This is the kind of ammunition magazine that Measure 114 purports to prohibit, with exceptions.
Now that a majority of Oregon voters has approved Measure 114 to infringe a civil right that the federal Constitution says shall not be infringed, I’m curious to see what happens next.
In Linn County, 70 percent of voters in the general election realized the problems with this measure and voted against it. In Benton County, 60 percent voted the other way.
One problem is this: The measure requires citizens to obtain government permission — a permit for which a fee will be charged — to exercise their constitutional right to arm themselves. It’s like having to get a permit to exercise the right to free speech.
The federal courts will have to deal with this problem in light of decisions by the Supreme Court.
Before we get there, though, someone will have to figure out the mechanics for obtaining and issuing such permits, which the measure says must be done by local police.
The initiative takes effect 30 days from when it passed on Tuesday. Will sheriffs and police departments in Albany or Corvallis, or anywhere, be ready to issue gun-buying permits on Dec. 8? It’s unlikely.
If not, will purchases of firearms effectively be banned from that date until the agencies get their processes figured out?
Then there’s the matter of ammunition magazines. The measure says they can’t hold more than 10 rounds, and any magazines capable of holding more than 10 are prohibited except for people already owning them, and these people can’t use the magazines except in limited circumstances.
Linn County Sheriff Michelle Duncan, fresh from being confirmed in office by the voters, issued a statement saying the sheriff’s office would not enforce the magazine prohibition.
Of course not. What is there to enforce?
What would enforcement look like? Stopping people known to have concealed-handgun licenses and giving them a ticket if they have a gun on them and if the magazine it came with is inserted in it? That would be ridiculous even if it was possible or legal, which it is not.
The supporters of this initiative probably believe the campaign’s claim that it will save lives. No one can be sure of that.
What we can be certain of is that this new law will cost money, in the price of getting individual permits to buy firearms, and in the public cost of carrying out the permit function and the litigation that is sure to come. (hh)
The 15-round capacity of this magazine is what Measure 114 says is the problem.
Let the lawsuits begin.
There is NO forethought in the majority of decisions made by government theses days (be it local or otherwise).
HH
Perspective from a citizen born where both the Declaration and the Constitution were crafted.
Firearms at that time were single-shot, smooth-bore flintlocks that could be used for hunting or defense.
Other arms might include axes, knives, swords, or clubs.
The writers could not have imagined a firearm that could discharge at a high rate with volume trying to compensate for skill and accuracy.
BTW, I dumped my NRA membership in the 90s because Wayne LaP was speaking BS
Same with first amendment I suppose right? Free speech only includes actual speech and writing with a quill on papyrus. The founders never could have imagined the internet, computers, smart phones, type writers and analog/digital signals. Technology changes, rights do not.
By that logic freedom of the press does not extend to television or the internet.
Actually the amendments were written in a way to be tineless; that’s why flintlock or quill and paper were not expressly mentioned. At the time the smooth muskets were the most advanced weapons of the time it was written so that the government they were forming could never usurp power from the people . As someone from where the constitution was written you should have a better grasp of it.
Actually, my grasp is based on the on-ground prevailing thoughts and behaviors of the City.
Raised with a single-shot attitude. Worked with a few thousand-yard-qualified folks who had no second shot.
Folks who NEED extended magazines likely aren’t skilled enough
You have obviously never run a course of fire which required multiple shots on multiple tagets.
You’re right. I came late to firearms. Plus, I lost sight in the dominant eye, so reaction is slow.
Worked with several folks who laughed at splatter-fire. They prided themselves on “one target, one shot”
One fellow’s family harvested supper off their property
Dad gave two sons ane bullet each to bring home two birds. They learned to wait until two birds swam through the line of fire, then bagged both with one round.
The 2nd Amendment was written specifically to give private citizens the right to own and use the most modern military fighting weapons of the day. It says nothing about hunting, smooth bore, flint lock, or single shot anything. It deliberately doesn’t even specify firearms because the writters COULD envision an day when fighting arms would surpass what was available then, or what will be availalbe in the future from now.
Actually, the 2nd was written to pacify the slave-holding states, and to get them on board for ratification.
They weren’t much concerned with a foriegn assault. Their concern was a slave revolt. A standing army would have been expensive. The militia was considered a viable solution.
The current interpretation siezes on a single sentence.
The 2nd Amendment: “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.”
Registration of owners is smart. When we are attacked, it will be much quicker to know who has arms and to get them to defend Oregon, and the nation, from any scum who try and take over our state or federal government. Registration doesn’t stop ownership, it fosters protecting our state by calling out armed people to fulfill their duties as citizens.
How can you argue against that? Do you oppose maintaining “…the security of a free State”?
Nice try.
Bob…please re-read what you just wrote and think of the reason 2A was written for. Maybe…just maybe, you’ll realize what you just had written. smh
Actually, everyone should pull their own weight, so every last citizen needs to own a weapon and be proficient with it. Then no need for a registry. You do care about the security of our free state right?
You can’t actually believe that vitriolic nonsense, can you?
Thanks, good comments
Thankfully, the wise people of Oregon have chosen to rein-in the madness…even if just a little bit. The whinging and gnashing of Right Wing teeth will go on, as it always does. Thankfully, the Great Oregonian Middle has awakened to the nonsense pedaled by gun nuts who claim their god-given right to slaughter one another has been oh-so-slightly pushed-back against. Those who prefer unfettered rights to mow down their fellow citizens with military grade weaponry are already moaning, wailing like thoughtless, childish, gun-toting banshees. With a modicum of judicial plain-thinking, Measure 114 will stand and those who would gun down innocent children in their classrooms will perhaps be prohibited from their perversity. Greater society will be far better off.
You should move to Australia.
Ask them how turning over their guns worked out for them.
Take a look at the crime and murder rates since giving up their guns.
Oh, and by the way…
Do you remember your history?
Most evil regimes took away guns from the people before attacking.
The Nazis were just one.
Sandra, try Google before you post incorrect information:
https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/27-years-recorded-crime-victims-data
Here is a comparison between Australia and the US:
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime
try looking at what Hitler did in the 30’s and 40’s. look what happened in Venezuela when the government took their guns. what happened in China when their guns were taken. u do not know history as well as u might think.
The hypocrisy of the argument on the left of “the killing of the innocent children” is stunning.
In regards to the magazine ban, and putting the obvious legal and freedom issues aside:
“There is inconclusive evidence for the effect of high-capacity magazine bans on firearm homicides.”
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons/violent-crime.html
Will a 10 round magazine take the “mass” out of a “mass shooting”? Will a 10 round magazine stop a person from killing someone else or themself?
A “yes” answer to either question is facially absurd.
So what, exactly, is the unstated purpose of empowering government to ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds?
Be honest.
Unfortunately, your source is connected to the NRA. As late as 2013, NRA directed Rand’s “health research division”. Talk a fox living in the henhouse.
Don’t take mind word for it. Look it up!
I have been shot at in my yard and at my house. It creates a new perspective…
Miriam-Webster defines infringe as acting “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another”. The courts will very likely get to decide whether or not Measure 114 does that….hopefully sooner rather than later.
How does one construe a magazine to a firearm actually being a firearm under the definition of the 2nd? It is an accessory to one. Period. I’ll suggest that if you are incapable of *effectively* using a 10 round magazine, you need some retraining on the use of your weapon. It does not affect the folks who already own them. Paranoia still abounds. Sad.
It’s not about paranoia, it’s about the stupidity and brainwashing of people into believing that this is going to solve the current problem. Criminals don’t already obey current gun laws, what makes anyone think that they are going to obey this one?
Please articulate a valid reason why anyone *needs* a magazine larger than 10 rounds. I stand by what I said.
It’s a RIGHT ! No need or other idea can over come that.
Hogwash… By your definition, I should then be able to easily purchase a receiver for weapon of my choice.
As usual, your non-affiliated reasoning is ass-backwards.
It’s not up to the citizen to justify anything to government.
It’s up to government to justify how a large capacity magazine will prevent demonstrable harm to others. I ask again –
Will a 10 round magazine take the “mass” out of a “mass shooting”?
Will a 10 round magazine stop a person from killing someone else or themself?
Of course not. Your leftist position is nonsensical.
I see you are STILL incredible confused Gordon. WE, the citizens, are the Government. We choose the people to represent us, and they ensure the laws that are in effect are followed.
You and the rest of the far-right un-intelligencia always make things US vs THEM.
As the great political philosopher POGO from ages ago said so clearly:
“We have met the enemy and he is us.”
https://library.osu.edu/site/40stories/2020/01/05/we-have-met-the-enemy/
it’s none of ur damn business of why.
For the same reasons that free speech is not limited to ten words or less.
It’s the bill of rights not the bill of needs. Are you referring to “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”?
What does “need” have to do with anything I said? Instead of deflecting, why not answer the question: Criminals don’t already obey current gun laws, what makes anyone think that they are going to obey this one?
I get it, you can’t…or rather you won’t because then you would have to tell folks who voted for it just how stupid they are for believing that this is going to stop all the gun violence because they won’t vote for you again.
Requiring permits and limiting magazines to 10 rounds will NOT stop the gun violence! It’s just air…hot air. You want to stop the gun violence then address the issues that are leading people to kill other people like drugs and mental health. Quit putting your foot on the necks of people who aren’t doing anything wrong and go after the people who are. And quit pussyfooting around it…white, black, brown, red, purple, green…doesn’t matter.
RK
I agree that the magazine is an accessory. Following the path you opened, it isn’t covered by the amendment.
Argument concluded.
The 2nd Amendment: “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.”
That’s how it should be: a well-regulated militia, not just anyone who does not know a squat about guns, nor criminals.
I suggest many more Sheriff’s will follow Michelle Duncan’s lead. This infringement could be called harassment.
Law abiding citizens can easily stuff a few, spare, smaller capacity magazines in your pocket to use in your smaller, more concealable pistol. Non law abiding citizens don’t pay attention to such laws.
Another example of clamping down on the law abiding citizens. Does anyone REALLY think this will deter the criminal element? Wake up and be reasonable instead of responsive.
What is a militia?
According to “The World Book Encyclopedia” {does any one remember that precursor to the computer and much easier to navigate) a Militia “includes ALL able bodied men liable to be called into the armed forces in time of national emergency. In the United States the militia includes the Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard, Army National Guard. Marine Corps Reserve and Naval Reserve.”
All these organizations meet on regular basis for training purposes and have a hierarch or command. There training, if I’m not mistaken includes firearms qualification periodically.
My point being that in this day and age very few of us have had any ongoing training in weaponry and tactics. We have multiple calibers of ammunition and weapons. Logistics alone would be an impossible task How many of have body armor, helmets, etc.
I am NOT anti gun! I am just pointing out the fallacy of the thought that in case of attack from some source everyone with a weapon can just run to the corner to defend the country
Unorganized militia – comprising the reserve militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the State Defense Forces, National Guard, or Naval Militia.
The amendment doesn’t define “militia”. I haven’t heard of a Federal definition either. In modern parlance, who is qualified, and how do the become qualified? Many uninformed opinions, but no statutory definition.
Not to belabor the point, but possession doesn’t bestow competence.
“Now that a majority of Oregon voters”…don’t you mean, the snowflakes in the Portland Metro area and U of O and OSU? Because the rest of the state voted against this because we are smart enough to know that…HELLO…criminals don’t obey laws.
And in a time when we already don’t have enough police officers, you want to waste their time on issuing permits.
How many of you have fired your weapon in self defense?
Note “majority of Oregon voters” not the majority of Oregonians. Low voter turnout is evidence of a growing apathy plaguing our state. I trust that the unconstitutionality of this initiative will have it thrown out quickly.
There is an argument made in this article that I think is flawed.
“The measure requires citizens to obtain government permission — a permit for which a fee will be charged — to exercise their constitutional right to arm themselves. It’s like having to get a permit to exercise the right to free speech.”
It ignores that permits are required for parades, protests, and rallies that are big enough to interfere with traffic or business.
It ignores that freedom of speech does not allow protests on private property unless the owner consents.
It claims that a gun permit is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. By analogy, is voter registration an infringement?
Our constitutional rights are not carte blanche. Our rights come with responsibilities.
Correct Jeff – with every “right” comes “RESPONSIBILITIES”! It seems as though more and more people are ignoring that.`
If strict gun laws actually worked and made cities safer, then Chicago should be Mayberry USA.