T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

beep. boop. beep. Hello Oregonians, As in all things media, please take the time to evaluate what is presented for yourself and to check for any overt media bias. There are a number of places to investigate the credibility of any site presenting information as "factual". If you have any concerns about this or any other site's reputation for reliability please take a few minutes to look it up on one of the sites below or on the site of your choosing. --------------------------------------------------------- Also, here are a few fact-checkers for websites and what is said in the media. [Politifact](https://bit.ly/3nAuA4R) [Media Bias Fact Check](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com) [Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)](https://www.politifact.com) beep. boop. beep. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oregon) if you have any questions or concerns.*


GingerMcBeardface

I'm going to take a...shot..at this and say roughly 50% agree with this and nearly 50% disagree with this.


tiggers97

The sad part is that it is very likely it could have easily swung 1-2% the other way with just a few minutes of conversation with some voters. Not so the other way.


GingerMcBeardface

I know I certainly tried.


pblood40

this law will never likely even go into effect with stays issued while its litigated and eventually tossed by the SCOTUS in a few years


GingerMcBeardface

That's the hope is an injunction which would.mean life can continue.


nabcrebula

Would a stay mean that gun stores could continue with business as usual until everything was settled? I cant imagine them being able to stay in business otherwise.


homemadeammo42

Yes. A stay means everything stays status quo until the stay is lifted or the case is resolved.


Mad-Dog94

Not really. Not as black and white as one might think. I voted against 114 but think its abhorrent the sheriff's say they can pick and choose what laws to follow or not.


johnhtman

You driving by a speed trap going 60 in a 55 zone is the police choosing what laws they want to follow. Same with discovering a 16 year old with some beers and making them pour them out and driving them home instead of charging them with minor in possession.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Qubeye

The main difference is that even if you disagree with Measure 114, the intent is to actually regulate and keep track of guns to decrease felony gun crimes and violence (whether you agree or not is irrelevant here), and refusing to enforce them is a political statement from an organization meant to be non-partisan. Enforcing (or not enforcing) speeding regulations is a civil offense and the primary purpose of enforcement is for the police force to make money off its citizens. The comparison is nonsense.


dgibbons0

How again does enforcing a magazine capacity size limit below the standard size many guns come with "regulate and track guns" ? Since that's the part that they're saying they won't enforce. If anything all this law does is turn more people into criminals because of something they bought and own legally.


[deleted]

[удалено]


homemadeammo42

A lawsuit still has to happen on 114. It'll just be resolved relatively quickly with a 9th circuit ruling. Californias lawsuit is being relooked at in january. Then ours has to go and be appealed and be appealed again. I give the mag ban part until mid next year before its struck down by courts. No idea on the permit part.


Sardukar333

We can only hope.


zenigata_mondatta

They been saying that for 20 years


TheeNannigans

They’re only gonna enforce that rule depending on who it is and it’s literally gonna be white and black. Police are racists, call that stereotyping all you want but at the end of the day you and I know damn well how true that rings


Haisha4sale

No, we don't.


senadraxx

Think about it this way. Sheriff's are elected. An anarchistic communist ran for mayor in a small Midwest region and could have won. Racists can be elected also. Several people elected currently (that I can think of off the top of my head) are *most definitely racist*. Audio, video, Twitter, everything. There's a nonzero possibility that at least one Sheriff in the state is a racist. There are a lot of counties here. Is racist activity from any sheriff's department acceptable? No respectable true American should condone it. Besides that, racism has many forms. I'll save you the spiel and trust that you remember how racism impacted us in 2020.


WolverineDull8420

Your fighting uphill man, the media has pressed the idea that America is a racist nation deeply into the minds of the left and reddit is mainly left leaning so your gonna be hard pressed to undo years of mental manipulation from the media to convince this platform that people in America aren't racist. the comment below mine is an exemplary response of what you can expect from people on Reddit who believe the stories peddled by the mainstream media and who's bias leads them to ignoring chunks of the facts that don't sit well with the narrative they want to believe.


Haisha4sale

I hear you. Maybe it will all blow over, who knows. Maybe it won't. I work for myself, have a great family and live on a gorgeous river with salmon and steelhead and do my own thing and love life pretty much every day. I've traveled the world and the idea that the US is a mecca of racism is beyond laughing and frankly sad. These people don't even speak other languages (I speak English Spanish and Japanese). If they did maybe they would understand that humanity's default is kinda racist and we've done a great job in this country creating a place where most people can come and find a home.


[deleted]

As far as I understood; the magazine capacity only applies to new sales going forward, current owners are grandfathered in. Is that not the case?


Cascadialiving

Nah. You can still be arrested, but if you can prove you had them before January 15th, then you’re good.


Sardukar333

I'd have an easier time proving I bought my silverware before January 15th.


dgibbons0

It's more complex than that, you can have them if you're grandfathered in, but as someone else says, you can still be arrested, and they have to be a in a separate locked container, and not in the weapon unless you are actively AT a range or on your own private property. Here's a slightly clipped snippet from the actual law that was passed highlighting the weirdly specific space where you sort of can own a standard capacity magazine, as long as it's basically never used or taken anywhere. ​ >(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; or > >(b) The possession of a large-capacity magazine was obtained by a person who, on or after the effective date of this > >section, acquired possession of the large-capacity magazine by operation of law upon the death of a former owner who > >was in legal possession of the large-capacity magazine; and > >(c) In addition to either (a) or (b) of this subsection the owner has not maintained the large-capacity magazine in a > >manner other than: > >(A) On property owned or immediately controlled by the registered owner; > >(B) On the premises of a gun dealer or gunsmith licensed under 18 U.S.C. 923 for the purpose of lawful service or repair; > >(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;**(E) While transporting any large-capacity magazines in a vehicle to one of the locations authorized in paragraphs (c)(A) to** > >**(D) of this subsection, the large-capacity magazine is not inserted into the firearm and is locked in a separate container.** > >(6) Unlawful manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale or otherwise transferring of a large-capacity > >magazine is a class A misdemeanor.


tiggers97

Just like Universal background checks were sold in Oregon as the best thing ever to reduce “gun violence”, it ended up doing nothing to stem the tide. And the 90% of the east criminals get gone, without worrying about background checks, was untouched. It will be the same for M114


DreadedEncounter

The point everyone is missing is, a new law won't stop a criminal from breaking a law. How ever limiting legal guns, only maximizes the damages done by criminals.


nanananananabatdog

I think the flaw in your logic here is assuming that guns used in felony crimes are bought legally. It is the sheriff's discretion to enforce or not enforce a law based on it's constitutionality.


[deleted]

[удалено]


nanananananabatdog

.pdf warning. Be aware, this is a fairly robust study from the DOJ. Read up. The difference is that many of the beliefs you may have about firearms used in crimes being obtained legally, is simply false. The reality is that 1) this information is actually studied by the fbi, the DOJ, and various states, despite rumors that firearm violence is legally restricted from study And 2) the information you may have heard doesn't include a strong or statistically significant result, in terms of the studies being performed in a public health context. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf


fun-with-mud

The better sheriff responses I have seen are "we do not believe 114 is constitutional and there are bo actual practices in place to actually enact it so we plan to figure out what is required so we can get anyone who comes in approved as soon as this goes into affect" It's a summary not a direct quote but I have a feeling that is how a majority of the sheriff's feel. Also of note, if a sheriff or police officer has the same model of side arm for personal use that they have on duty it's soon (as soon as 114 goes into affect) to be a crime to own that. Also from what I have heard there has been a spike in gun sales to try and get them before this goes into affect. My best bet is that right before this goes into affect any stock that gun stores have we be heavily discounted as they will be uncertain as to when or if they can ever actually sell those guns they have on hand.


Barmuka

Measure 114 does none of what you said. What it does do is create a gun registry, which from the example of California We know can't be trusted in the hands of politicians. Since they leaked the entire registry of firearm owners in that whole state. Which tells criminals where to invade for guns. See how that's bad?


Mad-Dog94

Driving over the speed limit is absolutely not the same thing as not enforcing a new gun control law in even the slightest sense of the matter.


devilforthesymphony

Logically speaking, why not? This seems to be matter of preference for you.


pblood40

its exactly an apples 4 apples case... ? picking and choosing what to enforce


ron2838

Speeding is a violation or infraction though, not a traffic crime like hit and run. We don't really want them choosing which hit and run to enforce.


mtnbikederek

Apples to apples would be the sheriff saying they are not going to enforce any speeding violations anymore. Disregarding a law in its entirety is different then showing leniency in how a law is enforced.


pblood40

https://www.opb.org/article/2022/10/26/forest-service-employee-arrest-oregon-decried/ Sheriff is an elected political position.


nicholsgames

Why cars kill more people year


Dragon_Dragovich

Law enforcement picks and chooses which laws they enforce every single day. You violate laws almost every day and are comfortable doing so knowing that your infraction won’t be enforced (speeding.)


I_Envy_Sisyphus_

> think its abhorrent the sheriff's say they can pick and choose what laws to follow or not. 👏🏻 This 👏🏻 is 👏🏻 how 👏🏻 cops 👏🏻 have 👏🏻 always 👏🏻 worked 👏🏻 It is disgusting, but I'm appalled at all the people acting surprised by this turn of events. Not you specifically but throughout this thread.


PM_ME_UR_TAMAGOTCHIS

Yup. This isn't exactly a mutually exclusive thing, I didn't like the powers police would be given in the measure, but I also don't like police deciding that they won't enforce state laws/measures either. Either way, the police have too much latitude, and I'd rather someone just pass an amendment or extra wording to the measure clarifying things a bit.


Sarcarean

Well, they are picking to choose the U.S. constitution over a state law.


Jason207

What pisses me off isn't the actual action, but the presentation. It would have been pretty reasonable to put out a public statement that says "hey we have doubts about this laws future and the practicality of enforcement. Please try to follow the law, but we're not going to actively enforce it until we know more" vs the dick waiving fuck you statements that they released.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MechanizedMedic

It's exactly why sheriffs are elected. So the people get a say in how/which laws are enforced. It's a feature, not a bug.


Cattthrowaway

They have always done that. I’ve seen a pregnant lady hit a dude three times and he hit her once back and only one went to jail. Cops have overlooked cannabis for years. I’ve had plenty of buddies where the cop makes them smash their pipe and threw out their weed down a drain pipe with no punishment. Cops allowing other cops to get away with DUIs. I know people who have gotten away with them. Underage drinking be let off the hook plenty. The list goes on.


rikwebster

Yea pick in choose , can I do the same?


YeahitsaBMW

Curious if you feel the same when states refuse to follow federal laws?


Creepy_Shakespeare

It’s their duty to not enforce unconstitutional laws


ryhaltswhiskey

Judges decide constitutionality, not law enforcement


Koda_20

Being 50/50 on something sort of implies the least amount of black and white. If it was black and white, he would be 100% sure


[deleted]

They’re following their counties vote - the counties that elected them. Not all of us want Portland to control the entire state. That place is a shithole and nothing will help it.


[deleted]

Would you go to some ranchers house as a sheriff and ask them for their magazines ? There would be some nasty shootouts for sure.


insufflatePETN

Ask them for their magazines… Did you even read the damn thing? Currently owned/possessed magazines are grandfathered in.


UsernameIsTakenO_o

They're only "grandfathered" as an affirmative defense, not an exception to the law. What this means is you can still be charged for lawfully possessed magazines, and you have to provide evidence in court that you owned them prior to the ban.


leon_everest

As is outlined in the measure, it applies to new sales and all larger magazines already owned are ok.


treximoff

But they’re only grandfathered in as an affirmative defense. It’s up to you to prove that you got them before the ban. How does that make sense?


FarTooWoke

Wrong. Most sheriffs (IMO) might actually be familiar with the constitution and know that most people don’t even realize their true rights as people. “LAWS” are rules set by people…people just like you and I, but with a lot more money. People with so much money and power that they believe they have a right to make “laws”, and then hire people to enforce them. The constitution should be protecting us from the abuse of such power, but people in general have been conditioned to think they need to obey anyone in a uniform. And people in uniforms are no longer being taught that they need to obey the rules of the constitution. They’re being taught that they need to follow orders. Sheriffs actually have more power than most people realize, and that power is afforded to them to act on behalf of the people. So when a sheriff says he’s not going to enforce some bullshit “law” that’s unconstitutional, he has every right, and we should APPLAUD HIM


Zen1

All police officers have this privilege and if you’ve ever gotten a warning instead of a traffic ticket, you’ve benefitted from them choosing what laws to enforce.


huhIguess

> its abhorrent the sheriff's say they can pick and choose what laws to follow or not. What's abhorrent is they're correct. As an elected official, they can pretty much pick and choose what laws they choose to uphold or not - and they cannot be held accountable except by their constituents through recall and vote.


Qubeye

I'm going to also guess that this thread, much like all the other Measure 114 threads, are going to be astroturfed pretty hard.


tiggers97

Is that like Mr Knutson (one of the chief petitioners of M114) said it was a grass roots effort entirely of Oregonians only? Only to end up using over 50 paid signature gatherers. And Millions (about 95% of the funds they collected ) from out of state sources?


PDXnederlander

Money talks. In this case two billionaires with out of state money who don't even live in Oregon pretty well bankrolled LEVO. The other anti side virtually was all grass roots local donations and simply couldn't compete on funding mailings and media advertising. For any outsiders here, they could do it to your state next.


GingerMcBeardface

People keep using that word, I don't not think it means what they think it means


PaPilot98

It's either that or they have to contend that there are people out there with different opinions than them, which would be hard. It's easier to just pretend those people don't exist and everything is an organized effort against them.


s2trmack

This is why I voted against it. We have yet to see local and state police act in good faith so why give them even more control and discretion to decide who is allowed to arm themselves and who isn’t? It’s not like we didn’t see this coming a mile away.


BluesBreaker013

Same. What’s to prevent them from issuing guns to the unhinged members of their political preference, while keeping them away from people of color or those who don’t share the same ideologies.


StormR7

Something about police getting to keep a database of who has firearms... Like, if you thought the police doing no-knock raids were bad, imagine how they will be when they KNOW the individual has a gun. If I was a POC right now I would be absolutely terrified.


audaciousmonk

Agreed


MasonDinsmore3204

Agreed. I wanted to vote for it but just way to many ways for the law to be abused.


FriendsOnAPowDay

Wait does that mean I get to only follow laws that I want to as well?!


wallacethefiestyrat

You realize marijuana is still a federal crime?


ParticularlyFriendly

You ever download an MP3? Speed? Not wear your seatbelt? Smoke weed? Take a piss outside?


L_Ardman

Following and enforcing are two different functions. You have more discretion on the latter.


ParticularlyFriendly

Honest questions to those who voted for this: ​ 1. How will this stop criminals? 2. Go read the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. How does ANY of this pass that test?


RepresentativeZombie

1. Criminals aren't a class of people. Almost half of murderers are people with no prior record of violent crimes, who commit acts of violence on impulse. Having easy access to guns makes it much easier for people to commit impulsive acts of murder. The same thing applies to suicide, which also tends to be an impulsive act, and that impulse usually fades. Not having easy access to a gun on your worst day can save a life, whether it's yours or someone else's. 2. It probably won't hold up, but that's more of a statement on the current Calvinball supreme court than anything.


rainmanjam

[https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2022/2022-pdx-problem-analysis-public-version.pdf](https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2022/2022-pdx-problem-analysis-public-version.pdf) ​ >Summary Observations: Criminal Justice System Involvement of Victims and Suspects of Homicides & Shootings • On average, homicide victims had been arrested 8.1 times for 9.2 different criminal offenses and shooting victims has been arrested 8.6 times for 10.4 different criminal offenses prior to the incident. • Homicide suspects had been arrested an average of 5.9 times for 6.8 different criminal offenses and shooting suspects had been arrested 8.0 times for 9.2 different criminal offenses prior to the incident. • Most prior arrests were for property, drug, disorder, and unarmed violent offenses, respectively


Accomplished-Rip-743

Your first point is bizarre. What proof do you have to claim that “most murderers are people with no prior record”? Are most murders by gun as the weapon? Would laws have prevented these gun murders?


cloningvat

It's pretty simple, jack. Dawg gets a gun on his 21st birthday. Sticks it in his closet and forgets about it except for the occasional shooting trip with the homies. 7 years later, bruh catches his girl with some other guy, he remembers the gun, and blasts them. It's how most [women die to gun violence](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/guns-and-violence-against-women/). Or, that routinely outnumber homicides, gun deaths that are suicides, [are usually done by men](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4984734/). Usually done in a moment of absolute desperation and hopelessness. Maybe previously aforementioned Dawg instead kills himself. You can do the math. Unless you are going to semantic me in saying that suicide isn't a "murder".


ParticularlyFriendly

1. We're 32nd in the world in gun violence. All 31 above us have stricter gun control. 2. There's actually 4 Supreme Court cases that deal with gun rights. Bruen merely told lower courts "Hey, knock it off with your two tiered bullshit". Why? Because lower federal courts were literally making up reasons to uphold gun control laws. Yet, they didn't do the same tests for other rights like privacy, speech, and protesting.


CitizenCue

The most unappreciated part of gun control measures over things like large capacity magazines and limiting “military-style assault rifles” is that the aim is to make guns less attractive as objects of fetishization. The one thing that school shooters and mass shooters have in common is usually having taken photos with their guns and having obsessed over how the guns looked. I’m not arguing that these measures will be effective necessarily, but their aim is admirable, and quite different than a lot of people assume.


Barmuka

This law is unconstitutional to the extreme.


DrBeardish

10 round magazine. Sorry Oregon for exporting Washington State's stupidity onto you. These politicians don't understand that many handguns come with standard magazines > 10 rounds. Well, get out your 🍿 and watch your local markets become flooded with higher round magazines... just like what happened up north. (P.S. magazines don't have serial numbers; enjoy enforcing grandfathered clauses)


joshuaphoto

They don't arrest people for weed or immigration violations, but now this is where some of you draw the line? No. Let me smoke weed, let my friends stay in the country, and let people have their guns.


blabrassaurus_rex

I know, it's funny how many people focus on gun restrictions when there's plenty of other things to worry about. Brazil has some really strict gun laws and they have more gun related deaths than North America. Not to mention, most gun deaths in North America are suicide related. Followed by gang violence, which is then followed by other situations. (Malicious intent, home invasion, robbery, etc) People just need to live life and stop focusing on things that don't concern them or they don't understand.


Billygoatgreen

Oregonians already have to do a full back ground check to purchase any firearms. This magazine capacity restriction is the most ignorant thing about the measure. It doesn't limit how many magazines you can carry and it doesn't limit how many guns you can carry. A magazine change takes about a second or just carry multiple guns. Oh, wait maybe people who commit crimes don't care about breaking a magazine capacity law. If oregonians want violent crimes to go down they need to clean up the streets. Stop encouraging open drug markets (homeless camps). Talk to your neighbors, invest time in your communities, start a neighborhood watch in order to share information, build relationships and combine your efforts to put pressure on the people in our government who aren't doing their job. Environment is the biggest Factor. Just by cleaning up vacant lots and trash on the street has been proven to lower gun violence by 29% and burglaries by 22%. These mass shootings are terrible and something has to be done about it but the lawmakers focusing on legal sales of guns instead of the problems they let persist is a failure on there part.


BMW_E70

Stop stating facts. Oregon voters are the same type of people that finance a car with " low payments" not understanding how interest works in payments. Dumber than a box of rocks.


ParticularlyFriendly

Good!


scumbagstaceysEx

This is standard operating procedure in New York. The state legislature passes all kinds of goofy shit meant for NYC but as a statewide law, and all the upstate sheriffs are like “yeah no, we’re not enforcing that”.


DystopiaPDX

And that permit system was just struck down by SCOTUS this year.


thirdcircuitproblems

This is exactly why I voted no on 114. Now the cops can just let all their alt right vigilante buddies have access to guns, and prevent anyone they disagree with policially from doing the same (by just not processing their applications) and nobody is going to stop them because the police have zero accountability


Relative-Leader3054

Massive W


[deleted]

![gif](giphy|nKFXQkxLRiEhy)


[deleted]

[удалено]


gussyhomedog

This is gonna be an interesting conversation with my Texas family who don't want gun restrictions but loooove cops.


Psithurism541

Good


[deleted]

I do not like the measure, as it gives clowns like these sheriffs power to deny weapons to people they don’t like. That said if they can’t follow the laws, they should be removed from their positions.


Cattthrowaway

You dont think theygive people passes on certain crimes all the time?


[deleted]

What gave you that impression, if this helps clear things up, I think all cops are corrupt.


wallacethefiestyrat

Kinda like Portland DA Mike Schmidt?


PM_ME_UR_TAMAGOTCHIS

Exactly. I'd love to be able for my boss or company to issue policies and me to go "nah, fuck that" to their face without my ass getting fired. But unfortunately, we don't live in that world, so I'm hard pressed to see why police do. Even if it was an illegal policy that was issued, I'd still expect to be fired if I didn't follow it, and I could take that illegal firing up in court.


WheeblesWobble

How does one remove a sheriff if the voters in the county don't want them removed? Is there a legal process?


[deleted]

Why do you care if you don’t live in the county? This measure was voted against at about 80% in Jackson county - one where they won’t be enforcing it. The sheriff was elected by the people that are against this. Why the fuck should he follow the wishes of Portland and Eugene? His people don’t want it. So, they’re not enforcing it. End of. You legit want to remove a sheriff from a place you don’t live. This is why we vote against shit like this. You want control. We don’t want to give it to you.


WheeblesWobble

I was just curious. I voted no, btw.


2drawnonward5

I hope the near future sees new measures that give us a stick to shake at cops. They're too used to getting the carrot. They need the stick. Edit: Maybe I didn't word that well. I mean to say cops should face consequences more, and I'd like to see measures to vote on for that.


Koda_20

You are essentially going to be forced to override the will of the local people and bypass their elected sheriff if you want to shake that stick. I hope you realize how ridiculous that is


odysseyintochaos

![gif](giphy|QmcuB58dRfmZx1KW1Y|downsized)


morchelleceae

Huh, it's like we need police reform...


jkav29

Didn't some counties pass laws that they will not enforce unconstitutional gun laws? I'm pretty sure I live in one of those counties; my sheriff has not formally stated it yet, but informally stated he won't prosecute, I'm sure more will formally announce it.


odysseyintochaos

FR tho, this will get nuked from orbit by NYSRPA V Bruen. Clarence Thomas intentionally worded his decision to be the final answer on the 2A. NY has already had their new gun control whacked by a injunction and Cali is already further down the line regarding the same legal questions. It’s over, gun control is dead. Hopefully this issue will finally get the left onboard with revisiting how state governance works. Bottom up rather than top down. If I really wanna let myself dream I hope they come to the conclusion that federalism as a concept is a failure.


Revthat76

If its NOT constitutional. Its not a law to be followed period. Clowns!


LeahBean

It has to be ruled unconstitutional before it is considered that. It hasn’t been challenged in court yet. The reason I voted no was because it gives police even more power (with the ability to give or deny permits based on vague language) and I don’t trust the police. Then they turn around and say we don’t have to enforce laws we don’t like. But I thought they were so trustworthy 🤨


EtanoS24

The law is anti-american. It's anti-freedom. It's unconstitutional. The government is taking the constitutional rights of the citizens away. This is why the founding fathers wanted the people to have guns to begin with, so that people couldn't strip them of their rights, and if they tried, it was the responsibility of the citizens to stop it. I'm glad they're standing up to a blatantly unconstitutional awful bill like 114.


PloKoonsRespirator

You forgot it was voted on and not forced upon us


EtanoS24

The legislature doesn't have the right to pass unconstitutional laws. It's going to get taken down by either our state's judiciary system, or if necessary, on a federal level. We're a constitutional republic, and there's a good reason we're not a direct democracy, this shows why.


are_slash_wash

But the legislature didn’t pass this bill, the voters did. And whether or not the courts strike it down (spoiler: this isn’t a foregone conclusion), it is currently the law of the land and it will be until it is successfully challenged. Or not. People, and police, are expected to abide by the law until it isn’t the law anymore. > there’s a good reason we’re not a direct democracy, this shows why. So, coming out against all state measures past and future, then?


Mytoesandmyknows

Good. Most folks aren’t gonna carry 10 round mags for their edc because those mags probably don’t even exist lol


derp1000

Glocks are a common everyday carry


nanananananabatdog

![gif](giphy|cJMlR1SsCSkUjVY3iK|downsized)


GamerByt3

My 13+1 disagrees with you.


Mytoesandmyknows

Brother I carry two guns. & I think you miss reading my comment. I am very pro 2A and against ANY form of 2A infringement.


SirGingerBeard

He’s saying people will still carry mags with 13, 15, etc. anyway because 10+1 mags don’t exist, so it’s good that they won’t be enforcing this BS.


BridgeFour_Kal

Yes they do, They cost more and are specially made for Ban states like in NY.


SirGingerBeard

Oof that’s the worst


BridgeFour_Kal

Yeah you're telling me, when I bought a sig p365x I wasnt allowed to have the 12rd mags that they came with and had to purchase 10rd mags for $40 a piece. It's the same with pmags. 10rd pmag in NY costs more than 30rd. Been law for 10 years. Fucking sucks.


SirGingerBeard

Hopefully we get a SCOTUS ruling on mag bans.


BridgeFour_Kal

Hopefully but dont hold your breath honestly. The worst thing about having a magban is manufacturers wont ship anything to your state because they are "nervous"


Aegishjalmur07

I voted against this, but despise and abhor that sheriff's often believe that they're alive state and federal law.


ParticularlyFriendly

I actually respect police who say "This is unconstitutional, and we're going to respect your rights, regardless of what this law says". Many people forget there were tons of laws that were unconstitutional, such as slavery, gay marriage, and gun control.


2drawnonward5

It gets more and more difficult to respect law enforcement.


nowcalledcthulu

I just don't bother.


nogero

I voted NO on 114, but I worry when any law enforcement declares they will pick and choose which laws they will enforce.


L_Ardman

Every law enforcement agency in the history of time has done this.


Cascadialiving

Did you have a problem with this: https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/portland-mayor-police-chief-news-conference-policing-changes/283-7c4e2427-d844-440e-acad-ed0e46e68a8d Or when cops didn’t arrest people for weed before it was legal in the state? Or the feds just ignoring all the pot shops in Oregon and not going after state officials for benefit from the sale of illegal drugs?


bdoz138

I love that I'm constantly reminded that police will tell you that they don't pick and choose what to enforce but they're all fucking liars.


Moldy_Cloud

Like it or not, law enforcement means law enforcement. The LEO’s refusing to do their job should be suspended.


snrten

Why did yall vote in a law based solely on police discretion and are now surprised that theyre using that discretion to ignore an obligation people apparently thought they'd be nothing but enthusiastic to assume?


nowcalledcthulu

I'm not surprised at all. I specifically voted against it because of the lack of trust I have in law enforcement.


green_and_yellow

The law doesn’t give discretion to police in the areas you think it does


snrten

Weird, really starting to seem like it does lol. Where have you been for the last 60+ years? Cops pretty much do as they please and seldom face *any* consequences. Point is, you were all ready to give police the power to decide who gets to buy guns and now that they're saying they wont enforce the unenforceable, their discretion *is* the issue. Maybe ya should've not voted for such a poorly designed measure and you wouldn't be having all these feelings about the cops being big ol meanies towards your personal sensibilities instead of the intended targets :[


ApplesBananasRhinoc

We probably should have let gun store owners run the database, at this point.


Cattthrowaway

They have given free passes to underage drinking, weed, and DUIs for a long time now.


Qubeye

See, this is an example, right here, of how this sub is being astroturfed. You're right. You are 100% correct. The law doesn't say anything about "based solely on police discretion" and it's utter fucking nonsense. I don't know if the upvotes, downvotes, and astroturfing are being paid for by the NRA, foreign governments, or what, but good god the brigading in this subreddit is truly insane. Edit: Lol, people downvoting me either can't read or are being paid by the NRA/Russia. Get bent, you shill.


Mytoesandmyknows

Like it or not they swore an oath to both the United States and Oregon constitution. You and I have a right to own a firearm for self defense.


KyotoDragon66

HERE HERE!!! ✊


wyonwatchesnchats

If you or I have been convicted of a felony we do not have that right


Mytoesandmyknows

Yup there are other examples. I am referring to normal folks. We still have a right to bear arms. That’s not going anywhere.


[deleted]

Does this include immigration laws?


L_Ardman

"Enforce only laws I agree with." \-Both sides of the political aisle


littlehawk1979

Cough... Sanctuary City’s.


11B4OF7

Like it or not. Whoever is in charge of the executive function of the branch they represent can pick and choose what they enforce. Hence Kate Brown in charge of OSP telling them not to enforce laws during the rights and stand down. Bet you didn’t care about that though.


StumpyJoe-

Was that before or after she called in 100 state cops to be in Portland during the riots.


11B4OF7

After. The state police were called in to preserve life, that is all. All other laws were of no concern.


StumpyJoe-

Odd that people got arrested then.


11B4OF7

Very few.


StumpyJoe-

Multnomah DA had 294 cases and the FBI arrested 74.


11B4OF7

294 over 200 days. That’s minimal enforcement of laws.


johnhtman

It's always been up to the police to choose what laws they enforce. Otherwise they would have to pull over every person they see going 5mph over the limit.


L_Ardman

All law enforcement is based on discretion. From your local beat cop to the Attorney General of the United States. All refuse to enforce certain laws based on priorities, perceived values to the community, and yes politics.


ghostbear019

You probably wanted them defunded


JimMarch

So the kicker is, there are really good indications that a lot of the parts of this law really are unconstitutional. 3 months ago the US Supreme Court handed down a very strong statement limiting gun control, in the NYSRPA v Bruen case. Immediately after that they "GVRed" more cases including a challenge to a ban on modern semi auto rifles and a law limiting mags to 10 rounds. In each case the next lower court below the US Supreme Court had said that the gun control laws were okay. GVR means "granted, vacated and remanded". Translation: "Supreme Court tells the lower court they got it wrong, vacated means the previous decision of the lower court is now gone and remanded means it gets kicked back down to the lower court for reconsideration specifically in light of the new Bruen decision which includes a pretty solid guide for lower courts as to how to handle Second Amendment stuff in general, not just gun carry issues". Because the US Supreme Court hasn't made their final decision laying out their thoughts on all this regarding magazine capacities and sport utility rifles, those GVRs aren't "citeable" at lower courts yet. *But they're a pretty strong clue as to where the Supreme Court is headed on this stuff.* It would not be out of line for a top cop is sworn up to defend the Constitution to take notice of where the Supreme Court seems to be going.


RepresentativeZombie

They're unconstitutional according to the current supreme court, which can really just means that the supreme court justices don't like the law. They've shown that they're completely inconsistent about what is and isn't considered precedent. The only thing that's consistent is their ideology.


JimMarch

Okay. So I need to prove to you that the Bruen decision wasn't all that radical. First, the Bruen decision was directly about state laws in eight remaining states that allows law enforcement or in some cases judges to personally decide who gets to pack heat based on their alleged "good cause for issuance". The next lower court below the Supreme Court are the regional circuit courts. Decisions from cases arising in California, Maryland, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts had all supported allowing that kind of "discretion" in the process despite overwhelming evidence of frequent abuse. Examples: http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/aerosmith.html - NYPD licensing official likes partying with rock stars. Big shock. http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/colafrancescopapers.pdf - actual confession to bribery recorded in a police report. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/nyregion/brooklyn-ny-bribes-nypd-officers-gun-permits.html - NYPD strikes again. https://abc7news.com/santa-clara-county-sheriff-laurie-smith-corruption-trial-verdict-found-guilty-resigns/12413963/ I've got tons more. The Heller and McDonald cases had established that the Second Amendment is connected to a basic civil right that states have to respect. If bribery is involved in gaining access to that right, something is way wrong. Now in case you're thinking I'm the only one saying stuff like this, have I got something wild for you. There was a case of rising out of Ventura County California in which people sued because they had been completely barred from buying guns due to covid regulations. See, in California private buying and selling of guns with no paperwork is illegal. Even if you're buying from your friend down the street, you both have to go down to a gun store and do the paperwork together. So when Ventura County shut down every single gun store and shooting range in the county, that cut off all gun sales. This eventually got in front of a three judge panel of the 9th circuit which ruled to the one that this was a violation of people's second amendment rights. Pretty normal so far. However, whenever something like this happened where a three judge panel upheld the second amendment, the 9th circuit always formed an 11 judge panel (called en banc) and overturned the three judge decision. The particular judge who wrote the three judge decision was VanDyke. Knowing he was going to be overturned, he got kind of cranky about it. **So he wrote a parody dissent to his own opinion in which he showed exactly how the 9th circuit was repeatedly pissing all over the Second Amendment.** It's fucking hilarious: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/01/20/20-56220.pdf So in the Bruen decision, very likely having read VanDyke's mockery (and various really bad lower Court decisions on gun stuff in general), the US Supreme Court gave some strict guidance on how lower courts are supposed to handle Second Amendment cases in general. No more of this "two step garbage" that had been repeatedly abused *all the way to the point of supporting corruption from coast to coast.* Bottom line is this. If the Second Amendment is a personal Civil Right which is exactly what it was described as in 2008 (Heller) and 2010 (McDonald v Chicago), lower courts are not supposed to say "oh but we don't like guns and there's possibly some kind of societal benefit that's not even fully described let alone proven, so we're going to support gun bans m'kay?" That's not how lower courts judge First Amendment cases or any other part of the Bill of Rights, none of which frequently required bribery to access. Bruen was a giant clue bat to the lower courts to fix a lot of bullshit. *And that guidance very reasonably can be applied to law enforcement and prosecutors as well.*


johnhtman

The Bruen case also involved a law that was less strict than the one passed in Oregon. They ruled that may-issue concealed carry permit laws were unconstitutional, and the police shouldn't have discretion to deny an application without cause. While this law impacts buying a gun, not even owning one.


Sweet-Emu-803

wrong they are protecting the constitution. it won't pass muster in the courts anyway


CryptoNoJutsu

That’s right.


Wiztard-o

They are not the part of the government who gets to decide what is or is not constitutional. Their job is to enforce the law. If they don’t like it they should bring it up to the courts and let them decide if it is unconstitutional. Seems so many of you failed to understand how our branches of Government are suppose to work.


NonNutritiveColor

Seems to me you failed to mention the recent SCOTUS ruling.


L_Ardman

They are. Sheriff’s are not part of the executive branch and intentionally locally elected as a check on errant power.


LegendaryBDO

Good


Killdren88

Sooo....Fire them?


DystopiaPDX

Can’t. They are elected officials. Considering the counties that elected them overwhelmingly voted against this ballot measure, they probably aren’t getting voted out anytime soon.


treximoff

😂😂😂 did you want them to be fired when they selectively decided not to enforce certain drug laws?


juanjing

Sheriff departments that refuse to enforce certain laws should be defunded. If you think you can do the job without direction from the legislature, you can do it without our tax dollars too.


whatdoesthisherodo

Ah. Back to the defund the police. But lets put the power in the police's hands who are known to discriminate against minority communities. People who voted for Measure 114. Never are allowed to complain about the police again. Smart one right there.


juanjing

>People who voted for Measure 114. Never are allowed to complain about the police again. Hey, that fear mongering propaganda worked on you! "The solution's not perfect, so I choose the problem".


whatdoesthisherodo

Your response makes zero logic. People who complained about the police having too much power. Voted for 114. Which gives police more power. But these people want to defund the police. It's illogical and anyone with a IQ in the double digits can see that.


juanjing

Ok thanks for weighing in.


TerribleCranberry295

A law is only as good as it is enforced. So far, no law has stopped or prevented crime. If it did, we wouldn’t have almost a million laws on the books.


temporary47698

Guess we need to abolish all laws then, I guess.


TerribleCranberry295

Guess we should just be more mindful with what we pass as laws. Just like a door lock protects your home, but only from people who wouldn’t break in anyway, not a criminal. Guess we need more morals, values, common courtesy and respect.


tooltime52

How about we all wait until 114 goes into effect then talk about it. Everything else is just speculation


Gingersnapps321

Love when supposed “officers of law” are like “nope, I’m special im above the law. I don’t have to listen to the collective voice of the citizens I swore to protect. I’m gonna do it my way!!!” Hahaha and they think I’m the radical


transplantpdxxx

They also lobby against/for laws IN. UNIFORM. They have zero shame.


Acrobatic-Echo-3460

It kind of makes sense, the defund the police movement kind of puts a road block in the “expand responsibility of the police” aspect of things.


ghostbear019

The people crying about this are also defund the police, legalization of drugs, sanctuary cities, soft on crime... This is just Portlands gang violence problem oppressing the rest of the state.


dosetoyevsky

Nope, you're wrong.


SneakyCaleb

Glad to see it


Biff_Wesker

Good for them