millerkiller77
Well-known member
Astrovan, but yeah I'm on the way
Well happy friggin election Oregon... :(
- Thread starter MarvB
- Start date
Jorgy
Well-known member
there won't be a shortage of pmags for anyone. See Colorado on why this doesn't do anything
Surprisingly when i was there the last 3 people were approved instantly and none of them had a CC permit. Reading the other forum you and I are on that doesnt seem to be the case now.. I am waiting on a few "items", but they may not even show up until after all this crap is set.
FairWeather
Well-known member
Last I had read, the law wouldn’t take effect until Jan 15, one month after the certification of the vote (Dec 15).
Luckily I’m in a position where there’s not any firearms I need…but there are a few I want. I may just have to wait a year or more to buy any of them, though, to see how/if this mess gets sorted out.
Glad the hi cap mag provision has exceptions for in the the home and at the range. My BX-25 will be safe after all.
Luckily I’m in a position where there’s not any firearms I need…but there are a few I want. I may just have to wait a year or more to buy any of them, though, to see how/if this mess gets sorted out.
Glad the hi cap mag provision has exceptions for in the the home and at the range. My BX-25 will be safe after all.
Last edited:
ShootsManyBullets
Well-known member
Oh look we have guns so we don't care. But now they try to make it difficult for new gun owners to acquire guns so there will be fewer gun owners to contend with in the future, fewer who will push back. Long game. . . just whittle away at freedoms and steer the course a couple degrees further left.
Oregon has the most misleading voter pamphlets I've ever seen BTW. The thing was so crazy it had me wanting to vote yes on legalizing meth a couple years ago. WTF?
114 is unconstitutional and has little if any chance of surviving the courts.
"Shall not be infringed"
Oregon has the most misleading voter pamphlets I've ever seen BTW. The thing was so crazy it had me wanting to vote yes on legalizing meth a couple years ago. WTF?
114 is unconstitutional and has little if any chance of surviving the courts.
"Shall not be infringed"
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Bruen basically said all licensing programs have to be shall issue, rather than may issue. It also affirmed no carrying laws in specific settings were constitution.
Seems like licensing laws are probably here to stay, I'm not sure about rules regarding high capacity mags.
IMHO this is the most "conservative" court that's is likely to exist in most of our life times, so if they don't strike down a law it likely will never be stuck down.
MA has a licensing process it's a incredible PITA and IMHO that's kinda the point, reduce gun ownership through paperwork.
My biggest gripes aside from that it exists are:
1. Doesn't eliminate need for a additional background check, why can't I show my card and then just check out.
2. Mass has zero reciprocity with other states. If you get a license in CA, IL, NY, MD, MA, or HI, which all have very similar laws, you can't use that license in those other states. Also you can't get your license transferred if you move between them.
3. If you move to a different town in MA you have to redo much of the process, and there are a crap load of towns.
4. Still have to use an FFL for transfers, instead of just showing your licenses.
5. There is no process in any of these state for moving, like moving to MA with firearms is ridiculous... they just don't have a process or plan period. The official "non-official" recommendation is hide them under your bed.
I understand why the NRA et al. is primary fighting the licensing laws tooth and nail, but I kinda wonder if fighting the inevitable ends up with a worse outcome then trying to work with folks and get some concessions.
Fix the above, allow OTC purchase of suppressors
.
Last edited by a moderator:
FI460
Well-known member
Bruen basically said all licensing programs have to be shall issue, rather than may issue. It also affirmed no carrying laws in specific settings were constitution.
Seems like licensing laws are probably here to stay, I'm not sure about rules regarding high capacity mags.
IMHO this is the most "conservative" court that's is likely to exist in most of our life times, so if they don't strike down a law it likely will never be stuck down.
MA has a licensing process it's a incredible PITA and IMHO that's kinda the point, reduce gun ownership through paperwork.
My biggest gripes aside from that it exists are:
1. Doesn't eliminate need for a additional background check, why can't I show my card and then just check out.
2. Mass has zero reciprocity with other states. If you get a license in CA, IL, NY, MD, MA, or HI, which all have very similar laws, you can't use that license in those other states. Also you can't get your license transferred if you move between them.
3. If you move to a different town in MA you have to redo much of the process, and there are a crap load of towns.
4. Still have to use an FFL for transfers, instead of just showing your licenses.
5. There is no process in any of these state for moving, like moving to MA with firearms is ridiculous... they just don't have a process or plan period. The official "non-official" recommendation is hide them under your bed.
I understand why the NRA et al. is primary fighting the licensing laws tooth and nail, but I kinda wonder if fighting the inevitable ends up with a worse outcome then trying to work with folks and get some concessions.
Fix the above, allow OTC purchase of suppressors
One of my big worries with this IP is that it doesn't appear to distinguish what LEO agency will do the permitting. If it's the Oregon State Police issuing permits across the state I don't think it will be that bad. If it's each local agency (city PD, rural SO) then I could see it being a nightmare. There's no way Josephine or Grant County can handle this with current funding. OSP management could also address your point in #3, though I think the concealed carry permits do have some requirements for moving county to county.
We already have OSP conducting our background checks here in Oregon. If this was an extension of that program it may be OK. In those instances where someone already has a purchase permit those background checks might fly through the system. We already see this occasionally with people using their CC permit as identification when purchasing.
I don't know. Time will tell.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Absolutely. In MA the state police manage the NR permits, while local town police manage the resident permits.
It's wild when you take your firearm safety class they actually give you a list of which towns are a PITA to get a permit from and which aren't, the fact that this even exists demonstrates that the state is aware of due process problems.
unrestricted LTC Class A = CC permit, restricted = license only to own firearms/ammo
FI460
Well-known member
Absolutely. In MA the state police manage the NR permits, while local town police manage the resident permits.
It's wild when you take your firearm safety class they actually give you a list of which towns are a PITA to get a permit from and which aren't, the fact that this even exists demonstrates that the state is aware of due process problems.
unrestricted LTC Class A = CC permit, restricted = license only to own firearms/ammo
View attachment 250067
Do you suspect that this is based on anti-gun sentiment or bureaucratic incompetence? I don't expect there to be much anti-gun sentiment. I know quite a few folks who have CC permits from Clackamas county, but maybe it would be different in Multnomah. I do expect a fair bit of bureaucratic BS. Those small departments or SO's that have a handful of deputies and poor Sally at the front desk as the only administrative assistant are going to be overwhelmed.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
100% anti-gun sentiment, they aren't getting overwhelmed, they are/were issuing permits they are/were just telling applicants they can't conceal carry. (I'm not sure how this has changed post Bruen, I would guess MA went to "shall" and everyone who asks for a unrestricted license gets one, MA said you had to show reason to need one, and that was exactly what the supreme court said was unconstitutional)
Totally agree with your point about rural counties being overwhelmed.
Benefits of by county would be that rural counties can have different defacto rules then urban areas, which is essentially what people on this thread said they want... downsides would be different rules and lawful owners in cities potentially getting hosed.
ShootsManyBullets
Well-known member
The worse problem is being on a list for future harassment and eventual confiscation.
T
ThunderNocked
Guest
I will always love the Cascades, the Oregon Outback, the High Desert, the Sage, Abert Rim, Fort Rock, Goose Lake, Mount Hood, Snake River, Pendleton, Florence, Sand Dunes, Oregon Coast, Tillamook, Cannon Beach, Fremont, Klamath and all that .... but I don't think I'll ever come back. I thought maybe someday but I just don't see it ever happening again except for an occasional visit. Makes my heart hurt.
Last edited by a moderator:
Oregonians better hope local PD’s won’t be handling permits. Wllm’s description of the MA rigmarole sounds like a scene from Kafka’s the Castle. Having to hide potentially felony inducing firearms under the bed because there’s not a clear procedure to bring them into the state? Yikes.
In my own experience, NYPD’s licensing division charges an exorbitant amount of money for the process then slow walk it with the apparently one elderly person they must have handling permits with a manual typewriter. They’ll look for any possible excuse to deny. Farted on the subway once? Denied! This is even for the most basic and benign long guns. I ended up just not applying and keeping things out of town. Which was precisely the intent. Meanwhile, the handgun licensing division of NYPD got into serious trouble a few years back for accepting bribes to expedite permits for the well-connected.
Rant done. TLDR is a statewide uniform process would be much preferred.
FI460
Well-known member
The text does cap what can be charged for the permit. I think it was $65 for the initial permit, and $50 for renewals. Interestingly there is no provision on bringing firearms into the state. This is only a permit to purchase new firearms.
WapitiBob
Well-known member
People are tired of reading about shootings and nothing being done so they took matters into their own hands. Unfortunately this will become OR law in one form or another despite what forum constitutional experts think.
I recall reading about the fee cap now, in relation to local PD’s saying they’d never be able to fund a new hire with the amount they’ve capped.
As for bringing them into state, what’s to stop everyone from just taking a road trip to Idaho?
Buck Fever NW
Active member
One thing still not clear to me is how this new law will affect transfers, as in transferring a firearm to my son once he's old enough. I believe the language states that a permit is required to "acquire a firearm." Assuming this will include transfers but not 100% sure.
rtraverdavis
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2016
- Messages
- 4,078
Yup. I was talking with someone close to me yesterday who, despite the reasoning I and others laid out prior to the vote, voted to pass this initiative (which will do nothing or very, very little to prevent gun violence) because they felt like "they had to do something." As illogical as it is, that's how people vote.
Oregon has a real track record of poorly-worded, poorly-planned ballot initiatives. This is just the latest. There are so many unanswered questions and possibilities in how to remain legal now that are NOT laid out in the measure, it's ridiculous. Sucks.
FI460
Well-known member
Page 8 of the text lays out the exemptions for private party transfers.
4) The requirements of subsections (2) and (3) of this section do not apply to:
(a) The transfer of a firearm by or to a law enforcement agency, or by or to a law enforcement officer, private security
professional or member of the Armed Forces of the United States, while that person is acting within the scope of official
duties.
(b) The transfer of a firearm as part of a firearm turn-in or buyback event, in which a law enforcement agency receives or
purchases firearms from members of the public.
(c) The transfer of a firearm to:
(A) A transferor’s spouse or domestic partner;
(B) A transferor’s parent or stepparent;
(C) A transferor’s child or stepchild;
(D) A transferor’s sibling;
(E) A transferor’s grandparent;
(F) A transferor’s grandchild;
(G) A transferor’s aunt or uncle;
(H) A transferor’s first cousin;
(I) A transferor’s niece or nephew; or
(J) The spouse or domestic partner of a person specified in subparagraphs (B) to (I) of this paragraph.
(d) The transfer of a firearm that occurs because of the death of the firearm owner
Buck Fever NW
Active member
Thank you for posting this.
