THE ONLY Measure 114 related discussion thread

Buccaneer said:

I have been harping on having to get a permit to exercise a constitutional right IS unconstitutional and should be the focus of the legal argument against this measure.

But it seems most of you are concerned about the magazine ban. Aren't you also worried about the publicly available database of permit holders?

Click to expand...

Given that existing mags are grandfathered, and can still be used for property defense, or basically, “going shooting”, while it’s total BS, its main practical impact will be on CHP holders, who will in theory need to throttle back their carry guns. And, I suppose, on the folks LARP’ing and cosplaying with their AR’s for political intimidation purposes. In other words if you want to show up at a demonstration with your AR, now it’ll have to have 10 rounders. But for all other purposes if you already own the regular mags, you can use them for what you were already using them for.

I haven’t decided if I’m gonna neuter my carry pistol to 10 rounds. “Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6”. I might decide to just take that chance.

The permit is far beyond offensive on every level. If I even start to type it out, my blood pressure literally starts to press upwards in my head. I do not intend to get a permit to buy a firearm in the United States of America. It’s so wrong words fail me. So... yeah. I agree.

I gotta vent......

I just delivered (machined) parts to a long time customer of mine. Over the years I’ve been this guy’s sounding board for gun stuff, he has a few heirloom type guns and had all the classic misconceptions (like a big 44 mag revolver is best for personal defense because it’s so powerful). Took him shooting a few times, and as a result, he bought a Glock 19 and loves it.

So today I mention 114 and his response was “well but if it stops one kid who was mentally ill up to age 17 ...” and I realized the mutha-bleeper voted for this! And get this. I was telling him how the magazine stuff works, in relation to his G19, and he says to me, “that doesn’t apply to me because mine just have the stock (ed. note: 15 round) magazines, not high-capacity!“

Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrggggghhhhhhh

Having it stalled for a month is a good thing for those stuck in the queue. But I’m guessing most major retailers will stop ordering new guns for folks. I tried to order a Glock 29SF today at BiMart; it has a 10-round mag so it meets that requirement w/o issu. No go. And I don’t blame them. They were going through all their “stuck” gun sales while I was there to figure out who had guns on hold with mag capacities over 10. They wrre gonna start contacting them to let them know to come get their refund.


I may try to order it through SW. But if it takes a week to get there... a couple days before they call me to come in for the BG check... then I’ve only got 2.5 weeks at BEST to complete the BG check. Not sure I want that hanging over me. This is ruining my day/week/month enough as it is.

I’m sure this has been said already, but ladies and germs, this is Happy Take a Picture of Your Magazines day. Just to be safe. Yes I know it’s got a TRO for the next month, but still.

I’m going to spread them all out, take a pic with my phone, and a short video, and email it to myself.

As a reminder this is the reply I got from the Lane County sheriff. Bolding is mine:

—————

Good morning –

Many questions have arisen as to what will happen to the rights of gun owners in Oregon if this measure passes. Myself, and other Sheriffs, often rely on the analysis of our legal advisor(s) through our Oregon State Sheriffs Association. Having reviewed the BM 114 and the legal analysis received, the following opinion is my understanding of the likely next steps in the unfortunate event it passes. For the record, I believe BM 114 to be an unconstitutional restriction on the right to possess firearms.

If passed it will take effect “30 days after passing.”

Firearms dealers will have “180 days” to dispose of large capacity magazines.

Firearms dealers will not be able to sell a firearm to anyone without a permit; since the permit system does not exist, all legal firearms sales in the State of Oregon will stop until a permit system is established. Because of this, there is a strong likelihood a federal judge will “stay” the measure until a permit process is established or the constitutionality of the measure is decided in what will likely be a court challenge.

Court challenges often take years. One such challenge is underway on a California magazine ban that was sent back to the 9th Circuit Court by the US Supreme Court for reconsideration due to a recent Supreme Court decision in the NY Rifle v. Bruen case.

If a court challenge occurs and BM 114 is determined to be unconstitutional it will then likely be reviewed by the 9th Circuit Court.

Since the measure as written provides an affirmative defense to possession of the magazine if it was owned prior to the effective date of the measure, you should document that you have them in your possession before this measure takes effect. One suggestion might be that you take a dated photograph of your magazines.

The Oregon State Sheriffs Association, the Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Oregon State Police, will be convening a joint meeting to discuss these questions and concerns further should the measure be certified as having passed. I know that there will continue to be questions surrounding this measure, and I am committed to providing that information as soon as it becomes clear. One thing we all know for sure – no one has the staff to take on the burden of this unfunded mandate.

Thanks,

Clifton G. Harrold
Lane County Sheriff
125 E. 8th Ave
Eugene, OR 97401

If the normal-capacity (B, take note of that phrasing please) mag ban does stand, I think it’s main effect will be in the “performative“ realm. By that I mean the folks in Oregon and elsewhere who in their wisdom have decided that strapping on tacticool gear and an AR15 and mulling around outside the Salem statehouse- or my local grocery store parking lot- is a good idea.

Is that constitutionally protected free speech? I say yes, it is. Is it also intended to provoke and intimidate? I say again, yes, it is. In fact I think we can thank that kind of in-your-face cosplaying for the passage of 114, given the thin margin by which it passed.

Anyway... folks inclined to do that will be limited to 10-rounders when they exercise those rights.

Virtually everything else can be sold as either recreating, or being on the way to recreating/range shooting.

It’s why once this sinks in (assuming it sticks) and the anti’s realize that we are all still possessing and using these mags, the rat bastids will be coming for our grandfathered normal-capacity mags in the fullness of time.

Rank Amateur said:

I view the displaying of arms as a push back to the gradual push in society to demonize arms and those who own or use them. I recently got a reminder of the changing societal effects of who Oregonians are becoming, a local weather group had a member post pictures of a nice Muley buck with snow on his antlers and the moderators grabbed it for a background picture for the group (with permission). On the side thread for that story I tongue in cheek suggested that a wet side photo (rainy) picture of an animal was more appropriate and offered up this years bulls picture as he laid after the shot. Next time I went onto that site I had a warning about posting political or offensive things. Oregon is gradually slipping away folks. I am a current city councilor here in Venonia, I have no bones about telling newcomers there was a reason they moved to our town, quit trying to change it, it is offensive! If we do not push back they will change our state and cities over time and frankly I have not seen anything that is to the better.

Click to expand...

I don’t disagree. But to my point, it ain’t about how YOU view it. I can say with some authority that what I described, plus all the revolutionary rhetoric and for that matter, actions, really freaked out a lot of folks. Put yet another way, it used up a whole lot of goodwill and “benefit of the doubt” that a lot of non-gun folks, or even “Elmers“ with a deer rifle and duck shotgun, otherwise might’ve felt towards the issue.

It’s extremely unfortunate that the US evolved (devolved?) into a 2-party system, where one party is essentially unarmed. It has made being armed a political issue in and of itself, when it really shouldn’t be. The 2nd is to protect the rights of EVERYONE against the imposition of tyranny. That includes, for example, the rights of the left against a violent and tyrannical imposition by the right. Unfortunately the left doesn’t see it that way. They feel very threatened by the irate and heavily armed right and see .gov as their redress against that, rather than being armed themselves. And it’s not for nothing that they feel that; they have been literally and overtly threatened. We are adult enough to acknowledge that, no?

Bringing it full circle, using guns as symbols of political violence like I described above only furthers that “solve it with .gov intervention” mindset, and the calcification of those views and fears into our body politic.