I live in OR and fear this measure will pass. I’ve been helping out as much as possible, even have several signs in my yard. I’m fortunate that I’ve got nearly all the equipment I may need in the future but it’s not about me, I’m pissed that my kids won’t be able to enjoy the same freedoms that I’ve enjoyed my whole life. I’ve lived here all of my 42 years and have only see this state trend downward. For a good example, look at the Dem running for governor, then look at our existing governor. That should show you what we’ve come to expect election after election. These urbanites are a drain on my rights and we are considering moving.
Legal: Making a gun Purchase Permit meet the same requirements as a Carry Permit?
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
ColoradoMinuteMan
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2015
- Messages
- 702
I don’t think he is suggesting coupling it with draft eligibility, simply stating that age of majority (AKA the age you become an adult), is the right age to allow citizens to truly be in control of their own lives (e.g. carry a firearm, buy a firearm, drink alcohol). As additional evidence he states that if you can be conscripted to use firearms in some foreign nation to “defend” your countrymen, you should also have the right to carry firearms in your own country to defend yourself and family.
stillquietvoice
Contributing Member
In this state no, but to register it, insure it and drive it yes. Driving is a privilege not a right.
Yes it is an unconstitutional law designed one more time to take away our rights. Hope it disentangle pass, in a way, cause that would mean enough others feel it a violation of our rights as well.
entropy
Member
I think it should be a requirement that every legislator proposing this law be required to do the same exhaustive reading of State and Federal firearms laws before enacting it. Besides giving Oregonians another couple years' reprieve, perhaps those legislators will realize they don't need more laws, they need to enforce the ones currently on the books.
If they want to pass legislation that will actually reduce gun crime, mandatory sentencing for non defensive use of a gun would meaningful and effective. Of course, it'll never happen, because it is counter to their agenda.
wally
Member
But on balance, with the mass of low information voters out there I think I'd accept a compromise of a purchase permit requirement for guns in exchange with a literacy test for voters.
Pat Riot
Contributing Member
lilguy
Member
With all due respect to the “ they can’t do that” crowd, yes they can. I’ve had a FOID for 50 years. Can’t legally do guns or ammo In Illinois without one. It took a federal court order to get us CCW, but no court has thrown out our permit to own state wide.
In Minnesota a "Permit to Purchase" is basically a pre-done background check so that you can buy any gun for a year. You do need one to purchase pistols and so-called assault weapons though. It lasts for 1 year.
A Permit to Carry is more extensive and requires you to go through a permit to carry class, range time, and so forth.
Oregon would require a citizen to basically go through a permit to carry course to merely purchase a firearm. You'd imagine requiring people to go through a class just to vote would also be unconstitutional.
I do believe you shouldn't have to go through a class, range time, or any other hoops to just carry a firearm either.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,142
Sure but that doesn’t take care of the Federal requirement that you fill out a 4473.
entropy
Member
Back when I worked at Joe's in St. Paul, a guy came in looking like he had a huge tumor under his left armpit, turned out he was carrying a .44 Redhawk in a shoulder holster. He said when he went in to the Pine County SO to fill out a purchase permit form the Sheriff said he might as well fill out the carry form, same background check. This was in the early 90's, no carry permits were issued in the Twin Cities back then. I told the guy he might want to carry something less obtrusive when he came down to the cities. Back then, St. Paul & Mpls. PDs tended to prone people out if suspected of carrying, and you couldn't miss that .44 under his arm.
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,209
No because they have been brainwashed to believe the lies about guns and gun owners.
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,209
Except they want to control you so none of that matters.
I find that highly skeptical. You do not need insurance a DL or registration to own a vehicle. You do need those to operate on a public road.
However a trailer and a wad of cash will buy you the MCO (Manufacturers certificate of origin) in every state I’ve lived in. The MCO is what is turned into the title if one chooses.
Will Munny
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2021
- Messages
- 336
The entire discussion about driving is irrelevant. Driving is a privilege, not a right. It is nowhere in the constitution.
The real crux of this is voting, that is a right and it is in the constitution. If we are going to require tests for exercising your 2A rights then voting testes and licensees are okay too.
The real crux of this is voting, that is a right and it is in the constitution. If we are going to require tests for exercising your 2A rights then voting testes and licensees are okay too.
entropy
Member
The actual control is several layers removed from the rabble that infest the Oregon legislature. They may want to control, but in reality, they are more a minion than us.
Not own.....buy.......I believe a dealership will not let you drive a new vehicle off the lot without insurance on it.
If you have a car and you aren't using it and it's sitting in your driveway it doesn't need to be insured.
The required training to achieve this permit to buy a firearm does not yet exist. So for now I hope measure 114 will be shot down in the courts as it violates the 2nd Amendment. This is a poorly written bill full of questions, I will hope for the best but I will prepare for the worst.
This is what happens when you invite your enemy to live with you.
This is what happens when you invite your enemy to live with you.
JTHunter
Member
IIRC, when I was my civics class in high school, we were taught that "fees" imposed on sections of the Bill of Rights were akin to the "poll taxes" that used to be required to disenfranchise certain prospective voters. These poll taxes were ruled unconstitutional, as should this $65 fee.
Will Munny
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2021
- Messages
- 336
No, poll taxes were made unconstitutional by way of the 24th Amendment, which specifically addressed poll taxes only. It does not apply to other rights.
To the above point, has everyone here forgotten that the courts have let the stamp for transferring certain NFA items stand for nine decades? That is a tax on purchasing firearms, and the court has ruled it constitutional.
This is going to stand unless a radically different court mixture comes to power.
Atavar
Member
I don’t know where you are in Minnesota but the last regular hunting rifle I bought in Minnesota required a background check came with a three day delay - and I *have* a Minnesota CCW permit and Minnesota residency
Atavar
Member
I believe you can buy a car here without a license or insurance, but you need both to get plates. They just assume if you buy it you want plates.
citizenconn
Member
You have hit the nail squarely on the head. It is all about control. The powers behind the grabbers have done a very effective job of gaslighting their sheeple followers that it is about safety, saving lives, etc, etc. We know that is all BS.
In my opinion, never capitulate to them. Never give any credence to their arguments or viewpoints because they will never stop infringing on every right we have until they have total control.
I am a citizen, not a subject. I do not accept their tyranny. As another forum member said as regards this subject, we need to band together and say NO MORE. Give them no quarter.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked