U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- Separated by about a percentage point at this writing, it appears that Oregon’s Ballot Initiative 114 is going to pass. And despite assurance by those who lie about guns and those ignorant and/or biased enough to believe them, a lot more than “common sense” inconveniences will result. In effect, it will be shutting down gun sales.
“Based on the passage of Oregon Ballot Initiative 114 and its expectation to take effect on December 08, 2022, Sportsman’s Warehouse currently understands the following impacts to Oregon residents,” the outdoor sporting goods retailer announced on its website. Sales will be shut down.
— December 07, 2022 (Wednesday) will be the last day to purchase a full capacity firearm magazine (magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds).
— December 07, 2022 (Wednesday) will be the last day to purchase a firearm equipped with a full capacity magazine (firearms equipped and sold with magazines holding more than 10 rounds).
— December 07, 2022 (Wednesday) will be the last day to purchase ANY firearm without a valid Oregon Firearm Purchase Permit.
— If a firearm customer’s background check is delayed (goes into the “OSP que”) and the approval comes on or after December 08, 2022 (Thursday) – the customer will need a valid Oregon Firearm Purchase Permit to take possession of the firearm.
— On and after December 08, 2022 (Thursday) all firearm buyers must have an Oregon Firearm Purchase Permit to purchase ANY firearm.
-
At this time there are no known OR law enforcement agencies issuing the Oregon Firearm Purchase Permit.
-
The new Oregon Firearm Purchase Permit may require live fire training.
A giant retailer that operates in 29 states will probably survive until challenges to the measure prove it to be the unconstitutional abomination that it is. The same can’t be said for smaller operators who have sunk their life savings into a brick-and-mortar storefront that now has no way to sell their inventory because the state can’t provide them a way to meet the new requirements.
But don’t take my word for it. Take Elmer Dickens’. He’s the General Counsel for the Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association, and he outlines the reasons the OSSA urged a “No” vote on Measure 114 (pages 14-15).
“[A] person would have to apply for a purchase permit, go through a background check, get photographed and fingerprinted and of course, pay some fees to obtain a purchase permit,” Dickens notes. “Once they obtained a purchase permit, they would then go to their local gun dealer, pick out a firearm, and then go through a similar background check a second time before being allowed to purchase the firearm. This creates one more expensive additional hurdle to obtaining a firearm in Oregon and reduces access to those from historically marginalized communities or those who are impoverished.”
The racist impact of burdening minorities never seems to slow the gun prohibitionists down, probably because they’ve been able to historically count on their votes. Does anyone seriously think prominent Black Lives Matter and Defund the Police activists will line up to appeal to the cops to approve their applications?
On top of that, Dickens says, law enforcement isn’t staffed to “manage the administrative burdens of an estimated 300,000 permits the first year [that will] conservatively cost local governments in excess of forty million dollars the first year alone, dwarfing the revenues collected by permit fees.” And, of course, officers will need to be taken off the streets and put on permit duty.
Additionally, all this assumes training facilities will be available for that Measure 114 requirement (they aren’t, and again, more costs will be incurred).
OSSA’s “Constitutional concern” involves 114’s ban on magazines.
“Because nearly every modern pistol currently manufactured comes with magazines that hold more than ten rounds a ban can easily be seen as negatively impacting a core Second Amendment right,” Dickens warns, citing California’s ban, reversed and sent back to the Ninth Circuit by the Supreme Court for reconsideration.
The magazine ban has attracted a growing number of sheriffs to pledge they will not enforce the ban.
“This is an infringement on our constitutional rights and will not be enforced by my office,” Union County Sheriff Cody Bowen declared. “This measure will only harm law-abiding gun owners and result in wasted time with additional redundant background checks.”
Some — all doctrinaire gun-grabbers and a few others who haven’t thought things through — object to the sheriffs deciding which laws to obey. While it’s true Democrats do it all the time to advance their political agenda, in this case, there are lawful and moral reasons. It is settled Supreme Court precedent, consistent with the Bruen decision’s “historical understanding” benchmark, that “A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” Add to that “I was only following orders” didn’t cut it at the Nuremberg trials and won’t cut it here. They must be “lawful orders,” meaning tyranny cannot be allowed to trump the Bill of Rights.
None of this registers with those who are impervious to logic and support the measure out of that special kind of ignorance cynical prohibitionists rely on. Cases in point are a girl too young to vote who has been stumping for citizen disarmament since she was 12, and who “cried” when she heard 114 was passing; a father of three who “thinks” it’s a “common sense” way to reduce school shootings and gun thefts (any bets it won’t actually increase the latter?); and an urban Fudd “civil rights attorney” who says he’s for it because “My preferred concealed carry weapon does not have more than 10 rounds in its magazine anyway, so I figured that passing 114 would make it less likely I would be outgunned if I were in a gunfight with an active shooter” (no doubt because they’re so scrupulous about obeying gun laws).
The moneyed interests intent on disarming whoever they can are always delighted to find a critical mass of useful idiots willing to swallow the swill they bankroll.
“Supporters of Measure 114 … have amassed $2.4 million going into next week’s general election, while those opposed have raised a fraction of that at $76,000,” MSN reported before the election. Among them was elitist dilettante and wife of billionaire and former Microsoft CEO, Connie Ballmer. Included among the usual suspects were venture capitalist Nicolas Hanauer and Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown. As a curious aside, Hanauer has endorsed raising the minimum wage because he fears “the pitchforks are coming for us plutocrats,” and Bloomberg actually had protestors show up outside his estate in The Hamptons carrying plastic pitchforks “for effect.”
Any guesses as to why they’re so intent on seeing the hoi polloi disarmed?
Standing up to the billionaires, “Opponents of the measure have raised far less: the Oregon Firearms Federation PAC donated $31,000, the highest contribution, followed by three individual contributors at $2,500 each…”
It does say something about “grassroots” vs. Astroturf to know that despite that massive inequity, average people were able to go toe-to-toe against heavily populated urban districts.
And speaking of Oregon Firearms Federation, they see the blatant unconstitutionality of Measure 114 and are gearing up for the legal fight.
“Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation will use every resource at our disposal to overturn this mean-spirited, evil attack on our rights in court. Period, OFF pledges in a Monday alert. “But we have to act fast to save the many small businesses that the ‘people of faith’ in Portland have been working to destroy.”
Executive Director Kevin Starrett joined Armed American Radio host Mark Walters Sunday night to note how OFF lawyers are assessing the best legal course to take, and how he has been in contact with the Second Amendment Foundation and Gun Owners of America to discuss the best ways the groups can coordinate and supplement their efforts. Take half an hour and listen to the broadcast, beginning in the second half of the first hour at 28 minutes in:
Armed American Radio
It would also help tremendously if Oregon gun owners — and all gun owners, really — helped the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation with the legal fees, which don’t come cheap. The other side has billionaires, and they’ll be coming for all of us when they think they can.
ADDENDUM
After this article had been submitted for publication, Oregon Firearms Federation issued a release saying “Things Just Got Worse“:
While many assumed that the implementation date would be 30 days after the election was actually “certified” (given that votes were being counted long after Nov 7th) now we are being told the Secretary of State has no plans to wait and the ban of new gun sales and magazines will begin December 8th.
While this seems insane even by Oregon standards we have to assume it’s true.
Check the OFF Alerts page for the latest updates on this and other developments.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
When a ‘Common sense law’ is created that allows a 130 year old antique rifle to be classed as an Assault Weapon, Common sense had no part in it. However intelligent these people proclaim themselves, it is obvious that they could not identify a firing pin from a Kunuter Valve.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is plain language, something liberals cannot comprehend. Liberalism is a mental disorder. Those similarly afflicted individuals that are able to recognize this condition (not likely) in themselves have a chance to atone, by voting for freedom. Figuring out who treasures freedom is easy to the discerning. Research and recognize. The Republic is at stake. Have a nice day!
American representative democracy is founded under classical liberal philosophy. But that’s irrelevant to your argument. The fact is the first Amendment reads the same way, but there are limits on free speech. When you’re talking about con law, context os everything. That said I’m opposed to 114, because it’s a badly written (re the permit part) and unnecessary (re the capacity limits) law.
Well it looks like it sucks to live in Oregon now, maybe California is the place to be!
Didn’t the Supreme court already rule on this?
Yes but Dems don’t care. It’s covered by the Bruen ruling and the SCOTUS ruling on the Kommiefornia case.
Yup. And in plenty of time to clearly indicate this wretched non-law was put on the ballot. And of it had been put on the ballot it should have been declared void, and the votes not even tallied.
No. They ruled on the constitutionality of a concealed carry law where the applicant for a concealed carry license had to show a particular need to carry (e.g. I’m the manager of a jewelry store that has to transport valuable inventory making me a target) and the discretion of the authorities to grant or deny the permit. Heller’s holding is that the right to bear arms for self defense is an individual right, Buren’s holding was that the right can be exercised outside of the home and limits/regulation of that right are subject to heightened constitutional scrutiny. Nothing was said… Read more »
My guess is this Sheriff & others know they have the support of their communities. But what about the rest of Oregon ? Is this Sheriff going to stand behind the gun stores being shutdown, should State Police try to enforce a closure ? State Police should have to provide the training needed to get qualified, free of charge. Seven days a week. No overtime pay. Watch how fast they drop their support.
Just another way by anti-gunners to get a firearms registry, we are losing our freedoms with kind of crap.
To start with, I’m not a fan of 114 because it’s poorly written and really can’t be implemented, moreover the magazine capacity limits will not improve public safety. That said, I don’t care who you are, never compare the systematic genocide of people—your Nurenburg reference—with a Sheriff’s decision to enforce or not enforce a gun laws that a Federal court has not struck down. Frankly that’s leading with the chin to have your opinion discounted out of hand by many folks that might be otherwise sympathetic to your argument. Killing innocent people just isn’t the same. Moreover until the job… Read more »
Here we go, this is the proving grounds for full confiscation.