[nehalemguy]

In other words, "pending ..."

Being that we are participants in the controlled hunt application process every year, we should be used to pending.

-E-

 

[nehalemguy]

Harney County making a move....

Just saw that. Harney County Judge Robert Raschio just put the entire measure on hold for 10-days.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1600214931026374656

 

[nehalemguy]

Yes but….
As I understand it, even if you legally own the magazine, it can only be possessed on your private property or at a gun range or organized competition. Or in transit to and from the above while locked in a separate container from the fire arm.

Most recreational shooters do not shoot at their residence or an actual range. And the fact that a +10 mag cannot be used in your carry gun (concealed or open) really means that you can legally possess these, but your opportunity to actually use them are incredibly limited.

it will be very interesting the next time I’m in the woods plinking and an officer drives by. Sometimes the stop and chat, sometimes they just wave. Wonder if I’ll get a magazine inspection???

Not as limited as you are describing.

Language of BM 114:
"(C) While engaging in the legal use of the large-capacity magazine, at a public or private shooting range or shooting gallery or for recreational activities such as hunting, to the extent permitted under state law;"

People are reading "hunting" and drawing the conclusion of that being the only recreational activity permitted where one could use a standard capacity magazine, but that is an incorrect conclusion. "Hunting" is simply an example.

If I were engaged in the recreational activity of target shooting on public lands with my standard capacity magazine, I'm good to go based on the wording of BM 114.

-E-

 

[nehalemguy]

So, based on how you describe this, if I am enjoying a recreational activity such as taking a hike on public ground I can possess a plus 10 mag with no legal issues?

It doesn't define recreational activities. It lists an example that is considered a shooting sport activity, but does not say you are limited to only that one example. ?????

It would probably be pushing the edge of the envelope, but hey....I didn't write the language of their stupid measure. I'm just reading what it actually says.

-E-

 

[nehalemguy]

Does anyone know what a 'Shooting Gallery" is outside of a carnival?

NE Portland and the Rockwood neighborhood.

-E-

 

[nehalemguy]

The justices probably didn't buy the states claim of more deaths if this measure is not implemented immediately, they really think this measure will stop any mass shootings? Well obviously they do, but will be sorely disappointed I'm afraid, they are just out of touch with reality.

I don't think they truly believe that........stopping mass shootings that is. That is just the current excuse for putting this law in place. The real objective is advancing the ball closer to the goal line of full bans and confiscation.

-E-

 

[nehalemguy]

This is getting really political. We will never all agree on some of this stuff. Frankly, it would be weird if we DID. Suggest we stick to the issue at hand- Measure 114- rather than pick open every scab here. That’ll just get the thread locked anyway.

Thank you, Jeff. I was thinking much the same thing. I KNOW that certain thread participants have been here long enough to know better than to travel down that road. Not sure why they insist on doing so.

-E-

 

[nehalemguy]

Let me preface by saying that I’m a “Liberal” and I have 22 firearms in my safe including those that have more than ten round capable magazines.

I didn’t plan to chime in here, but statements about how clear 2A is and that the government can’t take rights away, etc are just emotions spewing out. Felons cannot legally possess firearms and I can’t seem to find an addendum to 2A that allows that infringement. Fully automatic weapons cannot be possessed by anyone without a specific permit. Again there is no such prohibition in 2A.

No one is trying to take all of your/our guns away.

what solutions do any of you have to Semtex the mass shootings of children in schools, churchgoers in their temples, shoppers, movie goers, paraders, etc? Let’s hear your solutions. Not the old “enforce the laws we have” or “provide better mental healthcare”. I want to hear some real solutions.

114 is flawed, no doubt and some of it will be repealed.

I see that some of you are okay with the purchase permit. That is an infringement! Most of what I see here are people complaining of the nag capacity.

come on, give me some real solutions that you’re willing to accept and pay for. Quit your whining and bellyaching and promote a real, viable, enforceable solution!

You go first.

-E-

 

[nehalemguy]

Yeah zero approved, he said it was state wide

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

The owner of Copeland Gunworks says things were moving along yesterday.

"Things are moving along today, since 9am (12/14) I see movement of around 650 processed today so far."

-E-

 

[nehalemguy]

Another issue with 114 I hadn't considered.

Could police be biased towards permit applicants?

This article was posted and discussed on another forum I frequent.

Someone said, "ACLU should have been all over this ballot measure."
My response was "LOL!!!!!!!!!! They were all over it! ACLU of Oregon DONATED $10,000 to LEVO."

Apparently, the ACLU only cares about some liberties, gun rights not being one of them.

LIFT EVERY VOICE OREGON top donors in 2022 • OpenSecrets

-E-

 

[nehalemguy]

Whatever man...
That was one of the selling points when the glock first hit the market--that you could load 'em up Sunday and keep shooting till Saturday.
To put forward "standard" is just as silly as "high". It's a magazine. My ruger holds 6. My 870 holds 4. My marlin 60 holds like 15 or something.
Got an ar mag for 450 that holds 5. Is that standard or low?
It's a magazine.
Dont play their games.

The correct quote is “It’s a rifle that you could load on Sunday and shoot all week long.” which references the Henry repeating rifle (not Glock) and dates to the American Civil War.

Standard capacity magazines are whatever is commonly supplied with a particular firearm. The Glock 17 was supplied with a standard 17 round magazine. Anything above or below 17 rounds is non-standard.

-E-

 

[nehalemguy]

To answer directly: I suppose it's similar to getting a permit to assemble and protest - that seems to exist reasonably in various situations in the US. It isn't an all-or-nothing proposition.

And not directed at you Buccaneer per se, but one of many here:
The zero criticism strategy that seems popular in this thread makes gun owners look unreasonable; I post on this topic as a gun owner who thinks there should be restrictions on ownership. I got called a troll a few posts back. I realize I don't represent the popular view here, but I also find some of the rationalizations for no compromise to be extreme. My quiver is small (22, 308 & 12g) & I don't begrudge people who want a garage full of gun lockers, but I do object to the policy path of zero regulation -- it demonstrates zero responsibility for the lethality it represents, and it is ultimately dangerous to society.

The Onion headline that is now a cliche really cuts painfully deep: " 'No Way to Prevent This' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens"

As gun owners we hold the keys to making progress. We can choose to lead on the topic of regulation. My worry is that if we do not, someone else will. We need to back away from the extreme edge of unreasonable gun rhetoric with the zero sum thinking. Society is changing because of this tribal lifestyle around guns. They need to stop being so precious to sense of self and return to just being a tool. Again, I realize I don't represent most here. I can only hope folks reading consider where this no-compromise strategy leads. No compromise isn't working in a number of our US policy realms -- why do we keep thinking it leads somewhere productive?

I'll keep this brief.

The glaring problem with your compromise approach is that after we do compromise, the same crowd will be back shortly thereafter with yet again more demands. We will again resist and people such as yourself will once again chide us for resisting, calling us unreasonable.

I'm all for good faith discussions, but good faith is required of both parties and that is something we rarely ever get from the anti-gun rights crowd.

-E-

 

[nehalemguy]

But to understand what you are advocating more generally, I need specifics. So, in the spirit of reasonable debate, what changes would YOU make to existing (pre-114) Oregon/Federal gun laws to address the issues you mention?

I'll add to your question.

"..........that the anti-gun crowd are willing to entertain or accept."

-E-

 

[nehalemguy]

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.

I am one foot on board with some of what you wrote, but I am going to single out your second point and give an example of what us law abiding citizens are up against.

Meet Chance Derrelle Savage of Portland, Oregon.
Guns, drugs recovered; felon arrested in SE Portland | kgw.com

Now in reading that article, one would think "Great! Illegal guns off the street and a felon in jail where he belongs!" The only problem is, as I type this..........he's not in jail. He was out a full two days before KGW posted their article.

Chance was released the very next day after arrest on his own recognizance and with zero bail. When I heard that he had been released, I didn't believe it at first. "No way! Fake news" I said.

Well, I was wrong. A repeat offender felon in possession of multiple firearms and drugs is back out on the street. He has probably re-armed at this point and is back to business as usual.
Booking (mcso.us)

Is it really any wonder that lawful gun owners get a little stubborn toward new restrictions when they see examples such as this in their communities? I am in agreement with your swift toast mandatory approach, but the very people who could make that happen, our judges, DA's and County/State leaders, are not. Plus, ironically, many of those same leaders are supporting and defending BM 114.

-E-

 

[nehalemguy]

Why are firearm purchases not being background checked by the Federal Government like most states commonly use. This way there would be no $10.00 fee and most would be able to have their firearm transferred to them in less than 3 days, most probably the same day.

The State of Oregon felt that they could do a better job than the FBI and so set themselves up as the gatekeeper for BGCs by way of the State Police performing the FICS checks. The State will claim that they perform a more thorough check than what the FBI does with NICS by utilizing more data bases than the FBI uses to pull information from.

Does that end up with a better BGC being done? Maybe, but it has never really been shown or proven that the bang for the buck result is that much better than simply letting FFL dealers utilize the free NICS system. I have always thought it would be a huge cost savings to OSP if they didn't have the burden of operating the FICS system, but then again, I don't think like a Salem bureaucrat.

-E-

 

[nehalemguy]

This guy was jailed today. Felon in possession of eight handguns.
Police: Felon found with 8 handguns during traffic stop in NE Portland (msn.com)

I am starting a betting pool as to when he gets released.

-E-

 

[nehalemguy]

Before Christmas.

Just checked again. He's out.

Felon with eight counts of Felon in Possession of a Firearm was in and out of Multnomah County jail in the same day.

-E-

 

[nehalemguy]

Any news on the hearing today?

Judge denied that State's request to eliminate the 3-day release provision.

-E-

 

[nehalemguy]

To funny. $60 and you still won’t qualify to apply for a permit.

“*PLEASE NOTE: this training does not include the in-person firearm demonstration component of Measure 114.”

I caught that part as well. So, this still isn't what you need to get the permit, just one component of it.

-E-

 

[nehalemguy]

If you own a semi-automatic rifle, Lift Every Voice of Oregon wants to collect it. If you want to talk to a group that would like to see all of them removed from the public at large, give the group a call. See what their thoughts, motivations are, as well as their mission. I scoffed at their ability to get this heinous bill on the ballot, but I was wrong.

Please save the guardrail and fear idioms. We’re talking about tangible groups of people, apparently a majority by vote, that are interested, as evidenced by the recent election, in thwarting your constitutional rights and mine. Take it lightly. Or don’t. But don’t belittle those who see it that way by claiming it’s all a boogie man melodrama or by pretending the fight isn’t real. If control over your life and rights isn’t of interest to you, then so be it.

On another note, are these groups, like LEV, out there lobbying for greater district attorney budgets? So the key for the guy with the 19th felony mentioned earlier can be lost forever after being prosecuted? No. They don’t care about the crime nor the prosecution. Focus on the problems. Further restrictions, laws and hurdles for legal firearm ownership won’t do a darn thing but infringe on constitutional rights.

Thank you Doh Boy. I started a response earlier but I'm to the point where I have thrown in the towel with those who would choose to bury their heads in the sand.

The cynicism that gun owners harbor was not pulled from thin air. It is a result of repeated efforts by anti-gun groups to enact more and more legislation. Once the ink is dry on one new piece of restrictive legislation, it's off to the races to get the next one going. This pattern is repeating here in Oregon with LEVO's announced intention to next ban the sale of semi-auto weapons, and across the river in Washington where similar legislation was just brought out.

I would love to sit down with groups such as LEVO and hammer out something THAT ACTUALLY WORKS to reduce violence, but it is a rare instance where such groups operate in good faith toward gun owners. The "we're not trying to take your guns crowd" will tell you that in one breath, but then propose legislation that does exactly that or make possession so restrictive as to make ownership meaningless.

-E-