People who identify me as a liberal, a title I wholly embrace, may wonder why I object to Oregon’s Measure 114.
The first thought in some minds is that I am a gun owner who owns several guns and who owns several guns who’s magazine’s exceed 10 rounds. But that is decidedly not it.
The reason is much more simple than that: it is a measure created by frustrated good-intentioned people who threw the kitchen sink at the problem and came up with a Frankenstein measure that will, ultimately, be overturned. Why?
- The law gives insufficient time to implement the training and licensing phase before going into effect. Thus any permits issued will likely violate the law if ever actually codified.
- The training requirement is not stated, nor very well thought out. It apparently differs from the training requirements for CWP as the measure specifically states that regardless of concealed handgun license status, everyone must take the new training – that nobody know what it entails.
- Who is going to provide the training and how are they going to be certified? Right now, because of volume CWP is often outsourced to NRA trainer – just the people you want to help enforce tougher gun laws.
- What is the real timeline for issuing a purchasing permit? And what is the penalty and appeal process if the law enforcement agency fails to comply?
- Is there anything in the measure that will standardize the training AND permit process throughout the state. I haven’t seen anything.
- The supposed implementation date will effectively close every gun store and halt every gun sale in the state until the above issues can be figured out.
- Now to the magazine capacity. That is a complete clusterfuck:
- First of all, these idiots who say limited capacity magazines violate the 2nd Amendment are so full of crap they have to walk bow legged. This argument will be dismissed.
- My opinion is that any police officer who fails to enforce the sale of magazines with capacities over 10 should lose the law enforcement certification.
- There are firearms that have fixed magazines with capacities in excess of 10. I personally have one that has a tubular magazine that has a capacity of 17 .22 LR (and I cannot even remember how many .22 Longs or .22 Shorts). How does the law apply?
- The measure refers to magazines (generally interpreted as being replaceable magazines fed into the gun) that are “high capacity” and then they define them as carrying over 10 rounds. This is another flaw in the logic of the writers. Many, many gun, in particular pistols, have “normal” (not high) capacities in excess of 10 rounds.
- Is there going to be magazine police? If I have a 10 round magazine in my Glock 17 or a standard 17 round magazine, there is no difference visually. This measure does not seem to empower law enforcement the right to stop people to have them show the capacity of their magazines.
- The law says people can keep magazines exceeding 10 rounds but only in their home or on personal property (such a gun ranges). What happens when someone is traveling between home and said private property?
- This is reminiscent of Prohibition. You could not make, sell, transport, or purchase alcoholic beverages. But you could drink as much as you wanted. Guess that worked real well — NOT.
Once again, the measure started with good intentions but had dreamers writing it instead of people smart enough to write a law that could pass muster.
I will personally be surprised if it ever gets implemented in whole. In fact, I will be surprised if even part of it gets implemented.
