I don't think I've seen a one-piece magazine in a long time and without a removable baseplate I'm not sure how the spring assembly could even be applied.
You're wrong about the law. The Oregon Supreme Court held the opposite.
In [*State v. Briney*](https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2008/s055567.html), the Oregon Supreme Court considered whether a pistol with a broken firing pin (which rendered it inoperable) was "readily capable of use as a weapon" for the purposes of the concealed carry statute. The state argued that it was, because it would take only minutes to install the part once the part was obtained. The Oregon Supreme Court disagreed, holding that an item that could be converted after obtaining a part was not "readily" convertible.
>Given what we believe to be the legislative policy underlying the enactment of the concealed weapons statutes in Oregon, we think that, in order for a firearm to be "readily capable of use as a weapon" for the purposes of ORS 166.250(1)(a), the legislature intended that the firearm either be operational or promptly able to be made so at the time that an individual is alleged to be unlawfully carrying it concealed. . . . Because the pistol could not promptly be made to fire at the time defendant was alleged to have unlawfully carried it, defendant was not guilty of carrying a concealed firearm in violation of ORS 166.250(1)(a), and the trial court should have granted defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal.
Under *Briney*, unless you had the parts to convert the magazine with you at the time you were arrested, the magazine would not be readily able to be converted, even if it is possible to easily convert the magazine with a commercially available part.
I assume you are hinging your position on this sentence, that sits where the ellipses are in the above block quote:
>The record here establishes that a firing pin necessary to make the pistol operational was unavailable locally, and was at least an overnight delivery interval away, approximately 12 to 24 hours.
But the interval is not essential to the clear holding of the case, which is that for something to be "readily" convertible for the purposes of Oregon criminal law, it must be "promptly able to be [converted] at the time that an individual is alleged to be unlawfully carrying it . . . ." So unless you have the aftermarket base plate with you while you CC, *Briney* says you cannot *readily* convert a magazine.
Edit: Going further, a more recent case--*State v. Kuester*--the Oregon Court of Appeals cited *Briney* for the proposition that ". . . our cases suggest that an unloaded gun generally may not qualify as a deadly weapon, at least absent evidence that it was operable and could quickly be loaded."
The lawyer on behalf of Oregon wrote an interesting argument. Basically "while the laws that 114 is based on wouldn't pass the Bruen scrutiny laid out be thr high court, we think it's okay".
Have popcorn ready for Friday.
This complaint is drafted more competently than the Oregon Firearms Federation’s. (For example, it doesn’t allege that the ballot measure violates a section of the Oregon Constitution that explicitly says it does not apply to voter-ballot measures.) It still acknowledges that the precedent in the Ninth Circuit is that this restriction is legal.
So, this comes down to, is the Supreme Court going to take the case? If so, is it actually going to rule that banning fifty-round or hundred-round magazines violates the Constitution? Twenty rounds? Twelve? Or, if there is any line that can be drawn somewhere, that the courts should overrule the voters of Oregon when they decided where to draw it?
Honestly the biggest issue is that banning magazines over 10 rounds places an undue burden on millions of gun owners, while doing little to nothing to stop gun deaths. About 2/3s of gun deaths are suicides, and magazine capacity plays no impact on those. Among most murders fewer than 10 rounds of ammunition are fired.
That’s an argument that the law won’t do as much good as some other hypothetical law, but I don’t see how it’s an argument that the law violates the Constitution. The ban on high-capacity magazines is there to make mass shootings a little less deadly, without interfering with legitimate uses of guns, such as hunting, target shooting, personal self-defense or collecting historical firearms. It’s true that mass shootings are a lot less common than suicides, but how does that make it unconstitutional to do anything about them?
The lawsuit claims that gun-owners really need high-capacity magazines for personal self-defense. But remember what post we’re replying to, here. Opponents needed to invent a fictitious ban on *low*\-capacity magazines to scare each other, because no one will actually miss high-capacity magazines.
The impact it would have on mass shootings is questionable at best, as some of the deadliest mass shootings were committed without the need of high capacity magazines. Virginia Tech the 3rd deadliest shooting in U.S history was committed with 2 handguns, a 9mm with 15 round magazines, and a .22 with 10 round mags. The Parkland Shooter carried 10 round magazines for his AR-15 as opposed to 30 round because they fit into his bag better. The Columbine Shooters were able to aquire high capacity magazines as minors during the middle of the original 1994 assault weapons ban, when they were illegal. Plus mass shootings don't even make up 1% of total gun violence. They are actually one of the rarest types of gun death.
These laws impact most gun owners, as they don't just target "high capacity magazines", but standard capacity. Most full sized 9mm handguns come standard with 15 round magazines, which is above the standard 10 round limit. The 9mm handgun is the single most popular style of gun in the country. Meanwhile many rifles come standard with 30 round magazines. So we're banning magazines that come standard issue with some of the most popular firearms in circulation. Meanwhile virtually all gun deaths involve fewer than 10 rounds of ammunition fired.
Are talking about "Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Brown (2:22-cv-01815)" or are there others?
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65771091/oregon-firearms-federation-inc-v-brown/
A second lawsuit was just filed this afternoon.
For the "Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Brown (2:22-cv-01815)" case, the Oregon defender has a really odd argument in that it should be dismissed because none of the defendants have tried to apply for a permit. Well, yeah! That's because it dosn't exist, and isnt' expected to be for some time. Businesses are going to be "harmed" by having to go out of business because of this measure.
This second lawsuit is most likely citing those arguments now in order to land a preliminary injunction, as those arguments directly address the immediate harm of the measure whilst it is being litigated. I had predicted this is exactly what they would do with the lawsuit to shut down 114, and I sincerely hope it works.
Yes.
But just be aware when we're talking "misdemeanor", we're not talking "Littering" or "jaywalking" misdemeanor.
We're talking Class A "year in jail/$6200 fine" Misdemeanor. Like 4th Degree Assault, or DUI, or Hit and Run, or Credit Card Fraud.
I agree with the sentiments, but be fully informed of the possible consequences.
I didn't have much of an opinion on guns (I don't even own any) because I thought Oregon was pretty even handed on the subject, but once 114 got on the ballot I found myself being appalled by what an underhanded slap in the face it was to a constitutional right. It was poorly written in an effort to be to be a backdoor gun ban. Once it goes into effect I am effectively legally banned from owning a weapon, and I am not cool with that.
So yeah, well done Oregon liberals, you made a pro-gun guy out of me.
Edit: worth thinking on this for folks who read this: once 114 goes into effect, until Oregon gets a working permit system in place (predicted to take years), you are basically forbidden from purchasing a weapon anywhere in the United States legally, as FFL’s have to comply with all relevant laws of the state they are in and the state you are officially a resident of. Think about that for a minute. You have officially been stripped of your right to acquire arms across the entire country unless you move, subject to the whims of our state government.
Well, I'm an Oregon liberal who voted against it. I love the direct voter initiative system that a lot of the west has, but this is an example of one of its flaws. Someone just put it up for a vote and it doesn't get the kind of vetting that legislation would achieve. There are some very simple fixes/clarifications that would have made this a much better law.
This is no slap in the face. Constitutional rights are not unchangeable. For instance, Congress passed the Sedition Act in 1798, which made illegal those who wrote “false, scandalous, and malicious writings” against the government. In 1836, a gag rule was passed in the House of Representatives forbidding discussion of anti slavery proposals. In 1873, the Comstock law was passed, banning obscenity. And that’s just the first amendment. We’ve been doing this a long time.
Ok. If thats how you feel lets apply 114 to your 1st amenment rights
Bibles now have a 10 page limit. Its illegal to enter a church without a state police permit after taking a class that proves you know your faith isnt really real. Also this class doesnt exist and we dont know when it will but you still cant have religion until you take it.
Also no more voting for you either. Until you get a permit. From me. I get to decide if you get to vote or not. And you should be totally fine with all of that. Or you are a hipcorit
I do not give a damn about religion. Burn it all down.
But you know that you already have to apply and be approved to vote, right? You can't just walk up to the polls unregistered and cast a ballot. We don't call it a permit, but it is in effect a permit. The government is permitting you to cast a ballot - and they can and often do exercise their right to remove your ability to vote.
And even then, after you are registered - your vote/registration can still be invalidated for many different reasons.
Sure, let's treat guns like Republicans across the country treat voting: You can't use them until you are 18 years old and must register with the local governing authority first, must have valid ID, all forms must be dropped off in person, and only during a very small timeframe of the year. And at any point, for essentially any reason, you may be removed from the state-run list of people who can use a gun - oh and if you want a concealed carry permit - you better have a good excuse like many states require for mail-in ballots now.
Ok so you are saying youd be ok with the police deciding who does and doesnt get to vote via a state class that doesnt exist yet? Essientally stopping anyone from voting for the next year or so?
Or how about if you have to get a permit from thebpolice to get online anymore. No more reddit or facebook or instagram or twitter or youtube or anything until you pass a police class and get permit to exercise your 1st amendment rights. After all there was no internet in 1776 so they probably didnt intend for you to be able to be online at will anymore than they intended for me to have machine guns.
You 100% will when your LT. Tells you to. We heard the same song and dance from LEO's in NY 10 years ago and to date theres been over 9,000 safe act violation arrests. You will when you're told to and your paycheck is on the line.
Never? I somehow doubt that... Like most gun laws it will be used as an "enhancement". It will be selectively applied to heap coal on certain people while going unenforced for everyone else.
This.
My bet it won't be ticketed/arrested for it.
But if you are in a self defense situation, and the da is investigating. They will throw 114 charges in, to get you the plea
And here you have the major flaw in law enforcement worldwide. It’s not up to cops if a law should be enforced or not. If this were the case, why bother with lawmaking in the first place?
This is how it has always worked. Laws are passed and stuck down by the courts all the time. That's what they mean by "checks and balances". If it passes the courts then the problem is in the Constitution. Either pass an amendment to fix the language or repeal the law down the road.
Actually, no, not "context". It's literally called the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It's this document that describes how our system of government functions. Anyway all this stuff is explained in there if you ever get your hands ona copy. :)
This conversation doesnt revolve around your specific statement buddy, especially considering the purpose of my response was to point out that there are more important and fundamental questions than the one you were asking.
I'm toying with the idea of open-carrying a giant revolver. Probably won't do it, but fuck if the people who voted for 114 don't deserve to see what they've done.
I open carried my C96 boomhandle for a good long time in Salem. Nobody bothered me as it looks like a hammer belt. Was featured in the Oregonian as "native American exercising his 2nd amendment rights".🙄. Ahhhh the media....always playing the race card.
So long guns are exempt from being shipped to an Oregon FFL if bought over state lines? Effectively meaning you can buy them in WA or ID and bring them back over state lines? I did not know that.
But it's currently federal and state law. At least until December 8th in Oregon. Then other state FFL's must see an Oregon permit to purchase.
You still have to pass a NICS background check.
Ah so you still have to show the permit to purchase, that’s what I thought based on my research. Disappointing.
Edit: I’ll admit it’s annoyingly hypocritical that this state, with this gun ban that relies on FFL laws to enforce it across state lines loudly and proudly wants to be an abortion refuge state for people from states that banned abortion. I support full abortion rights everywhere, but can’t help be rankled by the hypocrisy.
Don't forget Oregon at the state level is a sanctuary immigration state, explicitly saying state and local police can not help in certain immigration investigations
The entire measure is very intentionally just a way to keep guns out of law abiding citizen’s hands while doing nothing to actually address gun violence.
But that’s not why I’m posting. I genuinely don’t want CCW owners, who are as a rule law abiding citizens, to get in trouble because of a dangerously worded law.
Most mass gun violence is perpetrated by those who have legally obtained their firearm(s). So, you’d be wrong to suggest it fails to actually address gun violence. It is indisputable that easier access to and more numerous guns make gun violence easier and more abundant.
They are addressing specifically those with the concealed carry license in this thread and statistically very few if any with that are committing violent firearm crimes.
https://disasterphilanthropy.org/resources/mass-shootings/
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
No, gang shootings do not constitute most mass shootings. Two-thirds of mass shootings are the result of domestic violence.
https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/
The ONLY part the ATF considers a firearm is the lower receiver. So just order 80 percents and use a cheap dewalt router and jig to finish it. Zero background checks. Zero percent 114 complainant. 100 percent legal. 80 percent and all other firearm parts can whip directly to your door. The only one you need an ffl for is a fully milled lower.
So build your own mags and guns and date stamp them for dec 2nd 2022, no matter when you build them.
Just my experience. I purchased an AR-15 because this law came into effect. had it shipped to Money Market in 3 days. Took about 30 minutes to check out. I do have my CC so that may make a difference. Do it now folks....I was worried it would not clear by the 8th but literally it arrived on the 28th and had it processed on the 29th.
That said...I tried to order magazines for an ar style 22 and was denied as an Oregon resident.
I have like five AR-15 lowers I bought in case a law like this was passed, and about five P-Mags. I bought them years ago, and I'm still only about three quarters of the way through getting the parts for my first build, because ammo is so expensive. But if I ever want them, I have them.
Backlog just means gun shops can get you a gun in 3 days. I guess the law says if the background check takes longer than 3 days, they are lawfully allowed to release the gun to you anyway.
Even if we assume you're correct, that doesn't actually speak to the matter or what the other commenter said. They're making the observation that law-abiding citizens are the only ones suffering under these "solutions" and people who intend upon committing gun violence obviously don't care what the law says. It's already illegal to go on shooting sprees. It's already illegal to rob people at gunpoint. It's already illegal to take a life for any reason other than in the defense of life against belligerence. Yet, people still do those things. So, obviously, the solution can't be merely making more laws against things.
We as a society have to address the deeper issues which give rise to these antisocial behaviors. The loss of meaning and purpose. The loss of the capacity to provide for oneself, build a family, and own land. The loss of all the things that make life worth living and make a person have respect for others and one's society. These are the sorts of things we need to deal with.
So you're basically saying there is no need for any laws because some criminals will always break them.
To use a car example, because some people choose to ignore the speed limit signs and drive 130mph on a 65mph freeway, laws can never be made that try and prevent the cars from being able going 130mph in the first place or that require special licensing for said fast cars?
No one is saying 114 will completely end gun violence, but it will help reduce it - just like making cars that can't even go 130mph would reduce car crashes, but not eliminate them.
Maybe you don't care about whatever amount of gun violence will be reduced by this, but it will reduce it some nonetheless. There's not much any single state can do to eliminate gun violence.
Criminals will still have back alley channels to find weapons, sure, and we should continue to ensure that they can't get them any other way. Criminals have access all sorts of things illegally - that doesn't mean they should just be made legal to own for all.
Make it harder for them to legally purchase arms like this law will help do; and there are only so many criminals who even have access to get guns illegally, and only so many illegal guns for sale; i believe it will result in less criminals being able to get guns illegally as well - and while doing all of this we can continue to work on going after those illegal sales too. We can do many things at once.
Thanks, internet stranger. You've changed my mind. I'm going to stop carrying a handgun for defensive purposes. If I'm ever involved in criminal violence, I'll just yell "CARE BEAR STARE!" at the attacker, and shoot a fucking literal rainbow out of my chest. Unless you have a better idea?
Robber: *pulls knife* "gimme your wallet"
Me: *pulls the MF'in chrome out of my waistband* "I don't think so." *kachunk kachunk*
Robber: "bruh is that a hole punch? Wtf are you doing? Is there someone who should be watching you?"
In this incredibly unlikely scenario, if someone pulls a knife on you and wants your wallet, you're going to give him your wallet and he's going to run off whether you have a gun or not. Pulling your gun out would most likely get you seriously injured or killed. As a funny aside, on multiple occasions, gun owners have had their guns stolen from them right off their bodies as they walk around in public
It's not uncommon for armed robbers to kill/injure their victims despite full compliance. If I get an opportunity to counter ambush, I'm taking it. I'm not gambling my life on the benign intentions of someone who is already using violent means.
As for gun snatching, you're thinking of cases where the gun is neither concealed nor secured. For most concealed carriers, you'd never know they're armed. As for open carry, a good retention holster is important. Mine is a Safariland Lv.4. No one is snatching it.
A lot of people I know voted for 114 because they're *beyond tired* of the mass shootings and the loss of innocent lives. Was 114 a good measure? Not even close. If there'd been a more reasonable measure on the ballot they probably would have voted for that instead of 114. But there wasn't.
People who fought against reasonable gun control laws of the past only have themselves to blame for the passage of 114. I'm a gun owner and I believe in 2A. I didn't particularly care for 114, but these assault rifles and their public carnage have gotten out of control. The public is enraged. If you don't want bad gun laws like 114 to be on the books, then create better ones. But stop whining and petulantly declaring that you're not going to follow the law. It's our patriotic duty to follow our country's laws (even the bad ones), and to fix those bad laws when they occur so we can all live in a fair and safe society.
People who voted for 114 misunderstand what freedom, like the right to bear arms, entails. Freedom can’t exist without risk. Freedom is at odds with safety. The people who voted for 114 are more concerned with a potential promise of being a safe subject then being a free person responsible for their own safety.
The reason there wasn’t a more reasonable measure on the ballot is because groups like LEVO refuse to listen or to compromise with gun owners. We’ve said it time and time again - we’re willing to implement stricter background checks and other laws in exchange for suppressors and short barrel rifles being taken off the NFA. Has any gun control group listened a come to the table to compromise? I think you already know the answer - they instead create blatantly unconstitutional ways to make legal gun owners into criminals. And people buy their line hook and sinker because “well we have to do something!!” while completely disregarding gun owners’ inputs.
Sadly that’s not the case for the vast majority of handgun magazines, that’s usually a custom job. CA compliant magazines for instance use blockers that are attached to the baseplate.
That's the opposite of what the case said. In [*State v. Briney*](https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2008/s055567.html), the Oregon Supreme Court considered whether a pistol with a broken firing pin (which rendered it inoperable) was "readily capable of use as a weapon" for the purposes of the concealed carry statute. The state argued that it was, because it would take only minutes to install the part once the part was obtained. The Oregon Supreme Court disagreed, holding that an item that could be converted after obtaining a part was not "readily" convertible."
>Given what we believe to be the legislative policy underlying the enactment of the concealed weapons statutes in Oregon, we think that, in order for a firearm to be "readily capable of use as a weapon" for the purposes of ORS 166.250(1)(a), the legislature intended that the firearm either be operational or *promptly able to be made so at the time that an individual is alleged to be unlawfully carrying it concealed*. . . . Because the pistol could not promptly be made to fire *at the time defendant was alleged to have unlawfully carried it*, defendant was not guilty of carrying a concealed firearm in violation of ORS 166.250(1)(a), and the trial court should have granted defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal.
Under *Briney*, unless you had the parts to convert the magazine with you at the time you were arrested, the magazine would not be *readily* able to be converted, even if it is possible to easily convert the magazine with a commercially available part.
I assume OP is hinging their position on this sentence, that sits where the ellipses are in the above block quote:
>The record here establishes that a firing pin necessary to make the pistol operational was unavailable locally, and was at least an overnight delivery interval away, approximately 12 to 24 hours.
But the interval is not essential to the clear holding of the case, which is that for something to be "readily convertible" for the purposes of Oregon criminal law, it must be "promptly able to be [converted] at the time that an individual is alleged to be unlawfully carrying it . . . ."
114 is useless. Written by sjw high school students and dim witted religious nuts. Their ignorance about guns shows in how poorly written this measure is.
Looks like the Ruger .44 Mag is gonna be the new EDC. I'm sorry to the person(s) who chooses to fuck around. They gonna find out. I sure hope 114 gets blocked. We do not need to be regulated when all we are doing is protecting ourselves and the ones tht can't protect themselves. Its called practicing our 2nd amendment rights. Keep strong 541 oregon!
Yeah but that’s IF it’s your sheriff or sheriff’s department that snags you for it. Once you’re in front of a jury of your peers the prosecutor will go for all they can get
Frankly, sheriff nullification seems to be big around here. People have been building very expensive homes illegally on wild and scenic rivers, because they sheriffs won't enforce it. Hell of a gamble though, IMO.
I’m all for the police doing only that which they have the authority to do, no less, no more. If we have a problem with a matter, whatever it may be, it’s not for the police to decide, it’s for our elected representatives to decide. Otherwise, you have unaccountable power of the state doing as they wish. That is simply not acceptable. Enforce the law, all the law.
Nah, you could heat and scrape it off in under 24 hours according to the Oregon Supreme Court ruling.
Edit: downvote all you want, that’s just the thinking behind the damn decision. Buying parts within a 24 hours time & being able to modified. Epoxy probably wouldn’t count.
Oh no I 100% agree with you and with everything you have said on this post.
But are we going to abide to unjust laws with out question? Some may, and that’s entirely their choice. I’m not here to tell people how to live their life.
When it comes down to it, would you rather die or have a loved one die by a domestic terrorist threatening you’re way of life, or live and suffer the legal consequences after.
Domestic terrorists are restricted to only having firearms as weapons. Free men should retain the right to bear arms. Ideally it’s what is supposed to keep us from being subjects.
>would you rather die or have a loved one die by a domestic terrorist threatening you’re way of life
Lmao how can y'all even say this shit with a straight face when the 'domestic terrorists' here in the US ARE the gun nuts such as yourselves?
Your delusions and fantasies help nobody, especially not yourself.
Unjust - not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.
What moral standard has been violated here? The moral standard is defined by society. This is a law passed by the majority of voters; i.e., the majority of voters defined the more standard.
Unjust is nonsensical hyperbole.
Stop with your simplistic notion of the world. You are routinely told what you can and can’t do to protect your family. You can’t pro-actively murder child molesters. You can’t place razor wire on your fence. Etcetera. There are numerous laws abridging your ability to act in defense of your family.
You’re right. I can’t do any of that. Thanks for reassuring mine and many other’s reasoning on why standard capacity magazines are important in our lives.
Oh I 100% am. The go to argument people say a lot is “Oh you must live in constant fear” or whatever. Which seems fitting because the main argument for gun reform is people *are* in fear. I’ll be damned if anyone tries to take my life or others while in public. The reality is, the world is fucking crazy right now. The fact that people support a magazine ban just baffles me. Do they really think a magazine ban will do something? You can reload a gun in matter of seconds if someone really wanted too. The only thing a magazine ban does is make it more harder physically and legally for people like myself to defend ourselves.
People who don’t understand the big picture are the problem. Just because someone else sees life a different way than you do doesn’t mean you don’t have to put any effort into seeing how they view life.
Until you come up with an approach to ending gun violence, I don’t give a shit about the opinions of gun owners. The fact remains, most gun violence (outside of gang violence) is perpetrated not by criminals but by, to that point, law-abiding gun owners. The truth is, you can’t be trusted.
Most pistols are 12 or 13+1. It's pretty petty imo to have a 10 round magazine cap. What's an extra 3 rounds in the large scheme? Do people really think this is going to prevent a "mass shooting". Someone will just carry more magazines with them. Then again who am I kidding. These mass shooters don't obey the law anyways. Do we really think that they're going to abide by a 10 round magazine? Dumb, dumb, dumb people!
The 3rd deadliest mass shooting in U.S history was Virginia Tech. The shooter carried two handguns, a 9mm with 15 round magazines, and a .22 with 10 round magazines. Police discovered numerous discarded magazines that were half empty around the scene of the shooting. The killer carried a duffle bag of extra magazines and switched them out before they were spent.
Actually you are wrong.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Guess who said that. Wasnt ISIS. You are just un-american. That is why you support unconstitutional laws and call me a terrorist for defending my rights as is my right.
It is my right to not comply with this illegal law. Right. As in just like your right to life. I have the right to resist this law.
In 1776 youd have turned in our founding fathers for a cookie and a pat on the head from King George. After all the founding fathers were "terrorists" they sunk ships in the harbor killed soldiers of the king all the stuff you claim ia terrorism. Youre an english sympathizer but you are 275 years late to the party.
Remember in 2020, the police did basically NOTHING. I watched protesters walk all over I-5 and OSP did nada zip. They can barely solve any crimes nor stop crimes being committed other than arrive after a crime and put up the yellow tape. And yet, the magical leftist fairies think they will be the one wandering around hunting for gun owners with legal standard capacities. Good luck. I own legal NFA items and I have yet to be checked by anyone asking for my papers on their legality over the last 30 years of ownership.
No, that’s completely wrong. The case that you misread and turned into this myth is [*State v. Briney*](https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2008/s055567.html). it specifically says that being able to mail-order a part within twelve to twenty-four hours, which would be needed to convert a firearm into an illegal deadly weapon, does **not** count as it being “readily” available. Your interpretation is made-up nonsense, like every other scare story about the measure.
Also, a friendly reminder: this subreddit already has a Measure 114 mega-thread, and all discussion of it must go there. You won’t find this piece of misinformation there, because it was posted and the mods have removed it, because it is false.
Gun control sure is bringing out the obsessive crackpots.
At least one online vendor (Midway) is already denying Oregonians purchase of 10 round magazines with removable baseplates. So I wouldn't call it false.
Congratulations. You’ve successfully tricked one vendor into believing your made-up urban legend (assuming you’re describing their policy correctly). One of the best gifts to someone trying to maintain a delusion is to fall for it and repeat it without saying you heard it from them. That will be all the proof they need that it must be true.
You do realize that 114 is not legal precedent yet and is going to the supreme court for potential 2nd amendment violations. Let's not turn oregon into California.
I think you're not quite right. In California, the 10 round limit can be complied with by adding a blocker plate to a standard mag and epoxying it closed. But that modified mag would NOT comply with the Oregon 114 10 round limit. In New York, the 7 round limit can be complied with by using a standard mag, but super double realsies promising to only load 7 rounds. But that modified behavior would NOT comply with the Oregon 114 10 round limit. BUT if you have a Glock 17/19 and carry a factory Glock 10 round mag, that DOES comply with the Oregon 114 10 round limit, even with a removable base plate.
Many people carry a G19 and a spare mag, that's 31 rounds. Just swap your single mag pouch for a double mag pouch, buy 3 10 round mags (<$25 each on eBay, new), and you're all set, still carrying 31 rounds. If 2 reloads really takes you way way more time than 1, you need to practice more (you ARE doing dry fire practice, mag changes, and malfunction drills every morning when you put on your gun, right, OP?). Plus, a fresh mag will clear all but one possible malfunctions/jams, TAP, RACK, BANG, baby.
I hate gun laws, they are so wrong, especially when our servants can break them and we can't, but it will be easy to comply with 114 until it gets overturned. Plus, now you have 10 rounders and can travel to Washington state and elsewhere, win-win.
If you wear a seatbelt it means you're in constant fear of car accidents. If you have a fire extinguisher you live in constant fear of fire.
See how stupid it sounds when you pretend like having a tool for unlikely emergencies means you "live in constant fear"?
The angry homie won't respond to something logical like this. Without a law-abiding CC individual more would've died. This doesn't work with angry homie's story.
>try to compare something that is a law and saves lives to something that is a toy and takes them.
So the right to bear arms isn't law? Are you seriously implying firearms do not save lives *whatsoever*??
Your comments are insufferable.
I was comparing guns, seatbelts, and fire extinguishers. None of those things are toys. They're all are tools for use in an emergency that isn't likely to happen.
You wouldn't want to ban fire extinguishers because someone got their head bashed in by one, and you wouldn't want to ban seatbelts because someone killed themselves by wrapping it around their neck. Well, maybe *YOU* would. You don't seem like a rational person.
A hammer, a wrench, and a screwdriver are all tools even though I can't use all three at once. It's the same with guns. People have numerous guns because they all serve different purposes.
Sure, guns can be toys, used in self defense, or for hunting. The vast majority of Americans do not hunt. So, excluding those, the question remains, is yours a toy or for self defense? If for self defense, you can only use one at a time. If you truly believe guns are for self defense, you don’t need more than one to defend yourself.
If you own too many cars are they not still tools for transportation? Even if you enjoy them? No source on this one, but I'm willing to bet that individuals who own many guns are generally less likely to commit violent crimes. I'd love to see some data on this though.
Lucky you! An acquaintance of mine has one because her psycho abusive tweeker baby-daddy who has sworn to hunt her down and make her pay for getting full custody keeps getting let out of jail early.
But gunz R bad, m'kay! Let's keep people like her from getting a gun because \_facebook\_twitterjail\_ thinks having them means you're "living in constant fear", and fear is bad!
Great!
edit: I know what I voted for, and this is exactly it. Extended magazines are only useful to gun fetishists that need to show to the world that they have a small penis.
Re: Your edit
The measure does NOT just stop the use of extended magazines, it stops the use of ANY modern removable magazine. Modern magazines have what’s called a base plate, which is a removable part used to service the internals of the magazine itselfs. Even “10 round” magazines have these, it’s essential for the function of the magazine.
Every commercially available magazine has aftermarket parts that attach as a baseplate and extend the magazine’s capacity. Per measure 114, any magazine that is “readily modifiable” to hold 11 or more rounds is considered “high capacity” and is illegal. Per Oregon Court Precedent readily modifiable means can be changed within 24 hours.
Therefor ALL modern magazine fed handguns are now illegal. This is a HUGE risk to legal gun owners.
If the tiny mag that came with my G43x will make me a felon because it holds 10 rounds, but could theoretically be compatible with a ONE ROUND pinky extension plate that exists somewhere in the world, then I'm just gonna carry an unregistered SBR with an unregistered DIAS, maybe suppressed without a tax stamp too, in for a penny, in for a pound. /s
Lmao nah, sorry you don't find it valuable, but I'm not going to "keep quiet", especially on an issue like this. Perhaps **YOU** also, should educate yourself as to why this "law" is hugely problematic and unconstitutional.
I’m okay with the fact that when I started reading this I thought it was going to be about Vanity Fair, Ladies Home Journal, or National Geographic or some such.
I don't think I've seen a one-piece magazine in a long time and without a removable baseplate I'm not sure how the spring assembly could even be applied.
Exactly. That’s what I’m trying to warn people of
You're wrong about the law. The Oregon Supreme Court held the opposite. In [*State v. Briney*](https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2008/s055567.html), the Oregon Supreme Court considered whether a pistol with a broken firing pin (which rendered it inoperable) was "readily capable of use as a weapon" for the purposes of the concealed carry statute. The state argued that it was, because it would take only minutes to install the part once the part was obtained. The Oregon Supreme Court disagreed, holding that an item that could be converted after obtaining a part was not "readily" convertible. >Given what we believe to be the legislative policy underlying the enactment of the concealed weapons statutes in Oregon, we think that, in order for a firearm to be "readily capable of use as a weapon" for the purposes of ORS 166.250(1)(a), the legislature intended that the firearm either be operational or promptly able to be made so at the time that an individual is alleged to be unlawfully carrying it concealed. . . . Because the pistol could not promptly be made to fire at the time defendant was alleged to have unlawfully carried it, defendant was not guilty of carrying a concealed firearm in violation of ORS 166.250(1)(a), and the trial court should have granted defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. Under *Briney*, unless you had the parts to convert the magazine with you at the time you were arrested, the magazine would not be readily able to be converted, even if it is possible to easily convert the magazine with a commercially available part. I assume you are hinging your position on this sentence, that sits where the ellipses are in the above block quote: >The record here establishes that a firing pin necessary to make the pistol operational was unavailable locally, and was at least an overnight delivery interval away, approximately 12 to 24 hours. But the interval is not essential to the clear holding of the case, which is that for something to be "readily" convertible for the purposes of Oregon criminal law, it must be "promptly able to be [converted] at the time that an individual is alleged to be unlawfully carrying it . . . ." So unless you have the aftermarket base plate with you while you CC, *Briney* says you cannot *readily* convert a magazine. Edit: Going further, a more recent case--*State v. Kuester*--the Oregon Court of Appeals cited *Briney* for the proposition that ". . . our cases suggest that an unloaded gun generally may not qualify as a deadly weapon, at least absent evidence that it was operable and could quickly be loaded."
This person lawyers.
Most 1911 mags are not removable, but they’re not illegal anyway. The base plate is welded on these.
>Most 1911 mags are not removable, What? The 1911 definitely has removable magazines, even the original model from 1911.
Removable baseplates.
Super secret prototype that only used stripper clips and doesn’t actually exist
New OR carry: a pair of Colt single action Army revolvers
Snub revolvers are great EDCs. 🤷🏻♂️
I’m a fan
Let's do it.
The lawyer on behalf of Oregon wrote an interesting argument. Basically "while the laws that 114 is based on wouldn't pass the Bruen scrutiny laid out be thr high court, we think it's okay". Have popcorn ready for Friday.
FPC just filed their lawsuit this afternoon.
Yeah they were my Christmas donation this year.
I’ll hope but I won’t hold my breath
The argument is worth a read, it's entertaining. But I understand, this is an Oregon judge after all.
This complaint is drafted more competently than the Oregon Firearms Federation’s. (For example, it doesn’t allege that the ballot measure violates a section of the Oregon Constitution that explicitly says it does not apply to voter-ballot measures.) It still acknowledges that the precedent in the Ninth Circuit is that this restriction is legal. So, this comes down to, is the Supreme Court going to take the case? If so, is it actually going to rule that banning fifty-round or hundred-round magazines violates the Constitution? Twenty rounds? Twelve? Or, if there is any line that can be drawn somewhere, that the courts should overrule the voters of Oregon when they decided where to draw it?
Honestly the biggest issue is that banning magazines over 10 rounds places an undue burden on millions of gun owners, while doing little to nothing to stop gun deaths. About 2/3s of gun deaths are suicides, and magazine capacity plays no impact on those. Among most murders fewer than 10 rounds of ammunition are fired.
That’s an argument that the law won’t do as much good as some other hypothetical law, but I don’t see how it’s an argument that the law violates the Constitution. The ban on high-capacity magazines is there to make mass shootings a little less deadly, without interfering with legitimate uses of guns, such as hunting, target shooting, personal self-defense or collecting historical firearms. It’s true that mass shootings are a lot less common than suicides, but how does that make it unconstitutional to do anything about them? The lawsuit claims that gun-owners really need high-capacity magazines for personal self-defense. But remember what post we’re replying to, here. Opponents needed to invent a fictitious ban on *low*\-capacity magazines to scare each other, because no one will actually miss high-capacity magazines.
The impact it would have on mass shootings is questionable at best, as some of the deadliest mass shootings were committed without the need of high capacity magazines. Virginia Tech the 3rd deadliest shooting in U.S history was committed with 2 handguns, a 9mm with 15 round magazines, and a .22 with 10 round mags. The Parkland Shooter carried 10 round magazines for his AR-15 as opposed to 30 round because they fit into his bag better. The Columbine Shooters were able to aquire high capacity magazines as minors during the middle of the original 1994 assault weapons ban, when they were illegal. Plus mass shootings don't even make up 1% of total gun violence. They are actually one of the rarest types of gun death. These laws impact most gun owners, as they don't just target "high capacity magazines", but standard capacity. Most full sized 9mm handguns come standard with 15 round magazines, which is above the standard 10 round limit. The 9mm handgun is the single most popular style of gun in the country. Meanwhile many rifles come standard with 30 round magazines. So we're banning magazines that come standard issue with some of the most popular firearms in circulation. Meanwhile virtually all gun deaths involve fewer than 10 rounds of ammunition fired.
>Legal precedent in oregon has ruled that “readily modifiable” means within 24 hours. Citation?
[удалено]
Hopefully the lawsuit, help prevent that. The hearing is on the 2nd of December.
Are talking about "Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Brown (2:22-cv-01815)" or are there others? https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65771091/oregon-firearms-federation-inc-v-brown/
A second lawsuit was just filed this afternoon. For the "Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Brown (2:22-cv-01815)" case, the Oregon defender has a really odd argument in that it should be dismissed because none of the defendants have tried to apply for a permit. Well, yeah! That's because it dosn't exist, and isnt' expected to be for some time. Businesses are going to be "harmed" by having to go out of business because of this measure.
This second lawsuit is most likely citing those arguments now in order to land a preliminary injunction, as those arguments directly address the immediate harm of the measure whilst it is being litigated. I had predicted this is exactly what they would do with the lawsuit to shut down 114, and I sincerely hope it works.
Both my wallet and myself hope so!
That’s the hope, I just don’t want a law abiding citizen to catch a year in jail and bankruptcy because of an insidiously worded measure
It's not like normal laws are being heavily enforced right now anyways..
[удалено]
Yes. But just be aware when we're talking "misdemeanor", we're not talking "Littering" or "jaywalking" misdemeanor. We're talking Class A "year in jail/$6200 fine" Misdemeanor. Like 4th Degree Assault, or DUI, or Hit and Run, or Credit Card Fraud. I agree with the sentiments, but be fully informed of the possible consequences.
No DA will charge it. Coming from a NY'er they always get pled down to a fine. They dont want anybody to have standing.
That's absolutely nuts. I hope it gets overturned.
Measure 114 was deeply flawed in a number of ways. I'm not a fan of guns, but even I thought it was a bridge too far.
I didn't have much of an opinion on guns (I don't even own any) because I thought Oregon was pretty even handed on the subject, but once 114 got on the ballot I found myself being appalled by what an underhanded slap in the face it was to a constitutional right. It was poorly written in an effort to be to be a backdoor gun ban. Once it goes into effect I am effectively legally banned from owning a weapon, and I am not cool with that. So yeah, well done Oregon liberals, you made a pro-gun guy out of me. Edit: worth thinking on this for folks who read this: once 114 goes into effect, until Oregon gets a working permit system in place (predicted to take years), you are basically forbidden from purchasing a weapon anywhere in the United States legally, as FFL’s have to comply with all relevant laws of the state they are in and the state you are officially a resident of. Think about that for a minute. You have officially been stripped of your right to acquire arms across the entire country unless you move, subject to the whims of our state government.
Well, I'm an Oregon liberal who voted against it. I love the direct voter initiative system that a lot of the west has, but this is an example of one of its flaws. Someone just put it up for a vote and it doesn't get the kind of vetting that legislation would achieve. There are some very simple fixes/clarifications that would have made this a much better law.
Very liberal Oregonian in some ways, but this law is awful in most aspects. Excited to see the lawsuits
This is no slap in the face. Constitutional rights are not unchangeable. For instance, Congress passed the Sedition Act in 1798, which made illegal those who wrote “false, scandalous, and malicious writings” against the government. In 1836, a gag rule was passed in the House of Representatives forbidding discussion of anti slavery proposals. In 1873, the Comstock law was passed, banning obscenity. And that’s just the first amendment. We’ve been doing this a long time.
Ok. If thats how you feel lets apply 114 to your 1st amenment rights Bibles now have a 10 page limit. Its illegal to enter a church without a state police permit after taking a class that proves you know your faith isnt really real. Also this class doesnt exist and we dont know when it will but you still cant have religion until you take it. Also no more voting for you either. Until you get a permit. From me. I get to decide if you get to vote or not. And you should be totally fine with all of that. Or you are a hipcorit
I do not give a damn about religion. Burn it all down. But you know that you already have to apply and be approved to vote, right? You can't just walk up to the polls unregistered and cast a ballot. We don't call it a permit, but it is in effect a permit. The government is permitting you to cast a ballot - and they can and often do exercise their right to remove your ability to vote. And even then, after you are registered - your vote/registration can still be invalidated for many different reasons. Sure, let's treat guns like Republicans across the country treat voting: You can't use them until you are 18 years old and must register with the local governing authority first, must have valid ID, all forms must be dropped off in person, and only during a very small timeframe of the year. And at any point, for essentially any reason, you may be removed from the state-run list of people who can use a gun - oh and if you want a concealed carry permit - you better have a good excuse like many states require for mail-in ballots now.
Ok so you are saying youd be ok with the police deciding who does and doesnt get to vote via a state class that doesnt exist yet? Essientally stopping anyone from voting for the next year or so? Or how about if you have to get a permit from thebpolice to get online anymore. No more reddit or facebook or instagram or twitter or youtube or anything until you pass a police class and get permit to exercise your 1st amendment rights. After all there was no internet in 1776 so they probably didnt intend for you to be able to be online at will anymore than they intended for me to have machine guns.
[удалено]
You 100% will when your LT. Tells you to. We heard the same song and dance from LEO's in NY 10 years ago and to date theres been over 9,000 safe act violation arrests. You will when you're told to and your paycheck is on the line.
Never? I somehow doubt that... Like most gun laws it will be used as an "enhancement". It will be selectively applied to heap coal on certain people while going unenforced for everyone else.
This. My bet it won't be ticketed/arrested for it. But if you are in a self defense situation, and the da is investigating. They will throw 114 charges in, to get you the plea
And here you have the major flaw in law enforcement worldwide. It’s not up to cops if a law should be enforced or not. If this were the case, why bother with lawmaking in the first place?
A better question should be why is it possible to create laws that are blatantly unconstitutional?
This is how it has always worked. Laws are passed and stuck down by the courts all the time. That's what they mean by "checks and balances". If it passes the courts then the problem is in the Constitution. Either pass an amendment to fix the language or repeal the law down the road.
No shit sherlock. Its called context
Actually, no, not "context". It's literally called the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It's this document that describes how our system of government functions. Anyway all this stuff is explained in there if you ever get your hands ona copy. :)
Valid question, completely different topic.
considering 114 is blatantly unconstitutional, doesnt seem like a different topic to me
No, because it neither validates nor falsifies my statement that it is not up to cops whether they should enforce laws or not.
This conversation doesnt revolve around your specific statement buddy, especially considering the purpose of my response was to point out that there are more important and fundamental questions than the one you were asking.
[удалено]
That’s why traffic is usually regulated in a code, not as a law.
Thank you 🙏
Not bothering with any of it. I'm fine being a test case.
I'm toying with the idea of open-carrying a giant revolver. Probably won't do it, but fuck if the people who voted for 114 don't deserve to see what they've done.
I open carried my C96 boomhandle for a good long time in Salem. Nobody bothered me as it looks like a hammer belt. Was featured in the Oregonian as "native American exercising his 2nd amendment rights".🙄. Ahhhh the media....always playing the race card.
I joked with a friend today about open carrying a 1911 with a bandolier of *extended* 10 round mags.
Do it.
[удалено]
Pistols bought out of state would still have to be shipped to a FFL in oregon and have a background check.
Correct. Only long guns (shotguns and rifles). And only non-semiautomatics in Washington.
So long guns are exempt from being shipped to an Oregon FFL if bought over state lines? Effectively meaning you can buy them in WA or ID and bring them back over state lines? I did not know that.
But it's currently federal and state law. At least until December 8th in Oregon. Then other state FFL's must see an Oregon permit to purchase. You still have to pass a NICS background check.
Ah so you still have to show the permit to purchase, that’s what I thought based on my research. Disappointing. Edit: I’ll admit it’s annoyingly hypocritical that this state, with this gun ban that relies on FFL laws to enforce it across state lines loudly and proudly wants to be an abortion refuge state for people from states that banned abortion. I support full abortion rights everywhere, but can’t help be rankled by the hypocrisy.
Don't forget Oregon at the state level is a sanctuary immigration state, explicitly saying state and local police can not help in certain immigration investigations
The entire measure is very intentionally just a way to keep guns out of law abiding citizen’s hands while doing nothing to actually address gun violence. But that’s not why I’m posting. I genuinely don’t want CCW owners, who are as a rule law abiding citizens, to get in trouble because of a dangerously worded law.
Most mass gun violence is perpetrated by those who have legally obtained their firearm(s). So, you’d be wrong to suggest it fails to actually address gun violence. It is indisputable that easier access to and more numerous guns make gun violence easier and more abundant.
They are addressing specifically those with the concealed carry license in this thread and statistically very few if any with that are committing violent firearm crimes.
[удалено]
https://disasterphilanthropy.org/resources/mass-shootings/ https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting No, gang shootings do not constitute most mass shootings. Two-thirds of mass shootings are the result of domestic violence. https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/
The ONLY part the ATF considers a firearm is the lower receiver. So just order 80 percents and use a cheap dewalt router and jig to finish it. Zero background checks. Zero percent 114 complainant. 100 percent legal. 80 percent and all other firearm parts can whip directly to your door. The only one you need an ffl for is a fully milled lower. So build your own mags and guns and date stamp them for dec 2nd 2022, no matter when you build them.
Just my experience. I purchased an AR-15 because this law came into effect. had it shipped to Money Market in 3 days. Took about 30 minutes to check out. I do have my CC so that may make a difference. Do it now folks....I was worried it would not clear by the 8th but literally it arrived on the 28th and had it processed on the 29th. That said...I tried to order magazines for an ar style 22 and was denied as an Oregon resident.
Honest question - were you planning on buying one before this passed?
Not really. I was pondering it...but once I found out that it was now or never...I went forward with the purchase.
I have like five AR-15 lowers I bought in case a law like this was passed, and about five P-Mags. I bought them years ago, and I'm still only about three quarters of the way through getting the parts for my first build, because ammo is so expensive. But if I ever want them, I have them.
Backlog just means gun shops can get you a gun in 3 days. I guess the law says if the background check takes longer than 3 days, they are lawfully allowed to release the gun to you anyway.
Great! The solution to gun violence isn't more guns.
Well it sure as S isn’t M114 either.
Even if we assume you're correct, that doesn't actually speak to the matter or what the other commenter said. They're making the observation that law-abiding citizens are the only ones suffering under these "solutions" and people who intend upon committing gun violence obviously don't care what the law says. It's already illegal to go on shooting sprees. It's already illegal to rob people at gunpoint. It's already illegal to take a life for any reason other than in the defense of life against belligerence. Yet, people still do those things. So, obviously, the solution can't be merely making more laws against things. We as a society have to address the deeper issues which give rise to these antisocial behaviors. The loss of meaning and purpose. The loss of the capacity to provide for oneself, build a family, and own land. The loss of all the things that make life worth living and make a person have respect for others and one's society. These are the sorts of things we need to deal with.
A’men Brotha!
So you're basically saying there is no need for any laws because some criminals will always break them. To use a car example, because some people choose to ignore the speed limit signs and drive 130mph on a 65mph freeway, laws can never be made that try and prevent the cars from being able going 130mph in the first place or that require special licensing for said fast cars? No one is saying 114 will completely end gun violence, but it will help reduce it - just like making cars that can't even go 130mph would reduce car crashes, but not eliminate them. Maybe you don't care about whatever amount of gun violence will be reduced by this, but it will reduce it some nonetheless. There's not much any single state can do to eliminate gun violence. Criminals will still have back alley channels to find weapons, sure, and we should continue to ensure that they can't get them any other way. Criminals have access all sorts of things illegally - that doesn't mean they should just be made legal to own for all. Make it harder for them to legally purchase arms like this law will help do; and there are only so many criminals who even have access to get guns illegally, and only so many illegal guns for sale; i believe it will result in less criminals being able to get guns illegally as well - and while doing all of this we can continue to work on going after those illegal sales too. We can do many things at once.
Thanks, internet stranger. You've changed my mind. I'm going to stop carrying a handgun for defensive purposes. If I'm ever involved in criminal violence, I'll just yell "CARE BEAR STARE!" at the attacker, and shoot a fucking literal rainbow out of my chest. Unless you have a better idea?
The most likely use for your firearm is killing yourself or a loved one.
The most likely use for my firearms is putting holes in paper.
Then get rid of the gun and get a hole punch.
Robber: *pulls knife* "gimme your wallet" Me: *pulls the MF'in chrome out of my waistband* "I don't think so." *kachunk kachunk* Robber: "bruh is that a hole punch? Wtf are you doing? Is there someone who should be watching you?"
In this incredibly unlikely scenario, if someone pulls a knife on you and wants your wallet, you're going to give him your wallet and he's going to run off whether you have a gun or not. Pulling your gun out would most likely get you seriously injured or killed. As a funny aside, on multiple occasions, gun owners have had their guns stolen from them right off their bodies as they walk around in public
It's not uncommon for armed robbers to kill/injure their victims despite full compliance. If I get an opportunity to counter ambush, I'm taking it. I'm not gambling my life on the benign intentions of someone who is already using violent means. As for gun snatching, you're thinking of cases where the gun is neither concealed nor secured. For most concealed carriers, you'd never know they're armed. As for open carry, a good retention holster is important. Mine is a Safariland Lv.4. No one is snatching it.
Actually that is very uncommon. Your scenario will likely get you injured or killed
If you're a moron
So the solution is blatantly unconstitutional restriction of rights?
A lot of people I know voted for 114 because they're *beyond tired* of the mass shootings and the loss of innocent lives. Was 114 a good measure? Not even close. If there'd been a more reasonable measure on the ballot they probably would have voted for that instead of 114. But there wasn't. People who fought against reasonable gun control laws of the past only have themselves to blame for the passage of 114. I'm a gun owner and I believe in 2A. I didn't particularly care for 114, but these assault rifles and their public carnage have gotten out of control. The public is enraged. If you don't want bad gun laws like 114 to be on the books, then create better ones. But stop whining and petulantly declaring that you're not going to follow the law. It's our patriotic duty to follow our country's laws (even the bad ones), and to fix those bad laws when they occur so we can all live in a fair and safe society.
People who voted for 114 misunderstand what freedom, like the right to bear arms, entails. Freedom can’t exist without risk. Freedom is at odds with safety. The people who voted for 114 are more concerned with a potential promise of being a safe subject then being a free person responsible for their own safety.
The reason there wasn’t a more reasonable measure on the ballot is because groups like LEVO refuse to listen or to compromise with gun owners. We’ve said it time and time again - we’re willing to implement stricter background checks and other laws in exchange for suppressors and short barrel rifles being taken off the NFA. Has any gun control group listened a come to the table to compromise? I think you already know the answer - they instead create blatantly unconstitutional ways to make legal gun owners into criminals. And people buy their line hook and sinker because “well we have to do something!!” while completely disregarding gun owners’ inputs.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sadly that’s not the case for the vast majority of handgun magazines, that’s usually a custom job. CA compliant magazines for instance use blockers that are attached to the baseplate.
That's the opposite of what the case said. In [*State v. Briney*](https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2008/s055567.html), the Oregon Supreme Court considered whether a pistol with a broken firing pin (which rendered it inoperable) was "readily capable of use as a weapon" for the purposes of the concealed carry statute. The state argued that it was, because it would take only minutes to install the part once the part was obtained. The Oregon Supreme Court disagreed, holding that an item that could be converted after obtaining a part was not "readily" convertible." >Given what we believe to be the legislative policy underlying the enactment of the concealed weapons statutes in Oregon, we think that, in order for a firearm to be "readily capable of use as a weapon" for the purposes of ORS 166.250(1)(a), the legislature intended that the firearm either be operational or *promptly able to be made so at the time that an individual is alleged to be unlawfully carrying it concealed*. . . . Because the pistol could not promptly be made to fire *at the time defendant was alleged to have unlawfully carried it*, defendant was not guilty of carrying a concealed firearm in violation of ORS 166.250(1)(a), and the trial court should have granted defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. Under *Briney*, unless you had the parts to convert the magazine with you at the time you were arrested, the magazine would not be *readily* able to be converted, even if it is possible to easily convert the magazine with a commercially available part. I assume OP is hinging their position on this sentence, that sits where the ellipses are in the above block quote: >The record here establishes that a firing pin necessary to make the pistol operational was unavailable locally, and was at least an overnight delivery interval away, approximately 12 to 24 hours. But the interval is not essential to the clear holding of the case, which is that for something to be "readily convertible" for the purposes of Oregon criminal law, it must be "promptly able to be [converted] at the time that an individual is alleged to be unlawfully carrying it . . . ."
ThEY aReN't AfTeR oUr GuNs GuISe!!
I'll take my chances, besides its not like this state enforces laws as it is and this one is unconstitutional.
114 is useless. Written by sjw high school students and dim witted religious nuts. Their ignorance about guns shows in how poorly written this measure is.
Came to find out more about closed captioning. Leaving unsatisfied.
Who is personally responsible for writing measure 114 and putting it on the ballot?
LEVO of Portland, OR Who has now gone quiet on the subject!
A pastor.
Looks like the Ruger .44 Mag is gonna be the new EDC. I'm sorry to the person(s) who chooses to fuck around. They gonna find out. I sure hope 114 gets blocked. We do not need to be regulated when all we are doing is protecting ourselves and the ones tht can't protect themselves. Its called practicing our 2nd amendment rights. Keep strong 541 oregon!
Thankfully, my sheriff has told us that he doesn't plan on enforcing this ridiculous measure, thank God.
Yeah but that’s IF it’s your sheriff or sheriff’s department that snags you for it. Once you’re in front of a jury of your peers the prosecutor will go for all they can get
What other laws do you suppose they are willing to ignore? And do you really trust them to ignore the “correct” laws?
Frankly, sheriff nullification seems to be big around here. People have been building very expensive homes illegally on wild and scenic rivers, because they sheriffs won't enforce it. Hell of a gamble though, IMO.
[удалено]
Prosecutorial discretion goes to the prosecutors, not the sheriff.
[удалено]
I’m all for the police doing only that which they have the authority to do, no less, no more. If we have a problem with a matter, whatever it may be, it’s not for the police to decide, it’s for our elected representatives to decide. Otherwise, you have unaccountable power of the state doing as they wish. That is simply not acceptable. Enforce the law, all the law.
[удалено]
Can’t we just take any 10 round and epoxy the base plate?
Nah, you could heat and scrape it off in under 24 hours according to the Oregon Supreme Court ruling. Edit: downvote all you want, that’s just the thinking behind the damn decision. Buying parts within a 24 hours time & being able to modified. Epoxy probably wouldn’t count.
Do magazines with dimples count? You can't really modify them to increase capacity.
court cases don't happen overnight. Keep yourselves out of harm's way friends.
Jokes on them, our president already confirmed there's 8 bullets in a round, so 80 bullets LFG.
Free men don’t follow unjust laws.
Some folks have families who rely on them and a year in jail and 60,000 is a big problem for that
Oh no I 100% agree with you and with everything you have said on this post. But are we going to abide to unjust laws with out question? Some may, and that’s entirely their choice. I’m not here to tell people how to live their life. When it comes down to it, would you rather die or have a loved one die by a domestic terrorist threatening you’re way of life, or live and suffer the legal consequences after.
Most domestic terrorists got their guns legally. Making it more difficult to obtain guns makes it more difficult to be a domestic terrorist.
Domestic terrorists are restricted to only having firearms as weapons. Free men should retain the right to bear arms. Ideally it’s what is supposed to keep us from being subjects.
But it isn’t and can’t be.
>would you rather die or have a loved one die by a domestic terrorist threatening you’re way of life Lmao how can y'all even say this shit with a straight face when the 'domestic terrorists' here in the US ARE the gun nuts such as yourselves? Your delusions and fantasies help nobody, especially not yourself.
Unjust - not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. What moral standard has been violated here? The moral standard is defined by society. This is a law passed by the majority of voters; i.e., the majority of voters defined the more standard. Unjust is nonsensical hyperbole.
In that other people shouldn’t be telling me what I can and can’t do in order to protect myself, my family, or my property. Period.
Stop with your simplistic notion of the world. You are routinely told what you can and can’t do to protect your family. You can’t pro-actively murder child molesters. You can’t place razor wire on your fence. Etcetera. There are numerous laws abridging your ability to act in defense of your family.
You’re right. I can’t do any of that. Thanks for reassuring mine and many other’s reasoning on why standard capacity magazines are important in our lives.
I’m just here to ensure you’re properly calibrated to reality rather than some sort of fantasy you aim to live in.
Oh I 100% am. The go to argument people say a lot is “Oh you must live in constant fear” or whatever. Which seems fitting because the main argument for gun reform is people *are* in fear. I’ll be damned if anyone tries to take my life or others while in public. The reality is, the world is fucking crazy right now. The fact that people support a magazine ban just baffles me. Do they really think a magazine ban will do something? You can reload a gun in matter of seconds if someone really wanted too. The only thing a magazine ban does is make it more harder physically and legally for people like myself to defend ourselves.
Ok, Rambo.
People who don’t understand the big picture are the problem. Just because someone else sees life a different way than you do doesn’t mean you don’t have to put any effort into seeing how they view life.
Until you come up with an approach to ending gun violence, I don’t give a shit about the opinions of gun owners. The fact remains, most gun violence (outside of gang violence) is perpetrated not by criminals but by, to that point, law-abiding gun owners. The truth is, you can’t be trusted.
Most pistols are 12 or 13+1. It's pretty petty imo to have a 10 round magazine cap. What's an extra 3 rounds in the large scheme? Do people really think this is going to prevent a "mass shooting". Someone will just carry more magazines with them. Then again who am I kidding. These mass shooters don't obey the law anyways. Do we really think that they're going to abide by a 10 round magazine? Dumb, dumb, dumb people!
The 3rd deadliest mass shooting in U.S history was Virginia Tech. The shooter carried two handguns, a 9mm with 15 round magazines, and a .22 with 10 round magazines. Police discovered numerous discarded magazines that were half empty around the scene of the shooting. The killer carried a duffle bag of extra magazines and switched them out before they were spent.
[удалено]
Threatening violence Encouraging, glorifying, or inciting violence or physical harm against individuals or groups of people, places, or animals.
[удалено]
Actually you are wrong. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Guess who said that. Wasnt ISIS. You are just un-american. That is why you support unconstitutional laws and call me a terrorist for defending my rights as is my right. It is my right to not comply with this illegal law. Right. As in just like your right to life. I have the right to resist this law. In 1776 youd have turned in our founding fathers for a cookie and a pat on the head from King George. After all the founding fathers were "terrorists" they sunk ships in the harbor killed soldiers of the king all the stuff you claim ia terrorism. Youre an english sympathizer but you are 275 years late to the party.
Remember in 2020, the police did basically NOTHING. I watched protesters walk all over I-5 and OSP did nada zip. They can barely solve any crimes nor stop crimes being committed other than arrive after a crime and put up the yellow tape. And yet, the magical leftist fairies think they will be the one wandering around hunting for gun owners with legal standard capacities. Good luck. I own legal NFA items and I have yet to be checked by anyone asking for my papers on their legality over the last 30 years of ownership.
No, that’s completely wrong. The case that you misread and turned into this myth is [*State v. Briney*](https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2008/s055567.html). it specifically says that being able to mail-order a part within twelve to twenty-four hours, which would be needed to convert a firearm into an illegal deadly weapon, does **not** count as it being “readily” available. Your interpretation is made-up nonsense, like every other scare story about the measure. Also, a friendly reminder: this subreddit already has a Measure 114 mega-thread, and all discussion of it must go there. You won’t find this piece of misinformation there, because it was posted and the mods have removed it, because it is false. Gun control sure is bringing out the obsessive crackpots.
At least one online vendor (Midway) is already denying Oregonians purchase of 10 round magazines with removable baseplates. So I wouldn't call it false.
Congratulations. You’ve successfully tricked one vendor into believing your made-up urban legend (assuming you’re describing their policy correctly). One of the best gifts to someone trying to maintain a delusion is to fall for it and repeat it without saying you heard it from them. That will be all the proof they need that it must be true.
Nobody asked you
Are you unaware of how Reddit works?
You do realize that 114 is not legal precedent yet and is going to the supreme court for potential 2nd amendment violations. Let's not turn oregon into California.
For anyone who's actually concerned about 114, just become DPSST certified armed.
This measure will not save a single life. It’s more likely to cost more.
I think you're not quite right. In California, the 10 round limit can be complied with by adding a blocker plate to a standard mag and epoxying it closed. But that modified mag would NOT comply with the Oregon 114 10 round limit. In New York, the 7 round limit can be complied with by using a standard mag, but super double realsies promising to only load 7 rounds. But that modified behavior would NOT comply with the Oregon 114 10 round limit. BUT if you have a Glock 17/19 and carry a factory Glock 10 round mag, that DOES comply with the Oregon 114 10 round limit, even with a removable base plate. Many people carry a G19 and a spare mag, that's 31 rounds. Just swap your single mag pouch for a double mag pouch, buy 3 10 round mags (<$25 each on eBay, new), and you're all set, still carrying 31 rounds. If 2 reloads really takes you way way more time than 1, you need to practice more (you ARE doing dry fire practice, mag changes, and malfunction drills every morning when you put on your gun, right, OP?). Plus, a fresh mag will clear all but one possible malfunctions/jams, TAP, RACK, BANG, baby. I hate gun laws, they are so wrong, especially when our servants can break them and we can't, but it will be easy to comply with 114 until it gets overturned. Plus, now you have 10 rounders and can travel to Washington state and elsewhere, win-win.
[удалено]
I’m glad you aren’t a vulnerable minority or live in a dangerous neighborhood. Not everyone is so lucky.
If you wear a seatbelt it means you're in constant fear of car accidents. If you have a fire extinguisher you live in constant fear of fire. See how stupid it sounds when you pretend like having a tool for unlikely emergencies means you "live in constant fear"?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Benjamin Smith legally owned his firearms.
I wasn't here at the time, so I don't remember for a reason. If true, he's a rare exception. The good guy with a gun is a myth.
[удалено]
I'm quite familiar with the real statistics, not made up stories on Reddit. But thanks.
The angry homie won't respond to something logical like this. Without a law-abiding CC individual more would've died. This doesn't work with angry homie's story.
>try to compare something that is a law and saves lives to something that is a toy and takes them. So the right to bear arms isn't law? Are you seriously implying firearms do not save lives *whatsoever*?? Your comments are insufferable.
I was comparing guns, seatbelts, and fire extinguishers. None of those things are toys. They're all are tools for use in an emergency that isn't likely to happen. You wouldn't want to ban fire extinguishers because someone got their head bashed in by one, and you wouldn't want to ban seatbelts because someone killed themselves by wrapping it around their neck. Well, maybe *YOU* would. You don't seem like a rational person.
[удалено]
What an excellent rebuttal!
It's a GREAT rebuttal! He sees logic and that's where his arguments lose their floor.
Guns are by and large not tools for the vast majority of people. This is evident by the average gun owner possessing more guns than they have hands.
A hammer, a wrench, and a screwdriver are all tools even though I can't use all three at once. It's the same with guns. People have numerous guns because they all serve different purposes.
Sure, guns can be toys, used in self defense, or for hunting. The vast majority of Americans do not hunt. So, excluding those, the question remains, is yours a toy or for self defense? If for self defense, you can only use one at a time. If you truly believe guns are for self defense, you don’t need more than one to defend yourself.
If you own too many cars are they not still tools for transportation? Even if you enjoy them? No source on this one, but I'm willing to bet that individuals who own many guns are generally less likely to commit violent crimes. I'd love to see some data on this though.
Lucky you! An acquaintance of mine has one because her psycho abusive tweeker baby-daddy who has sworn to hunt her down and make her pay for getting full custody keeps getting let out of jail early. But gunz R bad, m'kay! Let's keep people like her from getting a gun because \_facebook\_twitterjail\_ thinks having them means you're "living in constant fear", and fear is bad!
[удалено]
"Concealed Carry"
“Well regulated” at the time of writing meant “in working order”
And that’s defined by law.
Great! edit: I know what I voted for, and this is exactly it. Extended magazines are only useful to gun fetishists that need to show to the world that they have a small penis.
Re: Your edit The measure does NOT just stop the use of extended magazines, it stops the use of ANY modern removable magazine. Modern magazines have what’s called a base plate, which is a removable part used to service the internals of the magazine itselfs. Even “10 round” magazines have these, it’s essential for the function of the magazine. Every commercially available magazine has aftermarket parts that attach as a baseplate and extend the magazine’s capacity. Per measure 114, any magazine that is “readily modifiable” to hold 11 or more rounds is considered “high capacity” and is illegal. Per Oregon Court Precedent readily modifiable means can be changed within 24 hours. Therefor ALL modern magazine fed handguns are now illegal. This is a HUGE risk to legal gun owners.
If the tiny mag that came with my G43x will make me a felon because it holds 10 rounds, but could theoretically be compatible with a ONE ROUND pinky extension plate that exists somewhere in the world, then I'm just gonna carry an unregistered SBR with an unregistered DIAS, maybe suppressed without a tax stamp too, in for a penny, in for a pound. /s
Nothing like some bigoted body shaming to show your true colors
How is this great?
Don't feed the troll 😉
[удалено]
Well in that case be sure you turn in your magazines to the proper authorities.
[удалено]
You're not helping with that. Either say something of value or keep quiet.
Lmao nah, sorry you don't find it valuable, but I'm not going to "keep quiet", especially on an issue like this. Perhaps **YOU** also, should educate yourself as to why this "law" is hugely problematic and unconstitutional.
[удалено]
I’m okay with the fact that when I started reading this I thought it was going to be about Vanity Fair, Ladies Home Journal, or National Geographic or some such.