. In plain and simple English all I have ever advocated for is a comprehensive, collaborative approach that could potentially identify and contribute to meaningful, effective solutions, meaning all hands on deck engaged, reasonable, big picture folks. Not inflammatory rhetoric. No ancient movie star caricatures gripping and drooling over a weapon. No self-dealing gun organizations stealing money from supporters and funneling foreign hostile nation funds into our political system under the guise of a form of patriotism no real patriot would ever entertain. IMHO that horse has been rode into the ground as far as the majority of the public is concerned. No. And double No. We need people engaged that favor shouldering responsibility and willing to contribute something to society rather than 'not over my dead body' refusals directly in the face of an obvious problem causing harm to millions. We don't have to lose our rights to do this.

In answer to your question I do have a couple of places I would start.

1. Swift, sure, mandatory prison sentences for all crimes committed with a gun. You commit a crime with a gun and get caught, prison is your future. Judges can have discretion beyond an established minimum but the discretion begins there not at the sentencing onset. If one insists on being a repeat offender they lose a truly sizeable portion of their life to prison and have to exhibit rehabilitation for release. If anyone is injured or killed during the commission of a crime with a gun there simply isn't mercy at all. To those people believing we already have those laws, we don't. The ones we do have are ineffectively enforced. Change this.

2. Convicted felon in possession of a gun. You are toast. Swift, sure, mandatory, no if ands or buts. It must mean something. No slaps on the wrist like there is now for repeat offenders. They didn't get the message. Talk is over. The sentence is sure and lengthy and there is no talk of second chances. Change this.

3. Mental imbalance, batcrap crazy, not suitable for the lethality capability of a firearm: Everyone person I know believes mentally unstable and others exhibiting violent behaviors shouldn't have easy access to guns. In almost every instance there were warning signs observed and dismissed or there was an ineffective system to address the obvious problem before it bloomed. This is the toughest problem. Society would have to be willing to grant the resources it would take to comprehensively identify who these folks are preemptively and fairly. The fair part is the hard part.....How to apply the parameters equitably and protect personal liberties while doing so is the sticky wicket. I just know it would take a lot of resources, but it would have to be done comprehensively instead of by stupid questionaires or cursory psychological assessments. Domestic violence offenders would get a double take for sure. Spend the money for the system the best minds come up with. I think responsible gun owners need to lend a hand here. As Jeff O stated it's about the lethality. I'm not that convinced that the 2nd was intended to exactly fit the cultural free-for-all about firearms we have going on now. The premise is solid, but the reality may be a bit out of focus. The lethality of our current armament is a quantum leap from the inception of the 2nd and may deserve adjustment. That's not for me to decide, but I believe we will get regulated. I believe we will retain our 2nd rights. I believe we can do it sensibly, but we have to help. We've seen what they come up with. Change this.

4. Put a collective strong voice out against performative brandishing and intimidation. It is damaging, unnecessary, and counter productive for responsible gun owners. Bring some perspective to the current hyper attention and hysteria regarding gun ownership. Invest in some personal responsibility and perspective. I don't know anyone arming up to fight a foreign enemy. Think about what that really means...............think about what it truly means to be an American and believe in what this country was founded upon vs. clutching divisiveness and a weapon. Our memories can't be that short. Let's go hunting.
"Guns have taken those promises from far too many, but we don't seem to be getting any closer to real solutions than we ever have."

This is where I differ in your opinion. Guns did not rob anyone of anything no more than vehicles have robbed anyone when they are involved in a fatality. Its this take on guns that needs to STOP. Other than #3 we share the same outlook for the most part.
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Do either of you work in Education or have TSA Pre-check? Or in another line of work where you have regular background checks? It isn't just CHL that gets you through quick, as flawed as our system is, there are a few things that make it go a little bit quicker.
Not true.. I would get teachers, nurses LEO all the time that would go in line when buying.

*A decision will be made no later than 1/3/23 by 5:00pm.

The primary issue Judge Raschio was focused on was severability. In other words, if Sections 6-8 in whole or in part can be severed from the PtP requirement. The issue of whether or not people are currently being delayed is not what he is able to focus on. Can these sections or any part of them be viewed as seperate?

Second to that is IF they can be severed, are the provisions in Sections 6-8 constitutional? Whether or not people are currently being delayed is a seperate issue and would require seperate litigation. Are the sections or parts of the sections, as written, constitutional?

* Sections 6-8 are not constitutional because they do not set a time limit in which backgrounds must be complete and offer no remedy for an individual if not completed within a certain timeframe. Additionally, that is why we have safeguards in place in Oregon law and under the federal Brady Act, to prevent indefinite waits.

* That in order to sever all or parts of Sections 6-8 from the PtP requirement, the court would have to rewrite portions of M114 in.

* That the court cannot sever any portions of the measure UNTIL other portions are found to be unconstitutional which would take place during a full trial, not TRO or Preliminary Injunction hearings.

* They quoted, "A right delayed is a right denied"

* M114 allows portions to be severed if another portion is found to be unconstitutional so the court can sever Sections 6-8 in part or in whole now.

* That the court can remove words from or parts of Sections 6-8 in order to sever it.

* That the intent of the voters was to require background checks be completed before the transfer of a firearms is complete.

* That Oregon law currently requires under ORS 166.412(3)(a) that the department doing background checks must IMMEDIATELY let a firearms dealer know if a person is disqualified from purchasing a firearm.

* That plantiffs only addressed the magazine ban and the Permit to Purchase in their lawsuit and therefore have no grounds to challenge the background check requirement.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 3
I refuse to play their silly games... 🙄
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Any current info on how many are in the que for a background check?
Today the main line is just shy of 26k
Chl line is around 11k
Delayed. 9800 of ~23k in the queue. Showed a review estimate of 4/18 (insert annoyed face emoji).
Always been the instant approval guy. Including November 11, 17, and 23rd and all prior frenzies the last several years. My turn to feel how the other half lives.
For one, #9800 isn't delayed. "Delayed" within FICS is when they do get to you and you change from a number to "Delayed" status. Your number also tells me you likely used a CHL as a form of ID. Two things possible with your going in the "CHL line" (9800 vs 23k). Everything was keyed in to the FICS system correctly and its just your turn to have to wait. Or, your info was not input correctly and that's why you are line when normally not so. It happens and only takes one little data entry stroke of the keyboard ie, a letter or number not accurate that will cause this to happen. Were all human and mistakes happen. Hopefully this sheds some light on how it works but you not going right through isn't an official "Delayed" within the FICS system like some will get.
It actually said ‘Delayed’ in the first box. Along with the numbers I listed. Used my ODL for ID, like I always have (though I am a CHL holder). There’s a chance something was entered wrong but I doubt it. The FFL is my dad and I looked it over before he hit submit. Thinking it was just my turn. Or the fuzz thought I already had enough and just wanted to slow me down a bit.
View attachment 1002251
The "delay" you saw is very brief message they do now on ones going in line but if its a true delay, it would say so where your place in line is instead of a number once they have looked at you. There's four possible statuses they will use after bg check is complete. Approved, Denied, Delayed & Canceled. I process these things almost every day of the week. Its not delayed. This is what a delay looks like

Font Rectangle Parallel Pattern Circle
See less See more
Regardless of what it says or what you call it, the fact that there are still 23K+ people waiting for approvals is a testament to how inefficient the FICS system is. Oregon should have never allowed OSP to be set up as the middleman in the BGC process.

I'm not disputing the system being a mess, but regardless, there's a fair amount of misinformation and lack of understanding the process and its terminology. I only try to maybe help folks accurately understand how it works.
Checked status on my shotgun yesterday. I went from 10,003 to 8,675 in the queue in 7 days. :(

Also I asked if my CHL info was inputted correctly and if that affects where you are at in the queue. He said it was inputted correctly. If it was not correct they would get a pop up message right away stating there is a error with my name or social or whatever.
You have been misinformed. There a couple of things that can be true with what he told you about incorrect info being input and FICS flagging it. Example male vs female, sometimes an address etc but... there's a whole lot more that can be inaccurate and it will accept it and you and whoever input your info wont know as it only shows very minimal info for one to be able double check once submitted. Its a shame there is so much misinformation out there for lots of reasons.
Thank you for doing your part to reduce gun violence, I'm sure the longer waits are changing the criminals minds.
There's no such thing as "gun violence". Its plain violence. Is it "knife violence"? No! Quit throwing that label around. If anything its mental violence..
  • Like
Reactions: 4
1 - 18 of 801 Posts