Presumably this is where you would go in Benton County for a gun permit if Initiative 17 becomes law.
Proposed Initiative 17 has qualified for the statewide Oregon ballot in November. Its Portland sponsors call it the “Reduction of Gun Violence Act.” Another name that fits better would be “Making Gun Buying More Complicated and Expensive Act.”
The proposal would cancel or abridge the right of Oregon citizens who are not convicted criminals or mentally ill — most of us — to buy a firearm if we want one. Instead, we could buy one only if we apply for and obtain a permit first.
To get a permit, a person would have to apply to the police or sheriff. That agency, the “permit agent,” would ask the state police to do a criminal background check similar to what the law already requires for concealed handgun licenses. Fingerprints of applicants would be submitted to the FBI.
The state police would be required to keep a searchable database of all new, valid and expired gun permits.
The main requirement for applying for a permit is to complete a training course on firearms handling and safety, and on state and federal laws, taught by a certified instructor. The training would have to include subjects such as “the impact of homicide and suicide on families, the community and the country as a whole.”
This training could be had online. But applicants also would have to demonstrate proper gun handling and shooting in person. This means a session with an instructor at the range.
The permit itself would cost $65, would last five years, and could be renewed for $50. The training would cost something too. Years ago, a basic handgun course at the Oregon Firearms Academy near Brownsville was $125. (The academy is out of business, but others provide similar training.)
In addition to requiring permits to purchase a gun, the initiative would ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, except for police. Citizens who already own or inherit such magazines could keep them for legal activities such as competition or target shooting.
The sponsors and signers of this initiative want to make the legal process of buying a firearm more complicated and expensive. For law-abiding citizens their measure would do just that.
Whether it would do anything to stop or reduce the nightly gunfights among criminals in Portland — or prevent random shootings like the road-rage murder in Polk County last week — is open to serious doubt. (hh)
More red tape, cost and time wasted for the police and buyer both, Also an infringement of our rights according to the second amendment, not to mention a breech of privacy with tracking. If, as happens frequently, people are confronted with multiple assailants you need adequate bullets to deal with them. This is just another attempt at taking away our second amendment rights.
Is it really easier for adults to legally acquire and keep guns than it is to legally drive a motor vehicle in the state of Oregon? This has never made any sense to me.
One reason why it does make sense is that arms are in the state and federal constitutions while motor vehicles are not. Another is that being surrounded by motorists in traffic is infinitely more dangerous than a fellow citizen storing or carrying a firearm that is not in use. That’s why cities ban the discharge of firearms but not carrying or having them.
Thinking small (this Initiative, if it passes) will not reduce gun violence.
If the goal is to reduce gun violence, then pursue the one policy change that everyone knows will achieve true “gun control” (confiscation) – repeal the Second Amendment.
But gun controllers know they would lose elections if a serious repeal effort is initiated.
So they satisfy themselves with chasing ineffective anti-gun “solutions” like this initiative.
And the gun controllers go to bed feeling good about themselves and the small game they are playing.
In the meantime, suicides, violent crime and mass shootings continue unabated. Delusion is clearly in fashion in Oregon.
So Gordon, check the data for 2022 to date:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/811541/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-state/
Oregon is fairly low on the list, because the population is lower. But the killing is DISGUSTING. And it’s almost always by guns.
Not that I think this can be upheld if passed, but watch gun sales go up before they try to pass it.
Gun sales go up every time someone burps. But the guns go mostly to folks that already have them.
“Let’s see. I have two hands, and I’ve got 7 guns already….. I need to buy more.”
That folks, is insanity. And that is way TOO MANY PEOPLE, especially in Texas.
Want to have an impact? You and centrist need to team up and lead an effort to repeal the second amendment and Oregon’s Article 1, Section 27.
This would effectively remove the right to possess a firearm for the purpose of self-defense.
The Dems rule the House, Senate, and President. The Dems control every nook and cranny of Oregon government.
A simple majority in the U.S. Senate can avoid it’s self-imposed cloture rule.
You’re armed and ready for battle. But there’s not a snowflake’s chance in hell of it happening.
Why?
An armed society is a polite society.
Was a maxim flouted in my house often. Yet 35 years later here we sit same story.
When do the armed become polite?
Could we get a bit of responsible in the mean time while we continue to wait?
Let’s all take a breath.
When the Constitution was crafted, “arms ” were blades( knife, sword, axe. …), bludgeons, and single-shot/smooth-bore/black powder flintlocks.
A strict constructionist might conclude that the various modern improvements in weaponry aren’t included.
Remington marketed a 7mm mag as THE BEST NEXT THING. Yup, it had stopping power, if you could control the recoil without flinching. Next problem was that the carcass was too bloodshot to harvest.
Not all marketing is fruitful.
About the “well-regulated militia”. That was an allowance to the slave-holding states to have a force ready to quell a slave rebellion.
Since slavery is done, is the force needed?
10 points!
So True. We have more guns than people in the US and we are hardly safe. Less safe than ever and mass shootings and suicides by firearms are at their highest ever.
True this law will do little or nothing. It takes gun owner’s like myself and others to come together and find common sense solutions. If you can’t buy beer, a lottery ticket or cigarettes at 18, then guns should be on that list.
I bet many in Portland wish there was a well regulated militia that would stop the wanton destruction whenever there is a “protest” downtown.
As for slavery, it still exists, we just call it by a different name now.
Please provide evidence for the claim that slave control was the reason for “well regulated militia”. Federalist Papers?? Never heard that before. I suspect that is not true.
One of the first things the Brits did was to confiscate firearms to control the rebellion. Founders said never again.
tec
Likely will take a while to resurrect the basis for what I wrote. Learned it in grade school history classes in Philadelphia. The place oozed colonial history and the background for the development of the governments that became our country.
perhaps what you learned was not true–like a lot of stuff.
More likely, it was/is true.
The Constitution and its amendments weren’t written in vacuum. Negotiations happened in Inns and Taverns among peers. Records were simply the result
It may be that you accept what you think you know. Meanwhile , I accept what I saw/heard/felt with boots on the ground.
When the Virginia Ratifying Convention began in 1788, it became clear that the state’s ratification of the Constitution would be conditioned on the necessity of state militias because from them, “slave patrols” were formed to keep order. Jefferson, Henry and Madison all had slaves and they feared an uprising. Virginians also wanted to avoid what had happened during the Revolutionary War: slaves were invited to join the Continental Army and thereupon became free. Henry even feared that abolitionists would find a way to use the Constitution to manumit all slaves. It, therefore, was of paramount importance that State rights to maintain militias unregulated by the federal government be included as an amendment, if Virginia were to ratify the Constitution.
So the Second Amendment was born. Not to protect individual rights from encroachment, but to guarantee states the right to keep armed militia free from federal interference, in order to maintain control over black slaves. Not the noble motivation one might have hoped for. But the truth about the need for a state Militia and the intent of the Second Amendment.
I highly doubt that the fathers of our Constitution could possibly realize that one day in the future, weapons-manufacturing corporations would use the second amendment, the “slave patrol militia amendment”, to protect their “right” to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren, families in movie theaters, and revelers in dance clubs. Anyone whining about having to go through some hoops to get their guns will have to live without sympathy from me.
“So the Second Amendment was born.”
Suggest you read D.C. v. Heller for a more accurate history of how the second amendment was born.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
I’ll trust the word of judges who publish their opinions under their real name.
Not the ignorance of an individual (assumed) who doesn’t even have the guts to identify him/her self.
GS
Interesting citations to support the opinion. The reality is that the militia reference came about because it was a deal-maker to bring the southern folks onboard. Without it, they would have gone their own way.
Gordon, lay off the personal attacks against those of us who respect our online privacy and wish to exercise and enjoy our right to freedom of speech. So what if you don’t know my legal name? What would you do with it? Not giving my legal name here does not negate my right to say what I want to, or take away any value of what I put forth. You are free to disregard or consider what I write. Does it ever occur to you that some of us have jobs that could be threatened by employer perceptions about what we post online or in social media? I can reduce that risk by being mindful in my activities online to not blatantly expose myself to such scrutiny.
First, let’s clear up MK’s misunderstanding of the First Amendment and free speech.
Hasso’s blog is not a public forum and he is not a state actor. So he can censor to his heart’s content. Neither MK or I have a right to free speech on this blog.
Second, calling MK out for not using it’s real name is not a personal attack. How can it be personal when I don’t even know who/what MK is?
Third, posting anonymously is about hiding, It’s not about protecting privacy. This is you MK. Own it. Just don’t expect those who post using their real name to take you seriously.
I’m late to the conversation but I felt compelled to ask where you got your interpretation of history. When I was in school, we learnt that a “well regulated militia” was originally intended to replace a standing army not to quell a slave rebellion. The framers were more concerned about the power of their own government over them and each citizen’s ability to keep themselves free from government intrusion.
The current laws and these proposals will not prevent criminals from doing what they want. Just another way to get more money from law abiding citizens and leave us unable to protect ourselves.
So how many time in your life have you had to draw on someone?
I’m betting zero. If not, please tell us where and when and the outcome.
Total disarmament is the goal….and it’s necessary if we are ever to achieve the socialist utopia we all so desperately want. The great reset is coming….shun the unbelievers.
Total disarmament will NEVER happen. Only law abiding citizens would be affected.
Thanks to our current political leadership, I’m sure you’ll be reading more stories about these law abiding citizens defending themselves.
As is typical, the pro-weaponization types would have you believe that, in spite of the massive evidence that the US has gone insane on the issue of lethal weaponry, that nothing need be done. Do Nothing! Nothing to be done. Anything presented to the voter is a waste of time because there’s Nothing To Be Done. Gun possession is “in the Constitution…there is nothing that can be done. Nothing should even be proposed because…there’s nothing to be done by anyone for any reason….simply nothing.
America once had a political party aptly named the Do/Know Nothings. It seems that group has been revived. And, their position is…you guessed it…there’s nothing to be done except to continue doing the murder/killing thing. Your right to exist pales when compared to the Nothing to be Done crowd. Maybe the Nothing to be Done coterie are simply lazy and don’t want anything done.
All it takes is two thirds of both houses of Congress and the ratification by three quarters of the States. How do you begin? Doing nothing is usually a virtue when it involves collectivist action as it protects what is left of our individual liberties.
Courts continue to allow age restrictions, permitting requirements, and some other limitations on gun ownership. Whether Initiative 17 will pass constitutional muster is something the courts will presumably wind up determining if it becomes law. Oregon is predominantly an urban state. It’s not surprising this type of initiative will be on the ballot.
Here is a historian’s look at the history surrounding the origin of the Second Amendment and at the continuing rights of states to restrict individual gun ownership:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/26/conservative-supreme-court-gun-control-00042417
If you really want to look at the constitution and firearms think about the portion relating to “militia”.
A militia is defined as a regulated, organized, armed group with leadership and undergoes periodic training.
The authors of the Constitution had no way of envisioning what things are like now, and if they had, would probably used different wording.
If you look at “militia” alone then, I believe, that if we want to possess a weapon we should all belong to the National Guard (a militia) where part of the definition of MIlitia (trained, organized, etc) is met. When you leave the Guard then you have to turn in the weapons.
I can argue with myself about this philosophy all day and never agree with what I come up with.
It’s a classic Catch 22
Early Americans had little or no dealings with big government. They could not have envisioned governmental intrusion into every aspect of their lives like we have now with all the taxation. The same people who want to end the second amendment would also want to do away with freedom of religion. The country some want is the very country people leave to come here. It’s the same way people vote liberal, then move away when things go south. Where are you going to move if your rights are not God given but government given?
To old adages come to mind:
“Just because I can’t see them doesn’t mean they’re not out there.”
and
“Only the paranoid survive.”
and, “even if you are paranoid, sometimes they really are trying to get you.”
“Even paranoids have enemies”
One question for the gun fans: at what point does the right to move about freely without fear of being murdered by gunfire trump the 2nd amendment?
Just as the Founding Fathers (all rich white males-many with slaves) were unable to predict the AR-15, so too were they (in their white richness) unable to foresee a time when the single greatest cause of child mortality would be gun fire. The Founding Fathers (no Founding Mothers) never envisioned a time when Americans would fetishize guns over the freedom to be and remain alive.
Sadly, the fetish seems to have taken hold on a rather large segment of the society. We can only hope and pray to the Gods of the Founding Fathers that one day, the fiendish worship of firearms will take second place to actually being FREE to live and walk the streets without fear of being shot to death by some gun toting murderer. Hering is worried about his gun rights being abridged. Perhaps he ought consider the Right To Life currently in vogue amongst the Right Wing gun lovers … that right extends to all of us who exist outside the womb.
In fairness, the issue with guns has as much to do with a lack of respect a gun as a tool and for other people. In the Founding Father’s time, children knew how to use a gun and were smart enough to respect what it could do. Not really comparable to how a gun is treated today by those that commit the heinous crimes.
I suspect that many who carry a gun, do so so they are not in fear of being murdered by someone. Just ask the “good samaritan” that prevented a worse attack at the mall recently. His only problem was that he missed with 2 shots out of 10. How long would the deranged attacker have been shooting had the samaritan not been armed himself?
Hear, Hear!! Beautifully written.
maybe late to reply to centrist. What boots on the ground? I will not believe your idea that 2nd amendment was so slave owners could control slaves. you have no evidence from the historical record and apparently unwilling/unable to find it. Plenty of evidence in the record about Brits confiscating patriot’s arms and Founders response.
tec
Yup, the Brits did try to confiscate weapons. Didn’t work well with a dispersed population who relied on the tools for food.
I am unable to document what I learned. Please note that I don’t use “believe.” A belief is an idea tightly held that cannot be proved or disproved.
My primary sources currently reside in National Cemeteries around the country. Their interaction with folks from other states resulted in informed education.
There’s an informative post about a negotiation in Virginia. They set the tone.
GS
You had an interchange with MK well above. Gotta call a flag — ignoring a point to make one based on something not stated.
I’ll be blunt— I use a nom de plum for security. Given how disconnected some folks have become from social norms, I was advised long ago that participation was OK, but that clear identification had serious downside consequences.
If HH makes clear-text ID necessary, I’ll exit.
But then how will the various Hartmans deal with it. Been several, all educational, except for the webcam schtick.