quote:

Originally posted by wingspar:
I wonder if a state run Electoral College could be a possibility. If that was the case, this measure would have failed miserably. I can dream, can’t I?

I think 72% of this county voted against Measure 114 as did the majority of the counties in this state, and now, yet another Donkey Governor in Salem. Grrrrr

What happened to that predicted red wave? Did it cause pro gun voters to relax and not vote??

This is same as my desire to vote US Senators. One Senator by state popular vote. One Senator by county popular vote, one vote per county. I think I wrote this here earlier.
Otherwise the rurals are so disenfranchised. (Is that the proper word?)

Went to the local Sportsman Warehouse. Right now, guns of all types are difficult to buy. Long wait to get a clerk to help you, then there's the matter of the long wait for the background check.

But there are HUNDREDS of greater than 10 round mags to be had. It's obvious from the bins and bins of them that they had more stock shipped in. PMags, Glock Mags, Ruger Mags, some cheap no name brand of 30 rd .223 mags for $9.99 each.

lots of ammo too, at ok prices. Not a rip off, but not an outstanding deal either.

Whatever they can ram down on dealers to make purchases even worse than they are now is about all they can do in my view. The Queue they use is ridiculous and 3 days is cut and dried language to me. Not my problem the Oregon State PD can't afford to make timely background checks and a violation of my rights to drag it out.

Not complying with anything. Not 1 second of this bullshit. And no one else should either. Whatever they force on dealers is unfortunate and better get thrown out in court.

This is the fight, and they need to see what time it is.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
I'm confused about the normal-capacity magazine issue. I read in one source that 114 prohibited the POSSESSION of magazines of >10 rounds. If that is the case, why are people rushing to buy them?
I'd appreciate a clarification, as someone I know is holding some magazines I can't have (for now) in CA.

Well you might start by reading the proposed changes as written, not what others paraphrase leaving out key parts.

https://sos.oregon.gov/admin/D...irr/2022/017text.pdf

Pages 11,12 are what you're looking for, with those sections under (c) being likely what you're looking for on usage.

These are the parts I found interesting, with (C) being the main one. IMO it appears everything I do today I can keep doing with a high cap mag.

"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;"

Basically if I'm engaging in legal recreational activities then I'm good. Note the "such as hunting", that's simply one example, not the only recreational use.

"(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; or
(D) While participating in firearms competition or exhibition, display or educational project about firearms sponsored,
conducted by, approved or under the auspices of a law enforcement agency or a national or state-recognized entity that
fosters proficiency in firearms use or promotes firearms education; and
(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."

Again, I strongly suggest reading the document and not depending on what others state.

Also, once the SOS and legislature has actually written 114 into the laws, edits to, etc... and it's in force, then we all should read what the final text is and what legal interpretations are for it. (what we actually can/can't do legally)

Of course I'm still hoping a hold is placed on this going into effect until the constitutionality can be sorted out. Oregon has a strong constitution of its own, as ODFW found out some years back. Between it and the US constitution one would hope it's shot down.

You all might find this of great interest. As I stated, ask your FFL if they are doing the same, if they are following the 3 day rule. If all the FFL's in Oregon did this through Dec 7th, it would help everyone.

https://www.northwestfirearms....H4_z7iGsQ3UWKTT8N4lc

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

I have found it comical that people have jumped on the “Not one more cent” bandwagon of defunding the NRA, and in the same breath they get upset because the NRA “has been asleep” and other garbage talking points because they don’t have the funding necessary to do what the NRA does. (Insert Obligatory comments about LaPierres wardrobe or their CNN talking points)

It is just like Portland defunding the police, and then getting upset that the police are no longer around and crime going through the roof. It doesn’t really take a rocket surgeon to find who to blame on this.....

Yes, defunding the NRA has worked out so well for the folks of Oregon that the obvious answer is to double down and expect a different result.

I have said the same thing in another thread, or forum. You just worded it better than I did.

I always thought the 3 day thing was federal requirement, until I got to Oregon. Only place I've ever seen it not happen with weak sauce excuses like State Police don't have enough funding, people, etc etc etc. So what! Not my problem. They are obstructing my gun purchases and it matters dammit. If the State PD can't do it get the hell outta the way!

How many laws do the left blue haired progressive dipshits follow in Oregon? Anyone been there in the last decade outta know the answer. Meth and homeless all over the cities and being encouraged to do whatever the hell they want.

Live through 2020? Remember that shit?!!

Oh but I have to obey this law? Fuck you. Aint no more law best I can tell. Especially in Oregon. They don't get to tell me what I can do on my property. Come stop me.

quote:

Originally posted by jxb:


Pages 11,12 are what you're looking for, with those sections under (c) being likely what you're looking for on usage.

These are the parts I found interesting, with (C) being the main one. IMO it appears everything I do today I can keep doing with a high cap mag.

"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;"

Basically if I'm engaging in legal recreational activities then I'm good. Note the "such as hunting", that's simply one example, not the only recreational use.

Yeah, but it seems using a 17 round mag in your CHL (legal CCW) gun while out in public or even while driving in your car might not be covered, correct?

I agree the text is damn confusing.

quote:

Originally posted by wingspar:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

I have found it comical that people have jumped on the “Not one more cent” bandwagon of defunding the NRA, and in the same breath they get upset because the NRA “has been asleep” and other garbage talking points because they don’t have the funding necessary to do what the NRA does. (Insert Obligatory comments about LaPierres wardrobe or their CNN talking points)

It is just like Portland defunding the police, and then getting upset that the police are no longer around and crime going through the roof. It doesn’t really take a rocket surgeon to find who to blame on this.....

Yes, defunding the NRA has worked out so well for the folks of Oregon that the obvious answer is to double down and expect a different result.

I have said the same thing in another thread, or forum. You just worded it better than I did.

Amen. I've never understood people lke that.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by jxb:


Pages 11,12 are what you're looking for, with those sections under (c) being likely what you're looking for on usage.

These are the parts I found interesting, with (C) being the main one. IMO it appears everything I do today I can keep doing with a high cap mag.

"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;"

Basically if I'm engaging in legal recreational activities then I'm good. Note the "such as hunting", that's simply one example, not the only recreational use.

Yeah, but it seems using a 17 round mag in your CHL (legal CCW) gun while out in public or even while driving in your car might not be covered, correct?

I agree the text is damn confusing.

My understanding is that you can carry the magazines greater than a 10 round capacity empty, locked in a box to a range, but not carry them loaded in your firearm as daily carry... no exceptions besides on duty law enforcement.

And the law states the magazine must be permanently made as a 10 round or less capacity magazine so magazine blocks and CA compliant 10 round magazines don't fit the letter of the law.

That said I changed my Amazon Smile charity to Oregon Firearms Education Foundation which is a branch of the OFF who filed the lawsuit against this unconstitutional measure.

Great time to send a little extra to the OFF.

Yep.
I'll be back to carrying a P220 again now.
Ugh, not happy about that after carrying a 365 for a few years.
I think I'll get a shoulder rig this go round.

I voted and donated, all we can do now is wait and see.

What a shit show.

Didn't see this posted in here.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...404fbf7b425f16759221

The concept of passing a law requiring utilization of a system not implemented/ set up is not unusual, just look at NY, which thankfully I put in the rear view 7+ years ago. They passed a law requiring a background check for ammo, but didn’t have a system in place, so the state released a cursory press release saying ammo sales can continue as before until the system for ammo background checks is in place. Ten years later and they still don’t have a system, but now the leftist NY AG says she wants to “go after” / prosecute ammo retailers that have been shipping to NY.
All these states ( what I call the usual suspects NY/NJ/CA etc) have such a mess of laws many of which are hopelessly vague ( to allow prosecutors more wiggle room to oppress I imagine) as to be undefinable

As reprehensible as California is, at least they release official details on what is or is not within the law.

Back when NY enacted the safe act, you could call the “hot line” to get a clarification on if a firearm was compliant or not. Funny thing is, you could call 3 days in a row ask the same identical question and get 3 completely different answers, and no one in the bureaucracy would provide anything in writing.

Said the law abiding citizen shopper..... "Hold on there Mx Suspect Shooter. If your magazine has more than ten rounds capacity, you are breaking the law."

From the link above re magazine limits

“Proponents also say it would reduce suicides”

Don’t know whether to laugh or cry

quote:

Originally posted by lizardman_u:

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by jxb:


Pages 11,12 are what you're looking for, with those sections under (c) being likely what you're looking for on usage.

These are the parts I found interesting, with (C) being the main one. IMO it appears everything I do today I can keep doing with a high cap mag.

"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;"

Basically if I'm engaging in legal recreational activities then I'm good. Note the "such as hunting", that's simply one example, not the only recreational use.

Yeah, but it seems using a 17 round mag in your CHL (legal CCW) gun while out in public or even while driving in your car might not be covered, correct?

I agree the text is damn confusing.

My understanding is that you can carry the magazines greater than a 10 round capacity empty, locked in a box to a range, but not carry them loaded in your firearm as daily carry... no exceptions besides on duty law enforcement.

And the law states the magazine must be permanently made as a 10 round or less capacity magazine so magazine blocks and CA compliant 10 round magazines don't fit the letter of the law.

That said I changed my Amazon Smile charity to Oregon Firearms Education Foundation which is a branch of the OFF who filed the lawsuit against this unconstitutional measure.

114 keeps stating "licensed gun dealer" with regard to selling mags. Last time I checked, no gun dealer license was needed to sell mags.

114 is a difficult read, but it appears that any new mags either being made in the state or being sold to LEO agencies in the state need engraving stating "LEO and MIL use only" and some date code.

So, what out of state mag seller is going to engrave all these mags before shipping them to LEO agencies in Oregon?

"114 keeps stating "licensed gun dealer" with regard to selling mags. Last time I checked, no gun dealer license was needed to sell mags."

LOL, well many folks have pointed out how poorly worded the bill was/is.

You know this would go a long way to explain why so many people were going in a buying shopping carts full of mags, they weren't a "licensed gun dealer" but could see a business opportunity at hand come 12/8. ;-)

Well, I just got back from picking my new Sig Macro from Sportsman's....only took 10 days for my background check to go through.

Background checks:
CHL queue is currently at 8,600
Non-CHL queue is at about 28,000

Took almost 2 hours waiting just to talk to a clerk about getting my new gun and another 25 minutes for them to fill out the paperwork.

Talked to the LGS today and my G26 has been delayed, but is on its way and should be in by Friday. He said there were about 3,200 in the queue for CCW holders and said my background check should go right thru. He has never honored the 3 day rule if a background has not come in by 3 days. I thought he did. I feel confident that I will have the G26 in hand in a couple of days, and my old G43 will be his.