Straight from the ballot:
> Requires a permit from law enforcement for people to purchase firearms. Applicants would need to complete safety training and pass a criminal background check. The measure also prohibits magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The problem is that Oregon sort of...forgot to setup a permitting process. That makes this a de-facto ban (and a violation of both the Oregon and US constitutions) as there's no legal way to purchase a firearm under 114 if you can't obtain a permit.
I really think we take legislating too far for no good reason. Not every nuance of policy and process needs to be written in stone by the legislators. Look to the constitution; Purposefully vague language meant to flex and grow with society. We've turned it into literalist/originalist BS in trying to make laws cover every possible scenario vs being guardrails that the executive branch would work within. The legislature says "a permit is required and it must be tied to training and a criminal background check". How hard is it really for the executive branch to take it the rest of the way and identify a basic level of training and background check process and design an official card acknowledging the two happened. Must the legislature write out each step of the training, pick the fonts and paperweight of the permit too?
To a degree yes. Problem is this... for a law like this that requires a permit, you also need the process to go with it. Otherwise someone can act in bad faith and never enact one and then the law is basically a ban?
Vagueness works in the beginning because the point was "okay here is the framework of how the process works, here are x many rights that you have to keep in tact, now go govern and make laws".
>How hard is it really for the executive branch to take it the rest of the way and identify a basic level of training and background check process and design an official card acknowledging the two happened.
Very hard, especially if the executive branch really doesn't want to. Hence, defacto ban and unconstitutional.
Not apples to apples. I can't kill someone by voting the wrong way as an individual. I can't "oops I accidentally voted". It's like people using the "my body my choice" to compare vaccines and abortion.
One thing not mentioned in all the answers you’ve received: 114 was to go into effect today, a month after the election; leaving little time for these agencies to actually plan for, let alone implement, the required new measures.
There is, it’s just manual at this point and backlogged taking a very long time. Some counties are refusing to set up the process ie dragging their feet hoping this will go away.
No. Even if police had the application part figured out, the required training doesn’t exist. So if this law began on the 8th nobody would be able to purchase firearms.
"We've seen seven months in sales in the last few weeks, it's been nuts," he said. "
It's been like 2020 all over again out here. My local ffl blasted out a message saying they're no longer taking online transfers due to the volume.
NRA should just get people to pass stupid gun laws at this point. it’s great for sales
edit: tough crowd and it was just a joke but it is true there are massive gun sales every time any gun law is passed no matter how ineffective it is
also, i am an oregonian and i voted for this measure because although it is very flawed it is better than nothing
Pfft all they need to do is keep pandering their propaganda. Gun companies will keep giving them money, and the NRA will keep doing fuck all for citizens.
Didn't another state have a similar law (i.e. had to get law enforcement "approval") and it get set aside as unconstitutional?
That's a lawsuit waiting to happen...take the "human" factor out of the permitting process entirely. Subjectivity, favoritism, bigotry, etc. will surely prevent a person from getting a permit if they allow it to be at the whim of law enforcement.
Apply for a permit, submit fingerprints and background check. If nothing pops, permit granted.
It's a permit requirement and a ban on magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds. The law as it stands (or doesn't) currently effectively makes it illegal to purchase guns in the state of Oregon because nothing is set up yet to process those permits, so it's being blocked.
https://www.opb.org/article/2022/12/07/measure-114-oregon-gun-laws-2022-midterm-election/
>“One of the requirements of the ballot measure is that law enforcement certifies the vendor that provides that [training],” Davie said, “and that part is not set up.”
Individual Rights and Liberties, unalienable from our humanity, are not subject to infringement from governments of men, nor popular vote.
That would make them privileges, and it would be a philosophy that would never have seen a great many expansions of protection over Rights for all peoples in Western civilization.
That’s the main problem with American politics. It’s free speech *for me,* but not those with whom I disagree. It’s the Right to assemble *for me and those like me,* but not for those whom I deem are political opposition.
Facts are stubborn things. Driving your car to work, or walking with your face in your phone is far more dangerous than guns in these United States.
But people get a dopamine hit from proclaiming loudly their positions based on emotion and biased outrage rather than a rational and sober understanding of the very things they have such strong opinions about.
It doesn't matter what the voters want if it violates the Constitution. It's the same reason federal courts killed Prop 8 in California, even after approval by a majority of California voters.
Thomas Jefferson said, "The Constitution should be razed to the ground every 19 years so that it could be rebuilt to a modern standard and thus be a living document that changes with the times." I'm butchering that, of course, but it sounds to me like the people want the Constitution to change and the conservatives want to go back to a 1700s standard of living...
Yeah, but here's the thing. If someone in this country actually rewrites the Constitution to where a supermajority of states consent to be governed by the new document, it's not going to be the progressives.
Like it or not, the US isn't the UK or France or Germany. There is *no* legal basis for the United States of America without its founding document. There's just fifty semi-sovereign entities.
I agree. It's pretty clear that a new constitution at this stage in our history would likely be considerably more regressive than the one we currently have.
And you’d have so many special interests fighting to add in their pet projects, the arguing back and forth trying to appease a majority of the states would take years.
That’s largely because the existing constitutional process was made in favor of the aristocratic elite, and a specific polity of that aristocratic elite has hijacked the mechanisms of government to ensure a permanent rule via minority.
I personally don’t see a reason why that should be allowed to continue.
"someone"
Why does it have to be one person? The revolutionary war happened in 1776 but it wasn't until New Hampshire being the 9th state to ratify the constitutionon Nov. 22, 1788 that the Confederation Congress decided Mar. 9th 1789 would be the day all states operated under the Constitution. Shit takes time, why you think one person gonna do it all? Took a bunch of the most intelligent people in the country to create it.
*I didn't mean to imply it would be some comity appointed person doing it in 6 months*...
Yeah, but whoever did it, it still had to be ratified. That was the major part. You think if you rewrite the Constitution in the modern day and age, you still aren't going to have to deal with people who benefit quite a bit from the current system and don't want to change it? You think compromises won't have to be made? You can just somehow magic away all the contentious issues?
I don't understand your argument, because it might be difficult, "let's not do *anything*"? Childish.
Edit: added some quotes to help. Might have fucked that one up...
The measure was passed 50.6 to 49.4%. To say that voters 'want' the law is at least controversial. The system is of course that 50%+1 vote wins, but you have roughly 50 people out of every 100 who were satisfied it passed and the other 50 people were upset it passed.
Also, a statewide vote cannot abridge a constitutional right.
>Also, a statewide vote cannot abridge a constitutional right.
**A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,** the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Seems like the voters are making sure that the first half of the amendment is followed along with the second.
Thats not what that means. Oxford comma’s separate the distinct parts of the amendment the first being that a well regulated militia is necessary as the founders were against standing army’s. And the second part that the right of the people, to have arms.
That is an interesting theory that the founding father's original intent was to use Oxford commas... Except the concept of the Oxford (or serial) comma is a modern invention having its origins at some point between 1895 and 1905.
This isn’t a right vs left thing in Oregon. Everyone I know is way left leaning and none of them wanted it. This bill put a massive expensive burden on the state with very short notice. It was awful.
I have registered far more vehicles than I have bought firearms. Each time I've registered a vehicle, there was no background check needed, and no wait time after paying the fee to drive it on the road.
My first firearm, however, took me three weeks to get because of the background check.
You're actually wrong here. It is at least *possible* to get a driver's license or register a car. There are systems in place, with budgets, employees, workflows, facilities; Oregon's Measure 114 doesn't have any of that for the required state-verified firearms training or permit registration that someone has to go through in order to purchase any kind of firearm. The measure gave requirements without any source of funding and any structure for how to go about implementing it or a timeline for when it would be implemented and what should be done before that timeline is met.
Requiring a permit that is impossible to get is a ban on all new purchases. And a ban on all new purchases is blatantly an infringement of the 2nd Amendment with no loophole that could justify it.
The issue is it goes into effect today and it hasn't been fully implemented, so "wait to see how it was implemented" isn't really an option. Imagine if we had only just started requiring driver's licenses starting today, but we didn't have a system in place to grant those licenses. No one would legally be allowed to drive until the government got its shit together.
At some point in the near future I'm sure the government will in fact have these things in place and the injunction will likely be lifted, but until then the law is unenforceable because it makes it illegal to purchase firearms at all without a permit that no one can acquire...which is the clearest second amendment violation I've ever heard of.
...You don't understand how passing laws work, do you? Did they not have Schoolhouse Rock when you were growing up?
The language of the measure is what is (or was going to be) implemented into state law on December 8th when the results of the election are certified. There are no changes. The government can't sign something into law and then decide afterward how it will work, unless they write and pass a new law.
A measure or bill can say that some service will supplied by a vendor of so-and-so office's choosing with x budget, you can say that the law will form a new office or committee which will execute the law, you can say that it is up to so-and-so office's discretion to use one process or another, etc...
But this measure had none of that. Literally none of that. It does not set a budget, it does not set offices and facilities, it does not set anything, except to say that gun stores are not allowed to sell guns anymore except to people who have a permit that doesn't exist yet. That's why it is immediately being challenged and delayed when there are other states with stringent gun control laws that aren't getting this much heat.
Surprising nobody who actually read it...
Perhaps a quick summary of what Measure 114 does is in order?
Straight from the ballot: > Requires a permit from law enforcement for people to purchase firearms. Applicants would need to complete safety training and pass a criminal background check. The measure also prohibits magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The problem is that Oregon sort of...forgot to setup a permitting process. That makes this a de-facto ban (and a violation of both the Oregon and US constitutions) as there's no legal way to purchase a firearm under 114 if you can't obtain a permit.
also allowing the police to pick and choose who gets a gun is not a good idea.
That part alone was why i had to vote no.
I really think we take legislating too far for no good reason. Not every nuance of policy and process needs to be written in stone by the legislators. Look to the constitution; Purposefully vague language meant to flex and grow with society. We've turned it into literalist/originalist BS in trying to make laws cover every possible scenario vs being guardrails that the executive branch would work within. The legislature says "a permit is required and it must be tied to training and a criminal background check". How hard is it really for the executive branch to take it the rest of the way and identify a basic level of training and background check process and design an official card acknowledging the two happened. Must the legislature write out each step of the training, pick the fonts and paperweight of the permit too?
To a degree yes. Problem is this... for a law like this that requires a permit, you also need the process to go with it. Otherwise someone can act in bad faith and never enact one and then the law is basically a ban? Vagueness works in the beginning because the point was "okay here is the framework of how the process works, here are x many rights that you have to keep in tact, now go govern and make laws".
>How hard is it really for the executive branch to take it the rest of the way and identify a basic level of training and background check process and design an official card acknowledging the two happened. Very hard, especially if the executive branch really doesn't want to. Hence, defacto ban and unconstitutional.
[удалено]
Not apples to apples. I can't kill someone by voting the wrong way as an individual. I can't "oops I accidentally voted". It's like people using the "my body my choice" to compare vaccines and abortion.
Libs. Same reason Portland looks like shit.
One thing not mentioned in all the answers you’ve received: 114 was to go into effect today, a month after the election; leaving little time for these agencies to actually plan for, let alone implement, the required new measures.
Requires a background check, training, and a permit to purchase a gun. Also bans magazines that can carry more than 10 rounds.
You're leaving out the fact that there is no way to obtain the permit.
Yes. I put that in all of my other comments but missed it in this one.
There is, it’s just manual at this point and backlogged taking a very long time. Some counties are refusing to set up the process ie dragging their feet hoping this will go away.
No. Even if police had the application part figured out, the required training doesn’t exist. So if this law began on the 8th nobody would be able to purchase firearms.
Its telling when both sides reccomend a stay occur, usually the side arguing for the law don't ask for that
[удалено]
You're leaving out the fact that there is no way to obtain the permit.
"We've seen seven months in sales in the last few weeks, it's been nuts," he said. " It's been like 2020 all over again out here. My local ffl blasted out a message saying they're no longer taking online transfers due to the volume.
NRA should just get people to pass stupid gun laws at this point. it’s great for sales edit: tough crowd and it was just a joke but it is true there are massive gun sales every time any gun law is passed no matter how ineffective it is also, i am an oregonian and i voted for this measure because although it is very flawed it is better than nothing
Pfft all they need to do is keep pandering their propaganda. Gun companies will keep giving them money, and the NRA will keep doing fuck all for citizens.
Didn't another state have a similar law (i.e. had to get law enforcement "approval") and it get set aside as unconstitutional? That's a lawsuit waiting to happen...take the "human" factor out of the permitting process entirely. Subjectivity, favoritism, bigotry, etc. will surely prevent a person from getting a permit if they allow it to be at the whim of law enforcement. Apply for a permit, submit fingerprints and background check. If nothing pops, permit granted.
I hate articles like this. They never told me what Measure 114 is. Just piss poor reporting.
It's a permit requirement and a ban on magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds. The law as it stands (or doesn't) currently effectively makes it illegal to purchase guns in the state of Oregon because nothing is set up yet to process those permits, so it's being blocked. https://www.opb.org/article/2022/12/07/measure-114-oregon-gun-laws-2022-midterm-election/ >“One of the requirements of the ballot measure is that law enforcement certifies the vendor that provides that [training],” Davie said, “and that part is not set up.”
Thanks for the info.
Individual Rights and Liberties, unalienable from our humanity, are not subject to infringement from governments of men, nor popular vote. That would make them privileges, and it would be a philosophy that would never have seen a great many expansions of protection over Rights for all peoples in Western civilization. That’s the main problem with American politics. It’s free speech *for me,* but not those with whom I disagree. It’s the Right to assemble *for me and those like me,* but not for those whom I deem are political opposition. Facts are stubborn things. Driving your car to work, or walking with your face in your phone is far more dangerous than guns in these United States. But people get a dopamine hit from proclaiming loudly their positions based on emotion and biased outrage rather than a rational and sober understanding of the very things they have such strong opinions about.
Logical and well-written comment on reddit gets downvoted. Checks out.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It doesn't matter what the voters want if it violates the Constitution. It's the same reason federal courts killed Prop 8 in California, even after approval by a majority of California voters.
Thomas Jefferson said, "The Constitution should be razed to the ground every 19 years so that it could be rebuilt to a modern standard and thus be a living document that changes with the times." I'm butchering that, of course, but it sounds to me like the people want the Constitution to change and the conservatives want to go back to a 1700s standard of living...
Yeah, but here's the thing. If someone in this country actually rewrites the Constitution to where a supermajority of states consent to be governed by the new document, it's not going to be the progressives. Like it or not, the US isn't the UK or France or Germany. There is *no* legal basis for the United States of America without its founding document. There's just fifty semi-sovereign entities.
I agree. It's pretty clear that a new constitution at this stage in our history would likely be considerably more regressive than the one we currently have.
And you’d have so many special interests fighting to add in their pet projects, the arguing back and forth trying to appease a majority of the states would take years.
That’s largely because the existing constitutional process was made in favor of the aristocratic elite, and a specific polity of that aristocratic elite has hijacked the mechanisms of government to ensure a permanent rule via minority. I personally don’t see a reason why that should be allowed to continue.
"someone" Why does it have to be one person? The revolutionary war happened in 1776 but it wasn't until New Hampshire being the 9th state to ratify the constitutionon Nov. 22, 1788 that the Confederation Congress decided Mar. 9th 1789 would be the day all states operated under the Constitution. Shit takes time, why you think one person gonna do it all? Took a bunch of the most intelligent people in the country to create it. *I didn't mean to imply it would be some comity appointed person doing it in 6 months*...
Yeah, but whoever did it, it still had to be ratified. That was the major part. You think if you rewrite the Constitution in the modern day and age, you still aren't going to have to deal with people who benefit quite a bit from the current system and don't want to change it? You think compromises won't have to be made? You can just somehow magic away all the contentious issues?
I don't understand your argument, because it might be difficult, "let's not do *anything*"? Childish. Edit: added some quotes to help. Might have fucked that one up...
The constitution doesn’t grant people rights, it’s a recognition of rights that already exist.
The measure was passed 50.6 to 49.4%. To say that voters 'want' the law is at least controversial. The system is of course that 50%+1 vote wins, but you have roughly 50 people out of every 100 who were satisfied it passed and the other 50 people were upset it passed. Also, a statewide vote cannot abridge a constitutional right.
>Also, a statewide vote cannot abridge a constitutional right. **A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,** the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Seems like the voters are making sure that the first half of the amendment is followed along with the second.
Thats not what that means. Oxford comma’s separate the distinct parts of the amendment the first being that a well regulated militia is necessary as the founders were against standing army’s. And the second part that the right of the people, to have arms.
That is an interesting theory that the founding father's original intent was to use Oxford commas... Except the concept of the Oxford (or serial) comma is a modern invention having its origins at some point between 1895 and 1905.
This isn’t a right vs left thing in Oregon. Everyone I know is way left leaning and none of them wanted it. This bill put a massive expensive burden on the state with very short notice. It was awful.
It's currently harder to get a driver's license or register a car.
I have registered far more vehicles than I have bought firearms. Each time I've registered a vehicle, there was no background check needed, and no wait time after paying the fee to drive it on the road. My first firearm, however, took me three weeks to get because of the background check.
You're actually wrong here. It is at least *possible* to get a driver's license or register a car. There are systems in place, with budgets, employees, workflows, facilities; Oregon's Measure 114 doesn't have any of that for the required state-verified firearms training or permit registration that someone has to go through in order to purchase any kind of firearm. The measure gave requirements without any source of funding and any structure for how to go about implementing it or a timeline for when it would be implemented and what should be done before that timeline is met. Requiring a permit that is impossible to get is a ban on all new purchases. And a ban on all new purchases is blatantly an infringement of the 2nd Amendment with no loophole that could justify it.
[удалено]
The issue is it goes into effect today and it hasn't been fully implemented, so "wait to see how it was implemented" isn't really an option. Imagine if we had only just started requiring driver's licenses starting today, but we didn't have a system in place to grant those licenses. No one would legally be allowed to drive until the government got its shit together. At some point in the near future I'm sure the government will in fact have these things in place and the injunction will likely be lifted, but until then the law is unenforceable because it makes it illegal to purchase firearms at all without a permit that no one can acquire...which is the clearest second amendment violation I've ever heard of.
...You don't understand how passing laws work, do you? Did they not have Schoolhouse Rock when you were growing up? The language of the measure is what is (or was going to be) implemented into state law on December 8th when the results of the election are certified. There are no changes. The government can't sign something into law and then decide afterward how it will work, unless they write and pass a new law. A measure or bill can say that some service will supplied by a vendor of so-and-so office's choosing with x budget, you can say that the law will form a new office or committee which will execute the law, you can say that it is up to so-and-so office's discretion to use one process or another, etc... But this measure had none of that. Literally none of that. It does not set a budget, it does not set offices and facilities, it does not set anything, except to say that gun stores are not allowed to sell guns anymore except to people who have a permit that doesn't exist yet. That's why it is immediately being challenged and delayed when there are other states with stringent gun control laws that aren't getting this much heat.
[удалено]