Blog - Oregon’s Measure 114 Denounced as Racist By ImagineBlack.org

1
Portland’s Imagine Black has created a voter’s guide that spells out the negative consequences of Oregon Measure 114. Measure 114 is a feel-good band-aid for the privileged that changes the laws of gun ownership for Oregon residents. https://www.imagineblack.org/voter-guide/measure-114 Please re post and share this link to help get the word out about how Measure 114 will disproportionately penalize Communities of Color, LGBTQ+ communities, victims of domestic violence, and those who are struggling economically. This measure turns it’s back on the ongoing crisis of Veteran suicide. It will also divert resources from social programs proven to truly address the root causes of gun violence, such as mental health services, and violence intervention programs for youth at risk.    

Source: https://theliberalgunclub.com/oregons-m ... black-org/

Re: Blog - Oregon’s Measure 114 Denounced as Racist By ImagineBlack.org

2
If Measure 114 passes, it would mean:

Anyone wanting to purchase a gun in Oregon would have to first obtain a permit by:
Completing a gun safety class that included hands-on instruction with a firearm

Submitting to a federal criminal background check

Magazines containing more than 10 rounds of ammunition would be banned, with exceptions for people who already own larger magazines
https://www.opb.org/article/2022/10/18/ ... ne-limits/

The permit will cost $65.00 plus any costs associated with required training.

https://sos.oregon.gov/admin/Documents/ ... 17text.pdf

Pro - "Reduction of Gun Violence Act"
https://www.lifteveryvoiceoregon.com/ip-17-summary

Stop 114
https://stop114.com

The Bloomie groups at work in Oregon. Magazine restrictions don't work, but they keep peddling it.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Blog - Oregon’s Measure 114 Denounced as Racist By ImagineBlack.org

3
Oregon's Measure 114 which passed November 8th, would
- require permits issued by local law enforcement to buy a firearm;

- require photo ID, fingerprints, safety training, criminal background check, and fee payment to apply for a permit; and

- prohibit manufacturing, importing, purchasing, selling, possessing, using, or transferring ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds and make violations a class A misdemeanor
https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Measure_ ... ive_(2022)
A restraining order issued by an Oregon Circuit Court judge has blocked Ballot Measure 114 from going into effect on December 8. According to court documents, a circuit court decision handed down by an Oregon state judge in Harney County has stopped the Oregon government from enforcing all parts of Measure 114. The judge's order states that the the Oregon government cannot enforce the measure until at least December 13, at which point the courts will decide whether or not to enact a longer-lived injunction on the measure. This comes just hours after a federal judge allowed the measure to continue in the face of several lawsuits questioning its legality, albeit with a delay to a certain provision of the bill. Early Tuesday morning, a federal judge also put a 30 day extension on the permit-to-purchase part of the measure.
Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has stated that her office will appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court to lift the Harney County judge's injunction. It is unclear how long it will take for the Attorney Governor to petition the Oregon supreme court to get the Harney County order lifted.
https://www.kezi.com/news/oregon-state- ... a3b6c.html

Harney County is located in rural eastern Oregon.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Blog - Oregon’s Measure 114 Denounced as Racist By ImagineBlack.org

5
The OR Supreme Court denied the OR AG's request to block the circuit court injunction blocking Measure 114 from coming into effect. Yesterday after a hearing the Harney County circuit judge issued a new ruling.
An Oregon judge handed guns rights advocates a victory Thursday and placed a new, voter-approved ban on high-capacity magazines that was intended to curtail mass shootings on hold until questions about its constitutionality can be decided. Harney County Judge Robert Raschio released the written ruling after a lengthy court hearing earlier this week in which attorneys for gun rights groups sought a preliminary injunction to stop the narrowly passed ban on magazines of more than 10 rounds. “That the large capacity magazine bans promote public safety is mere speculation,” Raschio wrote. “The court cannot sustain restraint on a constitutional right on mere speculation that the restriction could promote public safety.”

With the injunction in place, all provisions of the law are effectively on hold a little more than a month after voters narrowly passed it in midterm elections. Earlier this week, Raschio extended his order blocking the law’s permit-to-purchase provision, as well as a part of Measure 114 that would prevent a gun sale until the results of a background check come back. Under current federal law, a gun sale can proceed by default if the background check takes longer than three business days — the so-called Charleston loophole, because it allowed the assailant to purchase the gun used in a 2015 South Carolina mass shooting.
Raschio said in his 25-page ruling that he would wait until the state told him it had a process in place for issuing the permits before holding a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction on that element of the law. Oregon has already paused enforcement of the permit provision until Feb. 8 as it finds enough certified firearms trainers for the hands-on classes. A hearing on the background check provisions is set for Dec. 23.

Gun sales and requests for background checks have soared since the measure passed because of fears the new law would prevent or significantly delay the purchase of new firearms under the permitting system. Gun rights groups, local sheriffs and gun store owners have filed at least four lawsuits, almost all in federal court, saying the law violates Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms. The Harney County lawsuit is the only one filed in state court, gun rights advocates said. A federal judge in Portland hearing a different challenge to the law under the U.S. Constitution on Dec. 6 delivered an initial victory to proponents of the sweeping gun-control measure that passed in the Nov. 8 midterms.
https://apnews.com/article/oregon-212ef ... osition_06
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Blog - Oregon’s Measure 114 Denounced as Racist By ImagineBlack.org

6
NPR has a piece on LGBTQ+ fears about the consequences of 114.
The law, Measure 114, grants county sheriffs and police chiefs discretion to determine who qualifies to purchase a firearm under a new permit-to-purchase program.

But Measure 114 lacks criteria clearly defining what disqualifies applicants, details on what makes someone a threat and what data can be used by law enforcement in making that decision. That's a problem for activists who have critiqued law enforcement, particularly in the racial justice protests that took place over the past two years.

"I just feel like if I was to go online and say like the police are terrorists or something ... [the police] would be like, 'Well, you seem like you might not be fit for this community to be armed,' " says Mia Rose, a trans person of color and former licensed firearms dealer. "If they were to get that information that you got snatched up off the street [arrested during the Portland protests prompted by the killing of George Floyd in 2020], I would assume that the law would say they could deny your purchase, or deny your right to have a permit."
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/15/11407136 ... aining-gun

It goes on to discuss potential implementation problems deeply familiar to our Californian crew. The Oregon State Police quoted FICS standards when asked what would be disqualifying, which sounds promising. "May issue" standards are looking pretty dodgy these days.

Re: Blog - Oregon’s Measure 114 Denounced as Racist By ImagineBlack.org

7
Yup, "May Issue" still exists in CA as "good moral character" which the CA AG said can be considered when approving a license. It sounds a lot like if you're not the right age, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation...you're not getting a license to carry. The Democrats that run CA's government sound a lot like all those red states they rail about, hypocrisy is alive and well.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Blog - Oregon’s Measure 114 Denounced as Racist By ImagineBlack.org

8
highdesert wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 12:39 pm Yup, "May Issue" still exists in CA as "good moral character" which the CA AG said can be considered when approving a license. It sounds a lot like if you're not the right age, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation...you're not getting a license to carry. The Democrats that run CA's government sound a lot like all those red states they rail about, hypocrisy is alive and well.
Agree.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Blog - Oregon’s Measure 114 Denounced as Racist By ImagineBlack.org

9
sikacz wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 1:08 pm
highdesert wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 12:39 pm Yup, "May Issue" still exists in CA as "good moral character" which the CA AG said can be considered when approving a license. It sounds a lot like if you're not the right age, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation...you're not getting a license to carry. The Democrats that run CA's government sound a lot like all those red states they rail about, hypocrisy is alive and well.
Agree.
Yup.

Re: Blog - Oregon’s Measure 114 Denounced as Racist By ImagineBlack.org

10
tonguengroover wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 6:55 pm I'm all for gun safety class. Ima more scared of johhny do goods with guns who have no training than criminals. Perhaps if the cost of the permit included the cost of the class and a box of bullets.
While I'm very much in favor of firearm safety classes (and not just because I agree with your point regarding people who would be the "good guy with a gun"), I'm keenly aware that the fees for such classes make them cost-prohibitive for a surprising number of people, especially in communities of folks who find themselves in "statistical minorities." I don't think anyone should be prohibited from having the ability to defend oneself, but I also want to work toward that being the only thing they would do with a firearm (other than make holes in paper targets for fun or competition).

I don't think I qualify for a credential as an instructor, but I wonder about offering safety classes to my Black and Brown neighbors (or through Armed Equality, to folks in the LGBTQ+ communities) as a volunteer. All sorts of questions come to mind, because I'm damned sure not going to hold a classroom session with live ammunition in the room, and really don't want to have a student decide that they need my P07 more than I do. I'd be more willing to risk losing a blue gun, but still...
Eventually I'll figure out this signature thing and decide what I want to put here.

Re: Blog - Oregon’s Measure 114 Denounced as Racist By ImagineBlack.org

12
BearPaws wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 7:49 pm I don't think I qualify for a credential as an instructor, but I wonder about offering safety classes to my Black and Brown neighbors (or through Armed Equality, to folks in the LGBTQ+ communities) as a volunteer.
If you are interested, the LGC does offer training for people wanting to become instructors. You can find more about it here:

https://theliberalgunclub.com/training/instructor-faq/
102+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

Re: Blog - Oregon’s Measure 114 Denounced as Racist By ImagineBlack.org

13
CowboyT wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 11:34 pm So, basically the Oregon officials want to put a poll tax on another Constitutional right? Am I understanding this correctly?
Bingo. This is the strongest argument against the measure. We can find no analog with any other constitutional right--imagine if I had to pay a fee every time I posted a critique of some hapless Republican stooge. I'd be broke. The OR.gov could get around that by paying for the license, the training, and the paperwork. Or charge like one dollar for the whole mess. What would address suicide of course would be increased mental health care availability and improved living conditions for the working poor, paid for by increased taxes on the rich at the state and federal levels. And everyone gets a pony. Unlikely.

CDFingers
Image
Image
While the firelight's aglow strange shadows from the flames will grow
'Til things we've never seen will seem familiar

Re: Blog - Oregon’s Measure 114 Denounced as Racist By ImagineBlack.org

14
Except, of course, for the precedent set by the Second Militia Act of 1792. The act required able bodied men - with some exceptions - to arm themselves at personal expense to support the militias. Besides, it isn't a poll tax. Voter ID is a poll tax. Nobody is denied the vote on account of showing up to the polls unarmed.

If you want to argue that states may not regulate the possession of arms in any way, you have to explain how you do that within the context of the Founders explicitly empowering the states to regulate their own militias, and how that articulates into the Second. Not to mention allowing the Federal government to regulate the militias, exhibit A above. There are reasons that the most adamant pro-gun, pro-Second Amendment Justices of the Supreme Court have offered extremely limited support to "shall not infringe," and originalism has a lot to do with it.

Re: Blog - Oregon’s Measure 114 Denounced as Racist By ImagineBlack.org

15
wings wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 5:44 pm Except, of course, for the precedent set by the Second Militia Act of 1792. The act required able bodied men - with some exceptions - to arm themselves at personal expense to support the militias. Besides, it isn't a poll tax. Voter ID is a poll tax. Nobody is denied the vote on account of showing up to the polls unarmed.

If you want to argue that states may not regulate the possession of arms in any way, you have to explain how you do that within the context of the Founders explicitly empowering the states to regulate their own militias, and how that articulates into the Second. Not to mention allowing the Federal government to regulate the militias, exhibit A above. There are reasons that the most adamant pro-gun, pro-Second Amendment Justices of the Supreme Court have offered extremely limited support to "shall not infringe," and originalism has a lot to do with it.
There is a difference between regulation of a militia (body of armed people) and regulation of the legally kept and beared arms one was supposed to show up with. There is ample record of the first but very little of the second before the 1900s.

Re: Blog - Oregon’s Measure 114 Denounced as Racist By ImagineBlack.org

18
CDFingers wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 6:42 pm
wings wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 6:37 pm The Second Militia Act of 1792 had very explicit standards for the style of arms each militia member was required to arm themselves with.
That's so ammo could be supplied reliably.

CDFingers
And they were likely the better arms of the day, useful for militia service. Say like the equivalent of an AR 15 with standard capacity magazines of today. That's the part the gun control people miss. These "assault weapons" and magazines are probably the most relevantly protected arms. If the 2A protects any arms (and it does) it is the "assault weapon," magazines and ammo they use. And the militia act probably didn't specify which kinds of guns were banned, did it? There's a difference between saying you must have an AR-15 (as part of your collection) and you can only have an AR-15.

Now, that's not to say the 2A is absolute. But the use of arms is already covered by commonly accepted laws. Murder is illegal, even with a protected arm. Assault is illegal, even with a protected arm. Robbery is illegal, even with a protected arm. Etc. Gun control people also seem to miss that part. The balance is already struck. The restrictions on use already exist. Criminality doesn't get removed by restrictions on the law abiding. We law abiding are already busy not doing those things.

Re: Blog - Oregon’s Measure 114 Denounced as Racist By ImagineBlack.org

19
The militia act states:
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes
So rifle, handgun, magazines and common ammo are required. Nowhere do I see "prohibited." And a sword!

Re: Blog - Oregon’s Measure 114 Denounced as Racist By ImagineBlack.org

23
Thanks for the reminder, time to watch the original "Lord of the Rings" again over this weekend, I have them all on DVD including "The Hobbit". Caught a glimpse of the new series "Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power" on Amazon, it's been Hollywoodized and it isn't even close to Michael Jackson's original series in terms or quality and acting. I grew up in the era when Tolkien was appreciated, I didn't grow up in the Harry Potter era.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron